F. Bente - Historical Introductions. VII. Smalcald Articles. Elector Imbued with Luther's Spirit

VII. Smalcald Articles and Tract concerning Power and Primacy of Pope.

61. General Council Demanded by Lutherans.

In order to settle the religious controversy between themselves and the

Papists, the Lutherans, from the very beginning, asked for a general

council. In the course of years this demand became increasingly frequent

and insistent. It was solemnly renewed in the Preface of the Augsburg

Confession. The Emperor had repeatedly promised to summon a council. At

Augsburg he renewed the promise of convening it within a year. The Roman

Curia, however, dissastisfied with the arrangements made at the Diet,

found ways and means of delaying it. In 1532, the Emperor proceeded to

Bologna, where he negotiated with Clement VII concerning the matter, as

appears from the imperial and papal proclamations of January 8 and 10,

1533, respectively. As a result, the Pope, in 1533, sent Hugo Rangon,

bishop of Resz, to Germany, to propose that the council be held at

Placentia, Bologna, or Mantua. Clement, however, was not sincere in

making this offer. In reality he was opposed to holding a council. Such

were probably also the real sentiments of his successor, Paul III. But

when the Emperor who, in the interest of his sweeping world policy, was

anxious to dispose of the religious controversy, renewed his pressure,

Paul finally found himself compelled to yield. June 4 1536, he issued a

bull convoking a general council to meet at Mantua, May 8, 1537.

Nothing, however, was said about the principles according to which it

was to be formed and by which it should be governed in transacting its

business. Self-evidently, then, the rules of the former councils were to

be applied. Its declared purpose was the peace of the Church through the

extinction of heresy. In the Bull _Concerning the Reforms of the Roman

Court,_ which the Pope issued September 23, he expressly declared that

the purpose of the council would be "the utter extirpation of the

poisonous, pestilential Lutheran heresy." (St. L. 16, 1914.) Thus the

question confronting the Protestants was, whether they could risk to

appear at such a council, and ought to do so, or whether (and how) they

should decline to attend. Luther, indeed, still desired a council. But

after 1530 he no longer put any confidence in a council convened by the

Pope, although, for his person, he did not refuse to attend even such a

council. This appears also from his conversation, November 7, 1535, with

the papal legate Peter Paul Vergerius (born 1497; accused of Lutheranism

1546; deprived of his bishopric 1549; defending Protestantism after

1550; employed by Duke Christoph of Wuerttemberg 1553; died 1564.)

Koestlin writes: "Luther relates how he had told the legate: 'Even if

you do call a council, you will not treat of salutary doctrine, saving

faith, etc., but of useless matters, such as laws concerning meats, the

length of priest's garments, exercises of monks, etc.' While he was thus

dilating, says Luther, the legate, holding his head in his hand, turned

to a near-by companion and said: 'He strikes the nail on the head,' The

further utterances of Luther: 'We do not need a council for ourselves

and our adherents, for we already have the firm Evangelical doctrine and

order; Christendom, however, needs it, in order that those whom error

still holds captive may be able to distinguish between error and truth,'

appeared utterly intolerable to Vergerius, as he himself relates. He

regarded them as unheard-of arrogance. By way of answer, he asked,

whether, indeed the Christian men assembled from all parts of the world,

upon whom, without doubt, the Holy Spirit descends, must only decide

what Luther approved of. Boldly and angrily interrupting him Luther

said: 'Yes, I will come to the council and lose my head if I shall not

defend my doctrine against all the world;' furthermore he exclaimed:

'This wrath of my mouth is not my wrath, but the wrath of God.'

Vergerius rejoiced to hear that Luther was perfectly willing to come to

the council; for, so he wrote to Rome, he thought that nothing more was

needed to break the courage of the heretics than the certain prospect

of a council, and at the same time he believed that in Luther's assent

he heard the decision of his master, the Elector, also. Luther declared

that it was immaterial to him where the council would meet, at Mantua,

Verona, or at any other place. Vergerius continued: 'Are you willing to

come to Bologna?' Luther: 'To whom does Bologna belong?' Vergerius: 'To

the Pope.' Luther: 'Good Lord, has this town, too, been grabbed by the

Pope? Very well, I shall come to you there.' Vergerius: 'The Pope will

probably not refuse to come to you at Wittenberg either,' Luther: 'Very

well, let him come; we shall look for him with pleasure.' Vergerius: 'Do

you expect him to come with an army or without weapons?' Luther: 'As he

pleases, in whatsoever manner he may come, we shall expect him and shall

receive him.'--Luther and Bugenhagen remained with Vergerius until he

departed with his train of attendants. After mounting, he said once more

to Luther: 'See that you be prepared for the council.' Luther answered:

'Yes, sir, with this my neck and head.'" (_Martin Luther_ 2, 382 sq.)

62. Luther's Views Regarding the Council.

What Luther's attitude toward a general council was in 1537 is expressed

in the Preface to the Smalcald Articles as follows: "But to return to

the subject. I verily desire to see a truly Christian council, in order

that many matters and persons might be helped. Not that we need it, for

our churches are now through God's grace, so enlightened and equipped

with the pure Word and right use of the Sacraments, with knowledge of

the various callings and of right works that we on our part ask for no

council, and on such points have nothing better to hope or expect from a

council. But we see in the bishoprics everywhere so many parishes vacant

and desolate that one's heart would break, and yet neither the bishops

nor canons care how the poor people live or die, for whom nevertheless

Christ has died, and who are not permitted to hear Him speak with them

as the true Shepherd with His sheep. This causes me to shudder and fear

that at some time he may send a council of angels upon Germany utterly

destroying us, like Sodom and Gomorrah, because we so wantonly mock Him

with the council." (457.)

From a popish council Luther expected nothing but condemnation of the

truth and its confessors. At the same time he was convinced that the

Pope would never permit a truly free, Christian council to assemble. He

had found him out and knew "that the Pope would see all Christendom

perish and all souls damned rather than suffer either himself or his

adherents to be reformed even a little, and his tyranny to be limited."

(455) "For with them conscience is nothing, but money, honors, power,

are everything." (455. 477.) The Second Part of his Articles Luther

concludes as follows: "In these four articles they will have enough to

condemn in the council. For they cannot and will not concede to us even

the least point in one of these articles. Of this we should be certain,

and animate ourselves with the hope that Christ, our Lord, has attacked

His adversary, and He will press the attack home both by His Spirit and

coming. Amen. For in the council we will stand not before the Emperor or

the political magistrate, as at Augsburg (where the Emperor published a

most gracious edict, and caused matters to be heard kindly), but before

the Pope and devil himself, who intends to listen to nothing, but merely

to condemn, to murder, and to force us to idolatry. Therefore we ought

not here to kiss his feet or to say, 'Thou art my gracious lord,' but as

the angel in Zechariah 3, 2 said to Satan, The Lord rebuke thee, O

Satan." (475.) Hence his Preface also concludes with the plaint and

prayer: "O Lord Jesus Christ, do Thou Thyself convoke a council, and

deliver Thy servants by Thy glorious advent! The Pope and his adherents

are done for, they will have none of Thee. Do Thou, then, help us, who

are poor and needy, who sigh to Thee, and beseech Thee earnestly,

according to the grace which Thou hast given us, through Thy Holy Ghost,

who liveth and reigneth with Thee and the Father, blessed forever.

Amen." (459.)

