F. Bente - Historical Introductions. V. Papal Confutation of the Augsburg Confession

V. The Pontifical Confutation of the Augsburg Confession.

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 Confession, 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 Lutherans

declared: "In obedience to Your Imperial Majesty's wishes, we offer, in

this matter 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, according to

the said imperial 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

concerning all possible ways and means, in order that we may come

together, as far as this may be honorably done, and, the matter between

us on both sides being peacefully discussed 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. 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 contravention of the manifesto was attributed by the Lutherans

to the sinister influence of such bitter, baiting, and unscrupulous

theologians as Eck, 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, however, 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 summoned 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 convicted 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 Emperor than to attend to his office as

warden and protector of the Church, and, together with the princes and

estates, to proceed 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 accusers, judges, and henchmen of the

Lutherans. Nor was anything else to be expected, 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 report

on the prolonged discussions at Augsburg: "Thus the time was wasted with

vain discussions." (Plitt, _Apologie,_ 43.)

37. 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: _"Quid

sperem de Caesare, quantumvis optimo, sed obsesso?_ What can I hope of

the Emperor, even the best, when he is obsessed" [by the papal

theologians]? The most Luther hoped for was mutual political toleration.

In the letter quoted he continues: "But they [the Papists] must expect a

sad, and we a happy issue. Not indeed, that there ever will be unity of

doctrine; 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 however, 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 Confutation] with their

croakings [_coaxitatibus_ = pasquinades against Luther, instead of

answers to the Augustana] have free access [to the Emperor] chagrins me

very much in this great work in the most important matters. ... 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 discussed, 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 doctrine or not, permitting them

to remain what they are, only inquiring whether they acknowledge our

doctrine to be correct or condemn it. If they condemn it, what does it

avail to discuss the question of unity any longer with avowed enemies?

If they acknowledge it to be right, what necessity is there of retaining

the old abuses?" (16, 1404.)

Though willing to yield to the Catholic party in all 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.

According to Luther, everybody, Pope and Emperor 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 purpose 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 accept 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 opposition

to God's Word." (16, 815.)

38. Papal Peace Sought by Emperor.

By their obstinate refusal to regard themselves as a party summoned, the

Romanists from the outset, made it impossible for the Emperor to

maintain the role of an impartial judge, which, probably, he had never

really intended to be. At any rate, though earnestly 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 made by the Lutherans. _Revoca!_--that was

the first and only word which Rome had hitherto spoken to Luther.

"Revoke and submit yourselves!"--that, in the last analysis, was also

the demand of the Emperor at Augsburg with respect to the Lutheran

princes, both when he spoke in tones friendly and gentle and when he

uttered severe and threatening words. Charles, it is true, desired

peace, but a Roman peace, a peace effected by universal blind submission

to the Pope; not a peace by mutual understanding and concessions; least

of all a peace by political religious 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 Lutherans

into submission and obedience to the Pope, that was the real object of

the Emperor. 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, encouraged, and prodded on

by the papal theologians. To bring about a religious peace, such as the

Emperor contemplated, this, they flattered Charles, would be an

ever-memorable achievement, truly worthy of the Emperor: 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, concerning the return of Christian II to the Roman Church,

the disagreement between Philip of Hesse and the Elector, etc.] had been

read at to-day's Consistorial Meeting, almost all the cardinals said

that Your Majesty was the angel sent from heaven to restore Christendom.

God knows how much I rejoiced, and although the sun burned fiercely when

I returned 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." (II. 67.)

39. Compulsion Advocated by Theologians.

All Romanists, the Emperor included, were of the opinion that the

Protestants must be brought back to the papal fold. But they differed

somewhat as to the means of accomplishing this purpose. Some demanded

that force be resorted to forthwith, while others counseled that

leniency be tried first. Campegius advised kindness at the beginning,

and greater severity only in dealing with certain individuals, but that

sharper measures and, finally, force of arms ought to follow. At Rome

force was viewed as the "true rhubarb" 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 publish your imperial edicts and Christian

admonitions. 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 Germany'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 Confession was read. They all considered it their

prime duty to rouse the passions of the Emperor, as well as of the

Catholic princes and estates, and to incite them against the Lutherans.

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 Confession, rebuked Eck, in the presence of the

Elector 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, deception 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 deceive the Emperor: "astute

occultari in illorum Confessione prava eorum dogmata, de quibus ibi

tacendo dissimulabant, ut in hypocrisi loquentes Maiestati Tuae aliisque

principibus imponerent." (Laemmer, _Vortridentinische 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 approach toward the

Lutherans would jeopardize the _pax Pontificia._

The fanaticism of the papal theologians is frequently referred to by the

Lutherans. June 26 Melanchthon wrote to Luther: "Sophists 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 been sufficiently aroused. Eck vehemently 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 Melanchthon was

deliberating]. I heard them say, distinctly enough, I believe, that the

opponents are merely deliberating upon how to suppress us by force."

(175.) July 15: "Repeatedly 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 implacable theologians also succeeded in

fanaticizing some of the princes and bishops, who gradually became more

and more opposed to any kind of settlement by mutual understanding.

(175.)

