a ; i
are ny
Heh has
arnt
is
L Bit ves Tt PRED baa ii bei
Ty Pah.
FAO Gea
Hebe.
vy SOWIE Sng fer tees
WANE, spegten
{yes
2
Fh
aa Ba Bie
Streieespcn taf
Fe meg eat Min} Psviens
PB ia + Pi eds, 5a ris
THT eT!
ree eta Teer hs t AE geet
has,
forge 1H Heewissrg ules FAI ye
MISSES E Nica
tine ith ati:
My 3 Fak gp ays
6, SoSe2 Hh) Pad anh
er Pearse
PSN see hratisnar
NEED Pibtys A
eas anes
Nea
Sanealzh ays!
PVE ETN GDA 4 atte
Hn leesbiar hee
igs
Tyree ay ries
Ghats open
PMO New Pd iveren ay sa Er sae sdve Sup
Hse Re feke? ecu at ue
bepmtnaaiet thre
Ree
PGS nyt clon WAN DR eas re
Cer
BA Phemed wap A shee nten
x 2060 AY, Pererdimirhae,,
eahee TSAR ok ay
Greene
FED resin
oe Ata hee eg &
ANN AgtAtenee a
esi hehehe Atary at.
oe ae
Hey
RvR hgt
ITE Ligeti tog,
ebehetd len
BLN ree i
oat erate,
PRN 3
piconets Feateienk ee Fat
cpiseeac! NE Ga 50,
a steld i tet SPLIT Phar yg gies LO Nitatiok ee: Dect des wbd aa: ath sterot Cog bod pee Ov Saad baht eansege
ie
x he ad Pe ae sesh ueneee Wher ribes appre ey, :
mate, a)
PeAhdowesan,:
si i nee ai noo!
Nations
sent aly
ne EOE aps by fe Fr
tebe ct
#500)
3 § rtaS 9h
oe chsh
ey + eG
Val crt ct
mate gn Cras i
whet Beek abet Gt toh Basen,
LAlncenieark attone! Pr cra ee a ele g Rh sie
ihsaras EPEAOR EY 1 son Cream. pain cool ke NY Pchre (octet fay
PRR bce th 1d Sle ee ececot
VEPs oh tan TE ae eH so rank Ley, AS eta tease
$tanse ; Paha.
Srcuids
MY cht td ete
iiyas: ies
me
OF:
eneselese ic. re
MMSE Et A hg erst
Sere
Rt GFR anvintkhres : ate os wae
Stee Non st
> te RU ep ae ASIC pas tet Seygrriae: Biers ceiaaeee NAA ld:
en seca
heh:
a eye Ne ae eae raha Pak Gea ef th na TARR Gin eke t Oh Withers aay
aah nee Soon pak gene eee Meda a a by STAN Reancd soy PNT farsa ALi etapa gy ee £, Sains ae,
Umbubincoscvin se taneate wet eetyy tie Xe NT hin city nd hey, Ph Gb on rang
Sie ape petit tena,
aso ie es
Arenal arg alaali rey ister oa SSCS Set dy Area ARINS Sele pac Mariana se Wilt nish vom noise abel oe : EAN tt arcana eee Mosyebe be ers npet ef iris pacer raieee phe MRA Strath e niet aetna baer te Sater inns ete A ests eae ICC ten asi ee reg
. Berane SOS Chet eb Ae a,
Hakcpepren ee
net
Mien arena? RR nus gfe PUES AMR mies? PSA ere pa * SRR eben PERL NBUs NaN SIA POY Ateew ncnade:,
het ciatete re
S Rapper stetbweneh peste ta aege ni went ertiiel,
Ban ree aaa ateg beings meee Shon eat ton gad pee ae eninncnee
SET IEEE tose recede te dein yee
ab ipe eS esp ceriatou mee Hie Pe bene efgtioer hone etce, oa
See ESN E AG Fer poet, pte tet = ere
ee
VE SEIN PICA ie esr,
se ra atbas hat ob Arretetierbnotes ho, (aA
e Paris! 94 ksh be ‘ hah ceo, sth merce fi 9 etree, Pipes ety,
bettpet gen
Os iciotees eee Aeterna casa
AO heated pps hed Sachets prs ein Visetent sages eee
aot arte
Fi ctistey eet
Ln % oe SS Xe ak eh wes en
y <A See a ee a
Se ye en o Renee a aie cal ae
yp grates My es wee Wns 4 RO oes hn, ee i % seat hk A a * a Bees a SIE as hi \\) Ork ee ~ “0 oh Wey OX, x Ee eens : aoe ee SAS Xe or ae os hk XG ee AAS ee een ‘ eee DAES "ey Soy COKIN ae
C hyX a a n, WY Ts EK: SOR as es Re ae ef, aa a AK ay hy i as hy) x RRR snes vee Oe ie Rey i eh ay ae vs es “ Ro y K Wh Wy ae ws ee e o ‘af A ee 2 aS m\\ ll it HC ye (\\ Oboe as see ee oe aXe ee ae AN eK Onn Ss! ay on eR PERIIS is “S we fers xs RSA ay on aes ae aN ay ay ws en oe PRLS OX Ae BX a ena Waele me rae ane an Bee mh oS ae ue OK ao ae a oe . ete nee ss oe x i ate ne x R we ae ey oe ee “ mx, “ ox eS < x ne na OR oe es ROK Z ws i ae ON ne Wee ne os Ss ee ‘oat he ie ys fin LO Or a
UW, Wy Mp
Rare eee XXD es oe ee ae
REG See COS
9 aw “e we x x oe we es eae x nee My ”
hee a Sect Ge one Bos ake ee a eS Rh i
ee ie hy wee Ae se eee me ) ay Ns Me SRK haa ue
; “, on M “ ey rt Y we * i, s pS iyi WW ee i x
ih Pin chee
Wales ix a ya i, NN) ye we eS “ * oe m d aye
ee
ZG®B
Wy ~
Le, Nees x uae ne, is
XY Rn uN, cnx, a Sos
xh pe te ae RE an Ne he Gd alan aa
Ses ies oo a ated
Wiest AW A Wy ee ae i : 58 2 x Ss OS RS oe we SER Re : aS a % . me ae
nes Was Near ni alae yan ae oO 3 a a ale me eee es Naw oe Ns wie
ae tO ys oO pee a eat we ae .
Yi » ec rate yall ve (( a oe ns
io Y “ .
a G. M. Elliott tas
; Cincinnati Bible College & Seminar. 2700 Glahway'Averia P.O, Box 04420
Spiros Orie es
Loge ee Digitized by the Internet Archive > in 2022 with funding from > Kahle/Austin Foundation __ https://archive.org/details/concordiatriglot0000vari
ta ag :
‘
Concordia Criglotta Die {ymbolifdjen Biider dev evangelifd-lutherifdjen Rirde,
det} dy-Lateimieh-enalitay,
ale Denkmal der vierhundertjahrigen Tubelfeter der Reformation, anno Domini 1917, herausgegeben auf Belchluk der evangelifeh-lutherifien Aynode von Pilfouri, Ohio und andern Ataaten.
CONCORDIA TRIGLOTTA
Libri symbolici Ecclesiae Lutheranae Germanice-Latine-Anglice,
monumenti instar in memoriam Anni Iubilaei MCMXVII quadrin- gentesimi post inchoatam Ecclesiae reformationem communi con- silio et mandato Synodi Missouriensis Lutheranae typis vulgata.
TRIGLOT CONCORDIA
The Symbolical Books of the Ev. Lutheran Church,
German-Latin-English,
Published as a Memorial of the Quadricentenary Jubilee of the Reformation anno Domini 1917 by resolution of the Evangelical Lutheran Synod of Missouri, Ohio, and Other States.
Sp eeOurss: MOx CONCORDIA PUBLISHING HOUSE. 1921.
G.M. ELLIOTT LIBRARY Cincinnati Bible College & Seminary
| FS arse te ‘nat
! : Sete aston nt apse. iad Pal iatlad int, —— ere {6 gpg lrsactios}-tatil vgitna sad fubenta Te, Moeapngen nt tated weston dtc Sant a qos: sori
f Fah ne Rate
ae APPOIOIAT ALOHOD
" me onsisnortins! ssiealallfailodmee # f
i ral ng _pifgied- sina aioe - i “sti inbeup TP TEMOM inetd rey misitoregser eee H “150 risimestbo stonornenneto gaiestood srsiaodoni deoq tn ( adnghity., aidhyd saeisnit er, taka at den i: ~ pqaoon0d 10: Ola Re err nevadtud wih ot jo edo ~ Hi bi te gn nitat- ‘cheek . ll i gd? to satidut visusinsgitbouG oils io ishromeM @ i oilaotbegas. pet- stlt_-to toitstoley a VIOL: iartsnot, ‘ott. i apie, salt ei canine jreroneitl bad Dome 1 i 4 ¥ ug 5 ; 4 mi . : ake ae A f : 7 ine é ; ii, } " —— * {) . % \ | i OW. sono ne ; sac aminagrget preter ti 4 AYRE « nt dl Arabeat
PREFACE.
Memorialized by the Faculty of Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, Mo., the Evangelical Lutheran Synod of Missouri, Ohio, and Other States, assembled as Fifteenth Delegate Synod from June 20 to 29, 1917, at Milwaukee, Wis., unanimously passed the very appropriate resolution to publish as a Memorial of the Quadri- centennial of the Glorious Reformation a German-Latin-English edition of the Book of Concord containing the Symbols of the Evangelical Lutheran Church.
The work on Concorpia TricLotra was begun immediately. Chiefly owing to the economic conditions created by the World War, however, the completion of the large undertaking was delayed much longer than anticipated. And the fact that we are now in a position to write the Preface to the finished book, together with its detailed Indexes and extensive Historical Introductions, we regard and gratefully acknowledge as a special favor of God, whom alone also we credit with whatever merit any one may anywhere justly ascribe to this work, or any part of it.
As for the German and Latin texts embodied in Concorpia Trietotra, the _ former was compared with the original German edition, published 1580 at Dresden. Obsolete forms as “Gezeugnis,’” “Oberkeit,” “gebeutet,” and, as a rule, also such forms as “nimmet,” “gehet,” “stehet,” etc., were replaced with: “Zeugnis,” “Obrig- keit,” “gebietet,” “nimmt,” “geht,” “steht,” ete. The Latin text was revised according to the first authentic Latin edition, published 1584 in Leipzig, and quite a number of misprints still found in Mueller’s eleventh edition of 1912 were corrected.
While I, the undersigned, alone am responsible for the Latin and German texts, the English translation of the Trietor is throughout the joint effort of Prof. W. H. T. Dau and myself. It is based on the original German and Latin texts, respectively, and on the existing English translations, chiefly those incorporated in Jacobs’s Book of Concord.
The Preface to the Christian Book of Concord, the Augsburg Confession, the Apology of the Augsburg Confession, and the treatise Of the Power and Primacy of the Pope are translated from the Latin; the Smalcald Articles, the two Catechisms of Luther, the Formula of Concord, and the Visitation Articles, from the German. In the Catalog of Testimonies the translation of the introduction, the ten theses, and the conclusion are based on the German text, while the passages quoted from “Orthodox Antiquity” are translated from the original Greek and Latin, respectively.
In the running titles of the Tr1ctot the small numbers indicate the pages in the editions of the Symbolical Books of J. T. Mueller and J.G. Walch. The pages of A. Rechenberg’s edition are given in brackets in the Latin columns; e¢.g., on page 100 of the Trictor, “M. 74. 75” indicates the corresponding pages in Mueller; “W. 67—69,” the pages in Walch; “R. 49,” the page in Rechenberg.
Whatever in the three texts of the Trictot is included in brackets does not belong to the text proper. When reading the longer passages, it may perhaps, in some instances, be advisable simply to skip the brackets in order not to disturb the natural flow of a period.
IV PREFACE.
In the Latin and German texts brackets with a star contain different textual readings, while all other brackets contain explanations, quotations from authors referred to in the texts, etc. Unless otherwise indicated, citations from Church Fathers, etc., are taken from Mueller’s edition of the Symbolical Books, p. 840 ff.
In keeping with the principle otherwise observed in the TricLor, the super- scriptions of the first 21 articles of the Latin and German Augsburg Confession (with the exception only of Article XX in the German text), furthermore Articles I, II, and IX of the Apology, and a number of Bible references should have been put in brackets, because they are additions not found in the original German and Latin editions of 1580 and 1584.
Brackets in the English text contain words, phrases, sentences, or shorter or longer passages from the respective German or Latin text which is not the basis of the translation.
The “Index of Scripture Texts” and the German “Sach- und Namenregister” have been appropriated from Mueller’s edition of the Lutheran symbols, while the English “Index of Subjects” is the one found in Jacobs’s Book of Concord, which, however, is also based on Mueller. The tedious work of changing the page-numbers of these indexes to those of the TRIgLoT was done by Prof. Dau. All three indexes have also been revised and substantially augmented.
The Lutheran Church differs from all other churches in being essentially the Church of the pure Word and unadulterated Sacraments. Not the great number of her adherents, not her organizations, not her charitable and other institutions, not her beautiful customs and liturgical forms, etc., but the precious truths confessed by her symbols in perfect agreement with the Holy Scriptures constitute the true beauty and rich treasures of our Church, as well as the never-failing source of her vitality and power.
Wherever the Lutheran Church ignored her symbols or rejected all or some of them, there she always fell an easy prey to her enemies. But wherever she held fast to her God-given crown, esteemed and studied her confessions, and actually made them a norm and standard of her entire life and practise, there the Lutheran Church flourished and confounded all her enemies.
Accordingly, if Lutherans truly love their Church, and desire and seek her welfare, they must be faithful to her confessions and constantly be on their guard lest any one rob her of her treasure. To strengthen this loyalty and to further and facilitate the study of our “Golden Concordia,” — such is the object also of this Jubilee Edition — the TricLor CoNncorp1A.
May God be pleased, as in the past, so also in the future, to bless our Church, and graciously keep her in the true and only saving Christian faith as set forth and confessed in the Lutheran symbols, whose paramount object is to maintain the gem of Luther’s Reformation, the blessed doctrine of salvation by grace only, which most wonderfully magnifies the great glory of our God, and alone is able to impart solid comfort to poor sinners.
F. BENTH, July 4, 1921. Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, Mo.
TABLE OF CONTENTS.
PAGE Historical Introductions to the Symbolical Books ................2..00000005 1—256 LESS (NESS ae re eS ee ee a PO 257—266 eretace 1osthe, Christian, Book of Concord §. ..-.:34.2..84. 24.04 keke ee 6—27 ies ehteesUniversal.on Heunenicale@reeds aqectarsenslae ssc cides se eee 29—35 Fem MISS UIT Oe CONLOSSIOM erat, ae a patar nemara a mAin kts gine isc ally, « ne cee cele eee oe 37—95 PAD OLOCVO Ether AUCs Hire COntessION, satel. cen oassue oe rk oh ee Cosine le eae 97—451 Mi CaS a LCA Om ADC Lesa steeds ce wixmank rsctiae gine a alelginig Aran ecg ote a ined ae Sen ete 453—502 Omer ower ander rimacy: Ons uber Ope) os. )5tens rors eacreiad «a eeasim ere ence ie ae 502—529 nemo malle Catechism. of DreMartinbubherw .o% a4 tine) ron ties om ae oa nm Ge eam 580—563 iihembarceuCatechism of Draviartine luther ness. ccs oh. ele eo cchs os eles sme 565—773 ipcomenotapuesrormUlamot Concord) Bes. jase aeorac Gialy rss. oe etn ae T75—843 Thorough Declaration of the Formula of Concord ....................... at ret 845—1103 Oral Orato kam Osh ITN ONL ae fey once ren GAR AR iota trrtotes sxe Soniye aqeticio We Tess Sia le Ya eave tere Sota 1105—1149 NV Alera LOMA PULCLOS tees ete yo cuulste uy wag allel Slay 2s suceore w\'sus clin gp mierialty soa See ormacar Oe trhoton eer: 1150—1157 IPNGIESS GH SOR RRR ANS aK SS om cae) Uno Done omc cameo heen a noma Samper 1158—1162 SAC MMU MN ANT CHCO TS Lele easenae stom. aieicee, seete o cis aie Sersmoieiectias chaos yes yekaeng ae 1163—1245
itaglese Or SIO ROU case ak op nao odo tans Ge atoms 7 Op Ides o Ont dsb cian DeeBen ERED Guo IGO 1246—1285
f j : ioaanty a
ae
aan | spine tijat: me 6 ch
aT vO, q
rh apm tee
«fe Yee, Sikcotifas | BER Nach PG or og Bie Oi Ti Bs pi GR Oe
Baksh peel ode ee . Ste eee arene © SPOR nd) ma ceca ve NN RR $y Jes-a is Ba), tee tte! at
toe BHLL ee , were fae
eres ben’ AKD Bee ante tim oie Posie ae
ba ty,- [ By ATW
x ‘4 MW ‘ is x e bi a ‘he , 1% 4 wa et ¢: 4 Pr a
7 oT 4 —— eee ea sede
«fF F Mf
HISTORICAL INTRODUCTIONS
to the
Symbolical Books of the Evangelical Lutheran Church.
By F. BENTE.
Concordia Triglotta.
ut | re ss _ ys
.
x
7 :
a
:
(x
: FE ,
e
© aed of
ro
HISTORICAL INTRODUCTIONS TO THE SYMBOLICAL BOOKS OF THE EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN CHURCH.
I. The Book of Concord, or The Concordia.
1. General and Particular Symbols.
Book of Concord, or Concordia, is the title of the Lutheran corpus doctrinae, i.e., of the symbols recognized and published under that name by the Lutheran Church. The word
necessity a confession of Christian doctrine. The Church, accordingly, has from the be- ginning defined and regarded its symbols as a rule of faith or a rule of truth. Says Augustine: “Symbolum est regula fidei bre- vis et grandis: brevis numero verborum, grandis pondere sententiarum. A symbol is a rule of faith, both brief and grand: brief, as_to the number of words; grand, as to the weight of its thoughts.”
Cyprian was the first who applied the term symbol to the baptismal confession, because, he said, it distinguished the Christians from non-Christians. Already at the beginning of the fourth century the Apostles’ Creed was universally called symbol; and in the Middle Ages this name was applied also to the Nicene and the Athanasian Creeds. In the Introduc- tion to the Book of Concord the Lutheran confessors designate the Augsburg Confession as the “symbol of our faith,” and in the Epit- ome of the Formula of Concord, as “our sym- bol of this time.”
Symbols may be divided into the following
classes: I. Ecumenical symbols, which, at
least in the past, have been accepted by all
Christendom, and are still formally acknowl-
edged by most of the evangelical Churches; 5, particular symbols, adopted by the various denominations of divided Christendom; 3. pri- vate symbols, such as have been formulated and_published by individuals, for example, Luther’s Confession of the Lord’s Supper of 1528. The publication of private confessions does not necessarily involve an impropriety; for according to Matt. 10, 32 33 and 1 Pet. 3,15 not only the Church as a whole, but in- dividual Christians as well are privileged and in duty bound to confess the Christian truth over against its public assailants. Self-
evidently, only such are symbols of particular churches as have been approved and adopted by them. The symbols of the Church, says the Formula of Concord, “should not be based on private writings, but on such books as have been composed, approved, and received in. the name of the churches which pledge themselves to one doctrine and religion.” (Conc. TRIGL., 851, 2.)
Not being formally and explicitly adopted by all Christians, the specifically Lutheran confessions also are generally regarded as par- | ticular symbols. Inasmuch, however, as they | are in complete agreement with Holy Scrip-. ture, and in this respect differ from all other | particular symbols, the Lutheran confessions | are truly ecumenical and catholic in character. | They contain the truths believed universally | by true Christians everywhere, explicitly by | all consistent Christians, implicitly even by | inconsistent and erring Christians. Christian | truth, being one and the same the world over, | is none other than that which is found in the | Lutheran confessions.
2. The German Book of Concord.
The printing of the official German edition of the Book of Concord was_begun in 1578, under the editorship of Jaco hatreget Tne 25th of June, 1580, however, the fiftieth anni- versary of the presentation of the Augsburg Confession to Emperor Charles V, was chosen as the date for its official publication at Dres- den and its promulgation to the general public. Following are the contents of one of the five Dresden folio copies which we have compared: 1. The title-page, concluding with the words, “Mit Churf. G. zu Sachsen Befreiung. Dres- den MDLXXX.” 2. The preface, as adopted and signed by the estates at Jueterbock in 1579, which supplanted the explanation, origi- nally planned, of the theologians against the various attacks made upon the Formula of Concord. 3. The three Ecumenical Symbols. _ 4, The Augsburg Confession of 1530.. 5. The Apology of 1530. 6. The Smalcald Articles of 1537, with the appendix, “Concerning the Power and Supremacy of the Pope.” {% Lu- ther’s Small Catechism, omitting the “Book- lets of Marriage and Baptism,” found in some copies. 8. d Catechism. 9. The
Formula of Concord, with separate title-pages
for the Epitome and the Solida Declaratio, both dated 1580. 10. The signatures of the theologians, etc., amounting to about 8,000.
Lo
4 Historical Introductions to the Symbolical Books.
ll. The Catalogus Testimoniorum, with the superscription “Appendix” (found in some copies only). The Preface is followed by a Privilegium signed by Elector August and guaranteeing to Matthes Stoeckel and Gimel Bergen the sole right of publication, a docu- ment not found in the other copies we com- pared. The Formula of Concord is followed by a twelve-page index of the doctrines treated in the Book of Concord; and the list of sig- natures, by a page containing the trade-mark of the printer. The center of this page fea- tures a cut inscribed, “Matthes Stoeckel Gimel Bergen 1579.” The cut is headed by Ps. 9, 1,2: “Ich danke dem Herrn von ganzem Her- zen und erzaehle all deine Wunder. Ich freue mich und bin froehlich in dir und lobe deinen Namen, du Allerhoechster. I thank the Lord with all my heart and proclaim all Thy won- ders. I am glad:and rejoice in Thee, and praise Thy name, Thou Most High.” Under the cut are the words: “Gedruckt zu Dresden durch Matthes Stoeckel. Anno 1580. Printed by Matthes Stoeckel, Dresden, 1580.”
In a letter dated November 7, 1580, Martin Chemnitz speaks of two Dresden folio editions of the German Book of Concord, while Feuer- linus, in 1752, counts seven Dresden editions. As a matter of fact, the Dresden folio copies differ from one another, both as to typography and contents. Following are the chief differ- ences of the latter kind: 1. Only some copies have the liturgical Forms of Baptism and of Marriage appended to the Small Catechism. 2. The Catalogus is not entitled “Appendix” in all copies, because it was not regarded as a part of the confession proper. 3. In some copies the passage from the Augsburg Confes- sion, quoted in Art. 2, 29 of the Solida Declara- tio, is taken, not from the Mainz Manuscript, but from the quarto edition of 1531, which already contained some alterations. 4. Some copies are dated, 1580, while others bear the date 1579 or 1581. Dr. Kolde gives it as his opinion that in spite of all these and other (chiefly typographical) differences they are nevertheless all copies of one and the same edition, with changes only in individual sheets. (Historische Hinleitung in die Sym- bolischen Buecher der ev.-luth. Kirche, p. 70.) Dr. Tschackert inclines to the same view, say-
‘ing: “Such copies of this edition as have been
preserved exhibit, in places, typographical differences. This, according to Polycarp Ley- ser’s Kurzer und gegruendeter Bericht, Dres- den, 1597 (Kolde, 70), is due to the fact that the manuscript was rushed through the press and sent in separate sheets to the interested estates, and that, while the forms were in press, changes were made on the basis of the criticisms sent in from time to time, yet not equally, so that some copies differ in certain sheets and insertions.” (Die Entstehung der luth. und der ref. Kirchenlehre, 1910, p. 621.)