63. Elector Opposed to Hearing Papal Legate.

From the very beginning, Elector John Frederick was opposed to a

council. And the question which particularly engaged his attention was,

whether the Lutherans should receive and hear the papal legate who would

deliver the invitation. Accordingly, on July 24, the Elector came to

Wittenberg and through Brueck delivered four (five) articles to the

local theologians and jurists for consideration with instructions to

submit their answer in writing. (_C. R._ 3, 119.) August 1, Melanchthon

wrote to Jonas: "Recently the Prince was here and demanded an opinion

from all theologians and jurists.... It is rumored that a

cardinal-legate will come to Germany to announce the council. The Prince

is therefore inquiring what to answer, and under what condition the

synod might be permitted." (106.) The articles which Brueck presented

dealt mainly with the questions: whether, in view of the fact that the

Pope is a party to the issue and his authority to convene a council is

questioned, the legate should be heard, especially if the Emperor did

not send a messenger along with him, whether one would not already

submit himself to the Pope by hearing the legate; whether one ought not

to protest, because the Pope alone had summoned the council; and what

should be done in case the legate would summon the Elector as a party,

and not for consultation, like the other estates. (119f.)

In the preparation of their answer, the Elector desired the Wittenberg

scholars to take into careful consideration also his own view of the

matter, which he persistently defended as the only correct one. For this

purpose he transmitted to them an opinion of his own on Brueck's

articles referred to in the preceding paragraph. In it he maintained

that the papal invitation must be declined, because acceptance involved

the recognition of the Pope "as the head of the Church and of the

council." According to the Elector the proper course for the Lutheran

confederates would be to inform the legate, immediately on his arrival

in Germany, that they would never submit to the authority which the Pope

had arrogated to himself in his proclamation, since the power he assumed

was neither more nor less than abominable tyranny; that they could not

consider the Pope as differing from, or give him greater honor than, any

other ordinary bishop; that, besides, they must regard the Pope as their

greatest enemy and opponent; that he had arranged for the council with

the sinister object of maintaining his antichristian power and

suppressing the holy Gospel, that there was no need of hearing the

legate any further, since the Pope, who was sufficiently informed as to

their teaching, cared neither for Scripture nor for law and justice, and

merely wished to be their judge and lord; that, in public print, they

would unmask the roguery of the Pope, and show that he had no authority

whatever to convoke a council, but, at the same time, declare their

willingness to take part in, and submit their doctrine to, a free,

common, Christian, and impartial council, which would judge according to

the Scriptures. Nor did the Elector fail to stress the point that, by

attending at Mantua, the Lutherans would _de facto_ waive their former

demand that the council must be held on German soil. (99ff.)

64. Elector Imbued with Luther's Spirit.

Evidently, the Elector had no desire of engaging once more in diplomatic

jugglery, such as had been indulged in at Augsburg. And at Smalcald,

despite the opposing advice of the theologians, his views prevailed, to

the sorrow of Melanchthon, as appears from the latter's complaint to

Camerarius, March 1, 1637. (_C. R._ 3, 293.) The Elector was thoroughly

imbued with the spirit of Luther, who never felt more antagonistic

toward Rome than at Smalcald, although, as shown above, he was

personally willing to appear at the council, even if held at Mantua.

This spirit of bold defiance appears from the articles which Luther

wrote for the convention, notably from the article on the Papacy and on

the Mass. In the latter he declares: "As Campegius said at Augsburg that

he would be torn to pieces before he would relinquish the Mass, so, by

the help of God, I, too, would suffer myself to be reduced to ashes

before I would allow a hireling of the Mass, be he good or bad, to be

made equal to Christ Jesus, my Lord and Savior, or to be exalted above

Him. Thus we are and remain eternally separated and opposed to one

another. They feel well enough that when the Mass falls, the Papacy lies

in ruins. Before they will permit this to occur, they will put us all to

death if they can." (465.) In the Pope, Luther had recognized the

Antichrist; and the idea of treating, seeking an agreement, and making a

compromise with the enemy of his Savior, was intolerable to him. At

Smalcald, while suffering excruciating pain, he declared, "I shall die

as the enemy of all enemies of my Lord Christ." When seated in the

wagon, and ready to leave Smalcald, he made the sign of the cross over

those who stood about him and said: "May the Lord fill you with His

blessing and with hatred against the Pope!" Believing that his end was

not far removed, he had chosen as his epitaph: "Living, I was thy pest;

dying, I shall be thy death, O Pope! _Pestis eram vivus, moriens ero

mors tua, Papa!_"

The same spirit of bold defiance and determination not to compromise the

divine truth in any way animated the Elector and practically all of the

princes and theologians at Smalcald, with, perhaps, the sole exception

of Melanchthon. Koestlin writes: "Meanwhile the allies at Smalcald

displayed no lack of 'hatred against the Pope.' His letters, delivered

by the legate, were returned unopened. They decidedly refused to take

part in the council, and that in spite of the opinion of their

theologians, whose reasons Melanchthon again ardently defended. For, as

they declared in an explanation to all Christian rulers, they could not

submit to a council which, according to the papal proclamation, was

convoked to eradicate the Lutheran heresy, would consist only of

bishops, who were bound to the Pope by an oath, have as its presiding

officer the Pope, who himself was a party to the matter, and would not

decide freely according to the Word of God, but according to human and

papal decrees. And from the legal standpoint they could hardly act

differently. Theologians like Luther could have appeared even before

such a council in order to give bold testimony before it. Princes,

however, the representatives of the law and protectors of the Church,

dared not even create the appearance of acknowledging its legality." (2,

402.)

65. Opinion of Theologians.

August 6 the Wittenberg professors assembled to deliberate on Brueck's

articles and the views of the Elector. The opinion resolved upon was

drawn up by Melanchthon. Its contents may be summarized as follows: The

Lutherans must not reject the papal invitation before hearing whether

the legate comes with a citation or an invitation. In case they were

invited like the rest of the princes to take part in the deliberations,

and not cited as a party, this would mean a concession on the part of

the Pope, inasmuch as he thereby consented "that the opinion of our

gracious Lord [the Elector] should be heard and have weight, like that

of the other estates." Furthermore, by such invitation the Pope would

indicate that he did not consider these princes to be heretics. If the

legate were rebuffed the Romanists would proceed against the Lutherans

as obstinate sinners (_contumaces_) and condemn them unheard, which, as

is well known, would please the enemies best. The Lutherans would then

also be slandered before the Emperor as despisers of His Majesty and of

the council. Nor did the mere hearing of the legate involve an

acknowledgment of the papal authority. "For with such invitation [to

attend the council] the Pope does not issue a command, nor summon any

one to appear before his tribunal, but before another judge, namely, the

Council, the Pope being in this matter merely the commander of the other

estates. By hearing the legate, therefore, one has not submitted to the

Pope or to his judgments.... For although the Pope has not the authority

to summon others by divine law, nevertheless the ancient councils, as,

for example, that of Nicaea, have given him this charge, which external

church regulation we do not attack. And although in former years, when

the empire was under one head some emperors convoked councils, it would

be in vain at present for the Emperor to proclaim a council, as foreign

nations would not heed such proclamation. But while the Pope at present,

according to the form of the law has the charge to proclaim councils, he

is thereby not made the judge in matters of faith, for even popes

themselves have frequently been deposed by councils. Pope John

proclaimed the Council of Constance, but was nevertheless deposed by

it." Accordingly the opinion continues: "It is not for us to advise that

the council be summarily declined, neither do we consider this

profitable, for we have always appealed to a council. What manner of

suspicion, therefore, would be aroused with His Imperial Majesty and all

nations if at the outset we would summarily decline a council, before

discussing the method of procedure!" And even if the Lutherans should be

cited [instead of invited], one must await the wording of the citation,

"whether we are cited to show the reason for our teaching, or to hear

ourselves declared and condemned as public heretics." In the latter case

it might be declined. In the former, however, the citation should be

accepted, but under the protest "that they had appealed to a free

Christian council," and did not acknowledge the Pope as judge. "And if

(_caeteris paribus,_ that is, provided the procedure is correct

otherwise) the council is considered the highest tribunal, as it ought

to be considered, one cannot despise the command of the person to whom

the charge is given to proclaim councils, whoever he may be. But if

afterwards the proceedings are not conducted properly, one can then

justly lodge complaint on that account." "To proclaim a council is

within the province of the Pope; but the judgment and decision belongs

to the council.... For all canonists hold that in matters of faith the

council is superior to the Pope, and that in case of difference the

council's verdict must be preferred to that of the Pope. For there must

be a supreme court of the Church, _i.e._, the council." On account of

the place, however they should not refuse to appear. (_C. R._ 3,119.)

