F. Bente - Historical Introductions.VI. Apology of the Augsburg Confession

Luther stayed at Coburg during the Diet of Augsburg.

VI. The Apology of the Augsburg Confession.

48. Emperor Demands Adoption of Confutation.

The Confutation was written in the name of the Emperor. This is

indicated by the title: "Roman Imperial Confutation,

_Roemisch-Kaiserliche Konfutation._" (_C. R._ 21, 189.) And according to

his declaration of July 5, demanding that the Lutherans acknowledge him

as judge, the Emperor, immediately before the reading, announced: The

Confutation contained his faith and his verdict on the Confession of the

Lutherans; he demanded that they accept it; should they refuse to do so,

he would prove himself the warden and protector of the Church. In the

Epilog the Emperor gave expression to the following thoughts: From this

Confutation he saw that the Evangelicals "in many articles agree with

the Universal and also the Roman Church, and reject and condemn many

wicked teachings current among the common people of the German nation."

He therefore did not doubt that, having heard his answer to their

Confession, they would square themselves also in the remaining points,

and return to what, by common consent, had hitherto been held by all

true believers. Should they fail to heed his admonition, they must

consider that he would be compelled to reveal and demean himself in this

matter in such manner as "by reason of his office, according to his

conscience, behooved the supreme warden and protector of the Holy

Christian Church." (27, 228.) Immediately after the reading, Frederick,

Duke of the Palatinate, declared in the name of the Emperor that the

Confutation was the Emperor's answer to the Lutherans, the verdict he

rendered against their Confession; and they were now called upon to

relinquish the articles of their Confession that were refuted in the

Confutation, and to return to the Roman Church in unity of faith. (See

the reports of Brenz, Melanchthon, and the delegates from Nuernberg, _C.

R._ 2, 245. 250. 253.) Thus the Emperor, who had promised to have the

deliberations carried on in love and kindness, demanded blind

submission, and closed his demand with a threat. His manifesto was

Protestant; his actions remained Papistical. In the estimation of the

Romanists, the Emperor, by condescending to an extended reply to the

Lutheran Confession, had done more than his duty, and much more than

they had considered expedient. Now they rejoiced, believing that

everything they wished for had been accomplished, and that there was no

other way open for the Lutherans than to submit, voluntarily or by

compulsion.

Naturally the attitude of the Emperor was a great disappointment to the

Lutherans, and it caused much alarm and fear among them. From the very

beginning they had declared themselves ready in the interest of peace,

to do whatever they could "with God and conscience." And this remained

their position to the very last. They dreaded war, and were determined

to leave no stone unturned towards avoiding this calamity. In this

interest even Philip of Hesse was prepared to go to the very limits of

possibility. Melanchthon wrote: "The Landgrave deports himself with much

restraint. He has openly declared to me that in order to preserve peace,

he would accept even sterner conditions, as long as he did not thereby

disgrace the Gospel." (_C. R._ 2, 254.) But a denial of God, conscience,

and the Gospel was precisely what the Emperor expected. Hence the

Lutherans refer to his demands as cruel, impossible of fulfilment, and

as a breach of promise. Outraged by the Emperor's procedure, and fearing

for his own safety, the Landgrave secretly left the Diet on August 6.

War seemed inevitable to many. The reading of the Confutation had

shattered the last hopes of the Lutherans for a peaceful settlement.

They said so to each other, and wrote it to those at home, though not

all of them in the lachrymose tone of the vacillating Melanchthon, who,

filled with a thousand fears was temporarily more qualified for

depriving others of their courage than for inspiring courage. (Plitt,

24.)

49. Sustained by Luther.

In these days of severe trials and sore distress the Lutherans were

sustained by the comforting letters of Luther and the bracing

consciousness that it was the divine truth itself which they advocated.

And the reading of the Confutation had marvelously strengthened this

conviction. Brueck reports an eyewitness of the reading of the Augustana

as saying: "The greater portion among them [the Papists] is not so

ignorant as not to have seen long ago that they are in error." (Plitt,

18.) Because of this conviction there was, as Melanchthon reported, a

"marvelous congratulation" among the Lutherans after the reading of the

Confutation. "We stand for the divine truth, which God cannot but lead

to victory, while our opponents are condemned by their own consciences,"

--such was the buoying conviction of the Lutherans. And in this the

powerful letters of Luther strengthened the confessors at Augsburg. He

wrote: "This is the nature of our Christian doctrine, that it must be

held and grasped as certain and that every one must think and be

convinced: The doctrine is true and sure indeed and cannot fail. But

whoever falls to reasoning and begins to waver within himself, saying:

My dear friend, do you believe that it is true, etc.? such a heart will

never be a true Christian." (Plitt, 12.)

Concerning the spiritual support which the confessors at Augsburg,

notably Melanchthon, received from Luther, Plitt remarks: "What Luther

did during his solitary stay in the Castle at Coburg cannot be rated

high enough. His ideal deportment during these days, so trying for the

Church, is an example which at all times Evangelical Christians may look

up to, in order to learn from him and to emulate him. What he wrote to

his followers in order to comfort and encourage them, can and must at

all times refresh and buoy up those who are concerned about the course

of the Church." (24.) June 30 Veit Dietrich who shared Luther's solitude

at Coburg, wrote to Melanchthon: "My dear Philip, you do not know how

concerned I am for your welfare, and I beseech you for Christ's sake not

to regard as vain the Doctor's [Luther's] letters to you. I cannot

sufficiently admire that man's unique constancy, joy, confidence, and

hope in these days of most sore distress. And daily he nourishes them by

diligent contemplation of the Word of God. Not a day passes in which he

does not spend in prayer at least three hours, such as are most precious

for study. On one occasion I chanced to hear him pray. Good Lord, what a

spirit, what faith spoke out of his words! He prayed with such reverence

that one could see he was speaking with God, and withal with such faith

and such confidence as is shown by one who is speaking with his father

and friend. I know, said he, that Thou art our Father and our God.