However, while this hypothesis explains a number of the variations in the Dresden folio copies, it does not account for all of them, especially not for those of a typographical nature. In one of the five copies which we compared, the title-page, radically differing
from the others, reads as follows: “Formula Concordiae. Das ist: Christliche, Heilsame, Reine Vergleichunge, in welcher die Goettliche Leer von den vornembsten Artikeln vnserer wahrhafftigen Religion, aus heiliger Schrifft in kurtze bekanntnues oder Symbola vnd Leer- hafte Schrifften,: welche allbereit vor dieser zeit von den Kirchen Gottes Augspurgischer Confession, angenommen vnd approbiert:, ver- fasset. Sampt bestendiger, in Gottes wort wolgegruendeter, richtiger, endlicher wider- holung, erklerung und entscheidung deren Streit, welche vnter etlichen Theologen, so sich zu ermelter Confession bekant, fuerge- fallen. Alles nach inhalt der heiligen Schrifft, als der einigen Richtschnur der Goettlichen wahrheit, vnd nach anleitung ob- gemeldter in der Kirchen Gottes, approbierten Schrifften. Auff gnedigsten, gnedigen, auch guetigsten beuehl, verordnung und einwilli- gung nach beschriebener Christlichen Chur- fuersten, Fuersten vnd Stende des _ heiligen Roemischen Reichs Deutscher Nation, Augs- purgischer Confession, derselben Landen, Kir- chen, Schulen vnd Nachkommen zum trost vnd besten in Druck vorfertiget. M. D, LX XIX.” (“Formula of Concord, that is, Christian, wholesome, pure agreement, in which the divine doctrine of the chief articles of our true religion have been drawn up from the Holy Scripture in short confessions or sym- bols and doctrinal writings, which have al- ready before this time been accepted and approved by the Churches of God of the Augsburg Confession, together with a firm, Seripturally well-founded, correct, final repe- tition, explanation and decision of those con- troversies which have arisen among some theologians who have subscribed to said Con- fession, all of which has been drawn up ac- cording to the contents of Holy Scripture, the sole norm of divine Truth, and according to the analogy of the above-named writings which have the approval of the Churches of God. Published by the most gracious, kind, and benevolent command, order, and assent of the subscribed Christian Electors, princes, and estates of the Holy Roman Empire, of the German nation, of the Augsburg Confession, for the comfort and benefit of said lands, churches, schools, and posterity. 1579.’’) Apart from the above title this copy differs from the others we examined in various ways. Everywhere (at four different places) it bears the date 1579, which, on the chief title-page, however, seems to have been entered in ink at a later date. Also the place of publication, evidently Dresden, is not indicated. Two variations are found in the Preface to the Book of Concord, one an omission, the other an addition. The signatures of the princes and estates to the Preface are omitted. Ma- terial and formal differences are found also. on the pages containing the subscriptions of the theologians to the Formula of Concord; and the Catalogus is lacking entirely. The typography everywhere, especially in the por- tions printed in Roman type, exhibits many variations and divergences from our other four copies, which, in turn, are also character-
I. The Book of Concord, or The Concordia. 5
ized by numerous typographical and other variations. The copy of which, above, we have given the contents is dated throughout 1580. Our third copy bears the same date, 1580, excepting on the title-page of the Solida Declaratio, which has 1579. In both of these copies the typography of the signatures to the Book of Concord is practically alike. In our fourth copy the date 1580 is found on the title-page of the Concordia, the Catalogus, and the appended Saxon Church Order, which covers 433 pages, while the title-pages of the Epitome and the Declaratio and the page carrying the printer’s imprint are all dated 1579. In this copy the typography of the sig- natures closely resembles that of the copy dated everywhere 1579. In our fifth Dresden folio copy, the title-page of the Book of Con- cord and the Catalogus are dated 1580, while the title-pages of the Epitome and Solida Declaratio are dated 1579. This is also the only copy in which the Catalogus is printed under the special heading “Appendix.”
In view of these facts, especially the varia- tion of the Roman type in all copies, Kolde’s hypothesis will hardly he regarded as firmly established. Even if we eliminate the copy which is everywhere dated 1579, the variations in our four remaining Dresden folio copies cannot be explained satisfactorily without as- suming either several editions or at least several different compositions for the same edition, or perhaps for the two editions men- tioned by Chemnitz. Feuerlinus distinguishes seven Dresden editions of the Book of Con- cord —one, printed for the greater part in 1578, the second, third, and fourth in 1580, the fifth in 1581, the sixth also in 1581, but in quarto, and the seventh in 1598, in folio. (Bibliotheca Symbolica, 1752, p. 9.) A copy like the one referred to above, which is every- where dated 1579, does not seem to have come to the notice of Feuerlinus.
In the copy of the Tuebingen folio edition which is before us, the Index follows the Preface. The appendices of the Small Cate- chism are omitted, likewise the superscription Appendix of the Catalogus. Our copy of the Heidelberg folio edition of 1582 omits the Catalogus and adds the Apology of the Book of Concord of 1583, as also the Refutation of the Bremen Pastors of the same year. A copy of the Magdeburg quarto edition lying before us has the year 1580 on the title-pages of the Book of Concord, the Epitome, the Declaratio, and the Catalogus. The Preface is followed by three pages, on which Joachim Frederick guarantees to “Thomas Frantzen Buchvor- legern” (Thomas Frantzen, publishers) the sole right of publication for a periud of five years, and prohibits the introduction of other copies, excepting only those of the Dresden folio edition of 1580. Luther’s Booklets of Marriage and of Baptism are appended to the Small Catechism, and to the Large Catechism is added “Hine kurze Vermahnung zu der Beicht, A Brief Exhortation to Confession.” (None of the Dresden folio copies we com- pared contain these appendices, nor are they found in the Latin editions of 1580 and 1584.)
The index is followed by a page of corrected misprints. The last page has the following imprint: “Gedruckt zu Magdeburg durch Jo- - hann Meiszner und Joachim Walden Erben, Anno 1580, Printed at Magdeburg by John Meissner’s and Joachim Walden’s heirs. In the year 1580.”
3. The Latin Concordia.
Even before the close of 1580, Selneccer pub- lished a Latin Concordia containing a trans- lation of the Formula of Concord begun by Lucas Osiander in 1578 and completed by Jacob Heerbrand. It was a private under- taking and, owing to its numerous and partly offensive mistakes, found no recognition. Thus, for instance, the passage of the Tracta- tus, “De Potestate et Primatu Papae,” in § 24: “Christ gives the highest and final judg- ment to the church,” was rendered as follows: “Et Christus summum et ultimum fereulum apponit ecclesiae.” (p.317.) Besides, Selnec- cer had embodied in his Concordia the ob- jectionable text of the Augsburg Confession found in the octavo edition of 1531, which Melanchthon had altered extensively.
The necessary revision of the Latin text was made at the convention in Quedlinburg during December, 1582, and January, 1583, Chemnitz giving material assistance. The revised edi- tion, which constitutes the Latin teaxtus re- ceptus of the Formula of Concord, was pub- lished at Leipzig in 1584. Aside from many corrections, this edition contains the transla- tion of the Formula of Concord as already cor- | rected by Selneccer in 1582 for his special » Latin-German edition, and afterwards thor- oughly revised by Chemnitz. The texts of the Augsburg Confession and the Apology follow the editio princeps of 1531. The 8,000 sig- natures, embodied also in the Latin edition of 1580, were omitted, lest any one might com- plain that his name was appended to a book which he had neither seen nor approved. In keeping herewith, the words in the title of the Book of Concord: “et nomina sua huic libro subscripserunt — and have subscribed their names to this book,” which Mueller re- tained in his edition, were eliminated. The title-page concludes as in the edition of 1580, the word “denuo” only being added and the date correspondingly changed. On the last two pages of this edition of 1584 Selneccer re- fers to the edition of 1580 as follows: “Autea publicatus est liber Christianae Concordiae, Latine, sed privato et festinato instituto, Be- fore this the Book of Concord has been pub- lished in Latin, but as a private and hasty undertaking.” In the edition of 1584, the text of the Small Catechism is adorned with 23 Biblical illustrations.
Among the later noteworthy editions of the Book of Concord are the following: ~Tue- bingen, 1599; Leipzig, 1603, 1622; Stuttgart, 1660, 1681. Editions furnished with intro- ductions or annotations or both: 4H. Pip- ping, 1703; S. J. Baumgarten, 1747; J. W. Schoepff, Part I, 1826, Part II, 1827; F. A. Koethe, 1830; J. A. Detzer, 1830; F. W. Bodemann, 1843. In America the entire Book
6 Historical Introductions to the Symbolical Books. ey cx ; of Concord was printed in German by H. Lud- tained a translation of the Augsburg Confes- S 5 wig, of New York, in 1848, and by the Con- sion by C, Philip Krauth, the Apology was ~< G _ cordia Publishing House of St. Louis, Mo., in translated by W. F. Lehmann, the Smalcald = }
1880. In Leipzig, Latin editions appeared in Articles by W. M. Reynolds, the two Cate-- « 4 the years 1602, 1606, 1612, 1618, 1626, 1654, chisms by J. G. Morris, and the Formula of | > \ 1669, 1677. Adam Rechenberg’s edition “with Concord together with the Catalogus by C. F. t =
an appendix in three parts and new indices” Schaeffer. “In both editions the historical in- AES
(cum appendice tripartita et novis indicibus ) saw five editions — 1678, 1698, 1712, 1725, 1742. We mention also the edition of Pfaf- fius, 1730; Tittmann, 1817; H. A. G. Meyer, 1830, containing a good preface; Karl Hase, in his editions of 1827, 1837, and 1845, was the first to number the paragraphs. Reinec- cius prepared a German-Latin edition in 1708. This was followed in 1750 by the German- Latin edition of Johann Georg Walch. Muel- ler’s well-known German-Latin Concordia saw eleven editions between 1847 and 1912. Since 1907 it appears with historical introductions by Th. Kolde.
4. English Translations,
, All of the Lutheran symbols have been | ‘translated into the English language repeat- ee e, edly. In 1536 Richard “Tavener “prepared the
-yelfirst translation of the Augsburg Confession.
0} 081 /Cranmer published, in 1548, “A Short In-
nen = struction into the Christian Religion,” essen- Se tially a translation of the Ansbach-Nuernberg
om jon Sermons on the Catechism. In 1834 a trans- Ate lation of the German text of the Augsburg ate Confession with “Preliminary Observations” Gh was published at Newmarket, Va., by Charles
Henkel, Prof. Schmidt of the Seminary at rttedt isin Columbus, O., assisting in this work. The meat Introduction to the Newmarket Book of Concord assigns Henkel’s translation of the Augsburg Confession to the year 1831. Our
copy, however, which does not claim to be
. a second edition, is dated 1834. In his
ng 2f Popular Theology of 1834, SS ae , burke owe Offered” a translation of the Latin text, muti- syvalated in the interest of his. American Lu- theranism. Hazelius followed him with a translation in 1841. In 1848, Ludwig, of New York, issued a translation of the German text of the Unaltered Augsburg Confession, as well as of the Introduction, prepared by C. H. Schott, together with the Ecumenical Symbols, also with introductions. The title- page of our copy lists the price of the book at 121%, cents. C. P. Krauth’s translation of the Augsburg Confession appeared in 1868. The first complete translation of the German text of the entire Book of Concord was pub- lished in 1851 by the publishing house of Sol- omon D. Henkel & Bros., at Newmarket, Va. In this translation, however, greater stress was laid on literary style than upon an ex- act reproduction of the original. Ambrose and Socrates Henkel prepared the translation of the Augsburg Confession, the Apology, the Smaleald Articles, the Appendix, and the Articles of Visitation. The Small Catechism was offered in the translation prepared by David Henkel in 1827. The Large Catechism was translated by J. Stirewalt; the Epitome, by H. Wetzel; the Declaratio, by J. R. Moser. The second, improved edition of 1854 con-
nr ys 4
eo foin
troductions present a reproduction of the oA material in J. T. Mueller’s Book of Concord... In 1882 a new Hnglish translation of the = 5 “ entire Book of Concord, together with intro- “ ductions and other confessional material, ap- © & N peared in two volumes, edited by Dr. H. E. § Jacobs. The first volume of this edition em- braces the confessional writings of the Lu- theran Church. It contains C. P. Krauth’s translation of the Augsburg Confession as re- vised for Schaff’s Creeds of Christendom. Jacobs translated the Apology (from the Latin, with insertions, in brackets, of trans- lations from the German text), the Smaleald Articles (from the German), the Tractatus (from the Latin), and the Formula of Con- cord. The translation of the Small Catechism was prepared by a committee of the Minis- terium of Pennsylvania. The Large Catechism was done into English by A. Martin. A re- print of this edition appeared in 1911, en- titled “People’s Edition,’ in which the Augs- burg Confession is presented in a translation prepared by a committee of the General Coun- cil, the General Synod, the United Synod in the South, and the Ohio Synod. The second volume of Jacobs’s edition of the Book of Con- cord embodies historical introductions to the Lutheran symbols, translations of the Mar- burg Articles, the Schwabach Articles, the Torgau Articles, the Altered Augsburg Con- fession of 1540 and 1542, Zwingli’s Ratio Fidei, the Tetrapolitana, the Romish Confu- tatio, Melanchthon’s Opinion of 1530, Luther’s Sermon on the Descent into Hell of 1533, the Wittenberg Concordia, the Leipzig Interim, the Catalogus Testimoniorum, the Articles of Visitation, and the Decretum Upsaliense of 1593. The Principles of Faith and Church Polity of the General Council and an index complete this volume. A Norwegian and a Swedish translation of the Book of Concord have also been published in America.
5. Corpora Doctrinae Supplanted by Book of Concord.
More than twenty different Lutheran col- lections of symbols or corpora doctrinae (a term first employed by Melanchthon) , most of them bulky, had appeared after the death of Luther and before the adoption of the Formula of Concord, by which quite a number of them were supplanted. From the sig- natures to its Preface it appears that the entire Book of Concord was adopted by 3 electors, 20 princes, 24 counts, 4 barons, and 35 imperial cities. And the list of signatures appended to the Formula of Concord contains about 8,000 names of theologians, preachers, and schoolteachers. About two-thirds of the German territories which professed adherence to the Augsburg Confession adopted and in- troduced the Book of Concord as their corpus
J. The Book of Concord, or The Concordia. 7
doctrinue. (Compare Historical Introduction to the Formula of Concord.)
Among the corpora doctrinae which were gradually superseded by the Book of Concord are the following: 1. Corpus Doctrinae Philip- picum, or Misnicum, or Wittenbergense of 1560, containing, besides the three Heumenical Symbols, the following works of Melanchthon: Variata, Apologia, Repetitio Augustanae Con- fessionis, Loci, Examen Ordinandorum of 1552, Responsio ad Articulos Bavaricae Inquisitio- nis, Refutatio Serveti. Melanchthon, shortly before his death, wrote the preface for the Latin as well as the German edition of this Corpus. 2. Corpus Doctrinae Pomeranicum of 1564, which adds Luther’s Catechisms, the Smaleald Articles, and three other works of Luther to the Corpus Doctrinae Philippicum, which had been adopted 1561. 3. Corpus Doctrinae Prutenicum, or Borussicum, of Prussia, 1567, containing the Augsburg Con- fession, the Apology, the Smalcald Articles, and Repetition of the Sum and Content of the True, Universal Christian Doctrine of the Church, written by Moerlin and Chemnitz. 4. Corpus Doctrinae Thuringicum in Ducal Saxony, of 1570, containing the three Ecu- menical Symbols, Luther’s Catechisms, the Smaleald Articles, the Confession of the Landed Estates in Thuringia (drawn up by Justus Menius in 1549), and the Prince of Saxony’s Book of Confutation (Konfutations- buch) of 1558. 5. Corpus Doctrinae Branden- burgicum of 1572, containing the Augsburg Confession according to the Mainz Manu- seript, Luther’s Small Catechism, Explanation of the Augsburg Confession drawn from the postils and doctrinal writings “of the faith- ful man of God Dr. Luther” by Andreas Mu- sculus, and a Church Agenda. 6. Corpus Do- etrinae Wilhelminum of Lueneburg, 1576, containing the three Ecumenical Symbols, the Augsburg Confession, the Apology, the Smal- eald Articles, Luther’s Catechisms, Formulae Caute Loquendi (Forms of Speaking Cau- tiously) by Dr. Urbanus Regius, and Ffor- mulae Recte Sentiendi de Praecipuis Horum Temporum Controversiis (Forms of Thinking Correctly concerning the Chief Controversies of These Times) by Martin Chemnitz. 7. Cor- pus Doctrinae lulium of Duke Julius of Braun- schweig-Wolfenbuettel, 1576, containing the documents of the Wilhelminum, with the sole addition of the Short Report of Some Promi- nent Articles of Doctrine, from the Church Order of Duke Julius, of 1569. 8. The Ham- burg Book of Confession of 1560, which was also adopted by Luebeck and Lueneburg, and contained a confession against the Interim, drawn up by Aepinus in 1548, and also four declarations concerning Adiaphorism, Osi- andrism, Majorism, and the doctrine of the Lord’s Supper, drawn up since 1549. 9. The Confessional Book of Braunschweig, adopted in 1563 and reaffirmed in 1570, containing, The Braunschweig Church Order of 1528, the Unaltered Augsburg Confession, the Apology thereof, the Smalcald Articles, Explanation, ete., drawn up at Lueneburg in 1561 against the Crypto-Calvinists. 10. The Church Order
of the city of Goettingen, 1568, containing the Church Order of Goettingen of 1531, Lu- ther’s Small Catechism, the Smaleald Articles, the Augsburg Confession, and the Apology. (Tschackert, 1. ¢., 613 f.; Feuerlinus, l. c., 1 f.)
6. Subscription to Confessions.
The position accorded the symbols in the Lutheran Church is clearly defined by the Book of Concord itself. According to it Hol Scripture alone is to be regarded asthe Gone” rule and norm by which absolutely all doc-” frines and teachers~are to he judged. The - object of the Augustana, as stated in its Pref- ace, was to show “what manner of doctrine has been set forth, in our lands and churches, from the Holy Scripture and the pure Word of God.” And in its Conclusion the Lutheran confessors declare: “Nothing has been re- ceived on our part against Scripture or the Church Catholic,” and “we are ready, God willing, to present ampler information accord- ing to the Scriptures.” “Iuxta Scripturam” — such are the closing words of the Augsburg Confession. The Lutheran Church knows of no other principle.
In the Formula of Concord we read: “Other writings, however, of ancient or modern teachers, whatever name they bear, must not be regarded as equal to the Holy Scriptures, but all of them together be subjected to them, and should not be received otherwise or further than as witnesses, [which are to show] in what manner after the time of the apostles, and at what places, this doctrine of the prophets and apostles was preserved.” (777, 2.) In the Conclusion of the Catalog of Testi- monies we read: “The true saving faith is to be founded upon no church-teachers, old or new, but only and alone upon God’s Word, which is comprised in the Scriptures of the holy prophets and apostles, as unquestionable witnesses of divine truth.” (1149.)
The Lutheran symbols, therefore, are not intended to supplant the Scriptures, nor do they do so. They do, however, set forth what has_been at all times the unanimous under- standing of the pure Christian doctrine ad- hered to by sincere and loyal Lutherans every- where; and, at the same time, they. show convincingly from the Scriptures that our. forefathers did indeed manfully confess_noth-. ing but God’s eternal truth, which every Chris- tian is in duty bound to, and consistently. always will, believe, teach, and confess.
The manner also in which Lutherans pledge themselves confessionally pp ere from these symbols. The Augsburg Confession was _en- lead by the princes and estates as follows: “The above articles we desire to present in, cordance with the edict _of Your Imperial
ajesty, in order to exhibit our Confession ‘and let men see a summary of the doctrine of our teachers.” (95,6.) In the preamble to the signatures of 1537 the Lutheran preachers unanimously confess: “We have reread the articles of the Confession presented to the Emperor in the Assembly at Augsburg, and by the favor of God all the preachers who
8 Historical Introductions to the Symbolical Books.
have been present in this Assembly at Smal- cald harmoniously declare that they believe and teach in their churches according to the articles of -the Confession and Apology.” (529.) John Brenz declares that he had read and reread, time and again, the Confession, the Apology, etc., and judged “that all these
et cum sententia verae xai yynoins catholicae ecclesiae).” (529.) Another subscription — to the Smaleald Articles—reads: “I, Con- rad Figenbotz, for the glory of God subscribe that I have thus believed and am still preach- ing and firmly believing as above.” (503, 13.) Brixius writes in a similar vein: “I... sub- scribe to the Articles of the reverend Father Martin Luther, and confess that hitherto I have thus believed.and taught, and by the Spirit of Christ I shall continue thus to be- lieve and teach.” (503, 27.)
In the Preface to the Thorough Declaration of the Formula of Concord the Lutheran-eon- fessors declare: “To this Christian Augsburg Confession, so thoroughly grounded in God’s Word, we herewith pledge ourselves again from our inmost hearts. We abide by its simple, clear, and unadulterated meaning as the words convey it, and regard the said Con- fession as a pure Christian symbol, with which at the present time true Christians ought to be found next to God’s Word. ... We intend also, by the grace of the Almighty, faithfully to abide until our end by this Christian Con- fession, mentioned several times, as it was de- livered in the year 1530 to the Emperor Charles V; and it is our purpose, neither in this nor in any other writing, to recede in the least from that oft-cited Confession, nor to propose another or new confession.” (847, 4.5.) Again: “We confess also the First, Un- altered Augsburg Confession as our symbol for this time (not because it was composed by_our theologians, but because it has been taken from God’s Word and is founded firmly and well therein), precisely in the form” in which it was committed to writing in the year 1530, and presented to the Emperor Charles V at Augsburg.” (851, 5.)
In_like manner the remaining Lutheran
symbols were adopted. (852. 777.) Other books, the Formula of Concord declares, are
accounted useful, “as far as (wofern, quate- nus) they are consistent with” the Scriptures and_the symbols. (855, 10.) The symbols, however, are accepted “that we may have a unanimously received, definite, common form of doctrine, which all our Evangelical churches together and in common confess, from and ac- cording to which, because (cum, weil) it has been derived from God’s Word, all other writ- ings should be judged and adjusted, as to how far (wiefern, quatenus) they are to be ap- proved and accepted.” (855, 10.)