In their subsequent judgments the theologians adhered to the view that

the Protestants ought not to incur the reproach of having prevented the

council by turning down the legate. Luther says, in an opinion written

at Smalcald, February, 1537: "I have no doubt that the Pope and his

adherents are afraid and would like to see the council prevented, but in

such a manner as would enable them to boast with a semblance of truth

that it was not their fault, since they had proclaimed it, sent

messengers, called the estates, etc., as they, indeed, would brag and

trump it up. Hence, in order that we might be frightened and back out,

they have set before us a horrible devil's head by proclaiming a

council, in which they mention nothing about church matters, nothing

about a hearing, nothing about other matters, but solely speak of the

extirpation and eradication of the poisonous Lutheran heresy, as they

themselves indicate in the bull _De Reformatione Curiae_ [of September

23, 1536, St. L. 16 1913ff.]. Here we have not only our sentence which

is to be passed upon us in the council but the appeal also with hearing,

answer, and discussion of all matters is denied us, and all pious,

honorable men who might possibly have been chosen as mediators are also

excluded. Moreover, these knaves of the devil are bent on doing their

pleasure, not only in condemning (for according to the said bull

launched against us they want to be certain of that) but also in

speedily beginning and ordering execution and eradication, although we

have not yet been heard (as all laws require) nor have they, the

cardinals, ever read our writing or learned its doctrine, since our

books are proscribed everywhere, but have heard only the false writers

and the lying mouths, having not heard us make a reply, although in

Germany both princes and bishops know, also those of their party, that

they are lying books and rascals, whom the Pope, Italy, and other

nations believe.... Hence they would like to frighten us into refusing

it [the Council] for then they could safely say that we had prevented

it. Thus the shame would not only cleave to us, but we would have to

hear that, by our refusal, we had helped to strengthen such abominations

of the Pope, which otherwise might have been righted." Such and similar

reasons prompted Luther to declare that, even though he knew "it would

finally end in a scuffle," he was not afraid of "the lousy, contemptible

council," and would neither give the legate a negative answer, nor

"entangle himself," and therefore not be hasty in the matter. (St. L.

16, 1997.) Even after the princes at Smalcald had resolved not to attend

the council, Luther expressed the opinion that it had been false wisdom

to decline it; the Pope should have been left without excuse; in case it

should convene, the council would now be conducted without the

Protestants.

66. Elector's Strictures on Opinion of Theologians.

Elector John Frederick was not at all satisfied with the Wittenberg

opinion of August 6. Accordingly, he informed the theologians assembled

August 30 at Luther's house, through Brueck, that they had permitted

themselves to be unduly influenced by the jurists, had not framed their

opinion with the diligence required by the importance of the matter, and

had not weighed all the dangers lurking in an acceptance of the

invitation to the council. If the Lutherans would be invited like the

other estates, and attend, they must needs dread a repetition of the

craftiness attempted at Augsburg, namely, of bringing their princes in

opposition to their preachers. Furthermore, in that case it would also

be considered self-evident that the Lutherans submit to the decision of

the majority in all matters. And if they refused, what then? "On this

wise we, for our part, would be lured into the net so far that we could

not, with honor, give a respectable account of our action before the

world. For thereupon to appeal from such decision of the council to

another would by all the world be construed against our part as

capriciousness pure and simple. At all events, therefore, the Lutherans

could accept the papal invitation only with a public protest, from which

the Pope and every one else could perceive in advance, before the

council convened, that the Lutherans would not allow themselves to be

lured into the net of a papal council, and what must be the character of

the council to which they would assent." (_C. R._ 3, 147.)

In this Protest, which the Elector presented, and which Melanchthon

translated into Latin, we read: "By the [possible] acceptance [of the

invitation to the council] they [the Lutherans] assent to no council

other than a general, free, pious, Christian, and impartial one; not to

one either which would be subject to, and bound by, papal prejudices

(as the one promised by Clement VII), but to such a synod as will

endeavor to bring godly and Christian unity within the Church by

choosing pious, learned, impartial, and unsuspected men for the purpose

of investigating the religious controversies and adjudicating them from

the Word of God, and not in accordance with usage and human traditions,

nor on the basis of decisions rendered by former synods that militate

against the Word of God." (152. 157.)

67. Counter-Council Disadvised.

The other matters which engaged the Elector's attention dealt primarily

with measures of defense, the convening of a counter-council

(_Gegenkonzil_) and the preparation of articles which all would

unanimously accept, and by which they proposed to stand to the

uttermost. August 20 Brueck brought these points up for discussion. And

in a "memorandum" which the Elector personally presented to the

theologians at Wittenberg on December 1, 1536, he expressed his opinion

as follows: The Lutherans were not obligated to attend the council,

neither would it be advisable. One could not believe or trust the

opponents. Nothing but trickery, deception, harm, and destruction might

be expected. At the council the Lutheran doctrine would be condemned,

and its confessors excommunicated and outlawed. To be sure, the Lutheran

cause was in God's hands. And as in the past, so also in the future God

would protect it. Still they must not on this account neglect anything.

Luther should therefore draw up articles from which he was determined

not to recede. After they had been subscribed by the Wittenbergers and

by all Evangelical pastors at the prospective meeting [at Smalcald], the

question might also be discussed whether the Lutherans should not

arrange for a counter-council "a universal, free, Christian council,"

possibly at Augsburg. The proclamation for this council might be issued

"by Doctor Luther together with his fellow-bishops and ecclesiastics, as

the pastors." However, one might also consider whether this should not

preferably be done by the princes and estates. In such an event,

however, one had to see to it that the Emperor be properly informed, and

that the entire blame be saddled upon the Pope and his adherents, the

enemies and opponents of our side. (141)

The seriousness with which the Elector considered the idea of a

counter-council appears from the details on which he entered in the

"memorandum" referred to where he puts especial emphasis on the

following points: At this free, universal council the Lutherans were

minded "to set forth their doctrine and faith according to the divine,

holy Scriptures." Every one, whether priest or layman, should be heard

in case he wanted to present anything concerning this doctrine from the

Holy Scriptures. A free, safe, Christian passport was to be given to

all, even to the worst enemy, leaving it to his discretion when to come

and go. Only matters founded in the Scriptures were to be presented and

discussed at such council. Human laws, ordinances, and writings should

under no circumstances be listened to in matters pertaining to faith and

conscience, nor be admitted as evidence against the Word of God.

"Whoever would submit such matters, should not be heard, but silence

enjoined upon him." To the verdict of such a holy and Christian council

the Lutherans would be willing to submit their doctrine. (141.)

The theologians answered in an opinion of December 6, 1536, endorsing

the Protest referred to above, but disapproving the counter-council.

Concerning the first point they advised that a writing be published and

sent to the Emperor and all rulers in which the Lutherans were to

"request that ways and means be considered of adopting a lawful

procedure [at the council] promoting the true Christian unity of

Christendom." Concerning the counter-council, however, they advised at

all events not to hasten with it. For to convoke it would produce a

great and terrible appearance of creating a schism, and of setting

oneself against all the world and contemplating taking the field soon.