The chief exponent of force was Cochlaeus. In his _Expostulatio,_ which

appeared at Augsburg 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 Scriptures, heretics might, aye,

must be punished with death. The treatise concludes as follows: "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. _Constat

igitur, haereticos pertinaces omni iure interimi posse. Nos tamen longe

magis optamus et precamur, ut redeuntes ad ecclesiam convertantur,

sanentur et vivant._" (Plitt, 1, 5.)

Naturally Eck, too, was prominent among those who counseled the

employment of compulsory 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 demanded. (Plitt, 63.) Luther wrote: "For that shameless gab and

bloodthirsty sophist, Doctor Eck, one of their chief advisers, publicly

declared in the presence of our people that if the Emperor had followed

the resolution 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, incited 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. Ea

de re utinam iuniorem principem nostrum litteris admonueris. Nihil ipso

Caesare mitius habet ipsius aula. Reliquii omnes crudelissime nos

oderunt_." (_C. 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 impressed in the

same manner. July 6 Luther wrote to Hausmann: "Many bishops are inclined

to peace and despise the sophists, Eck and Faber. One bishop [Stadion of

Augsburg] 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 invitation 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 Augsburg] 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

theologians, he did not perceive and realize the 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, immediately after its public

presentation, submitted the Lutheran Confession to the Catholic 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 Lutherans could now be brought to recede from

their position. Accordingly, their answer (Responsum) of June 27,

couched in conciliatory 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 Scripture 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 Christian Church."

(Laemmer, 32.) They recommended, however, that in this entire matter

Campegius be consulted, and for that purpose be furnished with a copy of

the Lutheran Confession.

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, considering this a snare, declared, on July

10, that in their Confession they had made it a special point to present

the chief articles which it is necessary to believe in order to be

saved, but had not enumerated all abuses, desiring to emphasize such

only as burdened the consciences, lest the paramount questions be

obscured; 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, etc. This, too, was the

interpretation which Luther put on the inquiry 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 adoration 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 everywhere. (Laemmer, 34;

_C. R._ 2, 175.) Thus the Emperor, in unmistakable terms, indicated 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 manner 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 (_nihil acerbe, nihil

odiose_) against the Lutherans. Spalatin reports: "Some one besought the

Legate and Cardinal Campegius 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 Campegius created the impression of absolute neutrality 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 inveterate enemies of Luther as Eck, Faber,

Cochlaeus, Wimpina, Colli (author of a slanderous tract against Luther's

marriage), Dietenberger etc. The first three are repeatedly designated

as the true authors of the Confutation. In his _Replica ad Bucerum,_ Eck

boasts: "Of all the theologians at Augsburg I was chosen unanimously to

prepare the answer to the Saxon Confession, and I obeyed. _Augustae ab

omnibus theologis fui delectus unanimiter, qui responsum pararem contra

confessionem Saxonicam, et parui._" (Koellner, 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

consists of 24 books] of sophists." (_C. R._ 2, 180.) Melanchthon, too,

repeatedly designates Eck and Faber as the authors of the Confutation.

July 14 he wrote to Luther: "With his legerdemain (_commanipulatione_)

Eck presented to the Emperor the Confutation of our Confession." (193.)

August 6: "This Confutation is the most nonsensical of all the

nonsensical books of Faber." (253.) August 8, to Myconius: "Eck and

Faber have worked for six entire weeks in producing the Confutation of

our Confession." (260.) Hence also such allusions in Melanchthon's

letters as "confutatio Fabrilis," "Fabriliter scripta," and in the

Apology: "Nullus Faber Fabrilius cogitare quidquam posset, quam hae

ineptiae excogitatae sunt ad eludendum ius naturae." (366, 10.) Brueck

was right when he said that some of the Confutators 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

Confutation, accordingly, designated the confutators 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, convincing, moderate, and earnest terms. The imperial

instruction read: "To this end it is indeed good and needful that said

document [the Augustana] be carefully considered and diligently 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 admonitions, proceeding from

Christian and neighborly 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." (Koellner, 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 instead of an

objective answer to the Augustana, they produced a long-winded

pasquinade against Luther and the Evangelical preachers, a fit companion

piece to the 404 theses of Eck--a general accusation against the

Protestants, a slanderous anthology of garbled quotations from Luther,

Melanchthon, and other Evangelical preachers. The insinuation lurking 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 Cochlaeus published against the Apology in 1534

he said that the open attacks of Luther were far more tolerable than the

serpentine cunning 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 commission to refute

the Augustana, and substituted 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 presented 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 commentaries against our

Confession." (_C. R._ 2, 180.) Spalatin reports that the Confutators

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

Presented in These Days at the Diet to the Imperial 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 Electorem Saxoniae et alios quosdam Principes et duas

Civitates oblatis._" It was supplemented by nine other treatises on all

manner of alleged contradictions and heresies of Luther and Anabaptistic

as well as other fruits of his teaching. (Laemmer, 37, _C. R._ 2, 197.)