After its adoption by the Lutheran elec- tors, princes, and estates, the Formula of Con- cord, and with it the entire Book of Concord, was, as stated, solemnly subscribed by about 8,000 theologians, pastors, and teachers, the
pledge reading as follows: “Since now, in the sight of God and of all Christendom, we wish to testify to those now living and those who shall come after us that this declaration here- with presented concerning all the controverted articles aforementioned and explained, and no! other, is our faith, doctrine, and confession, in which we are also willing, by God’s grace, to appear with intrepid hearts before the judg- ment-seat of Jesus Christ, and give an account) of it; and that we will neither privately nor| publicly speak or write anything contrary to it, but, by the help of God’s grace, intend to abide thereby: therefore, after mature de-| liberation, we have, in God’s fear and with the invocation of His name, attached our sig- natures with our own hands.” (1103, 40.) |
Furthermore, in the Preface to the Book’ of Concord the princes and estates declare that many churches and schools had received the Augsburg Confession “as a symbol of the present time in regard to the chief articles of faith, especially those involved in controversy with the Romanists and various corruptions of the heavenly doctrine.” (7.) They solemnly protest that it never entered their minds “either to introduce, furnish a cover for, and establish any false doctrine,,or in the least even to recede from the Confession presented in the year 1530 at Augsburg.” (15.) They declare: “This Confession also, by the help of God, we will retain to our last breath, when we shall go forth from this life to the heavenly fatherland, to appear with joyful and undaunted mind and with a pure con- science before the tribunal of our. Lord Jesus Christ.” (15.) “Therefore we also have de- termined not to depart even a finger’s breadth either from the subjects themselves or from the phrases which are found in them (vel a rebus ipsis vel a phrasibus, quae in illa habentur, discedere), but, the Spirit of the Lord aiding us, to persevere constantly, with the greatest harmony, in this godly agree- ment, and we intend to examine all contro- versies according to this true norm and decla- ration of the pure doctrine.” (23.) aT
7. Pledging of Ministers to the Confessions.
Such being the attitude of the Lutherans towards their symbols, and such their evalu- ation of pure doctrine, it was self-evident that the public teachers of their churches should be_pledged_to the confessions. In December, 1529, H. Winckel, of Goettingen, drew up a form in which the candidate for ordination declares: “TI believe and hold also of the most sacred Sacrament ...as one ought to believe concerning it according to the contents of the Bible, and as Doctor Martin Luther writes and confesses concerning it especially in his Confession” (of the Lord’s Supper, 1528). The Goettingen Church Order of 1530, how-’ ever, did not as yet embody a vow of ordina-
tion. The first pledges to the symbols were demanded by the University of Wittenberg in 1533 from candidates for iciacaee of Doctor of Divinity. In 1535 this pledge was required
RSS
A/
II. The Three Ecumenical or Universal Symbols. | 9
also_of the candidates for ordination. The oath provided that the candidate must faith- fully teach the Gospel without corruption, steadfastly defend the Ecumenical Symbols, remain in agreement with the Augsburg Con- fession, and before deciding difficult contro- versies consult older teachers of the Church of the Augsburg Confession. Even before 1549 the candidates for philosophical degrees were also pledged by oath to the Augsburg Confession.
In 1535, at_the Diet of Smalcald, it was
agreed that new members entering the Smal- cald_ League should promise “to provide for such teaching and_ preaching aswas-in—har- mony with the Word of God and the pure teaching of our [Augsburg] Confession.” Ac- cording to the Pomeranian Church Order, which Bugenhagen drew up in 1535, pastors were pledged to the Augsburg Confession and the Apology thereof. Capito, Bucer, and all others who took part in the Wittenberg Con- cord of 1536, promised, over their signatures, “to believe and to teach in all articles accord- ing to the Confession and the, Apology.” (Corpus Reformatorum, opp. Melanthonis, 3, 76.) In 1540, at Goettingen, John Wigand promised to accept the Augsburg Confession and its Apology, and to abide by them all his life. “And,” he continued, “if I should be found to do otherwise or be convicted of teach- ing and confessing contrary to such Confes- sion and Apology, then let me, by this sig- nature, be condemned and deposed from this divine ministry. This do I swear; so help me God.” Also at Goettingen, Veit Pflug- macher vowed, in 1541, that he would preach the Gospel in its truth and purity according to the Augsburg Confession and the contents of the postils of Anton Corvinus. He added: “Should I be found to do otherwise and not
living up to what has been set forth above, then shall I by such act have deposed myself from office. This do I swear; so help me God.”
In 1550 and 1552, Andrew Osiander at- tacked the oath of confession Which was in vogue at Wittenberg, claiming it to be “an entanglement in oath-bound duties after the manner of the Papists.” “What else,” said he, “does this oath accomplish than to sever those who swear it from the Holy Scriptures and bind them to Philip’s doctrine? Parents may theréfore well consider what they do by sending their sons to Wittenberg to become Masters and Doctors. Money is there taken from them, and they are made Masters and Doctors. But while the parents think that their son is an excellent man, well versed in the Scriptures and able to silence enthusiasts and heretics, he is, in reality, a poor captive, entangled and embarrassed hy oath-bound duties. For he has abjured the Word of God and_has taken an oath on Philip’s doctrine.” Replying to this fanatical charge in 1553, Melanchthon emphasized the fact that the doc- trinal pledges demanded at Wittenberg had been introduced, chiefly by Luther, for the purpose of “maintaining the true doctrine.” “For,” said Melanchthon, “many enthusiasts were roaming about at that time, each, in turn, spreading new silly nonsense, é. g., the Anabaptists, Servetus, Campanus, Schwenck- feld, and others. And such tormenting spir- its are not lacking at any time (Ht non desunt tales furiae ullo tempore).” A doctrinal pledge, Melanchthon furthermore explained, was necessary “in order correctly to acknowl-
edge God and call upon Him to preserve ~
harmony in the Church, and to bridle the audacity of such as invent new doctrines.”
(C. R. 12, 5.)
II. The Three Ecumenical or Universal Symbols.
8. Ecumenical Symbols.
The Ecumenical (general, universal) Sym- bols were embodied in the Book of Concord primarily for apologetic reasons. Carpzov, writes: “The sole reason why our Church apy pealed to these symbols was to declare her agreement with the ancient Church in so far) as the faith of the latter was laid down in these symbols, to refute also the calumnia- tions and the accusations of the opponents, and to evince the fact that she preaches no) new doctrine and in no wise deviates from the ‘Church Catholic.” (Zsagoge, 37.) For like _ reasons Article I of the Augsburg Confession declares its adherence to the Nicene Creed, and the first part of the Smalcald Articles, to the Apostles’ and Athanasian Creeds. The oath introduced by Luther in 1535, and re- quired of the candidates for the degree of Doctor of Divinity, also contained a pledge on the Ecumenical Symbols. In 1538 Luther pub- lished a tract entitled, “The Three Symbols or Confessions of the Faith of Christ Unani- mously Used in the Church,” containing the Apostles’ Creed, the Athanasian Creed, and
pemmag7 ce) TeON ON s
the Te Deum of Ambrose and Augustine. To these was appended the Nicene Creed.
In the opening sentences of this tract, Lu- ther remarks: ‘Whereas I have previously taught and written quite a bit concerning faith, showing both what faith is and what faith does, and have also published my Con- fession [1528], setting forth both what I be- lieve and what position I intend to maintain; and whereas the devil continues to seek new intrigues against me, I have decided, by way of supererogation, to publish conjointly, in the German tongue, the three so-called Symbols, or Confessions, which have hitherto been re- ceived, read, and chanted throughout the Church. I would thereby reaffirm the fact that I side with the true Christian Church, which has adhered to these Symbols, or Con- fessions, to the present day, and not with the false, vainglorious church, which in reality is the worst enemy of the true Church, having introduced much idolatry beside these beauti- ful confessions.” (St. L. 10,9938; Hrl. 23, 252.) Luther’s translation of the Ecumenical Sym- bols, together with the captions which ap-
10
peared in his tract,, were embodied in the Book of Concord. The superscription, “Tria Symbola Catholica seu Oecumenica,”. occurs for the first time in Selneccer’s edition of the Book of Concord of 1580. Before this, 1575, he had written: “Quot sunt Symbola fidei Christianae in Ecclesia? Tria sunt praecipua, quae nominantur oecumenica, sive universalia et authentica, id est, habentia auctoritatem et non indigentia demonstratione aut probatione, videlicet Symbolum Apostolicum, Nicaenum et Athanasianum.” (Schmauk, Confessional Principle, 834.)
9. The Apostles’ Creed.
The foundation of the Apostles’ Creed was, in_a_way, laid by Christ Himself when He commissioned His disciples, saying, Matt:-28, 19.20: “Go ye therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: teach- ing them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you.” The formula of Bap- tism here prescribed, “In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost,” briefly indicates what Christ wants Christians to be taught, to believe, and to con- fess. And the Apostles’ Creed, both as to its. form and contents, is evidently but an ampli- fication _of the trinitarian formula of Bap- tism.. Theo. Zahn remarks: L Sé aD
“Tt has been sai and not without a good basis either, that Christ Himself has ordained the baptismal confession. For the profession of the Triune God made by the candidates for Baptism is indeed the echo of His missionary and bap- tismal command reechoing through all lands and times in many thousand voices.” (Skiz- zen aus dem Leben der Kirche, 252.)
But when and by whom was the formula of Baptism thus amplified? — During the
Medieval Ages the Apostles’ Creed was com-
monly known as “The Twelve ee be- cause it was generally believed e twelve apostles, assembled in joint} session before
they were separated, soon after Pentecost, / is Creed, each contributing a clause.
But, though retained in the Catechismus Ro- manus, this is a legend which originated in Italy or Gaul in the sixth or seventh (accord- ing to Zahn, toward the end of the fourth) century and was unknown before this date. Yet, though it may seem more probable that the Apostles’ Creed was the result of a silent growth and very gradual formation cor- //
®
=
responding to the ever-changing environments 4 and needs of the Christian congregations, es- pecially over against the heretics, there is -no_sufficient_reason why the apostles them- selves should not have been instrumental in 4
its formulation, nor why, with the exception
of a number of minor later additions, its original form should not have been essentially what it is to-day.
Nathanael confessed: “Rabbi, Thou art the Son of God; Thou art the King of Israel,” John 1,49; the apostles confessed: “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,” Matt. 16,16; Peter confessed: ‘We believe and are sure that Thou art that Christ, the Son of the
Historical Introductions to the Symbolical Books:
living God,” John 6, 69; Thomas confessed: “My Lord and my God,” John 20, 28. These and_similar confessions of the truth concern- ing anal _were.not.merely. approved. of, but
aeane most solemnly: fore shall confess Me before men, him will
I confess also before My Father which is in
heaven. But whosoever shall deny Me before
men, him will I also deny before My Father
which is in heaven,’ Matt. 10, 32. 33. The same duty of confessing their faith, 2. ¢., the
truths concerning Christ, is enjoined upon all
Christians by the Apostle Paul when he
writes: “If thou shalt confess with thy mouth
the Lord Jesus and shalt believe in thine heart.
that God hath raised Him from the dead,
thou shalt be saved,’ Rom. 10, 9.
In the light of these and similar passages, the trinitarian baptismal formula prescribed by Christ evidently required from fie candi- date for Baptism a_ definite statement of what he eatierett concerning the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, especia F concerning Jesus Christ_ the Savior. Sor ane such “a con- fession of faith was in none even in the days of the apostles appears from the Bible itself. Of Timothy it is said that he had “professed _ a_good profession before many ” witnesses,” 1 Tim. 6,12. Heb. 4,14 we read: “Let us hold fast our profession.” Heb. 10, 23: “Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering.” Jude urges the Christians that they “should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints,’ and build up themselves on their “most holy faith,” vv. 3.20. Compare also: IiCorml by S24 TPin 3.) 16s Whitusmaeae 3, 4—7.
10. Apostles’ Creed and Early Christian: Writers.
The Christian writers of the first three cen- turies, furthermore, furnish ample proof for the following facts: that from the very be- ginning of the Christian Church the candi- dates for Baptism everywhere were required: to make a confession of their faith; that. from the beginning there was existing in all” the Christian congregations a formulated con- fession, which they called the rule of faith, the rule of truth, etc.; that this rule was identical with the confession r required of the: candidates for Baptism; .that it was declared to be of apostolic origin; that the summaries and ¢ explanations of this rule of truth, given by these writers, tally with the contents and,. in part, also with the phraseology of the: Apostles’ Creed; that the scattered Christian congregations, ‘then still autonomous, re- garded the adoption of this rule of faith as. the only necessary condition of Christian unity and fellowship.
The manner_in which Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp, Justin, Aristides, and other early~ Christian writers present the Christian truth: frequently reminds _ : and suggests. its existence. Thus Justin Mar- tyr, who died 165, says in his first Apology,.
Congre Tons fi Ad Sy noo ic at F7A5
II. The Three Ecumenical or Universal Symbols. it
which was written about 140: “Our teacher of these things is Jesus Christ, who also was born for this purpose and was crucified under Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea, that we reasonably worship Him, having learned that He is the Son of the true God Himself, and holding Him in the second place, and the prophetic Spirit in the third.” “Eternal praise to the Father of all, through the name of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” Similar strains, sounding like echoes of the Second Article, may be found in the Epistles to the Trallians and to the Christians at Smyrna, written by Ignatius, the famous martyr and bishop of Antioch, who died 107.
Irenaeus, who died 189, remarks: Every Christian “who retains immovable in himself the rule of the truth which he received through Baptism (6 tov xavdva ths ahndetas Guhuy ey éavt@ xaréyor, dv 61a tov Paxti- ouatos eidngve)’’ is able to see through the de- ceit of all heresies. Irenaeus here identifies the baptismal confession with what he calls the “rule of truth, zavay tic alndetac,”’ 4. e., the truth which is the rule for everything claiming to be Christian. Apparently, this “rule of truth” was the sum of doctrines which every Christian received and confessed at his baptism. The very phrase “rule of truth” im- plies that it was a concise and definite formu- lation, of the chief Christian truths. For “canon, rule,” was the term employed by the ancient Church to designate such brief sen- tences as were adopted by synods for the prac- tise of the Church. And this “rule of truth” is declared by Irenaeus to be “the old tradi- tion,’ “the old tradition of the apostles”: i te a0 TOY anootdhwy éy tH éxxinoig maod- doo. (Zahn, l. c., 379 f.) Irenaeus was the pupil of Polycarp the Martyr; and what he had learned from him, Polycarp had received from the Apostle John. Polycarp, says Ire- naeus, “taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true.” According to Irenaeus, then, the “rule of truth” received and confessed by every Christian at his baptism was trans- mitted by the apostles.
The contents of this rule of truth reecived from the apostles are repeatedly set for ry Irenaeus. In his Contre THaereses (I, 10, T) one of these summaries reads as follows: “The Church dispersed through the whole world, to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and their disciples the faith in one God, the Father Almighty, who has made heaven and earth and the sea and all things that are in them; and in one Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who became incarnate for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit, who has proclaimed through the prophets the dispensations, and the advents, and the birth from a virgin, and the passion, and the resur- rection from the dead, and the bodily assump- tion into heaven of the beloved Christ Jesus, our Lord, and His manifestation from heaven in the glory of the Father.” It thus appears that the “rule of truth” as Irenaeus knew it,
the formulated sum of doctrines mediated by Baptism, which he, in accordance with the testimony of his teacher Polycarp, believed to have been received from the apostles, at least approaches our present Apostolic Creed.
11. Tertullian and Cyprian on Apostles’ Creed.
_ A similar result is obtained from the writ- ings of Tertullian, Cyprian, Novatian, Origen, and others. “When we step into the water of Baptism,” says Tertullian, who died about 220, “we confess the Christian faith accord- ing to the words of its law,” 7. e., according to the law of faith or the rule of faith. Ter- tullian, therefore, identifies the confession to which the candidates fdr Baptism were pledged with the brief formulation of the chief Christian doctrines which he variously designates as “the law of faith,” “the rule of faith,” frequently also as tessara, watchword, and sacramentum, a term then signifying the military oath of allegiance. This Law or Rule of Faith was, according to Tertullian, the confession adopted by Christians every- where, which distinguished them from un- believers and heretics. The unity of the con- gregations, the granting of the greeting of peace, of the name brother, and of mutual hospitality, — these _and_ similar Christian rights and privileges, says Tertullian é-
At the same time Tertullian most em- phatically claims, “that this rule of faith was established by the apostles, aye, by rist Himself,” inasmuch as He had commanded to haptize “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” (Zahn, 252.) In his book Adversus Praxeam, Tertullian con- cludes an epitome which he gives of “the rule of faith” as follows: “That this rule has come down from the beginning of the Gospel, even before the earlier heretics, and so, of course, before the Praxeas of yesterday, is proved both by the lateness of all heretics and by the novelty of this Praxeas of yesterday.” (Schaff, Oreeds of Christendom, 2,18.) The following form is taken from Tertullian’s De Virginibus Velandis: “¥or the rule of faith is altogether one, alone (sola), immovable, and irreform- able, namely, believing in one God omnipotent, the Maker of the world, and in His Son Jesus Christ, born of the Virgin Mary, crucified under Pontius Pilate, raised from the dead the third day, received into the heavens, sit- ting now at the right hand of the Father, who shall come to judge the living and the dead, also through the resurrection of the flesh.” i , bishop of Car- thage, who died 257, and who was the first one to apply the term symbolum to the bap- tismal creed, in his Epistle to Magnus and to Januarius, as well as to other Numidian bishops, gives the following as the answer of the candidate for Baptism to the question,
12
“Do you believe?”: “I believe in God the Father, in His Son Christ, in the Holy Spirit. I believe the remission of sins, and the life eternal through the holy Church.”
12. Variations of the Apostles’ Creed.
While there can be no reasonable doubt either that the Christian churches from the very beginning were in possession of a definite and formulated symbol, or that this symbol was an amplification of the trinitarian for- mula of Baptism, yet we are unable to ascer- tain with any degree of certainty what its ex- act original wording was. There has not-been found in the early Christian writers a single passage recording the precise form of the bap- tismal confession or the rule of truth and faith as used in the earliest churches. This lack of contemporal written records is ac- counted for by the fact that the early Chris-_ tians_and Christian churches refused on prin- ciple to impart and transmit their confession in any other manner than by word of mouth. Such was their attitude, not because they be-_
lieved_in keeping their orc secret, but be- cause they viewed the exclusively oral method ~ of impartation as the most appropriate in a matter which they regarded _as_an_ affair of .
deepest concern of their hearts.
It is universally admitted, even by those who believe that the apostles were instru- mental in formulating the early Christian Creed, that the wording of it was not abso- lutely identical in all Christian congregations and that in the course of time various changes and additions were made. “Tradition,” says Tertullian with respect to the baptismal con- fession, received from the apostles, “has en- larged it, custom has confirmed it, faith ob- serves and preserves it.” (Zahn, 252. 381.) When, therefore, Tertullian and other ancient writers declare that the rule of faith received from the apostles is “altogether one, immovy- able, and irreformable,” they do not at all mean to say that the phraseology of this sym- bol was alike everywhere, and that in this re- spect no changes whatever had been made, nor that any clauses had been added. Such varia- tions, additions, and alterations, however, in- volved a doctrinal change of the confession no more than the Apology of the Augsburg Con- fession implies a doctrinal departure from this symbol. It remained the same Apostolic Creed, the changes and additions merely bring- ing out more fully and clearly its true, origi- nal meaning. And this is the sense in which Tertullian and others emphasize that the rule of faith is ‘one, immovable, and irreformable.”
The oldest known form of the Apostles’ Creed,- according to A. Harnack, is the one used_in_the church at Rome, even prior to 150_A.D, It was, however, as late as 337 or 338, when this Creed, which, as the church at Rome_claimed, was brought thither by Peter
himself, was_for the first time quoted as a whole_iy Bishop Marcellas of “Aneyra_in a_letter_to Bishop Julius of Romé,for the purpose of vindicating his orthodoxy. “During the long period intervening, Some changes, however, may have been, and probably were,
Historical Introductions to the Symbolical Books.
made also in this Old Roman Symbol, which reads as follows: —
INotebm sig dedv aatéoa mavtoxodtoea’ “at eis Xovotoy “Inooty [tov] vidv avrod tov wovo- yevi, TOV HUOLOY HUBY, TOY yeryndEerta &x mVvEdv- watos aytov zal Maolas ths maodévov, tov éxi Tlovtiov INldrov oravowdévta nal tapévta, vip tolty Huson avaortavra éx [tH] vexo@r, ava- Barta sis todvs odeavovs, xadijusvoy év eke tod matods, Oder goystat xotvat C@vtac mal vexoovs* wat sis avedvua dyiov, aylay éxudnolay, Apeow GUaOTL@Y, oaox0s dvdotaow. (Herzog, R. EH. 1, 744.) ,
13. Present Form of Creed and Its Contents.
The complete form of the present textus receptus of the Apostles’ Creed, evi y the result of a comparison and combination of the
various preexisting forms of this symbol, may
-end_of the fifth centuryand_is first found in a sermon by Caesarius of Arles .in_France, about 500. — In his translation, Luther substituted “Christian” for “catholic” in the Third Article. He regarded the two expressions as equivalent in substance, as ap- pears from the Smalcald Articles, where he identifies these terms, saying: “Sic enim orant pueri: Credo sanctam ecclesiam catho- licam sive Christianam.” (472,5; 498,3.) The form, “I believe a holy Christian Church,” however, is met with even before Luther’s time. (Carpzov, Isagoge, 46.) — In the Greek version the received form of the Apostles’ Creed reads as follows: —
INotedbo sis Pedr naréoa, mavtoxedtoea, wom- ty _ovoavod xal.vis. Kai sis \Inooty Xovotor, Vioyv abTOD TOY MovOyErH, TOY XLOLOY HUY, TOY ovdlnydévta &x avebuatos aylov, yeryndérta &z Maolas ths xaodévov, naddvra éxi Tlovttov Ihidatov, oravowdévta, Yardvta, wai tapévea, nateh0ovta sig Ta xatmrtata, tH ToltH HuUsoa Gvactdvta a0 TOY vexo@y, avehBovta sig tods obeavots, xateCduevoy év ds&id Veow matods savtoduvauov, éxetiev goydusvoy xotvat Cayr- tas xal vexoovs. Ilotedm eis to avedua to aytoyv, aylay xadohimny &xudnoiay, ayl@v xo.- VOVIAY, APEOLY AUAOTL@Y, CAQx0S aVvaoTtaoLY, Cony aidyvorv. “Auryy.