Therefore I am certain that Thou wilt confound those who persecute Thy

children. If Thou dost not do it, the danger is Thine as well as ours.

For the entire matter is Thine own. We were compelled to take hold of

it; mayest Thou therefore also protect it, etc. Standing at a distance,

I heard him praying in this manner with a loud voice. Then my heart,

too, burned mightily within me, when he spoke so familiarly, so

earnestly, and reverently with God, and in his prayer insisted on the

promises in the Psalms, as one who was certain that everything he prayed

for would be done. Hence I do not doubt that his prayer will prove a

great help in the desperately bad affair of this Diet. And you, my

teacher, would do far better to imitate our father, the Doctor, also in

this point. For with your miserable cares and your weakling tears you

will accomplish nothing, but prepare a sad destruction for yourself and

us all, who take pleasure in, and are benefited by nothing more than

your welfare." (_C. R._ 2, 158f.; St. L. 15, 929f.)

50. Copy of Confutation Refused to Lutherans.

Since the Confutation, in the manner indicated, had been presented as

the Emperor's final verdict upon the Augsburg Confession the Lutherans

were compelled to declare themselves. Accordingly, Chancellor Brueck at

once responded to the demand for submission made through the Palatinate

after the reading of the Confutation, saying: The importance of this

matter, which concerned their salvation, required that the Confutation

be delivered to the Lutherans for careful inspection and examination to

enable them to arrive at a decision in the matter. The delegates from

Nuernberg reported, in substance: After the Confutation was read, Doctor

Brueck answered: Whereas, according to their Confession, the Lutherans

were willing to do and yield everything that could be so done with a

good conscience, whereas, furthermore, according to the Confutation,

some of their [the Lutherans'] articles were approved, others entirely

rejected, still others partly admitted to be right and partly

repudiated; and whereas the Confutation was a somewhat lengthy document:

therefore the Electors, princes, and cities deemed it necessary to scan

these articles more closely, the more so, because many writings were

adduced in them that made it necessary to show to what intent, and if at

all they were rightly quoted, and accordingly requested the Emperor,

since he had promised to hear both parties, to submit the Confutation

for their inspection. The Emperor answered: "As it was now late and

grown dark, and since the matter was important, he would consider their

request and reply to it later." Hereupon, according to the Nuernberg

delegates, "the chancellor pleaded again and most earnestly that His

Imperial Majesty would consider this important and great affair as a

gracious and Christian emperor ought to do, and not deny their prayer

and petition, but deliver to them the document which had been read."

(_C. R._ 2, 251.)

Now, although the Romanists were in no way minded and disposed to submit

the Confutation to the Lutherans, they nevertheless did not consider it

wise to refuse their petition outright and bluntly; for they realized

that this would redound to the glory neither of themselves nor of their

document. The fanatical theologians, putting little faith in that sorry

fabrication of their own, and shunning the light, at first succeeded in

having a resolution passed declaring the entire matter settled with the

mere reading. However in order to save their faces and to avoid the

appearance of having refused the Confutation as well as "the scorn and

ridicule on that account" (as the Emperor naively put it), and "lest any

one say that His Imperial Majesty had not, in accordance with his

manifesto, first dealt kindly with" the Lutherans, the estates resolved

on August 4 to grant their request. At the same time, however, they

added conditions which the Lutherans regarded as dangerous, insinuating

and impossible, hence rendering the Catholic offer illusory and

unacceptable.

August 5 the Emperor communicated the resolutions adopted by the

Catholic estates to the Lutherans. According to a report of the

Nuernberg delegates the negotiations proceeded as follows: The Emperor

declared that the Confutation would be forwarded to the Lutherans, but

with the understanding that they must come to an agreement with the

Catholic princes and estates; furthermore that they spare His Imperial

Majesty with their refutations and make no further reply and, above all,

that they keep this and other writings to themselves, nor let them pass

out of their hands, for instance, by printing them or in any other way.

Hereupon Brueck, in the name of the Lutherans, thanked the Emperor, at

the same time voicing the request "that, considering their dire

necessity, His Imperial Majesty would permit his Elector and princes to

make answer to the Confutation." Duke Frederick responded: The Emperor

was inclined to grant them permission to reply, but desired the answer

to be "as profitable and brief as possible," also expected them to come

to an agreement with the Catholics, and finally required a solemn

promise that they would not permit the document to pass out of their

hands. Brueck answered guardedly: The Lutherans would gladly come to an

agreement "as far as it was possible for them to do so with God and

their conscience;" and as to their answer and the preservation of the

document, they would be found "irreprehensible." The Emperor now

declared: "The document should be delivered to the Lutherans in case

they would promise to keep it to themselves and not allow it to fall

into other hands; otherwise His Imperial Majesty was not minded to

confer with them any longer." Brueck asked for time to consider the

matter, and was given till evening. In his response he declined the

Emperor's offer, at the same time indicating that an answer to the

Confutation would be forthcoming nevertheless. The Lutherans, he said,

felt constrained to relinquish their petition, because the condition

that the document be kept in their hands had been stressed in such a

manner that they could not but fear the worst interpretation if it would

nevertheless leak out without their knowledge and consent; still, they

offered to answer the Confutation, since they had noted the most

important points while it was read; in this case, however, they asked

that it be not charged to them if anything should be overlooked; at the

same time they besought the Emperor to consider this action of theirs as

compelled by dire necessity, and in no other light. (_C. R._ 2, 255ff.)