The pasquinade with its supplements comprised no less than 351 folios,

280 of which were devoted to the answer proper. Cochlaeus also

designates it as "very severe and extended, _acrior extensiorque._" July

14 Melanchthon reported he had heard from friends that the Confutation

was "long and filled with scurrilities." (193. 218.) July 15: "I am

sending you [Luther] a list of the treatises which our opponents have

presented to the Emperor, from which you will 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 Emperor, 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 theologians 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

reflections on Luther be eliminated from the document entirely;

moreover, that the theologians confine themselves to a refutation of the

Augustana. (Laemmer, 39.) Cochlaeus writes: "Since the Catholic princes

all desired peace and concord, they deemed it necessary 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, 406.) 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 Imperial 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. 21a, 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 almost 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 stolidissimae._" (_C. R._ 2, 241.) Brenz

regarded this as an evidence of the extent to which the Augustana 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 returned by

the Emperor to its authors, the sophists, and this for the reason that

it was so confused, jumbled, vehement, bloodthirsty, and cruel

(_confusa, incordita, violenta, sanguinolenta et crudelis_) that he was

ashamed to have it read before the Imperial Senate.... We experience

daily that we have so bewildered, 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 Cochlaeus elaborated a

milder answer to the Lutheran Confession. But even the friends who had

induced him to undertake this task considered 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 admonish

the confessing estates to accept everything else taught by the Catholic

Church, even though it was not verbally contained in the Scriptures, as,

for example, the Mass, Quadragesimal fasting, the invocation of the

saints, etc.; for the wording of the doctrine of the Trinity could be

found in the Scriptures just as little as that of the points mentioned,

furthermore, that he also call upon them to acknowledge said Synod of

Nicaea in all its parts, hence also to retain the hierarchical 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, especially 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 deception. 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

inferences, cast suspicion on their opponents, and place them in a bad

light with the Emperor 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 Valdes and Granvella took part was an agreement reached

regarding the form of the Confutation. 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 passages

which had to be eliminated. A fifth revision 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 Augustana." (34.) August 6 Jonas wrote to

Luther: "The chaplain [John Henkel] of Queen Maria informed us that they

had five times changed their Confutation, casting and recasting, minting

and reminting it, and still there finally was produced nothing but an

uncouth and confused conglomeration and a hodgepodge, 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 submitted thirty-eight days before, in the presence of all the

estates of the empire, the Augustanae Confessionis Responsio,

immediately called Confutatio Pontificia by the Protestants, was read in

the German language by Alexander Schweiss, the Imperial Secretary.

However, the reading, too, proved to be a discreditable 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 "sacrifice." (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, together 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 masquerading 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 confessio legeretur obdormivit; rursus cum

adversariorum responsio legeretur, iterum obdormivit in media negotii

actione_." (_C. R._ 2, 245.)

The Confutation was neither published, nor was a copy of it delivered to

the Lutherans. Apparently the Romanists, notably the Emperor and the

estates, were ashamed of the document. True, Cochlaeus reports that

toward the close of the Diet Charles authorized 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, however, on the part of Eck

and others, to induce 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 appeared as

late as 1573; the first German edition, in 1808. All previous German

impressions (also the edition of 1584) are translations 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 doctrine of the

Confutation does not differ essentially from that which was later on

affirmed by the Council of Trent (1545-1563). However, says Kolde,

"being written by the German 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 important documents of the Roman Catholic

faith of that day."

46. Confutation Denounced by Lutherans.

In the opinion of the Lutherans, the final draft of the Confutation,

too, was a miserable makeshift. True, its tone was moderate, and, with

few exceptions, personal defamations were omitted. The arrangement of

subjects was essentially the same as in the Augustana. Still it was not

what it pretended to be. It was no serious attempt at refuting the

Lutheran Confession, but rather an accumulation of Bible-texts,

arbitrarily expounded, in support of false doctrines and scholastic

theories. These efforts led to exegetical feats that made the

Confutators butts of scorn and derision. At any rate, the Lutherans

were charged with having failed, at the public reading, to control their

risibilities sufficiently. Cochlaeus complains: "During the reading many

of the Lutherans indulged in unseemly laughter. _Quando recitata fuit,

multi e Lutheranis inepte cachinnabantur._" (Koellner, 411.) If this did

not actually occur, it was not because the Confutators had given them no

cause for hilarity.

"Altogether childish and silly"--such is Melanchthon's verdict on many

of their exegetical pranks. August 6 he wrote letter after letter to

Luther, expressing his contempt for the document. "After hearing that

Confutation," says Melanchthon, "all good people seem to have been more

firmly established on our part, and the opponents, if there be among

them some who are more reasonable, are said to be disgusted

(_stomachari_) that such absurdities were forced upon the Emperor, the

best of princes." (_C. R._ 2, 252.) Again: Although the Emperor's

verdict was very stern and terrible, "still, the Confutation being a

composition so very puerile, a most remarkable congratulation followed

its reading. No book of Faber's is so childish but that this Confutation

is still more childish." (253.) In another letter he remarked that,

according to the Confutation, in which the doctrine of justification by

faith was rejected, "the opponents had no knowledge of religion

whatever." (253.)

August 4 Brenz wrote to Isemann: "All things were written in the fashion

of Cochlaeus, Faber, and Eck. Truly a most stupid comment, so that I am

ashamed of the Roman name, because in their whole Church they can find

no men able to answer us heretics at least in a manner wise and

accomplished. _Sed omnia conscripta erant Cochleice et Fabriliter et

Eccianice. Commentum sane stupidissimum, ut pudeat me Romani nominis,

quod in sua religione non conquirant viros, qui saltem prudenter et

ornate nobis haereticis responderent._" (245.) August 15 Luther

answered: "We received all of your letters, and I praise God that he

made the Confutation of the adversaries so awkward and foolish a thing.

However, courage to the end! _Verum frisch hindurch!_" (Enders, 8, 190.)