Therefore such great, apparent resistance should not be undertaken till

one intends to do something in the matter openly and in deed. Concerning

the defense, the Wittenberg theologians were of the opinion that it was

the right and duty of the princes to protect and defend their subjects

against notorious injuries (if, for example, an attempt should be made

to force upon them the Romish idolatry, or to rend asunder the marriages

of their pastors), and also against the Emperor, even after the council

had condemned them as heretics. Luther signed this opinion with the

following words: "I, too, Martin Luther, will help with my prayers and,

if necessary, also with my fist." (126.)

68. Articles Drafted by Luther.

In the memorandum of December 1 the Elector spoke of the articles Luther

was to frame as follows: Although, in the first place, it may easily be

perceived that whatsoever our party may propose in such a [popish]

council as has been announced will have no weight with the opposition,

miserable, blinded, and mad men that they are, no matter how well it is

founded on Holy Scripture moreover, everything will have to be Lutheran

heresy, and their verdict, which probably has already been decided and

agreed upon, must be adopted and immediately followed by their proposed

ban and interdict [decree excommunicating and outlawing our party], it

will, nevertheless, be very necessary for Doctor Martin to prepare his

foundation and opinion from the Holy Scriptures, namely, the articles as

hitherto taught, preached, and written by him, and which he is

determined to adhere to and abide by at the council, as well as upon his

departure from this world and before the judgment of Almighty God, and

in which we cannot yield without becoming guilty of treason against God,

even though property and life, peace or war, are at stake. Such articles

however, as are not necessary, and in which for the sake of Christian

love, yet without offense against God and His Word, something might be

yielded (though, doubtless, they will be few in number), should in this

connection also be indicated separately by said Doctor Martin. And when

Doctor Martin has completed such work (which, if at all possible for the

Doctor, must be done between the present date and that of the Conversion

of St. Paul [January 25], at the latest), he shall thereupon present it

to the other Wittenberg theologians, and likewise to some prominent

preachers whose presence he should require to hear from them, at the

same time admonishing them most earnestly, and asking them whether they

agreed with him in these articles which he had drawn up, or not, and

thereupon, as they hoped for their souls salvation their sentiment and

opinion be learned in its entirety, but not in appearance, for the sake

of peace, or because they did not like to oppose the Doctor, and for

this reason would not fully open their hearts, and still, at a later

time would teach, preach, write, and make public something else or

advise the people against said articles, as some have in several

instances done before this. An agreement having been reached, the

articles were to be subscribed by all and prepared in German and Latin.

At the prospective meeting [at Smalcald] they should be submitted to the

religious confederates for discussion and subscription. Hence, in the

invitation, every prince should be asked "to bring with him two or three

theologians, in order that a unanimous agreement might be reached there,

and no delay could be sought or pretended." (139.) Accordingly, the

Elector planned to have Luther draw up articles which were to be

accepted by all, first at Wittenberg and then at Smalcald, without

compulsion and for no other reason than that they expressed their own

inmost convictions. The situation had changed since 1530, and the

Elector desired a clearer expression, especially on the Papacy. Hence he

did not appoint Melanchthon, but Luther, to compose the articles. The

truth was to be confessed without regard to anything else.

Luther had received the order to draw up these articles as early as

August 20, 1536. September 3 Brueck wrote to the Elector on this matter:

"I also delivered to Doctor Martin the credentials which Your Electoral

Grace gave to me, and thereupon also spoke with him in accordance with

the command of Your Electoral Grace. He promised to be obedient in every

way. It also appears to me that he already has the work well in hand, to

open his heart to Your Electoral Grace on religion, which is to be, as

it were, his testament." (147.) Luther, who at the time thought that his

end would come in the near future, had no doubt used such an expression

himself. His articles were to be his testament. In the preface to the

articles he touched upon it once more, saying: "I have determined to

publish these articles in plain print, so that, should I die before

there will be a council (as I fully expect and hope, because the knaves

who flee the light and shun the day take such wretched pains to delay

and hinder the council), those who live and remain after my demise may

be able to produce my testimony and confession in addition to the

Confession which I previously issued, whereby up to this time I have

abided, and by God's grace will abide." (455.)

The Elector seems also to have enjoined silence on Luther with respect

to the articles until they had been approved at Wittenberg. For in his

letter to Spalatin, of December 15, 1536, Luther wrote: "But you will

keep these matters [his journey to Wittenberg to discuss the articles]

as secret as possible, and pretend other reasons for your departure.

_Sed haec secreta teneas quantum potes, et finge alias causas abeundi._"

(St. L. 21b, 2135.) December 11 the Elector again called attention to

the articles, desiring that Amsdorf, Agricola, and other outside

theologians be called to Wittenberg at his expense to take part in the

discussion. Shortly after, Luther must have finished the articles. The

numerous changes and improvements appearing in the original manuscript,

which is still preserved in the Heidelberg library, show how much time

and labor he spent on this work. Concluding his articles, Luther says:

"These are the articles on which I must stand, and, God willing, shall

stand even to my death; and I do not know how to change or to yield

anything in them. If any one wishes to yield anything, let him do it at

the peril of his conscience." (501, 3.)

Toward the close of the year Luther submitted the draft to his

colleagues, Jonas, Bugenhagen, Cruciger, Melanchthon, and those who had

come from abroad, Spalatin, Amsdorf, and Agricola. After thorough

discussion it was adopted by all with but few changes, _e.g._ regarding

the adoration of the saints, concerning which Luther had originally said

nothing. (Kolde, 44.) Spalatin reports that all the articles were read,

and successively considered and discussed. The Elector had spoken also

of points in which a concession might be possible. In the discussion at

Wittenberg, Spalatin mentioned as such the question whether the

Evangelicals, in case the Pope would concede the cup to them, should

cease preaching against the continuance of the one kind among the

Papists; furthermore, what was to be done with respect to ordination and

the adiaphora. Luther had not entered upon a discussion of these

questions, chiefly, perhaps, because he was convinced that the council

would condemn even the essential articles. (Compare Melanchthon's

letter of August 4, 1530, to Campegius, _C. R._ 2, 246.) After the

articles had been read and approved, Spalatin prepared a copy (now

preserved in the archives at Weimar), which was signed by the eight

theologians present, by Melanchthon, however, with the limitation that

the Pope might be permitted to retain his authority "iure humano," "in

case he would admit the Gospel." Perhaps Melanchthon, who probably would

otherwise have dissimulated, felt constrained to add this stricture on

account of the solemn demand of the Elector that no one should hide any

dissent of his, with the intention of publishing it later. (_C. R._ 3,

140)

69. Articles Endorsed by Elector.

With these first subscriptions, Luther sent his articles to the Elector

on January 3, 1537, by the hand of Spalatin. In the accompanying letter

of the same date he informed the Elector that he had asked Amsdorf,

Eisleben [Agricola], and Spalatin to come to Wittenberg on December 28

or the following days. "I presented the articles which I had myself

drawn up according to the command of Your Electoral Grace and talked

them over with them for several days, owing to my weakness, which

intervened (as I think, by the agency of Satan); for otherwise I had

expected to deliberate upon them no longer than one day. And herewith I

am sending them, as affirmed with their signatures, by our dear brother

and good friend, Magister George Spalatin, to deliver them to Your

Electoral Grace, as they all charged and asked me so to do. At the same

time, since there are some who, by suspicion and words, insinuate that

we parsons (_Pfaffen_), as they call us, by our stubbornness desire to

jeopardize you princes and lords, together with your lands and people,

etc., I very humbly ask, also in the name of all of us, that by all

means Your Electoral Grace would reprimand us for this. For if it would

prove dangerous for other humble people, to say nothing of Your

Electoral Grace, together with other lords, lands, and people, we would

much rather take it upon ourselves alone. Accordingly, Your Electoral

Grace will know well how far and to what extent you will accept these

articles, for we would have no one but ourselves burdened with them,

leaving it to every one whether he will, or will not, burden also

himself with them." (St. L. 21b, 2142.)