In the Preface to the Apology, Melanchthon says: "This [a copy of the

Confutation] our princes could not obtain, except on the most perilous

conditions, which it was impossible for them to accept." (99.)

51. Lutherans on Roman Duplicity and Perfidy.

The duplicity and perfidy of the Emperor and the Romanists in their

dealings with the Lutherans was characterized by Chancellor Brueck as

follows: "The tactics of the opponents in offering a copy [of the

Confutation] were those of the fox when he invited the stork to be his

guest and served him food in a broad, shallow pan, so that he could not

take the food with his long bill. In like manner they treated the five

electors and princes, as well as the related cities, when they offered

to accede to their request and submit a copy to them, but upon

conditions which they could not accept without greatly violating their

honor." (Koellner, 419.) Over against the Emperor's demand of blind

submission and his threat of violence, the Lutherans appealed to their

pure Confession, based on the Holy Scriptures, to their good conscience,

bound in the Word of God, and to the plain wording of the imperial

manifesto, which had promised discussions in love and kindness. In an

Answer of August 9, _e.g._, they declared: The articles of the Augustana

which we have presented are drawn from the Scriptures, and "it is

impossible for us to relinquish them with a good conscience and peace of

heart, unless we find a refutation founded on God's Word and truth, on

which we may rest our conscience in peace and certainty." (Foerstemann,

2, 185.) In the Preface to the Apology, Melanchthon comments as follows

on the demand of the Romanists: "Afterwards, negotiations for peace were

begun, in which it was apparent that our princes declined no burden,

however grievous, which could be assumed without offense to conscience.

But the adversaries obstinately demanded that we should approve certain

manifest abuses and errors; and as we could not do this, His Imperial

Majesty again demanded that our princes should assent to the

Confutation. This our princes refused to do. For how could they, in a

matter pertaining to religion, assent to a writing which they had not

been able to examine, especially as they had heard that some articles

were condemned in which it was impossible for them, without grievous

sin, to approve the opinions of the adversaries?" (99.)

Self-evidently the Lutherans also protested publicly that the procedure

of the Romanists was in contravention of the proclamation of the Emperor

as well as of his declaration on June 20, according to which both

parties were to deliver their opinions in writing for the purpose of

mutual friendly discussion. In the Answer of August 9, referred to above

they said: "We understand His Imperial Majesty's answer to mean nothing

else than that, after each party had presented its meaning and opinion,

such should here be discussed among us in love and kindness." Hence,

they said, it was in violation of this agreement to withhold the

Confutation, lest it be answered. (Foerstemann, 2, 184f.) Luther

expressed the same conviction, saying: "All the world was awaiting a

gracious diet, as the manifesto proclaimed and pretended, and yet, sad

to say, it was not so conducted." (St. L. 16, 1636.)

That the Romanists themselves fully realized that the charges of the

Lutherans were well founded, appears from the subterfuges to which they

resorted in order to justify their violence and duplicity, notably their

refusal to let them examine the Confutation. In a declaration of August

11 they stated "that the imperial laws expressly forbid, on pain of loss

of life and limb, to dispute or argue (_gruppeln_) about the articles of

faith in any manner whatever," and that in the past the edicts of the

Emperor in this matter of faith had been despised, scorned, ridiculed,

and derided by the Lutherans. (Foerstemann, 2, 190.) Such were the

miserable arguments with which the Romanists defended their treachery.

Luther certainly hit the nail on the head when he wrote that the

Romanists refused to deliver the Confutation "because their consciences

felt very well that it was a corrupt, futile, and frigid affair, of

which they would have to be ashamed in case it should become public and

show itself in the light, or endure an answer." (St. L. 16, 1635.)

52. Original Draft of Apology.

August 5 the Lutherans had declared to the Emperor that they would not

remain indebted for an answer to the Confutation, even though a copy of

it was refused them. They knew the cunning Romanists, and had prepared

for every emergency. Melanchthon, who, according to a letter addressed

to Luther (_C. R._ 2, 254), was not present at the reading of the

Confutation, writes in the Preface to the Apology: "During the reading

some of us had taken down the chief points of the topics and arguments."

(101.) Among these was Camerarius. August 4 the Nuernberg delegates

reported to their senate that the Confutation comprising more than fifty

pages, had been publicly read on August 3, at 2 P.M., and that the

Lutherans had John Kammermeister "record the substance of all the

articles; this he has diligently done in shorthand on his tablet as far

as he was able, and more than all of us were able to understand and

remember, as Your Excellency may perceive from the enclosed copy." (_C.

R._ 2, 250.)

On the basis of these notes the council of Nuernberg had a theological

and a legal opinion drawn up, and a copy of the former (Osiander's

refutation of the Confutation) was delivered to Melanchthon on August 18

by the Nuernberg delegates. Osiander specially stressed the point that

the demand of the Romanists to submit to the decision of the Church in

matters of faith must be rejected, that, on the contrary, everything

must be subordinated to the Holy Scriptures. (Plitt, 87.) In drawing up

the Apology, however, Melanchthon made little, if any, use of Osiander's

work. Such, at least, is the inference Kolde draws from Melanchthon's

words to Camerarius, September 20: "Your citizens [of Nuernberg] have

sent us a book on the same subject [answer to the Confutation], which I

hope before long to discuss with you orally." (383.) There can be little

doubt that Melanchthon privately entertained the idea of writing the

Apology immediately after the reading of the Confutation. The

commission, however, to do this was not given until later; and most of

the work was probably done in September. For August 19 the Nuernberg

delegates reported that their "opinion" had been given to Melanchthon,

who as yet, however, had not received orders to write anything in reply

to the Confutation, "unless he is privately engaged in such

undertaking." (_C. R._ 2, 289.)