As _to_ its contents, the Apostles’ Creed_is a_positive statement of the essential facts of Christianity. The Second Article, says Zahn, is “a compend of the Evangelical history, in- eluding even external details.” (264.) Yet some of the clauses of this Creed were prob- ably inserted in opposition to prevailing, notably Gnostic, heresies of the first centuries. It was the first Christian symbol and, as Ter- tullian and others declare, the bond of unity and fellowship of the early Christian congre- gations everywhere. It must not, however, be regarded as inspired, much less as superior even to the Holy. Scriptures; for, as stated above, it cannot even, in any of its existing forms, be traced to the apostles. Hence it must be subjected to, and tested and judged by, the Holy Scriptures, the inspired Word of God and the only infallible rule and norm of all doctrines, teachers, and symbols. In ac- cordance herewith the Lutheran Church re-
Q y
13
577. 600.) By omissions, alterations, and ad-
my
other ecumenical_confessions, not as per sé ditions (in particular concerning the Holy \ % divine and authoritative, but because its @o¢- Spirit) this coungil gave to the Nicene Creed. rine is taken from,and-well grounded in, the its present form./ Hence it is also known as. prophetic and apostolic writings of the Old the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed. The > and New Testaments. (Conc. Triat., 851, 4.) Third Keumenieal Council, which assembled ~~ = r: at Toledo, Spain, in 589, inserted the word Bw) 14. The Nicene Creed. ofA Micea “Filioque,’? an addition which the Greek , , In _ the year _325 Emperor Constantine the Church has never sanctioned, and which later Great convened the First Ecumenical Council contributed towards bringing about the great ! at Nicaea, in Bithynia, for the purpose of Hastern Schism. A. Harnack considers the we settling the ANAT STMT OT LAAT Constantinopolitanum (CPanum), the creed 2 teaching of Arius, who denied the true divin. 2dopted at Constantinople, to be the baptismal = ity of Christ. The council was attended by confession of the Church of Jerusalem, which, & 318 bishops and their assistants, among whom he says, was revised between 362 and 373 and 2 the young deacon Athanasius of Alexandria amplified by the Nicene formulas and a rule gained special prominence as a theologian of of faith concerning the Holy Ghost. (Herzog, . great eloquence, acumen, and learning. “The .H.,11,19f.) Following is the text of the s most valiant champion against the Arians,” Panum according to Mansi: — As as he was called, Athanasius turned the tide Ihotebousv sis va Yedov nmatéoa, wavtoxod- ee: of victory in favor of the Homoousians, who 100a,‘xointiy obgavod xai pis; Oout@y te mdy- believed that the essence of the Father and of twyv zai aogdtwry Kai sis éva xvovoy “Inooby ~~ dy the Son is identical. The discussions were Xgvoroy toy vidy tod Veod (roy movoyerys tov &% Ss) &)
4 hy ° > Deo muatbiy 0 ; Lout thre A€ ana . ‘ 4 cncome ve MC LONG f ; on , j “4 & é S J i a4} gltwre Cv ASC Y ) } / , Cy és ‘ ai ACW eS a eae Sar y
based upon the symbol of Eusebius of Caesa- rea, which by changes and the insertion of Homoousian phrases (such as é% tio ovolac tov matods; yevyndels, ob moundels; Onwoodtovos t@ matol) was amended into an unequivocal, clean-cut, anti-Arian confession. Two Egyp- tian bishops who refused to sign the symbol were banished, together with Arius, to Illyria. The text of the oviginal Nicene Creed reads as follows: —
INotebousy sis va Ysov, matéoa mavtoxed- TOO, RAVTWY OOATMY TE KAL GOOATHMY TOLATHY. Kal eis éva xbovorv Inooty Xo.otov, tov vidv tod Veod, yevyndévta &x tov matoeds MovoyEery, TOUT- got &x tHo obolas tod matods, Heov &x Beod,
~ J , \ > \ > ~ 3 yes & patos, Beov ahyndworv &x Beod alnii- vod, yeryndévta, 08 moinDévta, Guoovoloy TH wU- tol, Ou’ 0b ta marta éyéveto, ta te &y TH O}OAYM Hal TH EL THS YAS* Tov Ov Huds tods avIodxous xal Ova tHY Hustéoay owtnolay xatehPdovta xat caoxadévta xal g&vavPownnoarta, taddrta, xal avactarta th tolty Husog, xal avelBorta eis tods ovoavots, xal goyousvoy ral xotvar C@vtas xal vexoovs. Kai sic to aveduc t0 dyiov. Tovs dé hé- porras, tr Hy mote dre odx HY, xal moi” yevry- Onjvac ovx iy, xal te & ox dvtmy eyéveto, 7} eg étéoac bxootaoews 7) obolas Paoxortac sivat, 1) xuotov, 7) Gadhovwtor, 7 tToEMtOY TOY vioY TOU Beod, tobtovs avatsuatiler 7 xadodcxn xa asco- otolixn éxxdnoia. (Mansi, Amplissima Col- lectio, 2, 665 sq.)
OTE a 15. mr ene ee Creed.
In_ order to suppress. Arianism, which still
continued to flourish, Emperor Theodosius con- vened the Second Ecumenical Council, in 381, at Constantinople. The bishops here assem- bled, 150 in number, resolved that the faith of the Nicene Fathers must ever remain firm and unchanged, and that its opponents, the Eunomians, Anomoeans, Arians, Eudoxians, Semi-Arians, Sabellians, Marcellians, Photin- ians, and Apollinarians, must be rejected. At this council also Macedonius was condemned, who taught that the Holy Spirit is not God: theye yao ado uy eivar Bedv, ahha ths Yedtntos tov xatoos ahdororov. (Mansi, 3, 558. 566, 573.
TO WAtooS yerynBEevtaarod AAVtMOY THY aleovav, ~— \
pas &x pords, Deor alndivor & Deod alnduod,
p ; oe ay zs ; yevyndérta, ov momBérta, Omoovoloy TH natol, Ov of ta aarta éyévero, tov du’ Huds tovs avIod-.
mous xal OLa THY Huetéoay OwMtnolay xatehIorta
&t THY OLOAY@Y, xal caox@Mdévta &x mvEetUatos ayiov zat Maolas tis naodévov, xai évavdowny- oavta, otavowdérta te veo Huady éxi Iovetiov Ilihatov, xai nadovta, xai tapévta, “al ava- OTaVTA TH TOltTH HUEOd HATA TUS YOUMaS, Hal ar- ehddveta eis tovs ovoavodts, zal xadelouevoy 8x dsEv@y tod marods, nal wadiv éoyousvor feta O6- Ens xotvar C@vras xal vexoovs: ob tis Paothetas ovx éotat téhos. Kal sis to avedpua tO Gy.oy, tO
‘ ~ \ > . xb oLov, tO Cwomordy, tO Ex TOD MATOOGExT00EVI~A Hae ToS «
MEVOY, TO OLY MATOL HAL VIG) GVUMOOOZVVOUMEVOY xat ovvdogalousvor, to hadjoay Oia THY MOOpN- tay, eis ula aylay xadohiziy xal axootohixny éxxdnolav. Ouohoyotuey év Baxtioua sis Apeow AUAOTLOY* MOOCOOXM@MEY AVAGTAGLY VEXOM@Y, KaL Cony tod wéllovtos ai@vocs. Auyy. (3, 565.)
16. The Athanasian Creed.
From its opening word this Creed is also A called Symbolum Quicunque. Roman tradi- tion has it that Athanasius, who died 373, made this confession before Pope Julius when the latter summoned him “to submit himself to him [the Pope], as to the ecumenical bishop and supreme arbiter of matters ecclesiastical (ut ei, sew episcopo oecumenico et swpremo rerum ecclesiasticarum arbitro, sese submit- teret).”’ However, Athanasius is not even the author of this confession, as appears from the following facts: 1. The Creed was originally written in Latin. 2. It is mentioned neither by Athanasius himself nor by his Greek eulo- gists. 3. It was unknown to the Greek Church till. about. 1200, and has never been accorded official recognition by this Church nor its “orthodox” sister churches. 4. It presupposes the post-Athanasian Trinitarian and Christo- dgical controversies. — Up to the present day
‘it has been impossible to reach a final verdict
eoncerning the author of the Quicunque and the time and place of its origin. Koellner’s Symbolik allocates it to Gaul. Loofs inclines
A| “ { ¢uyM *
14
to the same opinion and ventures the con- jecture that the source of this symbol must be sought in Southern Gaul between 450 and 600. (Herzog, R. #., 2, 177.) Gieseler and others look to Spain for its origin. Paragraphs 1, 2, and 40 of the Athanasian Creed have given offense not only to theo- logians who advocate an undogmatic Chris- tianity, but to many thoughtless Christians as well. Loofs declares: The Quicunque is un- evangelical and cannot be received, because its very first sentence confounds fides with expositio fidei. (H., R. H., 2,194.) However, the charge is gratuitous, since the Athanasian Creed deals with the most fundamental Chris- tian truths: concerning the Trinity, the divin- ity of Christ, and His work of redemption, without the knowledge of which saving faith is impossible. The paragraphs in question merely express the clear doctrine of such pas- sages of the Scriptures as Acts 4,12: “Neither is there salvation in any other; for there is none other name under heaven given among men whereby we must be saved”; John 8, 21: “Tf ye believe not that I am He, ye shall die in your sins’; John 14,6: “Jesus saith unto him, I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life; no man cometh unto the Father but by Me.” In complete agreement with the impugned statements of the Athanasian Creed, the Apology of the Augsburg Confession closes its article “Of God” as follows: “Therefore we do freely conclude that they are all idolatrous, blasphemers, and outside of the Church of Christ who hold or teach otherwise.” (102.) In the early part of the Middle Ages the Quicunque had already received a place in the . order of public worship. The Council of Vavre resolved, 1368: “Proinde Symbolum Aposto- lorum silenter et secrete dicitur quotidie in Completorio et in Prima, quia fuit editum tempore, quo nondum erat fides catholica pro- palata. Alia autem duo publice in diebus Dominicis et festivis, quando maior ad eccle- siam congregatur populus, decantantur, quia fuere edita tempore fidei propalatae. Sym- bolum quidem Nicaenum post evangelium can- tatur in Missa quasi evangelicae fidei expo- sitio. Symbolum Athanasii de mane solum cantatur in Prima, quia fuit editum tempore, quo maxime fuerunt depulsa et detecta nox atra et tenebrae haeresium et errorum.” (Mansi, 26, 487.) Luther says: “The first symbol, that of the apostles, is indeed the best of all, because it contains a concise, correct, and splendid presentation of the articles of faith and is easily learned by children and the common people. The second, the Athanasian Creed, is longer .. . and practically amounts to an apology of the first symbol.” “I do not know of any more important document of the New Testament Church since the days of the apostles” [than the Athanasian Creed]. (St. L. 10, 994; 6, 1576; HE. 23, 253.)
17. Luther on Ecumenical Creeds.
The central theme of the three Ecumenical Symbols is Christ’s person and work, the paramount importance of which Luther extols” as follows in his tract of 1538: “In all the
Historical Introductions to the Symbolical Books.
histories of the entire Christendom I have found and experienced that all who had and held the chief article concerning Jesus Christ correctly remained safe and sound in the true Christian faith. And even though they erred and sinned in other points, they nevertheless were finally preserved.” “For it has been de- creed, says Paul, Col. 2, 9, that in Christ should dwell all the fulness of the Godhead bodily, or personally, so that he who does not find or receive God in Christ shall never have nor find Him anywhere outside of Christ, even though he ascend above heaven, descend below hell, or go beyond the world.” “On the other hand, I have also observed that all errors, heresies, idolatries, offenses, abuses, and un- godliness within the Church originally re- sulted from the fact that this article of faith concerning Jesus Christ was despised or lost. And viewed clearly and rightly, all heresies militate against the precious article of Jesus Christ, as Simeon says concerning Him, Luke 2, 34, that He is set for the falling and the rising of many in Israel and for a sign which is spoken against; and long before this, Isaiah, chapter 8, 14, spoke of Him as ‘a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense.” “And we, in the Papacy, the last and greatest of saints, what have we done? We have con- fessed that He [Christ] is God and man; but that He is our Savior, who died and rose for ws, etc., this we have denied and persecuted with might and main” (those who taught this). ‘And even now those who claim to be the best Christians and boast that they are the Holy Church, who burn the others and wade in innocent blood, regard as the best doc- trine [that which teaches] that we obtain grace and salvation through our own works. Christ is to be accorded no other honor with regard to our salvation than that He made the beginning, while we are the heroes who complete it with our merit.”
Luther -continues: “This is the way the devil goes to work. He attacks Christ with three storm-columns. One will not suffer Him to be God; the other will not suffer Him to be man; the third denies that He has merited salvation for us.. Each of the three endeavors to destroy Christ. For what does it avail that you confess Him to be God if you do not also believe that He is man? For then you have not the entire and the true Christ, but a phantom of the devil. What does it avail you to confess that He.is true man if you do not also believe that He is true God? What does it avail you to confess that He is God and man if you do not also believe that what- ever He became ‘and whatever He did was done for you?” “Surely, all three parts must be believed, namely, that He is God, also, that He is man, and that He became such a man for us, that is, as the first symbol says: con- ceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered, was crucified, died, and rose again, etc. If one small part is lacking, then all parts are lacking. For faith shall and must be complete in every particular. While it may indeed be weak and subject to afflic- tions, yet it must be entire and not false.
III. The Augsburg Confession. 15
Weakness [of faith] does not work the harm, but false faith — that is eternal death.’ (St. L. 10, 998; E. 23, 258.)
Concerning the mystery involved in the doc- trine of the Holy Trinity, the chief topic of the Ecumenical Creeds, Luther remarks in the same tract: “Now, to be sure, we Christians are not so utterly devoid of all reason and sense as the Jews consider us, who take us to be nothing but crazy geese and ducks, unable to perceive or notice what folly it is to believe that God is man, and that in one Godhead there are three distinct persons. No, praise God, we perceive indeed that this doctrine cannot and will not be received by reason. Nor are we in need of any sublime Jewish reasoning to demonstrate this to us. We bhe- lieve it knowingly and willingly. We confess and also experience that, where the Holy
Spirit does not, surpassing reason, shine into the heart, it is impossible to grasp, or to be- lieve, and abide by, such article; moreover, there must remain in it [the heart] a Jewish, proud, and supercilious reason deriding and ridiculing such article, and thus setting up itself as judge and master of the Divine Being, whom it has never seen nor is able to see, and hence does not know what it is passing judg- ment on, nor whereof it thinks or speaks. For God dwells in a ‘light which no man can ap- proach unto,’ 1 Tim. 6, 16. He must come to us, yet hidden in the lantern, and as it is written, John 1,18: ‘No man hath seen God at any time; the only-begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, He hath declared Him,’ and as Moses said before this, Ex. 33: § re shall no man see Me [God] and live.’ ” (St. L. 10, 1007; E. 23, 568.)
III. The Augsburg Confession.
18. Diet Proclaimed by Emperor.
January 21, 1530, Emperor Charles V pro- claimed a diet to convene at Augsburg on the 8th of April. The manifesto proceeded from Bologna, where, three days later, the Em- peror was crowned by Pope Clement VII. The proclamation, after referring to the Turkish invasion and the action to be taken with ref- erence to this great peril, continues as fol- lows: “The diet is to consider furthermore what might and ought to be done and resolved upon regarding the division and separation in the holy faith and the Christian religion; and that this may proceed the better and more salubriously, [the Emperor urged] to allay divisions, to cease hostility, to surrender past errérs to our Savior, and to display diligence in hearing, understanding, and considering with love and kindness the opinions and views of everybody, in order to reduce them to one single Christian truth and agreement, to put aside whatever has not been properly ex- plained or done by either party, so that we all may adopt and hold one single and true religion; and may all live in one communion, church, and unity, even as we all live and do battle under one Christ.”
In his invitation to attend the diet, the Em- peror at the same time urged the Elector of Saxony by all means to appear early enough (the Elector reached Augsburg on May 2, while the Emperor did not arrive before June 16), “lest the others who arrived in time be compelled to wait with disgust, heavy expenses, and detrimental delay such as had frequently occurred in the past.” The Em- peror added the warning: In case the Elector should not appear, the diet would proceed as if he had been present and: assented to its resolutions. (Foerstemann, Urkundenbuch, 1, vei)
March 11 the proclamation reached Elector John at Torgau. On the 14th Chancellor Brueck advised the Elector to have “the opin- ion on which our party has hitherto stood and to which they have adhered,” in the con-
troverted points, “properly drawn up in writ- ing, with a thorough confirmation thereof
from the divine Scriptures.” On_the same day the Elector commissi ther, J: ;
Bugenhagen, and Melanchthon to prepare a ~~ document treating especially of “those articles 1’ on account of Eirek catd-division both in faith and in other outward church customs and ceremonies, continues.” (43.) At Witten- berg the theologians at once set to work, and the result was presented at Torgau March 27 by Melanchthon. On April 4 the Elector and his theologians set out from Torgau, arriving at Coburg on the 15th, where they rested for eight days. On the 23d of April the Elector left for Augsburg, while Luther, who was still under the ban of both the Pope and the Em- peror, remained at the fortress Ebernburg. Nevertheless he continued in close touch with the confessors, as appears from his numerous letters written to Augsburg, seventy all told, about twenty of which were addressed to Melanchthon.
19. Apology Original Plan of Lutherans.
The documents which the Wittenberg theo- logians delivered at Torgau treated the fol- lowing subjects: Human Doctrines and Ordi- nances, Marriage of Priests, Both Kinds, Mass, Confession, Power of Bishops, Ordina- tion, Monastic Vows, Invocation of the Saints, German Singing, Faith and Works, Office of the Keys (Papacy), Ban, Marriage, and Pri- vate Mass. Accordingly, the original inten- tion of the Lutherans was not to enter upon, and present for discussion at Augsburg, such doctrines as were not in controversy (Of God, etc.), but merely to treat of the abuses and immediately related doctrines, especially of Faith and Good Works. (66 ff.) They evi- dently regarded it as their chief object and duty to justify before the Emperor and the estates both Luther and his protectors, the electors of Saxony. This is borne out also by the original Introduction to the contemplated Apology, concerning which we read in the
ye J ee fae
PLA eS en
Pn et AT Ee oe
oe
16 Historical Introductions to the Symbolical Books.
prefatory remarks to the so-called Torgau Articles mentioned above: “To this end [of justifying the Elector’s peaceable frame of mind] it will be advantageous to begin [the projected Apology] with a lengthy rhetorical introduction.” (68; C.R., 26,171.) This in- troduction, later on replaced by another, was composed by Melanchthon at Coburg and pol- ished by him during the first days at Augs- burg. May 4 he remarks in a letter to Lu- ther: “I have shaped the Exordium of our Apology somewhat more rhetorical (6y7to@- xateoov) than I had written it at Coburg.” (C. R., 2,40; Luther, St. L. 16, 652.) In this introduction Melanchthon explains: Next to God the Elector builds his hope on the Em- peror, who had always striven for peace, and was even now prepared to adjust the religious controversy in mildness. As to the Elector and his brother Frederick, they had ever been attached to the Christian religion, had proved faithful to the Emperor, and had constantly cultivated peace. Their present position was due to the fact that commandments of men had been preached instead of faith in Christ. Not Luther, but Luther’s opponents, had be- gun the strife. It was for conscience’ sake that the Elector had not proceeded against Luther. Besides, such action would only have made matters worse, since Luther had resisted the Sacramentarians and the Anabaptists. Equally unfounded were also the accusations that the Evangelicals had abolished all order as well as all ceremonies, and had undermined the authority of the bishops. If only the bishops would tolerate the Gospel and do away with the gross abuses, they would suffer no loss of power, honor, and prestige. In con- cluding Melanchthon emphatically protests: “Never has a reformation been undertaken so utterly without any violence as this [in Saxony]; for it is a public fact that our men have prevailed with such as were already in arms to make peace.” (Kolde, l. ¢., 13.) The document, accordingly, as originally planned for presentation at Augsburg, was to be a de- fense of Luther and his Elector. In keeping herewith it was in the beginning consistently designated “Apology.”
20. Transformation of Apology into Con- fession Due to Eck’s Slanders.
This plan, however, was modified when the Lutherans, after reaching Augsburg, heard of and read the 04 + 1cpesitions published_by Dr. John Eck, in which Luther was classified with Zwingli, Oecolampadius, Caristadt, Pirk- (oni hare pecan with every conceivable heresy. Ina letter of March 14, accompanying the copy of his Propositions which Eck sent to the Emperor, he refers to Luther as the domestic enemy of the Church (hostis ecclesiae domesticus), who has fallen into every Scylla and Charybdis of iniquity; who speaks of the Pope as the Anti- christ and of the Church as the harlot; who has praise for none but heretics and schis-
matics; whom the Church has to thank for the Iconoclasts, Sacramentarians, New Hus-
sites, Anabaptists, New Epicureans, who teach that the soul is mortal, and the Cerin: thians; who rehashes all the old heresies con- demned more than a thousand years ago, etc. (Plitt, Hinleitung in die Augustana, 1, 527 ff.) Such and similar slanders had been dissemi- nated by the Papists before this, and they con- tinued to do so even after the Lutherans, at Augsburg, had made a public confession of their faith and had most emphatically dis- avowed all ancient and modern heresies. Thus. Cochlaeus asserted in his attack on the Apol- ogy, published 1534, that Lutheranism was a. concoction of all the old condemned heresies, that Luther taught fifteen errors against the article of God, and Melanchthon nine against the Nicene Creed, ete. Luther, he declared, had attacked the doctrine of the Trinity in a coarser fashion than Arius. (Salig, Historve d. Augsb. Konf., 1, 377.)
These calumniations caused the Lutherans to remodel and expand the defense originally planned into a document which should not merely justify the changes made by them with regard to customs and ceremonies, but also present as fully as possible the doctrinal articles which they held over against ancient and modern heresies, falsely imputed to them. Thus to some extent it is due to the scurrility of Eck that the contemplated Apology was transformed into an all-embracing Confession, a term employed by Melanchthon himself. In a letter to Luther, dated May 11, 1530, he wrote: “Our Apology is being sent to you, — though it is rather a Confession. Mittitwr tibt apologia nostra, quamquam verius con- fessio est. I included [in the Confession] almost all articles of faith, because Eck pub- lished most diabolical lies against us, quia Eckius edidit dvapolizxa@ratas dvapolas contra nos. Against these it was my purpose to pro- vide an antidote.” (CO. R. 2,45; Luther, St. L. 16, 654.)
This is in accord also with Melanchthon’s account in his Preface-of September 29, 1559, to the German Corpus Doctrinae (Philippi- cum), stating: “Some papal scribblers had disseminated pasquinades at the diet [at Augsburg, 1530], which reviled our churches with horrible lies, charging that they taught many condemned errors, and were like the Anabaptists, erring and rebellious. Answer had to be made to His Imperial Majesty, and in order to refute the pasquinades, it was decided to include all articles of Christian doctrine in proper succession, that every one might see how unjustly our churches were slandered in the lying papal writings. .. . Finally, this Confession was, as God directed and guided, drawn up by me in the manner indicated, and the venerable Doctor Martin Luther was pleased with it.” (C. R. 9, 929.)
The original plan, however, was not entirely abandoned, but merely extended by adding a defense also against the various heresies with which the Lutherans were publicly charged. This was done in an objective pres- entation of the principal doctrines held by the Lutherans, for which the Marburg and Schwa- bach Articles served as models and guides.
Per
seventeen Schwahbach Articles were composed Sb uther, Melane on, Jonas, Brenz, and
‘
‘
.
a iN
III. The Augsburg Confession.
21. Marburg, Schwabach, and Torgau Articles.
The material from which Melanchthon con- structed the Augsburg Confession is, in the last analysis, none other than the Reforma- tion truths which Luther had proclaimed since 1517 with ever-increasing clarity and force. In particular, he was guided by, and based his labor on, the Marburg Articles, the Schwabach Articles, and the so-called Torgau ‘Articles.
The Marburg Articles, fifteen in number, had heen drawn up Dy Touier tm TSU at the Col oquy of Marburg, whence he departed Octo- ber 5, about six months before the Diet at
Augsburg. (Luther, St. L., 17, 1138 f.) The
Agricola, and presented to the Convention at Smalcald about the middle of October, 1529. According to recent researches the Schwabach Articles antedated the Marburg Articles and formed the basis for them. (Luther, Weimar Ed., 30, 3, 97. 107.) In 1530 Luther published these Articles, remarking: “It is true that I helped to draw up such articles; for they were not composed by me alone.” This public statement discredits the opinion of v. Schubert published in 1908, according to which Me- lanchthon is the sole author of the Schwabach Articles, Luther’s contribution and participa- tion being negligible. The Schwabach Arti- cles constitute the seventeen basic articles of the first part of the Augsburg Confession. (St. L. 16, 638. 648. 564; CO. R. 26, 146 f.)