In his answer of January 7, 1537, the Elector expressed his thanks to

Luther for having drawn up the articles "in such Christian, true, and

pure fashion," and rejoiced over the unanimity of his theologians. At

the same time he ordered Chancellor Brueck to take steps toward having

the most prominent pastors of the country subscribe the articles, "so

that these pastors and preachers, having affixed their names, must abide

by these articles and not devise teachings of their own, according to

their own opinion and liking, in case Almighty God would summon Doctor

Martin from this world, which rests with His good will." (Kolde, 45.) In

the letter which the Elector sent to Luther, we read: "We give thanks to

Almighty God and to our Lord Christ for having granted you health and

strength to prepare these articles in such Christian, true, and pure

fashion; also that He has given you grace, so that you have agreed on

them with the others in Christian, also brotherly and friendly unity....

From them we also perceive that you have changed your mind in no point,

but that you are steadfastly adhering to the Christian articles, as you

have always taught, preached, and written, which are also built on the

foundation, namely, our Lord Jesus Christ, against whom the gates of

hell cannot prevail, and who shall also remain in spite of the Pope, the

council, and its adherents. May Almighty God, through our Lord Christ,

bestow His grace on us all, that with steadfast and true faith we abide

by them, and suffer no human fear or opinion to turn us therefrom!...

After reading them over for the second time we can entertain no other

opinion of them, but accept them as divine, Christian, and true, and

accordingly shall also confess them and have them confessed freely and

publicly before the council, before the whole world, and whatsoever may

come, and we shall ask God that He would vouchsafe grace to our brother

and to us, and also to our posterity, that steadfastly and without

wavering we may abide and remain in them." (21b, 2143.)

70. Melanchthon's Qualified Subscription.

In his letter to Luther the Elector made special reference also to the

qualified subscription of Melanchthon. "Concerning the Pope," he said,

"we have no hesitation about resisting him most vehemently. For if, from

good opinion, or for the sake of peace, as Magister Philip suggests, we

should suffer him to remain a lord having the right to command us, our

bishops, pastors, and preachers, we would expose ourselves to danger and

burden (because he and his successors will not cease in their endeavors

to destroy us entirely and to root out all our posterity), for which

there is no necessity, since God's Word has delivered and redeemed us

therefrom. And if we, now that God has delivered us from the Babylonian

captivity, should again run into such danger and thus tempt God, this

[subjection to the Pope] would, by a just decree of God, come upon us

through our wisdom, which otherwise, no doubt, will not come to pass."

(2145.) Evidently, the Elector, though not regarding Melanchthon's

deviation as a false doctrine, did not consider it to be without danger.

At the beginning of the Reformation, Luther had entertained similar

thoughts, but he had long ago seen through the Papacy, and abandoned

such opinions. In the Smalcald Articles he is done with the Pope and his

superiority, also by human right. And this for two reasons: first,

because it would be impossible for the Pope to agree to a mere

superiority _iure humano,_ for in that case he must suffer his rule and

estate to be overturned and destroyed together with all his laws and

books; in brief, he cannot do it; in the second place, because even such

a purely human superiority would only harm the Church. (473, 7. 8.)

Melanchthon, on the other hand, still adhered to the position which he

had occupied in the compromise discussions at Augsburg, whence, _e.g._,

he wrote to Camerarius, August 31, 1530 "Oh, would that I could, not

indeed fortify the domination, but restore the administration of the

bishops. For I see what manner of church we shall have when the

ecclesiastical body has been disorganized. I see that afterwards there

will arise a much more intolerable tyranny [of the princes] than there

ever was before." (_C. R._ 2, 334.) At Smalcald, however, his views met

with so little response among the princes and theologians that in his

"Tract on the Primacy of the Pope" he omitted them entirely and followed

Luther's trend of thought. March 1, 1537, Melanchthon himself wrote

concerning his defeat at the deliberations of the theologians on the

question in which articles concessions might be made in the interest of

peace, saying that the unlearned and the more vehement would not hear of

concessions, since the Lutherans would then be charged with

inconsistency and the Emperor would only increase his demands. (_C. R._

3, 292.) Evidently then, even at that time Melanchthon was not entirely

cured of his utopian dream.

"If the Pontiff would admit the Gospel, _si pontifex evangelium

admitteret._" A. Osiander remarked: "That is, if the devil would become

an apostle." In the Jena edition of Luther's works Melanchthon's phrase

is commented upon as follows: "And yet the Pope with his wolves, the

bishops, even now curses, blasphemes, and outlaws the holy Gospel more

horribly than ever before, raging and fuming against the Church of

Christ and us poor Christians in most horrible fashion, both with fire

and sword, and in whatever way he can, like a real werwolf, [tr. note:

sic!] aye, like the very devil himself." (6, 557b.) The same comment is

found in the edition of the Smalcald Articles prepared 1553 by Stolz

and Aurifaber, where the passage begins: "O quantum mutatus ab illo [the

former Melanchthon]!" (Koellner, 448. 457.) Carpzov remarks pertinently:

"This subscription [of Melanchthon] is not a part of the Book of Concord

[it does not contain the doctrine advocated by the Book of Concord], nor

was it approved by Luther; moreover, it was later on repudiated by

Philip himself." (_Isagoge_ 823. 894.)

71. Luther's Articles Sidetracked at Smalcald.

It was a large and brilliant assembly, especially of theologians, which

convened at Smalcald in February, 1537. Luther, too, was present. On

January 7 the Elector had written: "We hope that our God will grant you

grace, strength, and health that you may be able to make the journey to

Smalcald with us, and help us to right, and bring to a good issue, this

[matter concerning the Pope] and other matters."

As stated above, the Elector's plan was to elevate Luther's articles to

a confession officially recognized and subscribed to by all Lutheran

princes, estates, and theologians. Accordingly, on February 10, at the

first meeting held at Smalcald, Chancellor Brueck moved that the

theologians deliberate concerning the doctrine, so that, in case the

Lutherans would attend the council, they would know by what they

intended to stand, and whether any concessions were to be made, or, as

Brueck put it, whether anything good [perhaps a deliverance on the

Papacy] should be adopted, or something should be conceded.

Self-evidently, Brueck had Luther's articles in mind, although it cannot

be proved that he directly and expressly mentioned them or submitted

them for discussion and adoption. Perhaps, he felt from the very

beginning that the Elector would hardly succeed with his plans as

smoothly and completely as anticipated. For Luther, desiring to clear

the track for the whole truth in every direction, the Reformed as well

as the Papistic, both against the "false brethren who would be of our

party" (Preface to Sm. Art. 455, 4), as well as against the open

enemies, had in his articles so sharpened the expressions employed in

the Wittenberg Concord of 1536 concerning the Lord's Supper that the

assent of Philip of Hesse and the attending South German delegates and

theologians (Bucer, Blaurer, Wolfart, etc.) was more than doubtful.

Luther's letter to the adherents of Zwingli, December 1, 1537, shows

that he did not at all desire unnecessarily to disturb the work of union

begun by the Wittenberg Concord. (St. L. 17, 2143.) Still, he at the

same time endeavored to prevent a false union resting on

misunderstanding and self-deception. And, no doubt, his reformulation of

the article on the Lord's Supper was intended to serve this purpose.

Besides, owing to a very painful attack of gravel, Luther was not able

to attend the sessions, hence could not make his influence felt in a

decisive manner as desired by the Elector.