At Augsburg the execution of the resolution to frame an answer to the

Confutation had been sidetracked for the time being, by the peace

parleys between the Lutherans and the Catholics, which began soon after

the Confutation was read and continued through August. But when these

miscarried, the Evangelical estates, on the 29th of August, took

official action regarding the preparation of an Apology. Of the meeting

in which the matter was discussed the Nuernberg delegates report: "It

was furthermore resolved: 'Since we have recently declared before His

Majesty that, in case His Majesty refused to deliver to us the

Confutation of our Confession without restrictions [the aforementioned

conditions] we nevertheless could not refrain from writing a reply to

it, as far as the articles had been noted down during the reading, and

from delivering it to His Imperial Majesty: we therefore ought to

prepare ourselves in this matter, in order to make use of it in case of

necessity,' In this we, the delegates of the cities, also acquiesced.

... I, Baumgaertner, also said: In case such a work as was under

discussion should be drawn up, we had some opinions [the theological and

the legal opinions of the city of Nuernberg], which might be of service

in this matter, and which we would gladly submit. Hereupon it was

ordered that Dr. Brueck and other Saxons be commissioned to draft the

writing." (321.) The assumption, therefore, that Melanchthon was the

sole author of the first draft of the Apology is erroneous. In the

Preface to the Apology he writes: "They had, however, commanded me _and

some others_ to prepare an Apology of the Confession, in which the

reasons why we could not accept the Confutation should be set forth to

His Imperial Majesty, and the objections made by the adversaries be

refuted." (101.) In the same Preface he says that he had originally

drawn up the Apology at Augsburg, "_taking counsel_ with others." (101.)

However, we do not know who, besides Brueck, these "others" were.

53. Apology Presented, But Acceptance Refused.

By September 20 Melanchthon had finished his work. For on the same day

he wrote to Camerarius: "The verdict [decision of the Diet] on our

affair has not yet been rendered. ... Our Prince thought of leaving

yesterday, and again to-day. The Emperor however, kept him here by the

promise that he would render his decision within three days. ... Owing

to the statements of evil-minded people, I am now remaining at home and

have in these days written the Apology of our Confession, which, if

necessary, shall also be delivered; for it will be opposed to the

Confutation of the other party, which you heard when it was read. I

have written it sharply and more vehemently" (than the Confession). (_C.

R._ 2, 383.)

Before long, a good opportunity also for delivering this Apology

presented itself. It was at the meeting of the Diet on September 22 when

the draft of a final resolution (_Abschied_) was read to the estates.

According to this decision, the Emperor offered to give the Evangelicals

time till April 15, 1531, to consider whether or not they would unite

with the Christian Church, the Holy Father, and His Majesty "in the

other articles," provided however, that in the mean time nothing be

printed and absolutely no further innovations be made. The imperial

decision also declared emphatically that the Lutheran Confession had

been refuted by the Confutation. The verdict claimed the Emperor "had,

in the presence of the other electors, princes, and estates of the holy

empire, graciously heard the opinion and confession [of the Evangelical

princes], had given it due and thorough consideration, and had refuted

and disproved it with sound arguments from the holy gospels and the

Scriptures." (Foerstemann, 2, 475.)

Self-evidently, the Lutherans could not let this Roman boast pass by in

silence. Accordingly, in the name of the Elector, Brueck arose to voice

their objections, and, while apologizing for its deficiencies, presented

the Apology. In his protest, Brueck dwelt especially on the offensive

words of the imperial decision which claimed that the Augustana was

refuted by the Confutation. He called attention to the fact that the

Lutherans had been offered a copy only under impossible conditions; that

they had nevertheless, on the basis of what was heard during the

reading, drawn up a "counter-plea, or reply;" this he was now holding in

his hands, and he requested that it be read publicly; from it every one

might learn "with what strong, irrefutable reasons of Holy Scripture"

the Augustana was fortified. (Foerstemann, 2, 479.) Duke Frederick took

the Apology, but returned it on signal from the Emperor, into whose ear

King Ferdinand had been whispering. Sleidan relates: "Cumque hucusce

[tr. note: sic] perventum esset, Pontanus apologiam Caesari defert; eam

ubi Fridericus Palatinus accepit, subnuente Caesare, cui Ferdinandus

aliquid ad aures insusurraverat, reddit." A similar report is found in

the annals of Spalatin. (Koellner, 422.)

By refusing to accept the Apology, the Emperor and the Romanists _de

facto_ broke off negotiations with the Lutherans; and the breach

remained, and became permanent. September 23 the Elector left Augsburg.

By the time the second imperial decision was rendered, November 19, all

the Evangelical princes had left the Diet. The second verdict dictated

by the intolerant spirit of the papal theologians, was more vehement

than the first. Confusing Lutherans, Zwinglians, and Anabaptists,

Charles emphasized the execution of the Edict of Worms; sanctioned all

dogmas and abuses which the Evangelicals had attacked; confirmed the

spiritual jurisdiction of the bishops; demanded the restoration of all

abolished rites identified himself with the Confutation; and repeated

the assertion that the Lutheran Confession had been refuted from the

Scriptures. (Foerstemann, 2, 839f.; Laemmer, 49.)