The so-called Torgau Articles are the docu- ments réferred €0 above, touching chiefly upon Se eee
ector, they were prepared by Luther and his assistants, Melanchthon, Bugenhagen, and pos- sibly also Jonas. They_are called Torgau came from Torgau (March 14), and because they_were presented to the Klector at_Torgau. (Foerstemann, |, 66; OC. R. 26, SG alanl oY 638.) With reference to these articles Luther wrote (March 14) to Jonas, who was then still conducting the visitation: “The Prince has written to us, that is, to you, Pomeranus, Philip, and myself, in a letter addressed to us in common, that we should come together, set aside all other business, and finish before next Sunday whatever is necessary for the next diet on April 8. For Emperor Charles himself will be present at Augsburg to settle all.things in a friendly way, as he writes in his bull. Therefore, although you are absent, we three shall do what we can to-day and to- morrow; still, in order to comply with the will of the Prince, it will be incumbent upon you to turn your work over to your com-
panions and be present with us here on the morrow. For things are in a hurry. Festi-
nata enim sunt omnia.” (St. L. 16, 638.)
Melanchthon also wrote to Jonas on the 15th of March: “Luther is summoning you by order of the Prince; you will therefore come as soon as it is at all possible. The Diet, according to the proclamation, will con- vene at Augsburg. And the Emperor gra- ciously promises that he will investigate the
Concordia Triglotta.
Sl ee
aC could WE
17
matter, and correct the errors on both sides. May Christ stand by us!” (0. R. 2,28; Foer- stemann, 1,45.) It was to these articles (Tor- gau Articles) that the Elector referred when he wrote to Luther from Augsburg on the llth of May: “After you and others of our learned men at Wittenberg, at our gracious desire and demand, have drafted the articles which are in religious controversy, we do not wish to conceal from you that Master Philip Melanchthon has now at this place perused them further and drawn them up in one form.” (C. RB. 2, 47.)
22. Luther’s Spokesman at Augsburg.
The material, therefore, out of which Me- lanchthon, who in 1530 was still in full ac- cord with Luther doctrinally, framed the fun- damental symbol of the Lutheran Church were the thoughts and, in a large measure, the very
words of Luther. Melanchthon gave to the Augsburg Confession its form and its irenic note; its entire doctrinal content, however, must be conceded to be “iuxta senientiam Lu- theri, according to the teaching of Luther,” as Melanchthon himself declared particularly with respect to the article of the Lord’s Sup- per. (C. R.2, 142.) On the 27th of June, two days after the presentation of the Confession, Melanchthon wrote to Luther: “We have hitherto followed your authority, twam secuti hactenus auctoritatem,’ and now, says Me- lanchthon, Luther should also Jet him know how much could be yielded to the opponents. (2,146.) Accordingly, in the opinion of Me- lanchthon, Luther, though absent, was the head of the Evangelicals also at Augsburg.
In his answer Luther does not deny this, but only demands of Melanchthon to consider the cause of the Gospel as his own. “For,” says he, “it is indeed my affair, and, to tell the truth, my affair more so than that of all of you.” Yet they should not speak of “authority.” “In this matter,” he continues, “T will not be or be called your author [authority]; and though this might be cor- rectly explained, I do not want this word. If it is not your affair at the same time and in the same measure, I do not desire that it be called mine and be imposed upon you. If it is mine alone, I shall direct it myself.” (St. L. 16, 906. 903. Enders, Luthers Brief- wechsel, 8, 43.)
Luther, then, was the prime mover also at Augsburg. Without him there would have been no Evangelical cause, no Diet of Augs- burg, no Evangelical confessors, no Augsburg Confession. And this is what Luther really meant when he said: “OConfessio Augustana mea; the Augsburg Confession is mine.” (Walch 22, 1532.) He did not in the least thereby intend to deprive Melanchthon of any credit properly due him with reference to the Confession. Moreover, in a letter written to Nicolaus Hausmann on July 6, 1530, Luther refers to the Augustana as “our confession, which our Philip prepared; quam Philippus noster paravit.” (St. L. 16,882; Enders 8, 80.) As a matter of fact, however, the day of Augs- burg, even as the day of Worms, was the day
b
ae reo -.
18 Historical Introduetions to the Symbolical Books.
ef Luther and of the Evangelical truth once mere restored to light by Lather. At Aug= burg, too, Melazchthon was not the real author and moving —— the imstrument and mouthpiece of . @at of whose spirit the doctrine there confessed had proceeded. (See Formula of Concernd 888, 32 —3+)
Quiy blindness bora of fie religious inter
esis (indifferentism, unionism, ete.) can speak
of Melanchthon’s theological Independence at Augsbarg er of any @octrinal disagreement between the Augsbarg Confession and the teaching of Luther. That, at the Diet, he was led. and wished to be led, by Luther is ad- mitted by Melanchthon himself. Im the letter of Jume 27. referred to above, he said: “The matters, as you [Luther] know, hare heen coar- sidered before. though im the combat it always turms out otherwise than expected” (St. 16, $89: C.R.2, 146.) _ On the Sist of August he wrote to his friend Camerarius: “Hitherto we have yielded nothing to our opponents, && cept what Luther judged should he done, since the matter was considered well and carefully before the Diet; re bene ac diligenter delibe- praia enie conrentum™ (2.554)
Very pertinentiy ET. Nitzsch sid of Me- lanchthon (1855): “With the son of the miner. who was destined to bring goad ore out of the deep shait, there was associated the som of am armorer, who was well quali- fied to follow his leader and to forge shields, helmets. armor, and swords for this great work” This applies ako tm the Augsburg Canfession. in which Melanchthoa merely shaped the material long before produced by Luther from the divine shafts of God's Word. Replying te Koeller. Rueckert, and Heppe, who contend that the authorship of the Auss- barg Confession must in every Way be ascribed to Melamchthon, Philip Schaif writes as fol Jows: “This is true as far as the spirit [which Luther called ‘pussyivoting.” Leisetreten] and the literary composition are concerned: but as te the doctrines Luther had a right te say. “The Catechism, the Exposition af the Tea Commandments, and the Augsburg Confession are mine” ™ (Creeds 1,229.
23. Drafting the Confessien.
May 11 the Confession was @ kT completed. that the Elector was able te submit it to Luther for the purpose of getting his opinion en it. According to Melanchthea’s letter of the same date, the document contained “al most all articles of faith, omemes fere ariice- los Ade” (C_R_.2.45.) This agrees with the account written by Melanchthon shortly be fore his death. in which he states that Im the Augsbure Confession be had presented “the sum of our Church's doctrine.” and that im © doing be had arrogated nothing to himself: for im the presence of the primees, ett. each individual sentence had been diseussed. “Thereapoa.” says Melanchthon, “the entire Cenfession was Seni alo to Luther, who in- formed the princes that he had read it and approved it. The prince: and other honest and learned men still living will remember that such was the case. Missa est dewique ef
;
—
Apology. T am well pleased with it, and know nothing to improve or te change in its neither would this be proper, since TF cannot
gently. and softly, Christ, our Lard, ~~
(St. L. 16, 657.) Luther is sald to have added these words to the Tenth Article: “And they condemn those whe teach otherwise: ef tm-
make some s in them and adapt te conditions. Subinde enim mutendi
aique ad occusioncs eccommodandi” (e. BR 2, 60; Luther, 16, 89.) gested by Regius and adopted. (Zeeckler, Die 4. K.. 18.)
Even Brueck is said to have made some im provements. May 24 the Nuernberg d tes wrote to their Council: “The Saxon Pha
< : eld chancellor, still has some changes te make at the begin- ning and the end” (C.R. 2,2.) The expres- sion “hezinnine and end (hinierm wad reraz) according toe Tschackert, is tantamount to “all ever (ueberall)” However. even befere 1867 Pitt wrote it had long ago been recognized that this expression refers to the Intreduction 4 and the Conchssion of the Confession, which ‘ were written by Broeck. (Aug.2. 11.) Bret
schneider is of the same opinion. (CR. 2. 2.)
June 3 the Nuernberg delegates wrote: “Here- 4 with we transmit to Your Excellencies & copy oi the Saxon Plan [Confession] im Latin, te
gether with the Introduction og Preamble At the end, however, there are lacking one or : two article: [20 and 21] and the Conclusion,
Excellencies may cause your learned men and :
te study it and deliberate upan it When this Plan [Confession] is drawn rn German, it shall not be withheld from Your Excellencies. The Saxons. however, distinctiy desire that, for the present, Your Excellencies keep this Plan or document secret, and that
III. The Augsburg Confession. 19
Majesty. They have reasons of their own for making this request. ... And if Your Ex- cellencies’ pastors and learned men should de- cide to make changes or improvements in this Plan or in the one previously submitted, these, too, Your Excellencies are asked to transmit to us.” (2,83.) June 26 Melanchthon wrote to Camerarius: “Daily I changed and recast much; and I would fave changed still more if our advisers (ovswoedduoves) had permitted us to do so.” (2, 140.)
24. Public Reading of the Confession.
June 15, after long negotiations, a number of other estates were permitted to join the adherents of the Saxon Confession. (0. R. 2, 105.) As a result, Melanchthon’s Introduc- tion, containing a defense of the Saxon Elec- tors, without mentioning the other Lutheran estates, no longer fitted in with the changed conditions. Accordingly, it was supplanted by the Preface composed by Brueck, and trans- lated into Latin by Justus Jonas, whose acknowledged elegant Latin and German style qualified him for such services. At the last deliberation, on June 23, the Confession was signed. And on June 25, at 3 p.M., the ever- memorable meeting of the Diet took place at which the Augustana was read by Chancellor Beyer in German, and both manuscripts were handed over. The Emperor kept the Latin copy for himself, and gave the German copy to the Imperial Chancellor, the Elector and Archbishop Albrecht, to be preserved in the Imperial Archives at Mainz. Both texts, therefore, the Latin as well as the German, have equal authority, although the German text has the additional distinction and pres- tige of having been publicly read at the Diet.
As to where and how the Lutheran heroes confessed their faith, Kolde writes as follows: “The place where they assembled on Satur- day, June 25, at 3 P.M., was not the court- room, where the meetings of the Diet were ordinarily conducted, but, as the Imperial Herald, Caspar Sturm, reports, the ‘Pfalz,’ the large front room, i. e., the Chapter-room of the bishop’s palace, where the Emperor lived. The two Saxon chancellors, Dr. Greg. Brueck and Dr. Chr. Beyer, the one with the Latin and the other with the German copy of the Confession, stepped into the middle of the hall, while as many of the Evangelically minded estates as had the courage publicly to _ espouse the Evangelical cause arose from their seats. Caspar Sturm reports: ‘Als aber die gemeldeten Commissarii und Botschaften der oesterreichischen Lande ihre Werbung und Botschaft vollendet und abgetreten, sind dar- auf von Stund’ an Kurfuerst von Sachsen, naemlich Herzog Johannes, Markgraf Joerg von Brandenburg, Herzog Ernst samt seinem Bruder Franzisko, beide Herzoege zu Braun- schweig und Lueneburg, Landgraf Philipp von Hessen, Graf Wolf von Anhalt usw. von ihrer Session auf- und gegen Kaiserliche Majestaet gestanden.’ The Emperor desired to hear the Latin text. But when Elector John had called attention to the fact that the meeting was held on German soil, and expressed the hope that the Emperor would permit the reading
to proceed in German, it was granted. Here- upon Dr. Beyer read the Confession. The reading lasted about two hours; but he read with a voice so clear and plain that the mul- titude, which could not gain access to the hall, (THe anes every word in the courtyard.”
19) £.)
The public reading of the Confession exer- cised a tremendous influence in every direc- tion. Even before the Diet adjourned, Heil- bronn, Kempten, Windsheim, Weissenburg, and Frankfurt on the Main professed their adherence to it. Others had received the first impulse which subsequently induced them to side with the Evangelicals. Brenz has it that the Emperor fell asleep during the reading. However, this can have been only temporarily or apparently, since Spalatin and Jonas as- sure us that the Emperor, like the other princes and King Ferdinand, listened atten- tively. Their report reads: “Satis attentus erat Caesar, The Emperor was attentive enough.” Duke William of Bavaria declared: “Never before has this matter and doctrine been presented to me in this manner.” And when Kck assured him that he would under- take to refute the Lutheran doctrine with the Fathers, but not with the Scriptures, the Duke responded, “Then the Lutherans, I under- stand, sit in the Scriptures and we of the Pope’s Church beside the Scriptures! So hoer’ ich wohl, die Lutherischen sitzen in der Schrift und wir Pontificii daneben!” The Archbishop of Salzburg declared that he, too, desired a reformation, but the unbearable thing about it was that one lone monk wanted to reform them all. In private conversation, Bishop Stadion of Augsburg exclaimed, “What has been read to us is the truth, the pure truth, and we cannot deny it.” (St. L. 16, 882; Plitt, Apologie, 18.) Father Aegidius, the Em- peror’s confessor, said to Melanchthon, “You have a theology which a person can under- stand only if he prays much.” Campegius is reported to have said that for his part he might well permit such teaching; but it would be a precedent of no little consequence, as the same permission would then have to be given other nations and kingdoms, which could not be tolerated. (Zoeckler, A. K., 24.)
25. Luther’s Mild Criticism.
June 26 Melanchthon sent a copy of the Confession, as publicly read, to Luther, who, adhering to his opinion of May 15, praised it, yet not without adding a grain of gentle criti- cism. June 29 he wrote to Melanchthon: “T have received your Apology and cannot understand what you may mean when you ask what and how much should be yielded to the Papists.... As far as I am concerned, too much has already been yielded (plus satis cessum est) in this Apology; and if they re- ject it, I see nothing that might be yielded beyond what has been done, unless I see the proofs they proffer, and clearer Bible-passages than I have hitherto seen. ... As I have always written — I am prepared to yield everything to them if we are but given the liberty to teach the Gospel. I cannot yield anything that militates against the Gospel.”
—
20 Historical Introductions te the Symbolical Books.
(St. L. 16,902; Enders. $.42.45.) The elear- est expression of Luther's criticism is found im a letter to Joras, dated July 21. 1590. Here we read: “Now F see the purpa pase of those questions [on the part Gf the Papists] whether you had any further articles to present. The @evil still lives, and he has noticed very well that your Apology steps seftiy, and that it has veiled the articles of Purgatory, the Ade- ration ef the Saints. and expecially that of the Antichrist. the Pope“ Ancther reading of this passage of Luther: “Apologigm re
Sstram, die Eescireieria, dissi ae
Brenz regarded the Confession as written “very Sextosedy — modestly, caide cirili-
ter et modeste” PR. 2, 23.) Nuern- berg delegates seat also received the impres- sion that the Confession. whilé saying what WAS Hecessary_, WRS Very reserved snd discreet. They reported to their Council: “Said in- struction [Confession]. as far as the sariicles ef faith are concerned. is substantially lke that which we have previously sent to Your Exeeliencie:, aniy that it has been improved im some paris. end throughout made as mild as possible (allenthalien aufs ghimprlickstz gemachi). yet, according to cur view, with out omitting anything ae ssary" (2, 123.)
At Smaleald, im 1537, the theologians were ordered by the Princes and Estates Bertone over the Confession, to make no changes
ining to its contents er substance, nor hac of the Concerd [of 1556], but merely tf ex- large upon matters resaniing the “Papacy. which, for certain reasons, Was previously omitted at the Diet af Augsburg in submissive deference to His Imperial Majesty." (Kelde. Analecia, 297.)
Indirectly Melanchthen himself admits the eorrectmess of Luther's criticism. True, when after the presentation ef the Confession he thought of the angry Papisis, he trembled, fearine that he had written too severely. June 26 he wrote to his most intimate friend, Camerarius: “Far from thinking thai I have Written milder than was proper, I rather strongly fear (mirwm in modwum) that some have taken offemse at our freedom. Fer Valk des, the Emperor's secretary, saw it before its presentation and gave it ss his opinion that from bezinning to end it was = than the opponents would be able to endure* (@. R.2, 140.) Qn the same day he wroie to Lather: “According to my judgment, the Con- fession is severe enough. For you will see that I have depicted the monks sufficiently” {141}
Tm two letters to Camerarius, however, Witten on May 21 and June 19_ respectively. hence before the efforts at toning down the Cenfession were completed. Melanchihon ex- pressed the opinion that the Confession could not have been written “in terms more gentle and mild. miiier ¢¢ Iemior = (2. 57-) No doubi. Melanchthon also had in mind his far-reaching irenies at Auscsburs. when he wrote im the Preface to the Apology of the Augsburg Con fession: “Tt has always bem my custom in
these controversies fe retain. sp far as I was at all able, the form of the customarily re- ceived doctrine, in onier that at some~time
the men of this age still farther from the
s of the adversgries™ (101, 12.) Evi- denily, Melanchthon means to emphasize that im the Aucustana he had been conservative, eriticizing only when compelled te de so for canstience” sake.
26. Lather Praisine Confession and Confessors.
Lather’s criticism did not im the least dampen his jey aver the sloriopus victery at Ai mor lessen his praise af ihe s Gid confession there made. Tn the above mentioned letier of Fume 27 he identifies hime self fully and entirely with the Aususiana, and demands that Melanchthon, too. consider it an expression of his own faith, and not mereiy_of Luther's . July 3 he wrote to Melanchthon: “Yesterday I reread earefally your entire Apology, and it Dleases me ex- tremely (wekemenfer) =~ (St. L 16, 913; En ders. 8.79.) July 6 he wrote a letter to Cor
My Father which is in heaven’ ™ (16, 915; E. 8 83) “Garé
when this s teh was made (gn hac pulchkra confessione).~ (Si. L_ 16, 23: ES, 94.)
On the same day, July 9, Luther wroie io the Elector: “I "
IIL The Augsburg Confession. ; 21
sion presented to them, more has been preached than otherwise perhaps ten preachers could have done. Is it not keen wisdom and great wit that Magister Kisleben and others must keep silence? But in lien thereof the Elector of Saxony, together with other princes and lords, arises with the written Confession and preaches freely before His Imperial Maj- esty and the entire realm, under their noses, 60 that they must hear and cannot gainsay. I think that thus the order prohibiting preach- ing was a euccess indeed. They will not per- mit their servants to hear the ministers, but must themselves hear something far worse (as they regard it) from such great lords, and keep their peace. Indeed, Christ is not silent at the Diet; and though they. be furious, still they must hear more by listening to the Con- fession than they would have heard in a year from the preachers. Thus is fulfilled what Paul says: God’s Word will nevertheless have free course. If it is prohibited in the pulpit, it must be heard in the palaces. If poor preachers dare not spesk it, then mighty nees and lords proclaim it. In brief, if everything keeps silence, the very stones will ary out, says Christ Himself.” (16,815.) Sep- tember 15, at the close of the Diet, Luther wrote to Melanchthon: “You have confessed Christ, offered peace, obeyed the Emperor, en- dured reproach, been sated with slander, and have not recompensed evil for evil; in sum, ou have performed the holy work of God, as mes saints, in a worthy manner... .-
T shall canonize you (canonizobo vos) as faith- ful members of Christ.” (16,2319; E. 8, 259.)
27. Manuscripts and Editions of Augustana.
As far as the text of the Augsburg Confes- sion is concerned, both of the original manu- scripts are lost to us. Evidently they have become a prey to Romish rage and enmity. Eck was given permission to examine the Ger- man copy in 1540, and possibly at that time _ already it was not returned to Mainz. It may have been taken to Trent for the discussions at the Council, and thence carried to Rome. The Latin original was deposited in the Im- perial Archives at Brussels, where it was seen and perused by Lindanus in 1562. February 18, 1569, however, Philip TE instructed Duke Alva to bring the manuscript to Spain, lest the Protestants “regard it as a Koran,” and in order that “such a damned work might for- ever be destroyed; porque 82 hunda para siempre tan malvada obra.” The keeper of the Brussels archives himself testifies that the manuscript was delivered to Alva. There is, however, no lack of other manuscripts of the Augsburg Confession. Up to the present time no less than 39 have been found. Of these, five German and four Latin copies contain also the signatures. The five German copies are in verbal agreement almost throughout, and therefore probably offer the text as read and presented at Augsburg.
The printing of the Confession had been expressly prohibited by the Emperor. June 26 Melanchthon wrote to Veit Dietrich: “Our
Confession has been presented to the Emperor. He ordered that it be not printed. You will therefore see that it is not made public” (C. #.2,142.) However, even during the ses- sions of the Diet a number of printed editions, six in German and one in Latin, were issued by irresponsible parties. But since these were full of errors, and since, furthermore, the Romanists asserted with increasing boldness and challenge that the Confession of the Lu- therans had been refuted, by the Roman Con- futation, from the Scriptures and the Fathers, Melanchthon, in 1530, had a correct edition printed, which was issued, together with the Apology, in May, 1531. This quarto edition (“*Beide, Deutech Und Lateinisch Ps.119”) is ~ regarded as the editio princeps.
For years this edition was also considered the authentic edition of the Augsburg Con- fession. Its Latin text was embodied 1534 in the Book of Concord as the textus receptus. But when attention was drawn to the changes in the German text of this edition (also the Latin text had been subjected te minor aitera- tions), the Mainz Manuscript was substituted in the German Book of Concord, as its Preface explains. (14.) This manuscript, however,
. contains no original signatures and was er-
roncously considered the identical document presented to the Emperor, of which it was probably but a copy. In his Introduction to the Symbolical Books, J. T. Mueller expresses the following opinion concerning the Mainz Manuscript: “To say the least, one cannot deny that its text, as a rule, agrees with that of the best manuscripts, and that its mistakes can easily be corrected according to them and the editio princeps, so that we have no reason to surrender the text received by the Church and to accept another in place thereof, of which we cannot prove either that it is any closer to the original.” (78.) Tschackert, who devoted much study to the manuscripts of the Augsburg Confession, writes: “The Saxon theologians acted in good faith, and the Mainz copy is still certainly better than Melanch- thon’s original imprint [the editio princeps]; yet, when compared with the complete and — because synchronous with the originally pre- sented copy — reliable manuscripts of the signers of the Confession, the Mainz Manu- script proves to be defective in quite a num- ber of places.” (L. ¢. 621 £.)
However, even Tschackert’s minute com- parison shows that the Mainz Manuscript deviates from the original presented to the Emperor only in unimportant and purely formal points. For example, in § 20 of the Preface the words: “Papst das eralkon- ziium zu halten nicht geweigert, so waere E. K. M. gnaediges Erbieten, zu fordern und za handeln, dass der” are omitted. AcE 2; § 48 we are to read: “dass die erdichteten geistlichen Orden Staende sind christlicher
Vollkommenheit” instead of: “dass die er- dichteten geistlichen Ordensstaende sind christliche Vollkommenheit.” Art. 27, § 61
reads, “die Uebermass der Werke,” instead of, “die Uebermasswerke,” by the way, an excel- lent expression, which should again be given
992 Historical Introductions to the Symbolical Books.
currency in the German. The conclusion of § 2 has “Leichpredigten” instead of “Beipre- digten.” According to the manuscripts, also the Mainz Manuscript, the correct reading of § 12 of the Preface is as follows: “Wo aber bei unsern Herrn, Freunden und _ besonders den Kurfuersten, Fuersten und Staenden des andern Teils die Handlung dermassen, wie E. K. M. Ausschreiben vermag (‘bequeme Handlung unter uns selbst in Lieb’ und Gue- tigkeit’?) nicht verfangen noch erspriesslich sein wollte” ete. The words, “bequeme Hand- lung unter uns selbst in Lieb’ und Guetig- keit,” are quoted from the imperial procla- mation. (Foerstemann, 7, 378; Plitt, 2, 12.)