This situation was exploited by Melanchthon in the interest of his

attitude toward the Zwinglians, which now was much more favorable than

it had been at Augsburg, 1530. From the very outset he opposed the

official adoption of Luther's articles. He desired more freedom with

regard to both the Romanists and the Reformed than was offered by

Luther's articles. The first appears from his subscription. Concerning

the article of the Lord's Supper, however, which the Strassburgers and

others refused to accept, Melanchthon does not seem to have voiced any

scruples during the deliberations at Wittenberg. Personally he may even

have been able to accept Luther's form, and this, too, more honestly

than Bucer did at Smalcald. For as late as September 6, 1557, he wrote

to Joachim of Anhalt: "I have answered briefly that in doctrine all are

agreed, and that we all embrace and retain the Confession with the

Apology and Luther's confession written before the Synod of Mantua.

_Respondi breviter, consensum esse omnium de doctrina: amplecti nos

omnes et retinere Confessionem cum Apologia et confessione Lutheri

scripta ante Mantuanam Synodum._" (_C. R._ 9, 260.) But, although

Melanchthon, for his person, accepted Luther's article on the Lord's

Supper, he nevertheless considered it to be dangerous to the Concord

with the Southern Germans and to the Smalcald League. Privately he also

made known his dissatisfaction in no uncertain manner. And in so doing,

he took shelter behind Philip of Hesse, who, as at Augsburg, 1530, still

desired to have the Zwinglians regarded and treated as weak brethren.

Kolde relates: "On the same day (February 10) Melanchthon reported to

the Landgrave: 'One article, that concerning the Sacrament of the Holy

Supper, has been drawn up somewhat vehemently, in that it states that

the bread is the body of the Lord which Luther at first did not draw up

in this form, but, as contained in the [Wittenberg] Concord, namely,

that the body of the Lord is given with the bread, and this was due to

Pomeranus, for he is a vehement man and a coarse Pomeranian. Otherwise

he [Melanchthon] knew of no shortcoming or complaint in all the

articles.' ... 'He also said' (this the Landgrave reports to Jacob Sturm

of Strassburg as an expression of Melanchthon) 'that Luther would hear

of no yielding or receding, but declared: This have I drawn up; if the

princes and estates desired to yield anything, it would rest with them,'

etc. The estates, Melanchthon advised, might therefore in every way

declare that they had adopted the Confession and the Concord, and were

minded to abide by them. At the same time he promised to demand at the

prospective deliberation of the theologians, 'that the article of the

Sacrament be drawn up as contained in the Concord. 'Melanchthon's

assertion that Bugenhagen influenced Luther's formulation of the article

on the Lord's Supper is probably correct. At any rate, it can be proved

that Luther really changed the article. For a glance at the original

manuscript shows that he had at first written, in conformity with the

Concord, 'that the true body and blood of Christ is under the bread and

wine,' but later on changed it to read: 'that the bread and wine of the

Lord's Supper are the true body and blood of Christ.'" (48.) Melanchthon

was diplomatic enough to hide from the Landgrave his strictures on

Luther's articles about the Pope, knowing well that in this point he

could expect neither approval nor support.

72. Articles Not Discussed in Meeting of League.

As the Southern Germans regarded Luther's formulation of the article on

the Lord's Supper with disfavor, the Landgrave found little difficulty

in winning over (through Jacob Sturm) the delegates of Augsburg and Ulm

to Melanchthon's view of declaring adherence only to the Confession and

the Wittenberg Concord. Already on February 11 the cities decided to

"decline on the best grounds" the Saxon proposition. Following were the

reasons advanced: It was not necessary at present to enter upon the

proposition, since the council would make slow progress, as the Emperor

and the King of France were not yet at peace. They had not understood

this (the adoption of the Saxon proposition) to be the purpose of the

invitation to bring scholars with them. They had a confession, the

Augustana, presented to the Emperor. It was also to be feared that

deliberations on the question whether any concessions should be made,

might lead to a division; nor would this remain concealed from the

Papists. If the Elector desired to present some articles, he might

transmit them, and they, in turn, would send them to their superiors

for inspection. (Kolde, _Analecta,_ 296.)

In the afternoon of February 11 the princes according to the report of

the Strassburgers, expressed their satisfaction with the resolution of

the cities. At the same time they declared that they were not minded to

make any concessions to the Papists, nor to dispute about, or question,

anything in the Confession or the Wittenberg Concord, "but merely to

review the Confession, not to change anything against its contents and

substance, nor that of the Concord, but solely to enlarge on the Papacy,

which before this, at the Diet, had been omitted in order to please His

Imperial Majesty and for other reasons;" that such was the purpose of

the deliberation for which the scholars had been summoned; and that this

was not superfluous, since "they were all mortal, and it was necessary

that their posterity be thoroughly informed as to what their doctrine

had been, lest others who would succeed to their places accept something

else." The report continues: "The cities did not object to this." (296.)

According to this report, then, Luther's articles were neither discussed

nor adopted at the official meeting of the princes and estates belonging

to the Smalcald League. Without mentioning them, they declared in their

final resolution: Our scholars have "unanimously agreed among themselves

in all points and articles contained in our Confession and Apology,

presented at the Diet of Augsburg, excepting only that they have

expanded and drawn up more clearly than there contained _one article,_

concerning the Primacy of the Pope of Rome." (Koellner, 468.) Koestlin

remarks: "Since the princes decided to decline the council absolutely,

they had no occasion to discuss Luther's articles." (2, 403.)

73. Meeting of Theologians.

At Smalcald the first duty imposed upon the scholars and theologians was

once more to discuss the Augustana and the Apology carefully, and to

acknowledge both as their own confessions by their signatures. Thereupon

they were, in a special treatise, to enlarge on the Papacy. The

Strassburg delegates report: "It has also come to pass that the scholars

received orders once more to read the articles of the Confession and to

enlarge somewhat on the Papacy, which they did." (Kolde, _Analecta,_

298.) However, since neither the Augustana nor its Apology contained an

article against the Papacy, the demand of the princes could only be

satisfied by a special treatise, the "Tractatus de Potestate et Primatu

Papae," which Melanchthon wrote and completed by February 17, whereupon

it was immediately delivered to the princes.

The princes had furthermore ordered the theologians, while reviewing and

discussing the Augustana (and its Apology), to reenforce its doctrine

with additional proofs. Owing to lack of time and books, this was not

carried out. February 17 Osiander reports to the Nuernberg preachers:

"We are enjoying good health here, although we traveled in stormy

weather and over roads that offered many difficulties, and are living

under a constantly beclouded sky, which unpleasantries are increased by

troublesome and difficult questions in complicated matters.... The first

business imposed on us by the princes embraces two things: first, to

fortify the Confession and the Apology with every kind of argument from

the Holy Scriptures, the fathers, councils, and the decrees of the

Popes; thereupon, diligently to discuss in detail everything concerning

the Primacy, which was omitted in the Confession because it was odious.

The latter we completed so far to-day that we shall immediately deliver

a copy to the princes. The former, however will be postponed to another

time and place, since it requires a longer time, as well as libraries,

which are lacking here." (_C. R._ 3, 267.)

The discussion of the Confession was also to serve the purpose of

obtaining mutual assurance whether they were all really agreed in

doctrine. This led to deliberations on the doctrine of the Lord's Supper

as well as on the question what concessions might be made to the

Romanists. According to a report of Melanchthon, March 1, the

theologians were to discuss the doctrines, not superficially, but very

thoroughly, in order that all disagreement might be removed, and a

harmonious and complete system of doctrines exist in our churches. They

were to review the Confession in order to learn whether any one

deviated in any article or disapproved of anything. But Melanchthon

remarks that this object was not reached, since the special request had

been voiced not to increase the disagreement by any quarrel and thus to

endanger the Smalcald League. (_C. R._ 3, 292.) In a second letter of

the same date he says that a real doctrinal discussion had never come to

pass, partly because Luther's illness prevented him from taking part in

the meetings, partly because the timidity of certain men [the Landgrave

and others] had prevented an exact disputation lest any discord might

arise. (296.) March 3 he wrote to Jonas in a similar vein saying that

the reports of violent controversies among the theologians at Smalcald

were false. For although they had been in consultation with one another

for the purpose of discovering whether all the theologians in attendance

there agreed in doctrine the matter had been treated briefly and

incidentally. (298.)