In his _Gloss on the Alleged Imperial Edict_ of 1531, Luther dilates as

follows on the Roman assertion of having refuted the Augustana from the

Scriptures: "In the first place concerning their boasting that our

Confession was refuted from the holy gospels, this is so manifest a lie

that they themselves well know it to be an abominable falsehood. With

this rouge they wanted to tint their faces and to defame us, since they

noticed very well that their affair was leaky, leprous, and filthy, and

despite such deficiency nevertheless was to be honored. Their heart

thought: Ours is an evil cause, this we know very well, but we shall say

the Lutherans were refuted; that's enough. Who will compel us to prove

such a false statement? For if they had not felt that their boasting was

lying, pure and simple, they would not only gladly, and without offering

any objections, have surrendered their refutation as was so earnestly

desired, but would also have made use of all printing-presses to publish

it, and heralded it with all trumpets and drums, so that such defiance

would have arisen that the very sun would not have been able to shine on

account of it. But now, since they so shamefully withheld their answer

and still more shamefully hide and secrete it, by this action their evil

conscience bears witness to the fact that they lie like reprobates when

they boast that our Confession has been refuted, and that by such lies

they seek not the truth, but our dishonor and a cover for their shame."

(St. L. 16, 1668.)

54. Apology Recast by Melanchthon.

Owing to the fact that Melanchthon, immediately after the presentation

of the Apology, resolved to revise and recast it, the original draft was

forced into the background. It remained unknown for a long time and was

published for the first time forty-seven years after the Diet. Chytraeus

embodied it in his _Historia Augustanae Confessionis,_ 1578, with the

caption, "_Prima Delineatio Caesari Carolo Die 22. Septembris Oblata,

sed Non Recepta_--The First Draft which was Offered to Emperor Charles

on September 22, but Not Accepted." The German and Latin texts are found

in _Corp. Ref._ 27, 275ff. and 322. Following is the Latin title:

"Apologia Confessionis, 1530. Ps. 119: Principes persecuti sunt me

gratis." The German title runs: "Antwort der Widerlegung auf unser

Bekenntnis uebergeben." (245. 378.) Plitt says of the original Apology:

"It was well qualified to be presented to the Emperor, and, in form

also, far surpassed the Confutation of the Papists. Still the

Evangelical Church suffered no harm when the Emperor declined to accept

it. The opportunity for revision which was thus offered and fully

exploited by Melanchthon, who was never able to satisfy himself,

resulted in a great improvement. The Apology as it appeared the

following year is much riper, sharper in its rebuttal, and stronger in

its argumentation." (88.)

The draft of the Apology presented at Augsburg concluded as follows: "If

the Confutation had been forwarded to us for inspection we would perhaps

have been able to give a more adequate answer on these and additional

points." (_C. R._ 27, 378.) When, therefore, the Emperor had refused to

accept it, Melanchthon determined to revise, reenforce, and augment the

document. September 23 he left Augsburg in the company of the Elector;

and already while _en route_ he began the work. In his _History of the

Augsburg Confession,_ 1730, Salig remarks: "Still the loss of the first

copy [of the Apology] does not seem to be so great, since we now possess

the Apology in a more carefully elaborated form. For while the Diet was

still in session, and also after the theologians had returned home,

Melanchthon was constantly engaged upon it, casting it into an entirely

different mold, and making it much more extensive than it was before.

When the theologians had returned to Saxony from the Diet, Melanchthon,

in Spalatin's house at Altenburg, even worked at it on Sunday, so that

Luther plucked the pen from his hand, saying that on this day he must

rest from such work." (1, 377.) However, since the first draft was

presented to the Emperor on September 22, and Melanchthon, together with

the Elector, left Augsburg on the following day, it is evident that he

could not have busied himself very much with the revision of the Apology

at Augsburg. And that Luther, in the Altenburg incident, should have put

especial stress on the Sunday, for this neither Salig nor those who

follow him (_e.g._, Schaff, _Creeds,_ 1, 243) offer any evidence. In his

_Seventeen Sermons on the Life of Luther,_ Mathesius gives the following

version of the incident: "When Luther, returning home with his

companions from Coburg, was visiting Spalatin, and Philip, constantly

engrossed in thoughts concerning the Apology, was writing during the

meal, he arose and took the pen away from him [saying]: 'God can be

honored not alone by work, but also by rest and recreation; for that

reason He has given the Third Commandment and commanded the Sabbath.'"

(243.) This report of Mathesius certainly offers no ground for a

Puritanic explanation of the incident in Spalatin's home.

Originally Melanchthon does not seem to have contemplated a revision on

a very large scale. In the Preface, which was printed first, he merely

remarks that he made "some additions" (_quaedam adieci_) to the Apology

drawn up at Augsburg. (101.) Evidently, at the time when he wrote this,

he had no estimate of the proportions the work, which grew under his

hands, would finally assume. Before long also he obtained a complete

copy of the Confutation. It was probably sent to him from Nuernberg,

whose delegate had been able to send a copy home on August 28, 1530.

(Kolde, 37.) Says Melanchthon in the Preface to the Apology: "I have

recently seen the Confutation, and have noticed how cunningly and

slanderously it was written, so that on some points it could deceive

even the cautious." (101.) Eck clamored that the Confutation "had gotten

into Melanchthon's hands in a furtive and fraudulent manner, _furtim et

fraudulenter ad manus Melanchthonis eandem pervenisse._" (Koellner,

426.) The possession of the document enabled Melanchthon to deal in a

reliable manner with all questions involved, and spurred him on to do

most careful and thorough work.