47. Luther on the Confutation.

Derision increased when the Papists declined to publish the Confutation,

or even to deliver a copy of it to the Lutherans for further inspection.

This refusal was universally interpreted as an admission, on the part of

the Romanists, of a guilty conscience and of being ashamed themselves of

the document. In his _Warning to My Beloved Germans,_ which appeared

early in 1531, Luther wrote as follows: "But I am quite ready to believe

that extraordinary wisdom prompted them [the Papists at Augsburg] to

keep this rebuttal of theirs and that splendid booklet [Confutation] to

themselves, because their own conscience tells them very plainly that it

is a corrupt, wicked, and frigid thing, of which they would have to be

ashamed if it were published and suffered itself to be seen in the light

or to endure an answer. For I very well know these highly learned

doctors who have cooked and brewed over it for six weeks, though with

the ignorant they may be able to give the matter a good semblance. But

when it is put on paper, it has neither hands nor feet, but lies there

in a disorderly mass, as if a drunkard had spewed it up, as may be seen,

in particular, in the writings of Doctor Schmid and Doctor Eck. For

there is neither rhyme nor rhythm in whatsoever they are compelled to

put into writing. Hence they are more sedulous to shout and prattle.

Thus I have also learned that when our Confession was read, many of our

opponents were astonished and confessed that it was the pure truth,

which they could not refute from the Scriptures. On the other hand, when

their rebuttal was read, they hung their heads, and showed by their

gestures that they considered it a mean and useless makeshift as

compared with our Confession. Our people, however, and many other pious

hearts were greatly delighted and mightily strengthened when they heard

that with all the strength and art which our opponents were then called

upon to display, they were capable of producing nothing but this flimsy

rebuttal, which now, praise God! a woman, a child, a layman, a peasant

are fully able to refute with good arguments taken from the Scriptures,

the Word of Truth. And that is also the true and ultimate reason why

they refused to deliver [to the Lutherans a copy of] their refutation.

Those fugitive evil consciences were filled with horror at themselves,

and dared not await the answer of Truth. And it is quite evident that

they were confident, and that they had the Diet called together in the

conviction that our people would never have the boldness to appear, but

if the Emperor should only be brought to Germany in person, every one

would be frightened and say to them: Mercy, dear lords, what would you

have us do? When they were disappointed in this, and the Elector of

Saxony was the very first to appear on the scene, good Lord, how their

breeches began to--! How all their confidence was confounded! What

gathering together, secret consultations, and whisperings resulted! ...

The final sum and substance of it all was to devise ways and means

(since our men were the first joyously and cheerfully to appear) how to

keep them from being heard [block the reading of the Augustana]. When

also this scheme of theirs was defeated, they finally succeeded in

gaining the glory that they did not dare to hand over their futile

rebuttal nor to give us an opportunity to reply to it! ... But some one

might say: The Emperor was willing to deliver the answer to our party

provided they would promise not to have it published nor its contents

divulged. That is true, for such a pledge was expected of our men. Here,

however, every one may grasp and feel (even though he is able neither to

see nor hear) what manner of people they are who will not and dare not

permit their matter to come to the light. If it is so precious a thing

and so well founded in the Scriptures as they bellow and boast, why,

then, does it shun the light? What benefit can there be in hiding from

us and every one else such public matters as must nevertheless be taught

and held among them? But if it is unfounded and futile, why, then, did

they in the first resolution [of the Diet], have the Elector of

Brandenburg proclaim and publish in writing that our Confession had been

refuted [by the Confutation] with the Scriptures and stanch arguments?

If that were true, and if their own consciences did not give them the

lie, they would not merely have allowed such precious and well-founded

Refutation to be read, but would have furnished us with a written copy,

saying: There you have it, we defy any one to answer it! as we did and

still do with our Confession. ... What the Elector of Brandenburg said

in the resolution [read at the Diet], that our Confession was refuted

with the Scriptures and with sound arguments, is not the truth, but a

lie. ... For this well-founded refutation [Confutation] has as yet not

come to light, but is perhaps sleeping with the old Tannhaeuser on Mount

Venus (_Venusberg_)." (St. L. 15, 1635.)

ps:�>:�p �� �߇ 7.4pt 183.2pt 229.0pt 274.8pt 320.6pt 366.4pt 412.2pt 458.0pt 503.8pt 549.6pt 595.4pt 641.2pt 687.0pt 732.8pt'>The Confutators, however, the avowed enemies of truth and peace, were

spared no longer. Upon them Melanchthon now pours out the lye of bitter

scorn. He excoriates them as "desperate sophists, who maliciously

interpret the holy Gospel according to their dreams," and as "coarse,

sluggish, inexperienced theologians." He denounces them as men "who for

the greater part do not know whereof they speak," and "who dare to

destroy this doctrine of faith with fire and sword," etc. Occasionally

Melanchthon even loses his dignified composure. Article 6 we read: "Quis

docuit illos asinos hanc dialecticam?" Article 9: "Videant isti asini."

In his book of 1534 against the Apology, Cochlaeus complains that the

youthful Melanchthon called old priests asses, sycophants, windbags,

godless sophists, worthless hypocrites, etc. In the margin he had

written: "Fierce and vicious he is, a barking dog toward those who are

absent, but to those who were present at Augsburg, Philip was more

gentle than a pup. _Ferox et mordax est, latrator in absentes,

praesentes erat Augustae omni catello blandior Philippus_." (Salig, 1,

377.)