As far as the Lord's Supper is concerned Melanchthon's report concerning

the superficial character of the doctrinal discussions is little if at

all exaggerated. He himself was one of those timid souls of whom he

spoke having from the beginning done all he could not only to bar

Luther's articles from the deliberations but also to prevent any

penetrating discussion of the Lord's Supper. Assent to the Wittenberg

Concord was considered satisfactory although all felt, and believed to

know, that some of the Southern Germans did not agree with the loyal

Lutherans in this matter. Of the attending theologians who were under

suspicion Bucer, Blaurer, Fagius, Wolfart, Fontanus, and Melander, only

the first two took part in the deliberations. (292.) March 1 Melanchthon

wrote to Camerarius: "Bucer spoke openly and clearly of the Mystery [the

Lord's Supper] affirming the presence of Christ. He satisfied all of our

party also those who are more severe. Blaurer, however, employed such

general expressions as, that Christ was present. Afterward he added

several more ambiguous expressions. Osiander pressed him somewhat hotly;

but since we did not desire to arouse any very vehement quarrel, I

terminated the discussion. Thus we separated, so that agreement was

restored among all others, while he [Blaurer] did not seem to

contradict. I know that this is weak but nothing else could be done at

this time, especially since Luther was absent, being tortured by very

severe gravel pains." (292.)

This agrees with the report Veit Dietrich made to Foerster, May 16,

stating: At the first meeting of the committee of the theologians they

completed the first nine articles of the Augustana. Blaurer, Wolfart,

and some others of those who were doctrinally under suspicion (_nobis

suspecti de doctrina_) were present. "However, when the article of the

Lord's Supper was to be discussed on the following day, the meeting was

prevented, I do not know by whom. It is certain that the princes, too,

desired another meeting, because they feared a rupture of the [Smalcald]

Alliance, if any doctrinal difference should become evident, which,

however, would occur if the matter were thoroughly discussed. Since the

disputation was prevented, we were commissioned to write on the Power of

the Pope in order to have something to do. Report had it that Blaurer

did not approve the Concord of Wittenberg; certainly, he asked Philip

for expressions of the Fathers (which are now in my possession), in

order to be better furnished with arguments. This prompted Pomeranus and

Amsdorf again to convene the theologians against Melanchthon's will.

Then the Lord's Supper was discussed. Bucer indeed satisfied all.

Blaurer, however, while speaking vaguely of the other matters,

nevertheless publicly attacked the statement that the ungodly do not

receive the body of Christ." Wolfart declared that he was present at the

Concord made at Wittenberg, and had approved it. It was unpleasant for

him [Dietrich] when hereupon Stephanus Agricola and then Wolfart

rehashed some old statements, _vetera quaedam dicta._ (370.)

74. Luther's Articles Subscribed.

As to the articles of Luther, Veit Dietrich reports that they were

privately circulated at Smalcald and read by all. They were also to be

read at the meeting of the theologians on February 18. (_C. R._ 3, 371.)

As a matter of fact, however, neither a public reading nor a real

discussion, nor an official adoption resulted. The Strassburg delegates

report: "Doctor Martin Luther has also drawn up some special articles,

which he purposed to send to the council on his own accord, copies of

which we have designated with W." The Strassburgers, then, were in

position to send home a copy of these articles. Furthermore Osiander

relates in a letter dated February 17: "Besides this, Luther has also

written articles at Wittenberg, short indeed, but splendid and keen

(_illustres et argutos_), in which everything is summed up in German

wherefrom we cannot recede in the council without committing sacrilege.

To-morrow we shall read them publicly in our meeting, in order that any

one who wishes to add anything to them may present this in the presence

of all. They will also, as I hope, deliberate on the [Wittenberg]

Concord in the matter concerning the Lord's Supper. I regard Bucer as

being sincerely one of us; Blaurer, however, by no means. For Philip

tells of his having remarked that he was not able to agree with us."

(268.) On February 18, however, Luther was taken ill and an official,

public reading and discussion of his articles did not take place on this

day nor, as already stated, at a later date.

Luther's articles, however, were nevertheless adopted at Smalcald,

though not by the South Germans. When all other business had been

transacted, they were presented for voluntary subscription. Bugenhagen

had called the theologians together for this purpose. He proposed that

now all those who wished (_qui velint_) should sign the articles Luther

had brought with him. Hereupon Bucer declared that he had no commission

to do this. However, in order to obliterate the impression that he

declined to subscribe because of doctrinal differences, he added that he

knew nothing in Luther's articles which might be criticized. Blaurer of

Constance, Melander of Hesse, and Wolfart of Augsburg followed his

example in declaring that they had no commission to sign the articles.

In order not to endanger the Smalcald League, Bugenhagen, as appears

from his proposition refrained from urging any one to sign. This was

also the position of the other theologians.

Veit Dietrich reports: "Bucer was the first to say that he had no orders

to sign. He added, however, that he knew of nothing in these articles

that could be criticized, but that his magistrates had reasons for

instructing him not to sign them. Afterwards Blaurer, Dionysius

Melander, and your Boniface [Wolfart of Augsburg] said the same [that

they had not been authorized by their superiors to sign]. The thought

came to me immediately why Bucer, who taught correctly, should have been

the first to refuse his signature, since it was certain that the others,

Blaurer and if you will, also your man, would not subscribe because they

did not approve of the dogma of the Lord's Supper. This would have led

to an open doctrinal schism, which the Elector, Ernst of Lueneburg, and

the Counts of Anhalt would, under no circumstances, have tolerated among

the confederates. But, since Bucer did not subscribe, it was not

necessary to dispute about the doctrine. When we saw this, I was also

pleased that Luther's articles received no attention [in the official

subscription], and that all subscribed merely to the Augustana and the

Concord. And there was no one who refused to do this." (371.)

While thus Bucer, Fagius, Wolfart, Blaurer, and Fontanus refused to

affix their signatures, the attending loyal Lutheran theologians

endorsed Luther's articles all the more enthusiastically. And while the

signatures affixed to the Augustana and the Apology total 32, including

the suspected theologians, 44 names appear under Luther's articles.

Among these is found also the abnormal subscription of Melander of

Hesse: "I subscribe to the Confession, the Apology, and the Concord in

the matter of the Eucharist," which is probably to be interpreted as a

limitation of Luther's Article of the Lord's Supper.

Although, therefore, the subscription of the Smalcald Articles lacked

the official character and was not by order of the Smalcald League as

such, it nevertheless is in keeping with the actual facts when the

Formula of Concord refers to Luther's Articles as "subscribed at that

time [1537] by the chief theologians." (777, 4; 853, 7.) All true

Lutheran pastors assembled at Smalcald recognized in Luther's articles

their own, spontaneous confession against the Papists as well as against

the Zwinglians and other enthusiasts.

75. Endorsed by Princes and Estates.

The Thorough Declaration of the Formula of Concord makes the further

statement that the Smalcald Articles were to be delivered in the Council

at Mantua "in the name of the Estates, Electors, and Princes." (853, 7.)

Evidently this is based on Luther's Preface to the Smalcald Articles

written 1538, in which he says concerning his Articles: "They have also

been accepted and unanimously confessed by our side, and it has been

resolved that, in case the Pope with his adherents should ever be so

bold as seriously and in good faith, without lying and cheating to hold

a truly free Christian Council (as, indeed, he would be in duty bound to

do), they be publicly delivered in order to set forth the Confession of

our Faith." (455.)

Kolde and others surmise that Luther wrote as he did because, owing to

his illness, he was not acquainted with the true situation at Smalcald.