55. Completion of Apology Delayed.

Owing to the fact that Melanchthon spent much more time and labor on the

work than he had anticipated and originally planned, the publication of

the Apology was unexpectedly delayed. October 1, 1530, Melanchthon wrote

to Camerarius: "Concerning the word 'liturgy' [in the Apology] I ask you

again and again carefully to search out for me its etymology as well as

examples of its meaning." November 12, to Dietrich: "I shall describe

them [the forms of the Greek mass] to Osiander as soon as I have

completed the Apology, which I am now having printed and am endeavoring

to polish. In it I shall fully explain the most important controversies,

which, I hope, will prove profitable." (_C. R._ 2, 438.) In a similar

strain he wrote to Camerarius, November 18. (440.) January 1, 1531,

again to Camerarius: "In the Apology I experience much trouble with the

article of Justification, which I seek to explain profitably." (470.)

February, 1531, to Brenz: "I am at work on the Apology. It will appear

considerably augmented and better founded. For this article, in which we

teach that men are justified by faith and not by love, is treated

exhaustively." (484.) March 7, to Camerarius: "My Apology is not yet

completed. It grows in the writing." (486.) Likewise in March, to

Baumgaertner: "I have not yet completed the Apology, as I was hindered,

not only by illness, but also by many other matters, which interrupted

me, concerning the syncretism Bucer is stirring up." (485.) March 17, to

Camerarius: "My Apology is making slower progress than the matter calls

for." (488.) Toward the end of March, to Baumgaertner: "The Apology is

still in press; for I am revising it entirely and extending it." (492.)

April 7, to Jonas: "In the Apology I have completed the article on

Marriage, in which the opponents are charged with many real crimes."

(493.) April 8, to Brenz: "We have almost finished the Apology. I hope

it will please you and other good people." (494.) April 11, to

Camerarius: "My Apology will appear one of these days. I shall also see

that you receive it. At times I have spoken somewhat vehemently, as I

see that the opponents despise every mention of peace." (495.) Finally,

in the middle of April, to Bucer: "My Apology has appeared, in which, in

my opinion, I have treated the articles of Justification, Repentance,

and several others in such a manner that our opponents will find

themselves heavily burdened. I have said little of the Eucharist."

(498.)

These letters show that Melanchthon took particular pains with the

article of Justification, which was expanded more than tenfold. January

31, he was still hard at work on this article. Kolde says: "This was due

to the fact that he suppressed five and one-half sheets [preserved by

Veit Dietrich] treating this subject because they were not satisfactory

to him, and while he at first treated Articles 4 to 6 together, he now

included also Article 20, recasting anew the entire question of the

nature of justification and the relation of faith and good works.

Illness and important business, such as the negotiations with Bucer on

the Lord's Supper, brought new delays. He also found it necessary to be

more explicit than he had contemplated. Thus it came about that the work

could first appear, together with the Augustana, end of April, or, at

the latest, beginning of May." (37) According to the resolution of the

Diet, the Lutherans were to have decided by April 15, 1531, whether they

would accept the Confutation or not. The answer of the Lutherans was the

appearance, on the bookstalls, of the Augustana and the Apology, and a

few days prior, of Luther's "Remarks on the Alleged Imperial Edict,

_Glossen auf das vermeinte kaiserliche Edikt._"

56. German Translation by Jonas.

The Apology was written in Latin. The _editio princeps_ in quarto of

1531 contained the German and the Latin texts of the Augsburg

Confession, and the Latin text of the Apology. From the very beginning,

however, a German translation was, if not begun, at least planned. But,

though announced on the title-page of the quarto edition just referred

to, it appeared six months later, in the fall of 1531. It was the work

of Justus Jonas. The title of the edition of 1531 reads: "_Apologie der

Konfession, aus dem Latein verdeutscht durch Justus Jonas, Wittenberg._

Apology of the Confession done into German from the Latin by Justus

Jonas, Wittenberg." For a time Luther also thought of writing a "German

Apology." April 8, 1531, Melanchthon wrote to Brenz: "_Lutherus nunc

instituit apologiam Germanicam._ Luther is now preparing a German

Apology." (_C. R._ 2, 494. 501.) It is, however, hardly possible that

Luther was contemplating a translation. Koellner comments on

Melanchthon's words: "One can understand them to mean that Luther is

working on the German Apology." _Instituit,_ however, seems to indicate

an independent work rather than a translation. Koestlin is of the

opinion that Luther thought of writing an Apology of his own, because he

was not entirely satisfied with Melanchthon's. (_Martin Luther_ 2, 382.)

However, if this view is correct, it certainly cannot apply to

Melanchthon's revised Apology, to which Luther in 1533 expressly

confessed himself, but to the first draft at Augsburg, in which, _e.g._,

the 10th Article seems to endorse the concomitance doctrine. (_Lehre und

Wehre_ 1918, 385.) At all events, Luther changed his plan when Jonas

began the translation of the new Apology.

The translation of Jonas is not a literal reproduction of the Latin

original, but a version with numerous independent amplifications. Also

Melanchthon had a share in this work. In a letter of September 26, 1531,

he says: "They are still printing the German Apology, the improvements

of which cost me no little labor." (_C. R._ 2, 542.) The deviations from

the Latin original therefore must perhaps be traced to Melanchthon

rather than to Jonas. Some of them are due to the fact that the

translation was based in part not on the text of the _editio princeps,_

but on the altered Latin octavo edition, copies of which Melanchthon was

able to send to his friends as early as September 14. See, for example

the 10th Article, where the German text follows the octavo edition in

omitting the quotation from Theophylact. The German text appeared also

in a separate edition, as we learn from the letter of the printer Rhau

to Stephen Roth of November 30, 1531: "I shall send you a German

Apology, most beautifully bound." (Kolde, 39.) German translations

adhering strictly to the text of the _editio princeps_ are of a much

later date.