On this score, however, Cochlaeus and his papal compeers had no reason

to complain, for they had proved to be past masters in vilifying and

slandering the Lutherans, as well as implacable enemies, satisfied with

nothing short of their blood and utter destruction. As a sample of their

scurrility W. Walther quotes the following from a book written by Duke

George of Saxony: "Er [Luther] ist gewiss mit dem Teufel besessen, mit

der ganzen Legion, welche Christus von den Besessenen austrieb und

erlaubte ihnen, in die Schweine zu fahren. Diese Legion hat dem Luther

seinen Moenchschaedel hirnwuetig und wirbelsuechtig gemacht. Du

unruhiger, treuloser und meineidiger Kuttenbube! Du bist allein der

groesste, groebste Esel und Narr, du verfluchter Apostat! Hieraus kann

maenniglich abnehmen die Verraeterei und Falschheit deines

blutduerstigen Herzens, rachgierigen Gemuets und teuflischen Willens, so

du, Luther, gegen deinen Naechsten tobend, als ein toerichter Hund mit

offenem Maul ohne Unterlass wagest. Du treuloser Bube und teuflischer

Moench! Du deklarierter Mameluck and verdammter Zwiedarm, deren neun

einen Pickharden gelten. Ich sage vornehmlich, dass du selbst der aller

unverstaendigste Bacchant und zehneckichte Cornut und Bestia bist. Du

meineidiger, treuloser und ehrenblosser Fleischboesewicht! Pfui dich

nun, du sakrilegischer, der ausgelaufenen Moenche und Nonnen, der

abfaelligen Pfaffen und aller Abtruennigen Hurenwirt! Ei, Doktor

Schandluther! Mein Doktor Erzesel, ich will dir's prophezeit haben, der

allmaechtige Gott wird dir kuerzlich die Schanze brechen und deiner

boshaftigsten, groebsten Eselheit Feierabend geben. Du Sauboze, Doktor

Sautrog! Doktor Eselsohr! Doktor Filzhut! Zweiundsiebzig Teufel sollen

dich lebendig in den Abgrund der Hoelle fuehren. Ich will machen, dass

du als ein Hoellenhund sollst Feuer ausspruehen und dich endlich selbst

verbrennen. Ich will dich dem wuetenigen Teufel und seiner Hurenmutter

mit einem blutigen Kopf in den Abgrund der Hoelle schicken." (_Luthers

Charakter,_ 148.)

Despite the occasional asperity referred to, the Apology, as a whole, is

written with modesty and moderation. Melanchthon sought to keep the

track as clear as possible for a future understanding. In the interest

of unity, which he never lost sight of entirely, he was conservative and

not disposed needlessly to widen the existing gulf. In the Preface to

the Apology he declares: "It has always been my custom in these

controversies to retain, so far as I was at all able, the form of the

customarily received doctrine, in order that at some time concord could

be reached the more readily. Nor, indeed, am I now departing far from

this custom, although I could justly lead away the men of this age still

farther from the opinions of the adversaries." (101.) This irenic

feature is perhaps most prominent in the 10th Article, Of the Lord's

Supper, where Melanchthon, in order to satisfy the opponents as to the

orthodoxy of the Lutherans in the doctrine of the Real Presence,

emphasizes the agreement in such a manner that he has been misunderstood

as endorsing also the Romish doctrine of Transubstantiation.

60. Symbolical Authority of Apology.

The great importance ascribed to the Apology appears both from its

numerous reprints and the strenuous endeavors of the opponents to oppose

it with books, which, however, no one was willing to print. The

reception accorded it by the Lutherans is described in a letter which

Lazarus Spengler sent to Veit Dietrich May 17: "We have received the

Apology with the greatest joy and in good hope that it will be

productive of much profit among our posterity." Brenz declares it worthy

of the canon [worthy of symbolical authority]: "Apologiam, me iudice,

canone dignam" (_C. R._ 2, 510), a phrase which Luther had previously

applied to Melanchthon's _Loci._ The joy of the Lutherans was equaled

only by the consternation of their enemies. The appearance of the

Apology surprised and perturbed them. They keenly felt that they were

again discredited in the public opinion and had been outwitted by the

Lutherans. On November 19 Albert of Mayence sent a copy of the Apology

to the Emperor in order to show him how the Catholic religion was being

destroyed while the Confutation remained unpublished. Cochlaeus

complained that to judge from letters received, the Apology found

approval even in Rome, whereas no printer could be found for Catholic

replies to the Apology. He wrote: "Meantime, while we keep silence, they

flaunt the Apology and other writings, and not only insult us, but cause

our people and cities to doubt and to grow unstable in the faith."

(Kolde, 40.)

The Apology, as revised and published by Melanchthon, was a private

work. His name, therefore, appeared on the title-page of the edition of

1531, which was not the case with respect to the Confession and Apology

presented at Augsburg. The latter were official documents, drawn up by

order of the Lutheran princes and estates, while the revised Apology was

an undertaking for which Melanchthon had received no commission.

Accordingly, as he was not justified in publishing a work of his own

under the name of the princes, there was nothing else for him to do than

to affix his own signature. In the Preface to the Apology he says: "As

it passed through the press, I made some additions. Therefore I give my

name, so that no one can complain that the book has been published

anonymously." (100.) Melanchthon did not wish to make any one beside

himself responsible for the contents of the revised Apology.