Tschackert, too, takes it for granted that Luther, not being

sufficiently informed, was under the erroneous impression that the

princes and estates as well as the theologians had adopted, and

subscribed to, his articles. (300. 302.) Nor has a better theory of

solving the difficulty hitherto been advanced. Yet it appears very

improbable. If adopted, one must assume that Luther's attention was

never drawn to this error of his. For Luther does not merely permit his

assertion to stand in the following editions of the Smalcald Articles,

but repeats it elsewhere as well. In an opinion written 1541 he writes:

"In the second place, I leave the matter as it is found in the articles

adopted at Smalcald; I shall not be able to improve on them; nor do I

know how to yield anything further." (St. L. 17, 666.)

The Elector, too, shared Luther's opinion. In a letter of October 27,

1543, he urged him to publish in Latin and German (octavo), under the

title, Booklet of the Smalcald Agreement--_Buechlein der geschehenen

Schmalkaldischen Vergleichung,_ the "Articles of Agreement,

Vergleichungsartikel," on which he and Melanchthon had come to an

agreement in 1537, at Smalcald, with the other allied estates, scholars,

and theologians. (St. L. 21b, 2913.) October 17, 1552, immediately after

he had obtained his liberty, the Elector made a similar statement. (_C.

R._ 7, 1109.) Nor did Spalatin possess a knowledge in this matter

differing from that of Luther and the Elector. He, too, believed that

not only the theologians, but the princes and estates as well, with the

exception of Hesse, Wuerttemberg, Strassburg, etc., had subscribed to

Luther's articles. (Kolde, 51.)

Evidently, then, Luther's statement was generally regarded as being

substantially and approximately correct and for all practical purposes

in keeping, if not with the exact letter and form at least with the real

spirit of what transpired at Smalcald and before as well as after this

convention. It was not a mere delusion of Luther's, but was generally

regarded as agreeing with the facts, that at Smalcald his articles were

not only subscribed by the theologians, but adopted also by the Lutheran

princes and estates, though, in deference to the Landgrave and the South

German cities, not officially and by the Smalcald League as such.

76. Symbolical Authority of Smalcald Articles.

The importance attached to the Smalcald Articles over against the

Reformed and Crypto-Calvinists appears from a statement made by the

Elector of Saxony, October 17, 1552 (shortly after his deliverance from

captivity), in which he maintained that the Lutheran Church could have

been spared her internal dissensions if every one had faithfully abided

by the articles of Luther. He told the Wittenberg theologians that

during his captivity he had heard of the dissensions and continued

controversies, "which caused us no little grief. And we have therefore

often desired with all our heart that in the churches of our former

lands and those of others no change, prompted by human wisdom, had been

undertaken nor permitted in the matters [doctrines] as they were held

during the life of the blessed Doctor Martin Luther and during our rule,

and confirmed at Smalcald, in the year 1537, by all pastors and

preachers of the estates of the Augsburg Confession then assembled at

that place. For if this had been done, no doubt, the divisions and

errors prevailing among the teachers of said Confession, together with

the grievous and harmful offenses which resulted therefrom, would, with

the help of God, have been avoided." (_C. R._ 7, 1109.)

In the Prolegomena to his edition of the Lutheran Confessions, Hase

remarks concerning the symbolical authority of Luther's articles: "The

formula of faith, drawn up by such a man, and adorned with such names,

immediately enjoyed the greatest authority. _Fidei formula a tali viro

profecta talibusque nominibus ornata maxima statim auctoritate

floruit._" To rank among the symbolical books, Luther's articles

required a special resolution on the part of the princes and estates as

little as did his two catechisms; contents and the Reformer's name were

quite sufficient. Voluntarily the articles were subscribed at Smalcald.

On their own merits they won their place of honor in our Church. In the

situation then obtaining, they voiced the Lutheran position in a manner

so correct and consistent that every loyal Lutheran spontaneously gave

and declared his assent. In keeping with the changed historical context

of the times, they offered a correct explanation of the Augsburg

Confession, adding thereto a declaration concerning the Papacy, the

absence of which had become increasingly painful. They struck the

timely, logical, Lutheran note also over against the Zwinglian and

Bucerian [Reformed and Unionistic] tendencies. Luther's articles offered

quarters neither for disguised Papists nor for masked Calvinists. In

brief they gave such a clear expression to genuine Lutheranism that

false spirits could not remain in their company. It was the recognition

of these facts which immediately elicited the joyful acclaim of all true

Lutherans. To them it was a recommendation of Luther's articles when

Bucer, Blaurer, and others, though having subscribed the Augsburg

Confession, refused to sign them. Loyal Lutherans everywhere felt that

the Smalcald Articles presented an up-to-date touchstone of the pure

Lutheran truth, and that, in taking their stand on them, their feet were

planted, over against the aberrations of the Romanists as well as the

Zwinglians, on ground immovable.

In the course of time, the esteem in which Luther's articles were held,

rose higher and higher. Especially during and after the controversies on

the Interim, as well as in the subsequent controversies with the

Crypto-Calvinists, the Lutherans became more and more convinced that the

Smalcald Articles and not the Variata, contained the correct exposition

of the Augsburg Confession. At the Diet of Regensburg, in 1541, the

Elector, by his delegates, sent word to Melanchthon "to stand by the

Confession and the Smalcald Agreement [Smalcald Articles] in word and in

sense." The delegates answered that Philip would not yield anything

"which was opposed to the Confession and the Smalcald Agreement," as he

had declared that "he would die rather than yield anything against his

conscience." (_C. R._ 4, 292.) In an opinion of 1544 also the

theologians of Hesse, who at Smalcald had helped to sidetrack Luther's

articles put them on a par with the Augustana. At Naumburg in 1561,

where Elector Frederick of the Palatinate and the Crypto-Calvinists

endeavored to undermine the authority of Luther, Duke John Frederick of

Saxony declared that he would abide by the original Augustana and its

"true declaration and norm," the Smalcald Articles.

Faithful Lutherans everywhere received the Smalcald Articles into their

_corpora doctrinae._ In 1567 the Convention of Coswig declared them to

be "the norm by which controversies are to be decided, _norma decidendi

controversias_." Similarly, the Synod of Moelln, 1559. In 1560 the

ministerium of Luebeck and the Senate of Hamburg confessionally accepted

the Articles. Likewise, the Convention of Lueneburg in 1561, and the

theologians of Schleswig-Holstein in 1570. The Thorough Declaration

could truthfully say that the Smalcald Articles had been embodied in the

confessional writings of the Lutheran Church "for the reason that these

have always and everywhere been regarded as the common, unanimously

accepted meaning of our churches and, moreover, have been subscribed at

that time by the chief and most enlightened theologians, and have held

sway in all evangelical churches and schools." (855, 11.)

77. Editions of Smalcald Articles.

In 1538 Luther published his Articles, which _editio princeps_ was

followed by numerous other editions, two of them in the same year. In

the copy of the Articles which Spalatin took at Wittenberg the title

reads: "Opinion concerning the Faith, and What We Must Adhere to

Ultimately at the Future Council. _Bedenken des Glaubens halben, und

worauf im kuenftigen Konzil endlich zu beharren sei._" The _editio

princeps_ bears the title: "Articles which were to be Delivered on

Behalf of Our Party at the Council of Mantua, or Where Else It Would

Meet. _Artikel, so da haetten aufs Konzilium zu Mantua, oder wo es

wuerde sein, ueberantwortet werden von unsers Teils wegen._" These

titles designate the purpose for which the articles were framed by order

of the Elector. In the edition of 1553, published by John Stolz and John

Aurifaber, Luther's Articles are designated as "prepared for the Diet of

Smalcald in the year 1537, _gestellt auf den Tag zu Schmalkalden Anno

1537._" Says Carpzov: "They are commonly called Smalcald Articles after

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.)