Originally only the last seven articles con- cerning the abuses had separate titles, the doc- trinal articles being merely numbered, as in the Marburg and Schwabach Articles, which Melanchthon had before him at Augsburg. (Luther, Weimar 30, 3, 86. 160.) Nor are the present captions of the doctrinal articles found in the original German and Latin editions of the Book of Concord, Article XX forming a solitary exception; for in the German (in the Latin Concordia, too, it bears no title) it is superscribed: “Vom Glauben und guten Werken, Of Faith and Good Works.” This is probably due to the fact that Article XX was taken from the so-called Torgau Articles and, with its superscription there, placed among the doctrinal articles. In the German edition of 1580 the word “Schluss” is omitted where the Latin has “Epilogus.”
As to the translations, even before the Con- fession was presented to the Emperor, it had been rendered into French. (This translation was published by Foerstemann, 1, 357.) The Emperor had it translated for his own use into both Italian and French. (C. R. 2, 155; Luther, St. L., 16, 884.) Since then the Augus- tana has been done into Hebrew, Greek, Span- ish, Portuguese, Belgian, Slavic, Danish, Swed- ish, English, and many other languages. As to the English translations, see page 6.
28. Signatures of Augsburg Confession.
Concerning the signatures of the Augustana, Tschackert writes as follows: “The names of the signers are most reliably determined from the best manuscript copies of the original of the Confession, which have been preserved to us. There we find the signatures of eight princes and two free cities, to wit, Elector John of Saxony, Margrave George of Branden- burg-Ansbach, Duke Ernest of Braunschweig- Lueneburg, Landgrave Philip of Hesse, then John Frederick, the Electoral Prince of Saxony, Ernest’s brother Francis of Braun- schweig-Lueneburg, Prince Wolfgang of An- halt, Count Albrecht of Mansfeld, and the cities Nuernberg and Reutlingen.” (L. ¢. 285; see also Luther’s letter of July 6, 1530, St. L. 16, 882.) Camerarius, in his Life of Melanch- thon, relates that Melanchthon desired to have the Confession drawn up in the name of the theologians only, but that his plan did not prevail because it was believed that the sig- natures of the princes would lend prestige and splendor to the act of presenting this confes-
sion of faith. Besides, this plan of Melanch- thon’s was excluded by the Emperor’s procla- mation.
Although Philip of Hesse, in the interest of a union with the Swiss, had zealously, but in vain, endeavored to secure for the article con- cerning the Lord’s Supper a milder form, still, in the end, he did not refuse to sign. Regius wrote to Luther, May 21, that he had discussed the entire cause of the Gospel with the Landgrave, who had invited him to din- ner, and talked with him for two hours on the Lord’s Supper. The Prince had presented all the arguments of the Sacramentarians and desired to hear Regius refute them. But while the Landgrave did not side with Zwingli (non sentit cum Zwinglio), yet he desired with all his heart an agreement of the theologians, as far as piety would permit (exoptat doctorum hominum concordiam, quantum sinit pietas). He was far less inclined to dissension than rumor had it before his arrival. He would hardly despise the wise counsel of Melanch- thon and others. (Kolde, Analecta, 125; see also O. R. 2, 59, where the text reads, “nam sentit cum Zwinglio” instead of, “non sentit cum Zwinglio.”) Accordingly, the mind of the Landgrave was not outright Zwinglian, but unionistic. He regarded the followers of Zwingli as weak brethren, who must be borne with, and to whom Christian fellowship should not be refused. This also explains how the Landgrave could sign the Augustana, and yet continue his endeavors to bring about a union.
May 22 Melanchthon wrote to Luther: “The Macedonian [Philip of Hesse] now con- templates signing our formula of speech, and it appears as if he can be drawn back to our side; still, a letter from you will be neces- sary. Therefore I beg you most urgently that you write him, admonishing him not to bur- den his conscience with a godless doctrine.” Still the Landgrave did not change his posi- tion in the next few weeks. June 25, however, Melanchthon reported to Luther: “The Land- grave approves our Confession and has signed it. You will, I hope, accomplish much if you seek to strengthen him by writing him a letter.” (CO. R. 2, 60. 92. 96. 101. 103. 126; Luther, St. L., 16, 689; 21a, 1499.)
At Augsburg, whither also Zwingli had sent his Fidei Ratio, the South-German imperial cities (Strassburg, Constance, Memmingen, Lindau) presented the so-called Confessio Tetrapolitana, prepared by Bucer and Capito, which declares that the Sacraments are “holy types,” and that in the Lord’s Supper the “true body” and the “true blood” of Christ “are truly eaten and drunk as meat and drink for the souls, which are thereby nourished unto eternal life.’ However, in 1532 these cities, too, signed the Augsburg Confession.
Thus the seed which Luther sowed had grown wonderfully. June 25, 1530, is prop- erly regarded as the real birthday of the Lu- theran Church. From this day on she stands before all the world as a body united by a public confession and separate from the Roman Church. The lone, but courageous con- fessor of Worms saw himself surrounded with a stately host of true Christian heroes, who
IV. Melanchthon’s Alterations of the Augsburg Confession. 23
were not afraid to place their names under his Confession, although they knew that it might cost them goods and blood, life and limb. When the Emperor, after entering Augsburg, stubbornly demanded that the Lu- therans cease preaching, Margrave George of Brandenburg finally declared: “Rather than deny my God and suffer the Word of God to be taken from me, I will kneel down and have my head struck off.” (0. R. 2,115.) That characterizes the pious and heroic frame of mind of all who signed the Augustana in 1530. In a letter, of June 18, to Luther, Jonas re- lates how the Catholic princes and estates knelt down to receive the blessing of Cam- pegius when the latter entered the city, but that the Elector remained standing and de- clared: “To God alone shall knees be bowed; In Deo flectenda sunt genua.” (Kolde, Ana- lecta, 135.) When Melanchthon called the Elector’s attention to the possible conse- quences of his signing the Augsburg Con- fession, the latter answered that he would do what was right, without concerning him- self about his electoral dignity; he would
confess his Lord, whose cross he prized higher
than all the power of the world.
Brenz wrote: “Our princes are most stead- fast in confessing the Gospel, and surely, when I consider their great steadfastness, there comes over me no small feeling of shame be- cause we poor beggars [theologians] are filled with fear of the Imperial Majesty.” (0. R. 2,125.) Luther praises Elector John for hav- ing suffered a bitter death at the Diet of Augs- burg. There, says Luther, he had to swallow all kinds of nasty soups and poison with which the devil served him; at Augsburg he pub- licly, before all the world, confessed Christ’s death and resurrection, and hazarded prop- erty and people, yea, his own body and life; and because of the confession which he made, we shall honor him as a Christian. (St. L. 12, 2078 f.) And not only the Lutheran Church, but all Protestant Christendom, aye, the entire world has every reason to revere and hold sacred the memory of the heroes who boldly affixed their names to the Confession of 1530.
29. Tributes to Confession of Augsburg.
From the moment of its presentation to the present day, men have not tired of prais- ing the Augsburg Confession, which has been called Confessio augusta, Confessio augustis- sima, the “Evangelischer Augapfel,’ ete. They have admired its systematic plan, its completeness, comprehensiveness, and arrange- ment; its balance of mildness and firmness; its racy vigor, freshness, and directness; its beauty of composition, “the like of which can-
not be found in the entire literature of the Reformation period.” Spalatin exclaims: “A Confession, the like of which was never made, not only in a thousand years, but as long as the world has been standing!” Sar- torius: “A confession of the eternal truth, of true ecumenical Christianity, and of all fun- damental articles of the Christian faith!” “From the Diet of Augsburg, which is the birthday of the Evangelical Church Federa- tion, down to the great Peace Congress of Muenster and Osnabrueck, this Confession stands as the towering standard in the entire history of those profoundly troublous times, gathering the Protestants about itself in ever closer ranks, and, when assaulted by the ene- mies of Evangelical truth with increasing fury, is defended by its friends in severe fight- ing, with loss of goods and blood, and always finally victoriously holds the field. Under the protection of this banner the Evangelical Lu- theran Church in Germany has been built up on firm and unassailable foundations; under the same protection the Reformed Church in Germany has found shelter. But the banner was carried still farther; for all Swedes, Danes, Norwegians, and Prussians have sworn allegiance to it, and the Esthonians, Letts, Finns, as well as all Lutherans of Russia, France, and other lands recognize therein the palladium of their faith and rights. No other Protestant confession has ever been so hon- ored.” (Guericke, Kg., 3, 116 f.)
Vilmar says in praise of the Confession: “Whoever has once felt a gentle breath of the bracing mountain air which is wafted from this mighty mountain of faith [the Augsburg Confession] no longer seeks to pit against its firm and quiet dignity his own uncertain, immature, and wavering thoughts, nor to direct the vain and childish puff of his mouth against that breath of God in order to give it a different direction.” (Theol. d. Tat- sachen, 76.) In his Introduction to the Sym- bolical Books, J. T, Mueller says: “Luther called the Diet of Augsburg ‘the last trumpet before Judgment Day’; hence we may well call the confession there made the blast of that trumpet, which, indeed, has gone forth into all lands, even as the Gospel of God, which it proclaims in its purity.” (78.) The highest praise, however, is given the Augs- burg Confession by the Church which was born with it, when, e.g., in the Formula of Concord, the Lutherans designate it as “the symbol of our time,” and glory in it as the Confession, which, though frowned upon and assailed by its opponents, “down to this day has remained unrefuted and unoverthrown (bis auf diesen Tag unwiderlegt und unumge- stossen geblieben).” (777, 4; 847, 3.)
IV. Melanchthon’s Alterations of the Augsburg Confession.
30. Changes Unwarranted.
Melanchthon continued uninterruptedly to polish and correct the Augsburg Confession till immediately before its presentation on June 25, 1530. While, indeed, he cannot be censured for doing this, it was, though origi-
nally not so intended by Melanchthon, an act of presumption to continue to alter the docu- ment after it had been adopted, signed, and publicly presented. Even the editio princeps of 1531 is no longer in literal agreement with the original manuscripts. For this reason the
24
German text embodied in the Book of Con- cord is not the one contained in the editio princeps, but that of the Mainz Manuscript, which, as stated, was erroneously believed to be the identical German copy presented to the Emperor. The Latin text of the editio prin- ceps, embodied in the Book of Concord, had likewise undergone some, though unessential, changes. These alterations became much more extensive in the Latin octavo edition of 1531 and in the German revision of 1533. The Variata of 1540 and 1542, however, capped the climax as far as changes are concerned, some of them being very questionable also doctrinally. In their “Approbation” of the Concordia Germanico-Latina, edited by Rei- neccius, 1708, the Leipzig theologians remark pertinently: Melanchthon found it “impos- sible to leave a book as it once was.” Wit- ness his Loci of 1521, which he remodeled three times — 1535, 1542, and 1548. How- ever, the Loci were his own private work, while the Augustana was the property and confession of the Church.
Tschackert is right when he comments as follows: “To-day it is regarded as an almost incomprehensible trait of Melanchthon’s char- acter, that immediately after the Diet and all his lifetime he regarded the Confession as a private production of his pen, and made changes in it as often as he had it printed, while he, more so than others, could but eval- uate it as a state-paper of the Evangelical estates, which, having been read and delivered in solemn session, represented an important document of German history, both secular and ecclesiastical. In extenuation it is said that Melanchthon made these changes in pedagogi- cal interests, namely, in order to clarify terms or to explain them more definitely; further- more, that for decades the Evangelical estates and theologians did not take offense at Me- lanchthon’s changes. Both may be true. But this does not change the fact that the chief editor of the Confession did not appreciate the world-historical significance of this state- paper of the Evangelical estates.” (L. c. 288.) Nor can it be denied that Melanchthon made these changes, not merely in pedagogical inter- ests, but, at least a number of them, also in the interest of his deviating dogmatic views and in deference to Philip of Hesse, who favored a union with the Swiss. Nor can Melanchthon be fully cleared of dissimulation in this matter. The revised Apology of 1540, for example, he openly designated on the title- page as “diligently revised, diligenter reco- gnita”’ ; but in the case of the Augsburg Con- fession of 1540 and 1542 he in no way indi- cated that it was a changed and augmented edition.
As yet it has not been definitely ascertained when and where the terms “Variata” and “In- variata” originated. At the princes’ diet of Naumburg, in 1561, the Variata was desig- nated as the “amended” edition. The Reuss Confession of 1567 contains the term “un- altered Augsburg Confession.” In its Epitome as well as in its Thorough Declaration the Formula of Concord speaks of “the First Un-
Historical Introductions to the Symbolical Books.
altered Augsburg Confession — Augustana illa prima et non mutata Confessio.” (777, 4; 851, 5.) The Preface to the Formula of Con- cord repeatedly speaks of the Variata of 1540 as “the other edition of the Augsburg Confes- sion — altera Augustanae Confessionis editio.” (assis)
31. Detrimental Consequences of Alterations.
The changes made in the Augsburg Confes- sion brought great distress, heavy cares, and bitter struggles upon the Lutheran Church, both from within and without. Church his- tory records the manifold and sinister ways in which they were exploited by the Reformed as well as the Papists; especially by the latter (the Jesuits) at the religious colloquies, beginning 1540, until far into the time of the Thirty Years’ War, in order to deprive the Lutherans of the blessings guatanteed by the religious Peace of Augsburg, 1555. (Salig, Gesch. d. A. K., 1, 770 ff.; Lehre wnd Wehre 1919, 218=f. )
On Melanchthon’s alterations of the Augs- burg Confession the Romanists, as the Preface to the Book of Concord explains, based the reproach and slander that the Lutherans themselves did not know “which is the true and genuine Augsburg Confession.” (15.) De- crying the Lutherans, they boldly declared “that not two preachers are found who agree in each and every article of the Augsburg Con- fession, but that they are rent asunder and separated from one another to such an extent that they themselves no longer know what is the Augsburg Confession and its proper sense.” (1095.) In spite of the express declaration of the Lutherans at Naumburg, 1561, that they were minded to abide by the original Augsburg Confession as presented to Emperor Charles V at Augsburg, 1530, the Papists and the Reformed did not cease their calumnia- tions, but continued to interpret their decla- rations to mean, “as though we [the Lu- therans] were so uncertain concerning our religion, and so often had transfused it from one formula to another, that it was no longer clear to us or our theologians what is the Con- fession once offered to the Emperor at Augs- burg.” (11.)
As a result of the numerous and, in part, radical changes made by Melanchthon in the Augsburg Confession, the Reformed. also, in the course of time more and more, laid claim to the Variata and appealed to it over against the loyal Lutherans. In particular, they re- garded and interpreted the alteration which Melanchthon had made in Article X, Of the Lord’s Supper, as a correction of the original Augustana in deference to the views of Cal- vinism. Calvin declared that he (1539 at Strassburg). had signed. the Augustana “in the sense in which its author [Melanchthon] explains it (sicut eam auctor ipse interpre- tatur).” And whenever the Reformed, who were regarded as confessionally related to the Augsburg Confession (Confession’ Augusta- nae addicti), and as such shared in the bless- ings of the Peace of Augsburg (1555) and the
IV. Melanchthon’s Alterations of the Augsburg Confession. 25
Peace of Westphalia (1648), adopted, and ap- pealed to, the Augustana, they interpreted it according to the Variata.
Referring to this abuse on the part of the Reformed and Crypto-Calvinists, the Preface to the Book of Concord remarks: “To these disadvantages [the slanders of the Romanists] there is also added that, under the pretext of the Augsburg Confession [Variata of 1540], the teaching conflicting with the institution of the Holy Supper of the body and blood of Christ and also other corruptions were intro- duced here and there into the churches and schools.” (11. 17.) — Thus the changes made in the Augsburg Confession did much harm to the Lutheran cause. Melanchthon belongs to the class of men that have greatly benefited our Church, but have also seriously harmed it. “These fictions” of the adversaries, says the Preface to the Book of: Concord concerning the slanders based on Melanchthon’s changes, “have deterred and alienated many good men from our churches, schools, doctrine, faith, and confession.” (11.)
82. Attitude toward Variata.
John Eek was the first who, in 1541, at the religious colloquy of Worms, publicly pro- tested against the Variata. But since it was apparent that most of the changes were in- tended merely as reenforcements of the Lu- theran position against the Papists, and Me- lanchthon also declared that he had made no changes in “the matter and substance or in the sense,” i. e., in the doctrine itself, the Lu- therans at that time, as the Preface to the Book of Concord shows, attached no further importance to the matter. The freedom with which in those days formal alterations were made even in public documents, and the guile- lessness with which such changes were re- ceived, appears, for example, from the trans- lation of the Apology by Justus Jonas. How- ever, not all Lutherans even at that time were able to view Melanchthon’s changes without apprehension and indifference. Among these was Elector John Frederick, who declared that he considered the Augustana to be the con- fession of those who had signed it, and not the private property of Melanchthon.
In his admonition to Brueck of May 5, 1537, he says: “Thus Master Philip also is said to have arrogated to himself the privilege of changing in some points the Confession of Your Electoral Grace and the other princes and estates, made before His Imperial Majesty at Augsburg, to soften it and to print it else- where [a reprint of the changed Latin octavo edition of 1531 had been published 1535 at Augsburg and another at Hagenau] without the previous knowledge and approval of Your Electoral Grace and of the other estates, which, in the opinion of Your Electoral Grace, he should justly have refrained from, since the Confession belongs primarily to Your Electoral Grace and the other estates; and from it [the alterations made] Your Electora] Grace and the other related estates might be charged that they are not certain of their
doctrine and are also unstable. Besides, it is giving an offense to the people.” (0. R. 3, 365.) Luther, too, is said to have remon- strated with Melanchthon for having altered the Confession. In his Introduction to the Augsburg Confession (Koenigsberg, 1577) Wigand reports: “I heard from Mr. George Rorarius that Dr. Luther said to Philip, ‘Philip, Philip, you are not doing right in changing Augustanam Confessionem so often; for it is not your, but the Church’s book.’ ” Yet it is improbable that this should have occurred between 1537 and 1542, for in 1540 the Variata followed, which was changed still more in 1542, without arousing any public protest whatever.
After Luther’s death, however, when Me- lanchthon’s doctrinal deviations became ap- parent, and the Melanchthonians and the loyal Lutherans became more and more opposed to one another, the Variata was rejected with in-
‘creasing determination by the latter as the
party-symbol of the Philippists. In 1560 Flacius asserted at Weimar that the Variata differed essentially from the Augustana. In the Reuss-Schoenburg Confession of 1567 the Variata was unqualifiedly condemned; for here we read: We confess “the old, true, un- altered Augsburg Confession, which later was changed, mutilated, misinterpreted, and falsi- fied . . . by the Adiaphorists in many places both as regards the words and the substance (nach den Worten und sonst in den Haen- deln), which thus became a buskin, Bund- schuh, pantoffle, and a Polish boot, fitting both legs equally well [suiting Lutherans as well as Reformed], or a cloak and a change- ling (Wechselbalg), by means of which Adi- aphorists, Sacramentarians, Antinomians, new teachers of works, and the like hide, adorn, defend, and establish their errors and falsi- fications under the cover and name of the Augsburg Confession, pretending to be like- wise confessors of the Augsburg Confession, for the sole purpose of enjoying with us under its shadow, against rain and hail, the common peace of the Empire, and selling, furthering, and spreading their errors under the sem-
blance of friends so much the more easily and
safely.” (Kolde, Hinleitung, 30.) In a sermon delivered at Wittenberg, Jacob Andreae also opposed the Variata very zealously.
Thus the conditions without as well as within the Lutheran Church were such that a public declaration on the part of the genuine Lutherans as to their attitude toward the alterations of Melanchthon, notably in the Variata of 1540, became increasingly impera- tive. Especially the continued slanders, in- trigues, and threats of the Papists necessi- tated such a declaration. As early as 1555, when the Peace of Augsburg was concluded, the Romanists attempted to limit its pro- visions to the adherents of the Augustana of 1530. At the religious colloquy of Worms, in 1557, the Jesuit Canisius, distinguishing be- tween a pure and a falsified Augustana, de- manded that the adherents of the latter be condemned, and excluded from the discussions.
26
33. Alterations in Editions of 1531, 1533, 1540.
As to the alterations themselves, the Latin text of the editio princeps of the Augsburg Confession of 1531 received the following ad- ditions: § 3 in Article 13, § 8 in Article 18, and § 26 in Article 26. Accordingly, these passages do not occur in the German text of the Book of Concord. Originally § 2 in the conclusion of Article 21 read: “Tota dissensio est de paucis quibusdam abusibus,” and § 3 in Article 24: “Nam ad hoe praecipue opus est ceremoniis, ut doceant imperitos.” The additions made to Articles 13 and 18 are also found in the German text of the editio prin- ceps. (C. R. 26, 279. 564.)
In the “Approbation” of the Leipzig theo- logians mentioned above we read: The octavo edition of the Augustana and the Apology, printed 1531 by George Rauh, according to the unanimous testimony of our theologians, cannot be tolerated, “owing to the many ad- ditions and other changes originating from Philip Melanchthon. For if one compares the 20th Article of the Augsburg Confession as well as the last articles on the Abuses: ‘Of Monastic Vows’ and ‘Of Ecclesiastical Author- ity,’ it will readily be seen what great addi- tions (laciniae) have been patched onto this Wittenberg octavo edition of 1531. The same thing has also been done with the Apology, especially in the article ‘Of Justification and Good Works,’ where often entire successive pages may be found which do not occur in the genuine copies. Furthermore, in the declara- tion regarding the article ‘Of the Lord’s Sup- per,’ where Paul’s words, that the bread is a communion of the body of Christ, etc., as well as the testimony of Theophylact concern- ing the presence of the body of Christ in the Supper have been omitted. Likewise in the defense of the articles ‘Of Repentance,’ ‘Of Confession and Satisfaction,’ ‘Of Human Tra- ditions,’ ‘Of the Marriage*of Priests,’ and ‘Of Ecclesiastical Power,’ where, again, entire pages have been added.” (ZL. c. 8,13; C. R. 27,437.) In the German edition of the Augs- burg Confession of 1533 it was especially Articles 4, 5, 6, 12, 13, 15, and 20 that were remodeled. These alterations, however, in- volve no doctrinal changes, with the possible exception of Article 5, where the words “where and when He will” are expunged. (C. R. 26, 728.)