Before long, however, the Apology received official recognition. At

Schweinfurt, 1532, in opposition to the Papists, the Lutherans appealed

to the Augustana and Apology as the confession of their faith,

designating the latter as "the defense and explanation of the

Confession." And when the Papists advanced the claim that the Lutherans

had gone farther in the Apology than in the Augustana, and, April 11,

1532, demanded that they abide by the Augustana, refrain from making the

Apology their confession, and accordingly substitute "Assertion" for the

title "Apology," the Lutherans, considering the Apology to be the

adequate expression of their faith, insisted on the original title.

April 17 they declared: "This book was called Apology because it was

presented to Caesar after the Confession; nor could they suffer its

doctrine and the Word of God to be bound and limited, or their preachers

restricted to teach nothing else than the letter of the Augsburg

Confession, thus making it impossible for them to rebuke freely and most

fully all doctrinal errors, abuses, sins, and crimes. _Nominatum fuisse

Apologiam scriptum illud, quod Caesari post Confessionem exhibitum sit,

neque se pati posse, ut doctrina sua et Verbum Dei congustetur,

imminuatur et concionatores astringantur, ut nihil aliud praedicent

quam ad litteram Augustanae Confessionis, neque libere et plenissime

adversus omnes errores doctrinae, abusus, peccata et crimina dicere

possint._" Hereupon the Romanists, on April 22, demanded that at least a

qualifying explanation be added to the title Apology. Brueck answered on

the 23d: "It is not possible to omit this word. The Apology is the

correlate of the Confession. Still the princes and their associates do

not wish any articles taught other than those which have so far begun to

be discussed. _Omitti istud verbum non posse; Apologiam esse correlatum

Confessionis; nolle tamen Principes et socios, ut alii articuli

docerentur quam huiusque tractari coepti sint_." (Koellner, 430.)

In his Letter of Comfort, 1533, to the Leipzig Lutherans banished by

Duke George, Luther says: "There is our Confession and Apology....

Adhere to our Confession and Apology." (10, 1956.) Membership in the

Smalcald League was conditioned on accepting the Apology as well as the

Augustana. Both were also subscribed to in the Wittenberg Concord of

1536. (_C. R._ 3, 76.) In 1537, at Smalcald, the Apology (together with

the Augustana and the Appendix Concerning the Primacy of the Pope) was,

by order of the Evangelical estates, subscribed by all of the

theologians present, and thereby solemnly declared a confession of the

Lutheran Church. In 1539 Denmark reckoned the Apology among the books

which pastors were required to adopt. In 1540 it was presented together

with the Augustana at Worms. It was also received into the various

_corpora doctrinae._ The Formula of Concord adopts the Apology, saying:

"We unanimously confess this [Apology] also, because not only is the

said Augsburg Confession explained in it as much as is necessary and

guarded [against the slanders of the adversaries], but also proved by

clear, irrefutable testimonies of Holy Scripture." (853, 6.)

malca &�r i �߇ �_� r

the place where they were composed [an error already found in Brenz's

letter of February 23, 1537, appended to the subscriptions of the "Tract

on the Power and Primacy of the Pope" (529). See also Formula of Concord

777, 4; 853, 7], as well as solemnly approved and subscribed since the

articles were composed by Luther and approved by the Protestants at

Smalcald a town in the borders of Saxony and Ducal Hesse, and selected

for the convention of the Protestants for the reason that the

individuals who had been called thither might have an easy and safe

approach." (_Isagoge,_ 769.)

The text of the Smalcald Articles, as published by Luther, omits the

following motto found in the original: "This is sufficient doctrine for

eternal life. As to the political and economic affairs, there are enough

laws to trouble us, so that there is no need of inventing further

troubles much more burdensome. Sufficient unto the day is the evil

thereof. _His satis est doctrinae pro vita aeterna. Ceterum in politia

et oeconomia satis est legum, quibus vexamur, ut non sit opus praeter

has molestias fingere alias quam miserrimas [necessarias]. Sufficit diei

malitia sua._" (Luther, Weimar 50, 192. St. L. 16 1918.) Apart from all

kinds of minor corrections, Luther added to the text a Preface (written

1538) and several additions, some of them quite long, which, however,

did not change the sense. Among these are sec. 5, secs. 13 to 15, and

secs. 25-28 of the article concerning the Mass; secs. 42-45 concerning

the False Repentance of the Papists; secs. 3-13 about Enthusiasm in the

article concerning Confession. The editions of 1543 and 1545 contained

further emendations. The German text of Luther's first edition of 1538

was received into the Book of Concord, "as they were first framed and

printed." (853, 7.) The first Latin translation by Peter Generanus

appeared in 1541, with a Preface by Veit Amerbach (later on Catholic

Professor of Philosophy at Ingolstadt). In 1542 it was succeeded by an

emended edition. In the following year the Elector desired a

Latin-German edition in octavo. The Latin translation found in the Book

of Concord of 1580 was furnished by Selneccer; this was revised for the

official Latin Concordia of 1584.