57. Alterations of Apology.

Melanchthon, who was forever changing and improving, naturally could not

leave the Apology as it read in the first edition. This applies to both

the German and the Latin text. He was thinking of the Latin octavo

edition when he wrote to Brenz, June 7, 1531: "The Apology is now being

printed, and I am at pains to make some points in the article of

Justification clearer. It is an extremely great matter, in which we must

proceed carefully that Christ's honor may be magnified." (2, 504.) The

same edition he had in mind when he wrote to Myconius, June 14, 1531:

"My Apology is now in press, and I am endeavoring to present the article

of Justification even more clearly; for there are some things in the

solution of the arguments which are not satisfactory to me." (506.)

Accordingly, this octavo edition, of which Melanchthon was able to send

a copy to Margrave George on September 14, revealed important

alterations: partly improvements, partly expansions, partly deletions.

The changes in the 10th Article, already referred to, especially the

omission of the quotation from Theophylact, attracted most attention.

The succeeding Latin editions likewise revealed minor changes. The

Apology accompanying the Altered Augsburg Confession of 1540, was

designated by Melanchthon himself as "_diligenter recognita,_ diligently

revised." (_C. R._ 26, 357. 419.)

Concerning the German Apology, Melanchthon wrote to Camerarius on

January 1, 1533: "I have more carefully treated the German Apology and

the article of Justification, and would ask you to examine it. If you

have seen my Romans [Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans], you will

be able to notice how exactly and methodically I am endeavoring to

explain this matter. I also hope that intelligent men will approve it.

For I have done this in order to explain necessary matters and to cut

off all manner of questions, partly false, partly useless." (_C. R._ 2,

624.) About the same time he wrote to Spalatin: "Two articles I have

recast entirely: Of Original Sin and Of Righteousness. I ask you to

examine them, and hope that they will profit pious consciences. For in

my humble opinion I have most clearly presented the doctrine of

Righteousness and ask you to write me your opinion." (625.) Kolde says

of this second revision of the German text of 1533: "This edition, which

Melanchthon described as 'diligently amended,' is much sharper in its

tone against the Romanists than the first and reveals quite extensive

changes. Indeed, entire articles have been remodeled, such as those Of

Justification and Good Works, Of Repentance. Of the Mass, and also the

statements on Christian perfection." (41.) These alterations in the

Latin and German texts of the Apology, however, do not involve changes

in doctrine, at least not in the same degree as in the case of the

Augustana Variata of 1540. Self-evidently, it was the text of the first

edition of the German as well as the Latin Apology that was embodied in

the Book of Concord.

58. Purpose, Arrangement, and Character of Apology.

The aim of the Apology was to show why the Lutherans "do not accept the

Confutation," and to puncture the papal boast that the Augustana had

been refuted with the Holy Scriptures. In its Preface we read:

"Afterwards a certain decree was published [by the Emperor], in which

the adversaries boast that they have refuted our Confession from the

Scriptures. You have now, therefore, reader, our Apology, from which you

will understand not only what the adversaries have judged (for we have

reported in good faith), but also that they have condemned several

articles contrary to the manifest Scripture of the Holy Ghost, so far

are they from overthrowing our propositions by means of the Scriptures."

(101.) The Apology is, on the one hand, a refutation of the Confutation

and, on the other hand, a defense and elaboration of the Augustana,

presenting theological proofs for the correctness of its teachings.

Hence constant reference is made to the Augsburg Confession as well as

the Confutation; and scholastic theology is discussed as well. On this

account also the sequence of the articles, on the whole, agrees with

that of the Augustana and the Confutation. However, articles treating of

related doctrines are collected into one, _e.g._, Articles 4, 5, 6, and

20. Articles to which the Romanists assented are but briefly touched

upon. Only a few of them have been elaborated somewhat _e.g._, Of the

Adoration of the Saints, Of Baptism, Of the Lord's Supper, Of

Repentance, Of Civil Government. The fourteen articles, however, which

the Confutation rejected are discussed extensively, and furnished also

with titles, in the _editio princeps_ as well as in the Book of Concord

of 1580 and 1584. In Mueller's edition of the Symbolical Books all

articles of the Apology are for the first time supplied with numbers and

captions corresponding with the Augsburg Confession.

In the Apology, just as in the Augsburg Confession, everything springs

from, and is regulated by, the fundamental Lutheran principle of Law and

Gospel, sin and grace, faith and justification. Not only is the doctrine

of justification set forth thoroughly and comfortingly in a particular

article, but throughout the discussions it remains the dominant note,

its heavenly strain returning again and again as the _motif_ in the

grand symphony of divine truths--a strain with which the Apology also

breathes, as it were, its last, departing breath. For in its Conclusion

we read: "If all the scandals [which, according to the Papists, resulted

from Luther's teaching] be brought together, still the one article

concerning the remission of sins (that for Christ's sake, through faith,

we freely obtain the remission of sins) brings so much good as to hide

all evils. And this, in the beginning [of the Reformation], gained for

Luther not only our favor, but also that of many who are now contending

against us." (451.)

In Kolde's opinion, the Apology is a companion volume, as it were, to

Melanchthon's _Loci Communes,_ and a theological dissertation rather

than a confession. However, theological thoroughness and erudition do

not conflict with the nature of a confession as long as it is not mere

cold intellectual reflection and abstraction, but the warm, living, and

immediate language of the believing heart. With all its thoroughness and

erudition the Apology is truly edifying, especially the German version.