As to the Variata of 1540, however, the ex- tent of the 21 doctrinal articles was here almost doubled, and quite a number of ma- terial alterations were made. Chief among the latter are the following: In Article 5 the words, “ubi et quando visum est Deo,” are omitted. In the 10th Article the rejection of the Reformed doctrine is deleted, and the fol- lowing is substituted for the article proper: “De coena Domini docent, quod cum pane et vino vere exhibeantur corpus et sanguis Christi vescentibus in Coena Domini.” (C. R. 26, 357.) The following sentences have also given offense: “Et cum hoc modo consolamur nos promissione seu Evangelio et erigimus nos fide, certo consequimur remissionem peccato-
Historical Introductions to the Symbolical Books.
rum, et simul datur nobis Spiritus Sanctus.” “Cum Evangelium audimus aut cogitamus aut sacramenta tractamus et fide nos consolamur, simul est efficax Spiritus Sanctus.” (354.) For the words of the 18th Article: “sed haec fit in cordibus, eum per Verbum Spiritus San- etus concipitur,” the Variata substitutes: “Et Christus dicit: Sine me nihil potestis facere. Efficitur autem spiritualis iustitia in nobis, cum adiuvamur a Spiritu Sancto. Porro Spiritum Sanctum concipimus, cum Verbo Dei assentimur, ut nos fide in terrori- bus consolemur.” (362.) Toward the end of the same article we read: “Quamquam enim externa opera aliquo modo potest efficere humana natura per sese, ... Verum timorem, veram fiduciam, patientiam, castitatem non potest efficere, nisi Spiritus Sanctus gubernet et adiuwvet corda nostra.” (363.) In the 19th Article the phrase “non adiuvante Deo” is erased, which, by the way, indicates that Melanchthon regarded these words as equiva- lent to those of the German text: “so Gott die Hand abgetan,” for else he would have weakened the text against his own interests. (363.) To the 20th Article Melanchthon added the sentence: “Debet autem ad haec dona [Dei] accedere exercitatio nostra, quae et conservat ea et meretur incrementum, iuxta illud: Habenti dabitur. Et Augustinus prae- clare dixit: Dilectio meretur incrementum dilectionis, cum videlicet exercetur.” (371.)
34. Alterations Render Confession Ambiguous.
True, in making all these changes, Melanch- thon did not introduce any direct heresy into the Variata. He did, however, in the interest of his irenic and unionistic policy and dog- matic vacillations, render ambiguous and weaken the clear sense of the Augustana. By his changes he opened the door and cleared the way, as it were, for his deviations in the direction of Synergism, Calvinism (Lord’s Supper), and Romanism (good works are necessary to salvation). Nor was Melanch- thon a man who did not know what he was doing when he made alterations. Whenever he weakened and trimmed the doctrines he had once confessed, whether in his Loci or in the Augustana, he did so in order to satisfy defi- nite interests of his own, interests self- evidently not subservient to, but conflicting with, the clear expression and bold confession of the old Lutheran truth.
Kolde, referring in particular to the changes made in the 10th Article, says: “It should never have been denied that these alterations involved real changes. The motives which actuated Melanchthon cannot be definitely ascertained, neither from his own expressions nor from contemporary remarks of his circle of acquaintances” [As late as 1575 Selneccer reports that Philip of Hesse had asked Me- lanchthon to erase the improbatio of the 10th Article, because then also the Swiss would accept the Augustana as their con- fession]. “A comparison with the Witten- berg Concord of May, 1536 (cum pane et vino- vere et substantialiter adesse — that the body
IV. Melanchthon’s Alterations of the Augsburg Confession. 27
and blood [of Christ] are really and substan- tially present with the bread and wine, 0. R. 3,75) justifies the assumption that by using the form: cum pane et vino vere exhibeantur, he endeavored to take into account the ex- isting agreement with the South Germans (Oberlaender). However, when, at the same time, he omits the words: vere et substantia- liter adesse, and the improbatio, it cannot, in view of his gradually changed conception of the Lord’s Supper, be doubted that he sought to leave open for himself and others the pos- sibility of associating also with the Swiss.” (25.) ,
An adequate answer to the question what prompted Melanchthon to make his altera- tions will embrace also the following points: 1. Melanchthon’s mania for changing and re- modeling in general. 2. His desire, especially after the breach between the Lutherans and the Papists seemed incurable, to meet and satisfy the criticism that the Augustana was too mild, and to reenforce the Lutheran posi- tion over against the Papists. 3. Melanch- thon’s doctrinal deviations, especially in Re- formed and synergistic directions.
35. Variata Disowned by Lutheran Church.
It cannot be denied that during Luther’s life and for quite a time after his death the Variata was used by Lutherans without any public opposition and recognized as the Augs- burg Confession. Martin Chemnitz, in his “Tudicium de Controversiis quibusdam circa quosdam Augustanae Confessionis Articulos — Decision concerning Certain Controversies about Some Articles of the Augsburg Con- fession,” printed 1597, says that the edition of 1540 was employed at the religious col- loquies with the previous knowledge and ap- proval of Luther; in fact, that it was drawn up especially for the Colloquy at Hagenau, which the opponents (Cochlaeus at Worms, Pighius at Regensburg) had taken amiss. “Graviter tulerant,” says Chemnitz, “multis articulis pleniori declaratione plusculum lucis accessisse, unde videbant veras sententias magis illustrari et Thaidis Babyloniae turpi- tudinem manifestius denudare — They took it amiss that more light had been shed on many articles by a fuller explanation, whence they perceived the true statements to be more fully illustrated and the shame of the Babylonian Thais to be more fully disclosed.” (Mueller, Hinleitung, 72.)
Furthermore, it is equally certain that, on the part of the Lutheran princes, the Variata “was employed without any sinister intentions whatever, and without the slightest thought of deviating even in the least from the doc- trine of the original Augustana, as has been falsely asserted by Heppe, Weber, and others. Wherever the Variata was adopted by Lu- theran princes and theologians, it was never for the purpose of weakening the doctrine of the Augsburg Confession in any point. More- over, the sole reason always was to accentuate and present more clearly the contrast between themselves and the Papists; and, generally
a
speaking, the Variata did serve this purpose. True, Melanchthon at the same time, no doubt, planned to prepare the way for his doctrinal innovations; but wherever such was the case, he kept it strictly to himself.
The complete guilelessness and good faith in which the Lutheran princes and theologians employed the Variata, and permitted its use, appears from the Preface to the Book of Con/ cord. For here they state: “Therefore we have decided in this writing to testify pub- licly, and to inform all, that we wished neither then nor now in any way to defend, or excuse, or to approve, as agreeing with the Gospel- doctrine, false and godless doctrines and opinions which may lie concealed under cer- tain coverings of words [in the Variata]. We, indeed, never received the latter edition [of 1540] in a sense differing in any part from the former which was presented [at Augsburg]. Neither do we judge that other useful writings of Dr. Philip Melanchthon, or of Brenz, Urban Regius, Pomeranus, etc., should be rejected and condemned, as far as, in all things, they agree with the norm which has been set forth in the Book of Con- cond. (L7..)
Accordingly, when the Variata was boldly exploited by the Romanists to circulate all manner of slanders about the Lutherans; when it also became increasingly evident that the Reformed and Crypto-Calvinists employed the Variata as a cover for their false doctrine of the Lord’s Supper; when, furthermore, within the Lutheran Church the suspicion gradually grew into conviction that Melanch- thon, by his alterations, had indeed intended to foist doctrinal deviations upon the Lu- theran Church; and when, finally, a close scrutiny of the Variata had unmistakably re- vealed the fact that it actually did deviate from the original document not only in ex- tent, but also with regard to intent, not merely formally, byt materially as well, — all loyal Lutheran princes and theologians regarded it as self-evident that they unani- mously and solemnly declare their exclusive: adherence to the Augsburg Confession as pre- sented to Emperor Charles at Augsburg, and abandon the Variata without delay. At Naumburg, in 1561, the Lutheran princes, therefore, after some vacillation, declared’ that they would adhere to the original Augs- burg Confession and its “genuine Christian: declaration and norm,” the Smalcald Articles. Frederick III of the Palatinate alone with- drew, and before long joined the Calvinists. by introducing the Heidelberg Catechism, thus. revealing the spuriousness of his own Luther- anism.
It was due especially to the Crypto-Calvin- ists in Electoral Saxony and to the Corpus Doctrinae Philippicum that the Variata re- tained a temporary and local authority, until it was finally and generally disowned by the Lutheran Church and excluded from its sym- bols by the adoption of the Formula of Con- cord. For here our Church pledges adherence: to “the First, Unaltered Augsburg Confession,,. delivered to the Emperor Charles V at Augs-
28 Historical Introductions to the Symbolical Books.
burg in the year 1530, in the great Diet.” (777, 4; 847, 5; 851, 5.) And.in the Preface to the Book of Concord the princes and estates declare: “Accordingly, in order that no per- sons may permit themselves to be disturbed by the charges of our adversaries spun out of their own minds, by which they boast that not even we are certain which is the true and genuine Augsburg Confession, but that both those who are now among the living and _pos- terity may be clearly and firmly taught and informed what that godly Confession is which we and the churches and schools of our realms at all times professed and embraced, we em-
\
36. Papal Party Refusing Conciliation.
At the Diet of Augsburg, convened in order to restore the disturbed religious peace, the Lutherans were the first to take a_ step towards reconciliation by delivering their Con- fession, June 25, 1530. In accordance with the manifesto of Emperor Charles, they now expected that the papal party would also present its “view and opinion,” in order that the discussions might thereupon proceed “in love and kindness,” as the Emperor put it. In the Preface to their Confession the Lu- therans declared: “In obedience to Your Im- perial Majesty’s wishes, we offer, in this mat- ter of religion, the Confession of our preachers and of ourselves, showing what manner of doctrine from the Holy Scriptures and the pure Word of God has been up to this time set forth in our-lands, dukedoms, dominions, and cities, and taught in our churches. And if the other Electors, Princes, and Estates of the Empire will, accgrding to the said im- perial proposition, present similar writings, to wit, in Latin and German, giving their opinions in this matter of religion, we, with the Princes and friends aforesaid, here before Your Imperial Majesty, our most clement Lord, are prepared to confer amicably con- cerning all possible ways and means, in order that we may come together, as far as this may be honorably done, and, the matter be- tween us on both sides being peacefully dis- cussed without offensive strife, the dissension, by God’s help, may be done away and brought back to one true accordant religion; for as we all are under one Christ and do battle under Him, we ought to confess the one Christ, after the tenor of Your Imperial Majesty’s edict, and everything ought to be conducted according to the truth of God; and this is what, with most fervent prayers, we entreat of God.” (39, 8.)
The Lutherans did not believe that the manifesto of the Emperor could be construed in any other way than that- both parties would be treated as equals at the Diet. Not merely as a matter of good policy, but bona fide, as honest Germans and true Christians, they clung tenaciously to the words of the Emperor, according to which the Romanists, too, were to be regarded as a party summoned for the trial, the Emperor being the judge.
V. The Pontifical Confutation
phatically testify that next to the pure and immutable truth of God’s Word we wish to embrace the first Augsburg Confession alone which was presented to the Emperor Charles V, in the year 1530, at the famous Diet of Augs- burg, this alone (we say), and no other.” (15.) At the same time the princes furthermore pro- test that also the adoption of the Formula of Concord did not make any change in this re- spect. For doctrinally the Formula of Con- cord was not, nor, was it intended to be, a “new or different confession,” 7%. ¢., different _ from the one presented to Emperor Charles V. (20.)
of the Augsburg Confession.
The Lutherans simply refused to take the word of the Emperor at anything less than par, or to doubt his good will and the sincerity of his promise. The fact that from the very beginning his actions were in apparent con- travention of the manifesto was attributed by the Lutherans to the sinister influence of such bitter, baiting, and unscrupulous theologians as Hck, Cochlaeus, and Faber, who, they claimed, endeavored to poison and incite the guileless heart of the Emperor. Thus the Lutherans would not and could not believe that Charles had deceived them,—a simple trust, which, however, stubborn facts finally compelled them to abandon.
The Romanists, on the other hand, boasting before the Emperor that they had remained with the true Christian faith, the holy Gospel, the Catholic Church, the bull of the Pope, and the Edict of Worms, refused with equal tenacity to be treated as a party summoned for trial. June 25, 1530, Elector John wrote to Luther: “Thus we and the other princes and estates who are related to us in this matter had to consent to submit our opinion and confession of faith. Our opponents, how- ever, as we are told, declined to present theirs and decided to show to the Emperor that they adhered to the Edict [of Worms] and to the faith which their fathers had bequeathed to and bestowed upon them, and which they intended to adhere to even now; if, however, the Pope or, in his place, the Legate, together with His Imperial Majesty, would point out, and expect them to adopt, a different and new faith, they would humbly hear the Emperor’s opinion.” (Luther, St. L. 16, 758.)
Thus presupposing what they were sum- moned to prove at Augsburg, namely, that the doctrine of the Pope was identical with the old Christian faith, the Romanists declared a presentation of their views unnecessary. The Lutherans, they maintained, were con- victed apostates and rebels against Pope and Church, against Emperor and realm; sentence was not first to be pronounced upon them, but had been pronounced long ago, the Diet’s duty merely being to confirm and execute it; hence, there was nothing else to be done by the Em- peror than to attend to his office as warden and protector of the Church, and, together with the princes and estates, to proceed
V. The Pontifical Confutation of the Augsburg Confession. 29
against the heretics with drastic measures. Also in the later discussions, conducted with a view of effecting a reconciliation, the Romanists refused to relinquish this position. From beginning to end they acted as the ac- cusers, judges, and henchmen of the Lwu- therans. Nor was anything else to be ex- pected, since, unlike the Lutherans, they considered not God’s Word, but the Pope the supreme arbiter in religious matters. Thus, from the very outset, the gulf between the two parties was such that it could not be bridged. Common ground was lacking. On the one side conscience, bound by the Word of God! On the other, blind subjection to human, papal authority! Also Romanists realized that this fundamental and irreconcilable difference was bound to render futile all discussions. It was not merely his own disgust which the papal historian expressed when he concluded his re- port on the prolonged discussions at Augs- burg: “Thus the time was wasted with vain discussions.” (Plitt, Apologie, 43.)
87. Further Success Not Hoped for by Luther.
Luther regarded the public reading of the Confession as an unparalleled triumph of his cause. Further results, such as a union with the Romanists, he did not expect. On July 9, 1530, he wrote to Jonas: “Qwid sperem de Caesare, quantumvis optimo, sed obsesso? What can I hope of the Emperor, even the best, when he is ohsessed” [by the papal theo- logians]? The most Luther hoped for was mutual political toleration. In the letter quoted he continues: “But they [the Papists] must expect a sad, and wea happy issue. Not, indeed, that there ever will be unity of doc- trine; for who can hope that Belial will be united with Christ? Excepting that perhaps marriage [of priests] and the two kinds [of the Sacrament] be permitted (here too, how- ever, this adverb ‘perhaps’ is required, and perhaps too much ‘perhaps’). But this I wish and earnestly hope for, that, the difference in doctrine being set aside, a political union may be made. If by the blessing of Christ this takes place, enough and more than enough has been done and accomplished at this Diet. . . .. Now, if we obtain also the third thing, that we adjourn with worldly peace secured, then we shall have clearly defeated Satan in this year.” (Enders, 8,95; St. L. 16, 927. 1666.) ;
July 21, 1530, Luther wrote in a similar vein to Jonas: “The fact that these frogs [the papal theologians who wrote the Confu- tation] with their croakings [coaxttatibus = pasquinades against Luther, instead of an- swers to the Augustana] have free access [to the Emperor] chagrins me very much in this great work in the most important mat- ters. . But this happens to prove that I am a true prophet; for I have always said that we work and hope in vain for a union in doctrine; it would be enough if we could obtain worldly peace.” (16, 927. 2324.) August 25, when the prolonged discussions of reconciliation were nearing their end, he wrote
to Melanchthon: “In sum, it does not please me at all that unity of doctrine is to be dis- cussed, since this is utterly impossible, unless the Pope would abolish his entire popery. It would have sufficed if we had presented to them the reasons for our faith and desired peace. But how can we hope that we shall win them over to accept the truth? We have come to hear whether they approve our doc- trine or not, permitting them to remain what they are, only inquiring whether they ac- knowledge our doctrine to be correct or con- demn it. If they condemn it, what does it avail to discuss the question of unity any longer with avowed enemies? If they ac- knowledge it to be right, what necessity is there of retaining the old abuses?” (16, 1404.)
Though willing to yield to the Catholic party in ali other matters, Luther refused to compromise the divine truth in any point or in any way. For this reason he also insisted that the Emperor should not be recognized as judge and arbiter without qualification, but only with the proviso that his decision would not conflict with the clear Word of God. Ac- cording to Luther, everybody, Pope and Em- peror included, must submit to the authority of the Scriptures. In a letter of July 9, 1530, he wrote to the Elector: “In the first place: Should His Imperial Majesty desire that the Imperial Majesty be permitted to decide these matters, since it was not His Majesty’s pur- pose to enter into lengthy discussions, I think Your Electoral Grace might answer that His Imperial Majesty’s manifesto promises that he would graciously listen to these matters. If such was not intended, the manifesto would have been needless, for His Imperial Majesty might have rendered his decision just as well in Spain without summoning Your Electoral Grace to Augsburg at such great labor and expense. ... In the second place: Should His Imperial Majesty insist that the Imperial Majesty be permitted to decide these matters, Your Electoral Grace may cheerfully answer: Yes, the Imperial Majesty shall decide these matters, and Your Electoral Grace would ac- cept and suffer everything, provided only that His Imperial Majesty make no decision against the clear Scriptures, or God’s Word. For Your Electoral Grace cannot put the Emperor above God, nor accept his verdict in oppo- sition to God’s Word.” (16, 815.)
38. Papal Peace Sought by Emperor.
By their obstinate refusal to regard them- selves as a party summoned, the Romanists, from the outset, made it impossible for the Emperor to maintain the réle of an impartial judge, which, probably, he had never really intended to be. At any rate, though ear- nestly desirous of religious peace, his actions throughout the Diet do not reveal a single serious effort at redeeming his promise and putting his beautiful words into practise. Being bound to the Pope and the papal party both religiously and politically, Charles did not require of the Romanists a fulfilment of the obligations imposed upon them by his manifesto. All the concessions were to be
30
made by the Lutherans. Revoca!— that was the first and only word which Rome had hitherto spoken to Luther. ‘“Revoke and sub- mit yourselves!” — that, in the last analysis, was also the demand of the Emperor at Augs- burg with respect to the Lutheran princes, both when he spoke in tones friendly and gentle and when he uttered severe and threat- ening words. Charles, it is true, desired peace, but a Roman peace, a peace effected by uni- versal blind submission to the Pope; not a peace by mutual understanding and conces- sions; least of all a peace by political re- ligious tolerance, such as Luther desired, and which in our days is generally regarded as the outstanding feature of modern civilization, notably of Americanism. To force the Lu- therans into submission and obedience to the Pope, that was the real object of the Em- peror. And the political situation demanded that this be accomplished by peaceable and gentle means — if possible.
Self-evidently, in his endeavors to establish a Papal Peace, the Emperor, who was haunted and tormented by the fear that all efforts might prove futile, was zealously seconded, en- couraged, and prodded on by the papal theo- logians. To bring about a religious peace, such as the Emperor contemplated, this, they flattered Charles, would be an ever-memo- rable achievement, truly worthy of the Em- peror; for the eyes of all Christendom were upon him, and he had staked his honor upon the success of this glorious undertaking. June 3 the Father Confessor of the Emperor, Garsia, then at Rome, wrote to Charles: “At present there is nothing so important in this life as that Your Majesty emerge victorious in the German affair. In Italy you will be accounted the best prince on earth if God should vouchsafe this grace unto us that the heresies which have arisen in that nation be cured by your hand.” (Plitt, 4.) June 6 Garsia wrote: “Gracious Lord! After the letters from the legate [Campegius, concern- ing the return of Christian II to the Roman Church, the disagreement between Philip of Hesse and the Elector, ete.] had been read at to-day’s Consistorial Meeting, almost all the eardinals said that Your Majesty was the angel sent from heaven to restore Christen- dom. God knows how much I rejoiced, and although the sun burned fiercely when I re- turned to my home, how patiently I bore it! I was not sensitive to it from sheer joy at hearing such sweet words about my master from those who a year ago had maligned him. My chief comfort, however, was to behold that they were right; for it seems as if God were performing miracles by Your Majesty, and to judge by the beginning you have made in curing this ailment, it is evident that we may expect the issue to prove far more favorable than our sins merit.” (11. 67.)
39. Compulsion Advocated by Theo- logians. All Romanists, the Emperor included, were
of the opinion that the Protestants must be brought back to the papal fold. But they
Historical Introductions to the Symbolical Books.
differed somewhat as to the means of accom- plishing this purpose. Some demanded that force be resorted to forthwith, while others counseled that leniency be tried first. Cam- pegius advised kindness at the beginning, and greater severity only in dealing with cer- tain individuals, but that sharper measures and, finally, force of arms ought to follow. At Rome force was viewed as the “true rhu- barb” for healing the breach, especially among the common people.. July 18 Garsia wrote to the Emperor: “If you are determined to bring Germany back to the fold, I know of no other or better means than by presents and flattery to persuade those who are most eminent in science or in the empire to return to our faith. Once that is done, you must, in dealing with the remaining common people, first of all pub- lish your imperial edicts and Christian admo- nitions. If they will not obey these, then the true rhubarb to cure them is force. This alone cured Spain’s rebellion against its king. And force is what will also cure Ger- many’s unfaithfulness to God, unless, indeed, divine grace should not attend Your Majesty in the usual measure. God would learn in this matter whether you are a faithful son of His, and should He so find, then I promise you that among all creatures you will find no power sufficiently strong to resist you. All will but serve the purpose of enabling you to obtain the crown of this world.” (42.)
Among the open advocates of force were Cochlaeus, Eck, Faber, and the theologians and monks who flocked to Augsburg in large numbers about the time the Augsburg Con- fession was read. They all considered it their prime duty to rouse the passions of the Em- peror, as well as of the Catholic princes and estates, and to incite them against the Lu- therans. Their enmity was primarily directed against the Augustana, whose objective and moderate tone had gained many friends even among the Catholics, and which had indirectly branded Eck and his compeers as detractors and calumniators. For had not Duke William of Bavaria, after the reading of the Confes- sion, rebuked Eck, in the presence of the Hlec- tor of Saxony, for having misrepresented the Lutheran doctrine to him? The moderation of the Augustana, said these Romanists, was nothing but the cunning of serpents, decep- dion and misrepresentation, especially on the part of the wily Melanchthon; for the true Luther was portrayed in the 404 theses of Eck. Cochlaeus wrote that the Lutherans were slyly hiding their ungodly doctrines in order to de- ceive the Emperor: “astute occultari in illo- rum Confessione prava eorum dogmata, de quibus ibi tacendo dissimulabant, ut in hypo- crisi loquentes Maiestati Tuae aliisque prin- cipibus imponerent.” (Laemmer, Vortridenti- mische Theologie, 39.) Thus the malice and fanaticism of the papal theologians and the monks rose in proportion as friendliness was shown the Lutherans by Catholic princes and the Emperor. They feared that every ap- proach toward the Lutherans would jeopardize the pax Pontificia.
The fanaticism of the papal theologians is
V. The Pontifical Confutation of the Augsburg Confession. 81
frequently referred to by the Lutherans. June 26 Melanchthon wrote to Luther: “Soph- ists and monks are daily streaming into the ‘city, in order to inflame the hatred of the Emperor against us.” (C. R. 2,141.) June 27: “Our Confession was presented last Saturday. ‘The opponents are now deliberating upon how to answer; they flock together, take great pains, and incite the princes, who already have heen sufficiently aroused. Eck vehe- mently demands of the Archbishop of Mainz that the matter be not debated, since it has already been condemned.” (144.) June 29 Jonas wrote to Luther: “Faber is goaded on by furies, and Eck is not a whit more sensible. Both insist in every manner imaginable that the affair ought to be managed by force and must not be heard.” (154.) Melanchthon, July 8: “By chance Eck and Cochlaeus came to the legate [Campegius, with whom Me- lanchthon was deliberating]. I heard them say, distinctly enough, I believe, that the op- ponents are merely deliberating upon how to suppress us by force.” (175.) July 15: “Re- peatedly have I been with certain enemies who belong to that herd of Eck. Words fail me to describe the bitter, Pharisaical hatred I noticed there. They do nothing, they plan nothing else than how they may incite the princes against us, and supply the Emperor with impious weapons.” (197.) The im- placable theologians also succeeded in fanati- cizing some of the princes and bishops, who gradually became more and more opposed to any kind of settlement by mutual under- standing. (175.)