78. Tract on the Power and Primacy of the Pope.

Melanchthon's "Tract Concerning the Power and Primacy of the Pope,

_Tractatus de Potestate et Primatu Papae,_" presents essentially the

same thoughts Luther had already discussed in his article "Of the

Papacy." Melanchthon here abandons the idea of a papal supremacy _iure

humano,_ which he had advocated at Augsburg 1530 and expressed in his

subscription to Luther's articles, and moves entirely in the wake of

Luther and in the trend of the Reformer's thoughts. The Tract was

written not so much from his own conviction as from that of Luther and

in accommodation to the antipapal sentiment which, to his grief, became

increasingly dominant at Smalcald. (_C. R._ 3, 270. 292f. 297.) In a

letter to Jonas, February 23, he remarks, indicating his accommodation

to the public opinion prevailing at Smalcald: "I have written this

[Tract] somewhat sharper than I am wont to do." (271. 292.) Melanchthon

always trimmed his sails according to the wind; and at Smalcald a

decidedly antipapal gale was blowing. He complains that he found no one

there who assented to his opinion that the papal invitation to a council

ought not be declined. (293.) It is also possible that he heard of the

Elector's criticism of his qualified subscription to Luther's articles.

At all events, the Tract amounts to a retraction of his stricture on

Luther's view of the Papacy. In every respect, Smalcald spelled a defeat

for Melanchthon. His policy toward the South Germans was actually

repudiated by the numerous and enthusiastic subscriptions to Luther's

articles, foreshadowing, as it were, the final historical outcome, when

Philippism was definitely defeated in the Formula of Concord. And his

own Tract gave the _coup de grace_ to his mediating policy with regard

to the Romanists. For here Melanchthon, in the manner of Luther, opposes

and denounces the Pope as the Antichrist, the protector of ungodly

doctrine and customs, and the persecutor of the true confessors of

Christ, from whom one must separate. The second part of the Tract,

"Concerning the Power and the Jurisdiction of the Bishops, _De Potestate

et Iurisdictione Episcoporum,_" strikes an equally decided note.

The Tract, which was already completed by February 17, received the

approval of the estates, and, together with the Augustana and the

Apology, was signed by the theologians upon order of the princes. (_C.

R._ 3, 286.) Koellner writes: "Immediately at the convention Veit

Dietrich translated this writing [the Tract] into German, and (as

appears from the fact that the Weimar theologians in 1553 published the

document from the archives with the subscriptions) this German

translation was, at the convention, presented to, and approved by, the

estates as the official text, and subscribed by the theologians." (464.)

Brenz's letter appended to the subscriptions shows that the signing did

not take place till after February 23, perhaps the 25th of February. For

on the 26th Melanchthon and Spalatin refer to it as finished.

With reference to the Concord of 1536, let it be stated here that,

although mentioned with approval by the theologians and also included in

Brenz's and Melander's subscriptions to the Smalcald Articles, the

princes and estates nevertheless passed no resolution requiring its

subscription. Melanchthon writes that the princes had expressly declared

that they would abide by the Wittenberg Concord. (_C. R._ 3, 292.) Veit

Dietrich's remark to Foerster, May 16, 1537, that only the Augustana and

the Concord were signed at Smalcald, is probably due to a mistake in

writing. (372.)

79. Authorship of Tract.

The Tract first appeared in print in 1540. A German translation,

published 1541, designates it as "drawn up by Mr. Philip Melanchthon and

done into German by Veit Dietrich." (_C. R._ 23 722.) In the edition of

the Smalcald Articles by Stolz and Aurifaber, 1553, the Tract is

appended with the caption: "Concerning the Power and Supremacy of the

Pope, Composed by the Scholars. Smalcald, 1537." In the Jena edition of

Luther's Works the Smalcald Articles are likewise followed by the Tract

with the title: "Concerning the Power and Supremacy of the Pope,

Composed by the Scholars in the Year 37 at Smalcald and Printed in the

Year 38." (6, 523.) This superscription gave rise to the opinion that

the German was the original text. At any rate, such seems to have been

the belief of Selneccer, since he incorporated a Latin translation,

based on the German text, into the Latin edition of his Book of Concord,

privately published 1580. Apart from other errors this Latin version

contained also the offensive misprint referred to in our article on the

Book of Concord. In the official edition of 1584 it was supplanted by

the original text of Melanchthon. The subtitle, however, remained:

"Tractatus per Theologos Smalcaldicos Congregatos Conscriptus."

To-day it is generally assumed that by 1553 it was universally forgotten

both that Melanchthon was the author of the Tract, and that it was

originally composed in Latin. However, it remains a mystery how this

should have been possible--only twelve years after Dietrich had published

the Tract under a title which clearly designates Melanchthon as its

author, and states that the German text is a translation. The evidence

for Melanchthon's authorship which thus became necessary was furnished

by J. C. Bertram in 1770. However, before him Chytraeus and Seckendorf,

in 1564, had expressly vindicated Melanchthon's authorship. Be it

mentioned as a curiosity that the Papist Lud. Jac. a St. Carolo

mentioned a certain "Articulus Alsmalcaldicus, Germanus, Lutheranus" as

the author of the Tract. In the Formula of Concord and in the Preface to

the Book of Concord the Tract is not enumerated as a separate

confessional writing, but is treated as an appendix to the Smalcald

Articles.