One cannot read without being touched in his inmost heart, without

sensing and feeling something of the heart-beat of the Lutheran

confessors. Jacobs, who translated the Apology into English, remarks:

"To one charged with the cure of souls the frequent reading of the

Apology is invaluable; in many (we may say, in most) parts it is a book

of practical religion." (_The Book of Concord_ 2, 41.) The Apology does

not offer all manner of theories of idle minds, but living testimonies

of what faith, while struggling hotly with the devil and languishing in

the fear of death and the terrors of sin and the Law found and

experienced in the sweet Gospel as restored by Luther. In reading the

Apology, one can tell from the words employed how Melanchthon lived,

moved, and fairly reveled in this blessed truth which in opposition to

all heathen work-righteousness teaches terrified hearts to rely solely

and alone on grace. In his _History of Lutheranism_ (2, 206) Seckendorf

declares that no one can be truly called a theologian of our Church who

has not diligently and repeatedly read the Apology or familiarized

himself with it. (Salig, 1, 375.)

59. Moderate Tone of Apology.

The tone of the Apology is much sharper than that of the Augsburg

Confession. The situation had changed; hence the manner of dealing with

the opposition also changed. The Romanists had fully revealed themselves

as implacable enemies, who absolutely refused a peace on the basis of

truth and justice. In the Conclusion of the Apology we read: "But as to

the want of unity and dissension in the Church, it is well known how

these matters first happened and who caused the division namely, the

sellers of indulgences, who shamefully preached intolerable lies, and

afterwards condemned Luther for not approving of those lies, and

besides, they again and again excited more controversies, so that Luther

was induced to attack many other errors. But since our opponents would

not tolerate the truth, and dared to promote manifest errors by force it

is easy to judge who is guilty of the schism. Surely, all the world, all

wisdom, all power ought to yield to Christ and his holy Word. But the

devil is the enemy of God, and therefore rouses all his might against

Christ to extinguish and suppress the Word of God. Therefore the devil

with his members, setting himself against the Word of God, is the cause

of the schism and want of unity. For we have most zealously sought

peace, and still most eagerly desire it, provided only we are not forced

to blaspheme and deny Christ. For God, the discerner of all men's

hearts, is our witness that we do not delight and have no joy in this

awful disunion. On the other hand, our adversaries have so far not been

willing to conclude peace without stipulating that we must abandon the

saving doctrine of the forgiveness of sin by Christ without our merit,

though Christ would be most foully blasphemed thereby." (451.)

Such being the attitude of the Romanists, there was no longer any reason

for Melanchthon to have any special consideration for these implacable

opponents of the Lutherans and hardened enemies of the Gospel, of the

truth, and of religious liberty and peace. Reconciliation with Rome was

out of the question. Hence he could yield more freely to his impulse

here than in the Augustana; for when this Confession was written an

agreement was not considered impossible. In a letter of July 15, 1530,

informing Luther of the pasquinades delivered to the Emperor,

Melanchthon declared: "If an answer will become necessary, I shall

certainly remunerate these wretched, bloody men. _Si continget, ut

respondendum sit, ego profecto remunerabor istos nefarios viros

sanguinum_." (_C. R._ 2, 197.) And when about to conclude the Apology, he

wrote to Brenz, April 8, 1531: "I have entirely laid aside the mildness

which I formerly exercised toward the opponents. Since they will not

employ me as a peacemaker, but would rather have me as their enemy, I

shall do what the matter requires, and faithfully defend our cause."

(494.) But while Melanchthon castigates the papal theologians, he spares

and even defends the Emperor.

In Luther's _Remarks on the Alleged Imperial Edict,_ of 1531, we read:

"I, Martin Luther, Doctor of the Sacred Scriptures and pastor of the

Christians at Wittenberg, in publishing these Remarks, wish it to be

distinctly understood that anything I am writing in this booklet against

the alleged imperial edict or command is not to be viewed as written

against his Imperial Majesty or any higher power, either of spiritual or

civil estate.... I do not mean the pious Emperor nor the pious lords,

but the traitors and reprobates (be they princes or bishops), and

especially that fellow whom St. Paul calls God's opponent (I should say

God's vicar), the arch-knave, Pope Clement, and his servant Campegius,

and the like, who plan to carry out their desperate, nefarious roguery

under the imperial name, or, as Solomon says, at court." (16, 1666.)

Luther then continues to condemn the Diet in unqualified terms. "What a

disgraceful Diet," says he, "the like of which was never held and never

heard of, and nevermore shall be held or heard of, on account of his

disgraceful action! It cannot but remain an eternal blot on all princes

and the entire empire, and makes all Germans blush before God and all

the world." But he continues exonerating and excusing the Emperor: "Let

no one tremble on account of this edict which they so shamefully invent

and publish in the name of the pious Emperor. And should they not

publish their lies in the name of a pious Emperor, when their entire

blasphemous, abominable affair was begun and maintained for over six

hundred years in the name of God and the Holy Church?" (16, 1634.)

In a similar manner Melanchthon, too, treats the Emperor. He calls him

"_optimum imperatorem,_" and speaks of "the Emperor's most gentle

disposition, _mansuetissimum Caesaris pectus,_" which Eck and his party

were seeking to incite to bloodshed. (_C. R._ 2, 197.) In the Preface he

says: "And now I have written with the greatest moderation possible; and

if any expression appears too severe, I must say here beforehand that I

am contending with the theologians and monks who wrote the Confutation,

and not with the Emperor or the princes, whom I hold in due esteem."

(101.) In Article 23 Melanchthon even rises to the apostrophe: "And

these their lusts they ask you to defend with your chaste right hand,

Emperor Charles (whom even certain ancient predictions name as the king

of modest face; for the saying appears concerning you: 'One modest in

face shall reign everywhere')." (363.)

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.)