The chief exponent of force was Cochlaeus. In his Hapostulatio, which appeared at Augs- burg in May, 1530, he argued that not only according to papal, but according to imperial law as well, which the Evangelicals also acknowledged, and according to the Scrip- tures, heretics might, aye, must be punished with death. The treatise concludes as fol- lows: “Thus it is established that obdurate heretics may be executed by every form of law. We, however, much prefer to have them return to the Church, be converted, healed, and live, and we beseech them to do so. Con- stat igitur, haereticos pertinaces omni wre interimi posse. Nos tamen longe magis opta- mus et precamur, ut redeuntes ad ecclesiam conwertantur, sanentur et vivant.” (Plitt, TO.)
Naturally Eck, too, was prominent among those who counseled the employment of com- pulsory measures; indeed, he could not await the hour when the order would be given to proceed against the heretics with fire and sword. He lamented, in bitter terms, the fact that the Emperor had not made use of stern measures as soon as he arrived in Germany. For now, said he, procrastination and the conciliatory demeanor of the Evangelicals, especially of Melanchthon and Brueck, had made it impossible to rouse the Emperor to such a degree as the exigency of the case de- manded. (Plitt, 63.) Luther wrote: “For that shameless gab and bloodthirsty sophist, Doctor Eck, one of their chief advisers, pub-
licly declared in the presence of our people that if the Emperor had followed the resolu- tion made at Bononia, and, immediately on entering Germany, had courageously attacked the Lutherans with the sword, and beheaded one after another, the matter would have been easily settled. But all this was prevented when he permitted the Elector of Saxony to speak and be heard through his chancellor.” (St. L. 16, 1636.)
40. Emperor Employs Mildness.
While a number of the Catholic estates, in- cited by the theologians, were also in favor of immediately resorting to brutal force, the Emperor, for political reasons, considered it more advisable to employ kindness. Lauding the extreme affability and leniency of Charles, Melanchthon wrote to Luther, January 25: “The Emperor greets our Prince very kindly; and I would that our people, in turn, were more complaisant towards him. I would ask you to admonish our Junior Prince by letter in this matter. The Emperor’s court has no one milder than himself. All others harbor a most cruel hatred against us. Caesar satis benigne salutat nostrum principem; ac velim vicissim nostros erga ipsum officiosiores esse. Ba de re utinam iwnorem principem nostrum litteris admonueris. Nihil ipso Caesare mitius habet ipsius aula. Reliqui omnes crudelissime nos oderunt.” (CO. R. 2, 125.)
The reading of the Augustana strengthened this friendly attitude of Charles. Both its content and its conciliatory tone, which was not at all in harmony with the picture of the Lutherans as sketched by Eck, caused him to be more kindly disposed toward Protestantism, and nourished his hope that religious peace might be attained by peaceable means. Other Catholic dignitaries and princes had been im- pressed in the same manner. July 6 Luther wrote to Hausmann: ‘Many bishops are in- clined to peace and despise the sophists, Eck and Faber. One bishop [Stadion of Augs- burg] is said to have declared in a private conversation, ‘This [the Confession of the Lutherans] is the pure truth, we cannot deny it. The Bishop of Mainz is being praised very much for his endeavors in the interest of peace. Likewise Duke Henry of Brunswick, who extended a friendly invita- tion to Philip to dine with him, and admitted that he was not able to disprove the articles treating of both kinds, the marriage of priests, and the distinction of meats. Our men boast that, of the entire Diet, no one is milder than the Emperor himself. Such is the beginning. The Emperor treats our Elector not only graciously, but most respectfully. So Philip writes. It is remarkable how all are aglow with love and good will toward the Emperor. It may happen, if God so wills, that, as the first Emperor [Charles at Worms] was very hostile, so this last Emperor [Charles at Augs- burg] will be very friendly. Only let us pray; for the power of prayer is clearly perceived.” (St. L. 16, 882.) The Emperor’s optimism was, no doubt, due to the fact that, unlike his theo- logians, he did not perceive and realize the
82 Historical Introductions to the Symbolical Books.
impassable gulf fixed between Lutheranism and the Papacy, as appeared also from the Augustana, in which, however, the Emperor mistook moderation of tone for surrender of substance.
41. Augustana Submitted to Catholic Party.
Full of hope the Emperor, on June 26, im- mediately after its public presentation, sub- mitted the Lutheran Confession to the Cath- olic estates for deliberation. These, too, though not in the least inclined to abandon their arrogant attitude, seem to have given themselves over to the delusion that the Lu- therans could now be brought to recede from their position. Accordingly, their answer (Responsum) of June 27, couched in concilia- tory language, recommended as “the humble opinion of the electors and estates that the Imperial Roman Majesty would submit this great and important matter to a number of highly learned, sensible, honest, conciliating, and not spiteful persons, to deliberate on, and to consider, the writing [the Augustana], as far as necessary, enumerating, on the one hand, whatsoever therein was found to be in conformity and harmony with the Gospel, God’s Word, and the holy Christian Church, but, on the other hand, refuting with the true foundation of the Gospel and the Holy Scrip- ture and its doctrine, and bringing into true Christian understanding, such matters as were found to be against, and out of harmony with, the Gospel, the Word of God, and the Chris- tian Church.” (Laemmer, 32.) They recom- mended, however, that in this entire matter Campegius be consulted, and for that purpose be furnished with a copy of the Lutheran Con- fession.
The Romanists furthermore resolved that the Lutherans be asked whether they had any. additional points to present, and, if so, to do this immediately. The Lutherans, consider- ing this a snare, declared, on July 10, that in their Confession they had made it a special point to present the chief articles whicheit is necessary to believe in order to be saved, but had not enumerated all abuses, desiring to emphasize such only as burdened the con- sciences, lest the paramount questions be ob- scured; that they would let this [all that was enumerated in their Confession] suffice, and have included other points of doctrine and abuses which were not mentioned; that they would not fail to give an answer from the Word of God in case their opponents should attack the Confession or present anything new. (Foerstemann, 2, 16. C.R. 2, 181.) No doubt, the Papists felt that the Lutherans really should have testified directly also against the Papacy, ete. This, too, was the interpretation which Luther put on the in- quiry of the Romanists. July 21, 1530, he wrote to Jonas: “But now I see what the questions aimed at whether you had other articles to present. For Satan still lives and has noticed very well that your Apology [Augustana] steps softly and has passed by the articles concerning purgatory, the adora-
tion of the saints, and especially Antichrist, the Pope.” (St. L. 16, 2323; Enders, 8, 133.)
July 5 the Emperor accepted the opinion of the estates and appointed the confutators. At the same time he declared with reference to the Lutherans that he “was the judge of the content of their writing’ (Augustana) ; that, in case they should not be satisfied with his verdict, the final decision must remain with the Council; but that meanwhile the
_ Edict of Worms. would be enforced every-
where. (Laemmer, ‘34; OC. R. 2, 175.) Thus the Emperor, in unmistakable terms, indi- cated that the Roman Confutation would bring his own final verdict, which no further discussions could modify, and that he would compel the Lutherans by force to observe the Edict of Worms if they refused to submit willingly. The Catholic estates endorsed the Emperor’s declaration, but added the petition that, after the Confutation had been read, the Lutherans be asked in all kindness to return, and that, in case this remained fruitless, an attempt be made to bring about an agreement to be reached by a committee appointed by both parties. Evidently, the estates as well as the Emperor expected the Lutherans to yield and surrender. Still, for the present, they were willing and preferred to attain this end by mild and gentle means.
42. Rabid Theologians Appointed as Confutators.
Campegius, to whom the entire matter was entrusted, manipulated things in such a man- ner that the result was the very opposite of what the Emperor and estates had resolved upon. To be sure, he made it appear as though he were entirely neutral, leaving everything to the discretion of the German princes. He knew also how to hide his real sentiments from the Lutherans. Jonas, for example, reports that in his address of June 24 Campegius had said “nothing harsh, or hateful (mhil acerbe, nihil odiose) against the Lutherans.” Spalatin reports: “Some one besought the Legate and Cardinal Cam- pegius to assist in obtaining peace for the cause of the Gospel. To this he responded: Since the papal power was suspicious to us, the matter rested with the Emperor and the German princes. Whatever they did would stand.” (Koellner, Symbolik, 403.) Thus Cam- pegius created the impression of absolute neu- trality, while in reality he was at the same time busy with secret intrigues against the Lutherans.
Among the Confutators (Brueck mentions 19, Spalatin 20, others 22, still others 24), selected by Campegius and appointed by the Emperor, were such rabid, abusive, and in- veterate enemies of Luther as Eck, Faber, Cochlaeus, Wimpina, Colli (author of a slan- derous tract against Luther’s marriage), Die- tenberger, etc. The first three are repeatedly designated as the true authors of the Confu- tation. In his Replica ad Bucerum, Bek boasts: “Of all the theologians at Augsburg I was chosen unanimously to prepare the answer to the Saxon Confession, and I obeyed.
V. The Pontifical Confutation of the Augsburg Confession. 33
Augustae ab omnibus theologis fui delectus unanimiter, qui responsum pararem contra confessionem Saxonicam, et parwi.’ (Koell- ner, 407.) July 10 Brenz wrote to Myconius: “Their leader (antesignanus) is that good man Eck. The rest are 23 in number. One might call them an Iliad [Homer’s Iliad con- sists of 24 books] of sophists.” (@. R. 2,.180.) Melanchthon, too, repeatedly designates Eck and Faber as the authors of the Confutation. July 14 he wrote to Luther: “With his leger- demain (commanipulatione) Eck presented to the Emperor the Confutation of our Confes- sion.” (193.) August 6: “This Confutation is the most nonsensical of all the nonsensical books of Faber.” (253.) August 8, to Myco- nius: “Eck and Faber have worked for six entire weeks in producing the Confutation of our Confession.” (260.) Hence also such allu- sions in Melanchthon’s letters as “confutatio Fabrilis,” ‘Fabriliter scripta,’ and in the Apology: “Nullus Faber Fabrilius cogitare quidquam posset, quam hae ineptiae excogi- tatae sunt ad eludendum ius naturae.” (366, 10.) Brueck was right when he said that some of the Confutaters were “purely partial, and altogether suspicious characters.” (Koellner, 411.)
43. Confutation Prepared.
The resolution which the Catholic estates passed June 27 was to the effect that the imperial answer to the Lutheran Confession be made “by sober and not spiteful men of learning.” The Emperor’s Prolog to the Con- futation, accordingly, designated the confu- tators as “certain learned, valiant, sensible, sober, and honorable men of many nations.” (C. R. 27,189.) At the same time they were told to couch their answer in winning, convinc- ing, moderate, and earnest terms. The im- perial instruction read: “To this end it is in- deed good and needful that said document [the Augustana] be carefully considered and dili- gently studied by learned, wise, and sober persons, in order that they [the Lutherans] be shown in all kindness (durch gute Wege) where they err, and be admonished to return to the good way; likewise, to grant them whatsoever may be serviceable and adapted to our holy Christian faith; and to set forth the errors, moderately and politely, with such good and holy arguments as the matter calls for;. to defend and prove everything with suitable evangelical declarations and admo- nitions, proceeding from Christian and neigh- borly love; and at the same time to mingle therewith earnestness and severity with such moderation as may be likely to win the five electors and princes, and not to destroy their hope or to harden them still more.” (Koell- ner, 403.)
However, inspired by Campegius and goaded on by blind hatred, the Confutators employed their commission for the purpose of casting suspicion on the Lutherans and inciting the Emperor against them. They disregarded the imperial admonition for moderation, and in- stead of an objective answer to the Augus- tana, they produced a long-winded pasquinade
Concordia Triglotta.
against Luther and the Evangelical preachers, a fit companion piece to the 404 theses of Eck, —a general accusation azainst the Protes- tants, a slanderous anthology of garbled quo- tations from Luther, Melanchthon, and other Evangelical preachers. The insinuation lurk- ing in the document everywhere was that the Confession of the Lutheran princes was in glaring contradiction to the real doctrine of their pastors. The sinister scheme of the Romanists, as the Elector in 1536 reminded the Lutheran theologians, was to bring the princes in opposition to their preachers. (C. R. 3,148.) The mildness and moderation of the Augustana, they openly declared, was nothing but subtle cunning of the smooth and wily Melanchthon, who sought to hide the true state of affairs. In a book which Coch- laeus published against the Apology in 1534, he said that the open attacks of Luther were far more tolerable than the serpentine cun- ning and hypocrisy of Melanchthon (instar draconis insidiantis fraudes intendens), as manifested in particular by his demeanor toward Campegius at Augsburg in 1530. (Laemmer, 56; Salig, 1, 376.) Thus the Roman Confutators disregarded their com- mission to refute the Augustana, and substi- tuted a caricature of Luther and his doctrines, designed to irritate the Emperor.
44. A Bulky, Scurrilous Document.
The Confutation, compiled by Eck and Faber from various contributions of the Confutators, was ready by the 8th of July, and was pre- sented to the Emperor on the 12th or 13th. The German translation was prepared by the Bavarian Chancellor, Leonhard von Eck. July 10 Brenz had written: “It is reported that they are preparing wagonloads of com- mentaries against our Confession.” (C. R. 2, 180.) Spalatin reports that the Confuta- tors delivered to the Emperor “a pile of books against Doctor Martin with most scurrilous titles.” The chief document was entitled: “Catholic and, as it were, Extemporaneous Response concerning Certain Articles Pre- sented in These Days at the Diet to the Im- perial Majesty by the Illustrious Elector of Saxony and Certain Other Princes as well as Two Cities. Catholica et quasi extemporanea Responsio super nonnullis articulis Caesareae Maiestati hisce diebus in dieta imperiali Augustensi per Illustrem Blectorem Saxomae et alios quosdam Principes et duas Oiwitates oblatis.” It was supplemented by nine other treatises on all manner of alleged contradic- tions and heresies of Luther and Anabaptistic as well as other fruits of his teaching. (Laem- mer, 37; OC. R. 2,197.) The pasquinade with its supplements comprised no less than 351 folios, 280 of which were devoted to the an- swer proper. Cochlaeus also designates it as “very severe and extended, acrior extensior- que.” July 14 Melanchthon reported he had heard from friends that the Confutation was “Jong and filled with scurrilities.” (193. 218.) July 15: “I am sending you [Luther] a list of the treatises which our opponents have pre- sented to the Emperor, from which you will
c
84 Historical Introductions to the Symbolical Books.
see that the Confutation is supplemented by antilogs and other treatises in order to stir up against us the most gentle heart of the Emperor. Such are the stratagems these slanderers (sycophantae) devise.” (197.)
The effect of the Confutation on the Em- peror, however, was not at all what its authors desired and anticipated. Disgusted with the miserable bulky botch, the Emperor convened the estates on July 15, and they resolved to return the bungling document to the theo- logians for revision. Tone, method, plan, everything displeased the Emperor and estates to such an extent that they expunged almost one-third of it. Intentionally they ignored the nine supplements, and demanded that re- flections on Luther be eliminated from the document entirely; moreover, that the theo- logians confine themselves to a refutation of the Augustana. (Laemmer, 39.) Cochlaeus writes: “Since the Catholic princes all de- sired peace and concord, they deemed it neces- sary to answer in a milder tone, and to omit all reference to what the [Lutheran] preachers had formerly taught and written otherwise than their Confession stated.” (Koellner, 405.) In a letter to Brueck he declared that such coarse extracts and articles [with which the first draft of the Confutation charged Luther] should not be mentioned in the reply to the Confession, lest any one be put to shame or defamed publicly. (Laemmer, 39.) -
In his Annals, Spalatin reports: “At first there were perhaps 280 folios. But His Im- perial Majesty is said to have weeded out many folios and condensed the Confutation to such an extent that not more than twelve folios remained. This is said to have hurt and angered Eck severely.” (St. L. 2la, 1539.) In a letter to Veit Dietrich, dated July 30, Melanchthon remarks sarcastically: “Recently Eck complained to one of his friends that the Emperor had deleted almest the third part of his treatise; and I suspect that the chief ornaments of the book were rooted out, that is, the glaring lies and the most stupid tricks, insignia mendacia et sycophantiae stolidissi- mae.” (C. R. 2, 241.) Brenz regarded this as an evidence of the extent to which the Augus- tana had perturbed the opponents, leaving them utterly helpless. July 15 he wrote to Isemann: “Meanwhile nothing new has taken place in our midst, except that I heard that the confession of the sophists was to-day re- turned by the Emperor to its authors, the sophists, and this for the reason that it was so confused, jumbled, vehement, bloodthirsty, and cruel (confusa, incondita, violenta, sangui- nolenta et crudelis) that he was ashamed to have it read before the Imperial Senate. ... We experience daily that we have so bewil- dered, stunned, and confused them that they know not where to begin or to end.” (198.) “Pussyfooting (Leisetreten) !” — such was the slogan at Augsburg; and in this Melanchthon was nowhere equaled. Privately also Coch- laeus elaborated a milder answer to the Lu- theran Confession. But even the friends who had induced him to undertake this task con- sidered his effort too harsh to be presented to the Emperor.
The first, rejected draft of the Confutation has been lost, with the sole exception of the second article, preserved by Cochlaeus. On the difference between this draft and the one finally adopted, Plitt comments as follows: “The Confutation as read simply adopted the first article of the Confession [Augustana] as in complete agreement with the Roman Church. The original draft also approved this article’s appeal to the Council of Nicaea, but added that now the Emperor should ad- monish the confessing estates to accept every- thing else taught by the Catholic Church, even though it was not verbally contained in the Scriptures, as, for example, the Mass, Quad- ragesimal fasting, the invocation of the saints, etc.; for the wording of the doctrine of the Trinity could be found in the Scrip- tures just as little as that of the points men- tioned; furthermore, that he also call upon them to acknowledge said Synod of Nicaea in all its parts, hence also to retain the hier- archical degrees with their powers; that he admonish them to compel their preachers and teachers to retract everything which they had said and written against that Synod, es- pecially Luther and Melanchthon, its public defamers. Refusal of such retraction would invalidate their appeal to that Synod and prove it to be nothing but a means of decep- tion. Finally, they were to be admonished, not to believe their teachers in anything which was against the declarations of the Church catholic. Such was the form in which the first draft of the Confutation was couched. Everywhere the tendency was apparent to magnify the differences, make invidious in- ferences, cast suspicion on their opponents, and place them in a bad light with the Em- peror and the majority. This was not the case in the answer which was finally read.” (37.)
45. Confutation Adopted and Read.
Only after repeated revisions, in which Campegius and the imperial counselors Val- dés and Granvella took part, was an agree- ment reached regarding the form of the Con- futation. July 30 the Emperor received the fourth revision, and on August 1 he presented it to the bishops, princes, and estates for their opinion. There still remained offensive pas- sages which had to be eliminated. A fifth re- vision was necessary before the approval of the Emperor and the estates was forthcoming. A Prolog and an Epilog were added, according to which the Confutation is drawn up in the name of the Emperor. Thus the original volume was boiled down to a comparatively small document. But, to speak with Kolde, even in its final form the Confutation is “still rather an accusation against the Evangelicals, and an effort to retain all the medieval church customs, than a refutation of the Augus- tana.” (34.) August 6 Jonas wrote to Lu- ther: “The chaplain [John Henkel] of Queen Maria informed us that they had five times changed their Confutation, casting and recast- ing, minting and reminting it, and still there finally was produced nothing but an uncouth and confused conglomeration and a hodge-
V. The Pontifical Confutation of the Augsburg Confession. 85
podge, as when a cook pours different soups into one pot. At first they patched together an enormous volume, as Faber is known to be a verbose compiler; the book grew by reason of the multitude of its lies and scurrilities. However, at the first revision the Emperor eliminated the third part of the book, so that barely twelve. or sixteen folios remained, which were read.” (St. L. 21a, 1539.)
On August 3, 1530, in the same hall in which the Augsburg Confession had been sub- mitted thirty-eight days before, in the pres- ence of all the estates of the empire, the Augustanae Confessionis Responsio, immedi- ately called Confutatio Pontificia by the Prot- estants, was read in the German language by Alexander Schweiss, the Imperial Secretary. However, the reading, too, proved to be a dis- creditable affair. Owing to the great haste in which the German copy had been prepared, an entire portion had been omitted; the result was that the conclusion of Article 24 as well as Articles 25 and 26 were not presented. Furthermore, Schweiss, overlooking the lines of erasure, read a part which had been stricken, containing a very bold deliverance on the sacrifice of the Mass, in which they labored to prove from the Hebrew, Greek, and Latin that the word facite in the institution of the Sacrament was synonymous with “sac- rifice.” (Kolde, 34.) August 6, 1530, Jonas wrote to Luther: The opponents presented their Confutation to the Emperor on July 30, and on the 3d of August it was read in the presence of the Emperor and the estates, to- gether with a Prolog and an Epilog of the Emperor. “The reading also consumed two entire hours, but with an incredible aversion, weariness, and disgust on the part of some of the more sensible hearers, who complained that they were almost driven out by this utterly cold, threadbare songlet (cantilena) , being extremely chagrined that the ears of the Emperor should be molested with such a lengthy array of worthless things masquer- ading under the name of Catholic doctrines.” (St. L. 21a, 1539.) August 4 Brenz wrote to Isemann: “The Emperor maintains neutrality ; for he slept both when the Augustana and when the Confutation was read. Imperator neutralem sese gerit; nam cum nostra con- fessio legeretur obdormivit; rursus cum ad- versariorum responsio legeretur, iterwm ob- dormivit in media negotwi actione.” (C. hk. 2, 245.)
The Confutation was neither published, nor was a copy of it delivered to the Lutherans. Apparently the Romanists, notably the Em- peror and the estates, were ashamed of the document. True, Cochlaeus reports that toward the close of the Diet Charles author- ized him and Eck to publish it, but that this was not done, because Duke George and the Emperor left Augsburg shortly after, and the printer also moved away. (Koellner, 414.) All subsequent pleading and imploring, how- ever, on the part of Eck and others, to in- duce the Emperor to publish the Confutation fell on deaf ears. Evidently Charles no longer took any interest in a document that had so shamefully shattered his fond ambition
of reconciling the religious parties. What appeared in print, early in 1531, was merely an extract prepared by Cochlaeus, entitled, Summary of the Imperial Answer, etc. The first Latin edition of the Confutation ap- peared as late as 1573; the first German edition, in 1808. All previous German im- pressions (also the edition of 1584) are trans- lations of the Latin edition of 1573. (C. R. 27, 25.82.) Concerning the German text of the Confutation Kolde remarks: “Since changes were made even after it had been read, we have even less definite knowledge, respecting details, as to what was read than in the case of the Augustana.” (35.) One may therefore also speak of a Confutatio Variata. The’ doc- trine of the Confutation does not differ essen- tially from that which was later on affirmed by the Council of Trent (1545—1563). How- ever, says Kolde, “being written by the Ger- man leaders of the Catholic party under the eye of the Papal Legate, and approved by the Emperor, the German bishops, and the Roman- minded princes, it [the Confutation] must be reckoned among the historically most im- portant documents of the Roman Catholic faith of that day.”
46. Confutation Denounced by Lutherans.