80. A Threefold Criticism.

On the basis of the facts stated in the preceding paragraphs, Kolde,

followed by others believes himself justified in offering a threefold

criticism. In the first place, he opines that Luther's Articles are

"very improperly called 'Smalcald Articles.'" However, even if Luther's

Articles were not officially adopted by the Smalcald League as such,

they were nevertheless, written for the Convention of Smalcald, and were

there signed by the assembled Lutheran theologians and preachers and

privately adopted also by most of the princes and estates. For Luther's

Articles then, there is and can be no title more appropriate than

"Smalcald Articles." Tschackert remarks: "Almost all [all, with the

exception of the suspected theologians] subscribed and thereby they

became weighty and important for the Evangelical churches of Germany;

and hence it certainly is not inappropriate to call them 'Smalcald

Articles,' even though they were written at Wittenberg and were not

publicly deliberated upon at Smalcald." (302.)

"It is entirely unhistorical," Kolde continues in his strictures, "to

designate Melanchthon's Tract, which has no connection with Luther's

Articles, as an 'Appendix' to them when in fact it was accepted as an

appendix of the Augustana and Apology." (50.) It is a mistake,

therefore, says Kolde, that the Tract is not separately mentioned in the

Book of Concord, nor counted as a separate confessional writing. (53.)

Likewise Tschackert: "On the other hand, it is a mistake to treat

Melanchthon's Tract as an appendix to the Smalcald Articles, as is done

in the Book of Concord. The signatures of the estates have rather given

it an independent authority in the Church." (302.) However, there is

much more of a connection between Luther's Articles and the Tract than

Kolde and Tschackert seem to be aware of. Luther's Articles as well as

the Tract were prepared for the Convention at Smalcald. Both were there

signed by practically the same Lutheran theologians. The fact that in

the case of the Smalcald Articles this was done voluntarily rather

enhances and does not in the least diminish, their importance. Both

also, from the very beginning, were equally regarded as Lutheran

confessional writings. The Tract, furthermore, follows Luther's

Articles also in substance, as it is but an acknowledgment and

additional exposition of his article "Of the Papacy." To be sure, the

Tract must not be viewed as an appendix to Luther's Articles, which,

indeed, were in no need of such an appendix. Moreover, both the Articles

and the Tract may be regarded as appendices to the Augsburg Confession

and the Apology. Accordingly, there is no reason whatever why, in the

Book of Concord, the Tract should not follow Luther's Articles or be

regarded as closely connected with it, and naturally belonging to it.

Koellner is right when he declares it to be "very appropriate" that the

Tract is connected and grouped with the Smalcald Articles. (469.)

Finally, Kolde designates the words in the title "composed,

_conscriptus,_ by the scholars" as false in every respect. Likewise

Tschackert. (303.) The criticism is justified inasmuch as the expression

"composed, _zusammengezogen, conscriptus,_ by the scholars" cannot very

well be harmonized with the fact that Melanchthon wrote the Tract. But

even this superscription is inappropriate, at least not in the degree

assumed by Kolde and Tschackert. For the fact is that the princes and

estates did not order Melanchthon, but the theologians, to write the

treatise concerning the Papacy, and that the Tract was presented in

their name. Koellner writes: "It is certainly a splendid testimony for

the noble sentiments of those heroes of the faith that the Elector

should know of, and partly disapprove, Melanchthon's milder views, and

still entrust him with the composition of this very important document

[the Tract], and, on the other hand, equally so, that Melanchthon so

splendidly fulfilled the consideration which he owed to the views and

the interests of the party without infringing upon his own conviction."

"Seckendorf also," Koellner adds "justly admires this unusual

phenomenon." (471.) However, Koellner offers no evidence for the

supposition that the Elector charged Melanchthon in particular with the

composition of the Tract. According to the report of the Strassburg

delegates, the princes declared that "the scholars" should peruse the

Confession and enlarge on the Papacy. The report continues: "The

scholars received orders ... to enlarge somewhat on the Papacy which

_they_ did, and thereupon transmitted _their_ criticism to the Elector

and the princes." (Kolde, _Anal.,_ 297.) This is corroborated by

Melanchthon himself, who wrote to Camerarius, March 1, 1537: "We

received orders (_iussi sumus_) to write something on the Primacy of

Peter or the Roman Pontiff." (_C. R._ 3, 292.) February 17 Osiander

reported: "The first business imposed on _us_ by the princes was ...

diligently to explain the Primacy which was omitted from the Confession

because it was regarded as odious. The latter of these duties _we_ have

to-day completed, so that _we_ shall immediately deliver a copy to the

princes." (3, 267.) These statements might even warrant the conclusion

that the theologians also participated, more or less in the drawing up

of the Tract, for which however, further evidence is wanting. Nor does

it appear how this view could be harmonized with Veit Dietrich's

assertion in his letter to Foerster, May 16: "Orders were given to write

about the power of the Pope the primacy of Peter, and the ecclesiastical

jurisdiction. Philip alone performed this very well." (3, 370.) However,

entirely apart from the statement of Osiander, the mere fact that the

theologians were ordered to prepare the document, and that it was

delivered by and in the name of these theologians, sufficiently warrants

us to speak of the document as "The Tract of the Scholars at Smalcald"

with the same propriety that, for example, the opinion which Melanchthon

drew up on August 6, 1536, is entitled: "The First Proposal of the

Wittenberg Scholars concerning the Future Council." (_C. R._ 3, 119.)