F. Bente - Historical IntroductionsII. The Ecumenical Creeds

II. The Three Ecumenical or Universal Symbols.

8. Ecumenical Symbols.

The Ecumenical (general, universal) Symbols were embodied in the Book of

Concord primarily for apologetic reasons. Carpzov writes: "The sole

reason why our Church appealed to these symbols was to declare her

agreement with the ancient Church in so far as the faith of the latter

was laid down in these symbols, to refute also the calumniations and the

accusations of the opponents, and to evince the fact that she preaches

no new doctrine and in no wise deviates from the Church Catholic."

(_Isagoge,_ 37.) For like reasons Article I of the Augsburg Confession

declares its adherence to the Nicene Creed, and the first part of the

Smalcald Articles, to the Apostles' and Athanasian Creeds. The oath

introduced by Luther in 1535, and required of the candidates for the

degree of Doctor of Divinity, also contained a pledge on the Ecumenical

Symbols. In 1538 Luther published a tract entitled, "The Three Symbols

or Confessions of the Faith of Christ Unanimously Used in the Church,"

containing the Apostles' Creed, the Athanasian Creed, and the Te Deum of

Ambrose and Augustine. To these was appended the Nicene Creed.

In the opening sentences of this tract, Luther remarks: "Whereas I have

previously taught and written quite a bit concerning faith, showing both

what faith is and what faith does, and have also published my Confession

[1528], setting forth both what I believe and what position I intend to

maintain; and whereas the devil continues to seek new intrigues against

me, I have decided, by way of supererogation, to publish conjointly, in

the German tongue, the three so-called Symbols, or Confessions, which

have hitherto been received, read, and chanted throughout the Church. I

would thereby reaffirm the fact that I side with the true Christian

Church, which has adhered to these Symbols, or Confessions, to the

present day, and not with the false, vainglorious church, which in

reality is the worst enemy of the true Church, having introduced much

idolatry beside these beautiful confessions." (St. L. 10, 993; Erl. 23,

252.) Luther's translation of the Ecumenical Symbols, together with the

captions which appeared in his tract, were embodied in the Book of

Concord. The superscription, "Tria Symbola Catholica seu Oecumenica,"

occurs for the first time in Selneccer's edition of the Book of Concord

of 1580. Before this, 1575, he had written: "Quot sunt Symbola fidei

Christianae in Ecclesia? Tria sunt praecipua quae nominantur oecumenica,

sive universalia et authentica, id est, habentia auctoritatem et non

indigentia demonstratione aut probatione, videlicet Symbolum

Apostolicum, Nicaenum et Athanasianum." (Schmauk, _Confessional

Principle,_ 834.)

9. The Apostles' Creed.

The foundation of the Apostles' Creed was, in a way, laid by Christ

Himself when He commissioned His disciples, saying, Matt. 28, 19. 20:

"Go ye therefore and teach all nations baptizing them in the name of the

Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: teaching them to observe

all things whatsoever I have commanded you." The formula of Baptism here

prescribed, "In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy

Ghost," briefly indicates what Christ wants Christians to be taught, to

believe, and to confess. And the Apostles' Creed, both as to its form

and contents, is evidently but an amplification of the trinitarian

formula of Baptism. Theo. Zahn remarks: "It has been said, and not

without a good basis either, that Christ Himself has ordained the

baptismal confession. For the profession of the Triune God made by the

candidates for Baptism is indeed the echo of His missionary and

baptismal command reechoing through all lands and times in many thousand

voices." (_Skizzen aus dem Leben der Kirche,_ 252.)

But when and by whom was the formula of Baptism thus amplified?--During

the Medieval Ages the Apostles' Creed was commonly known as "The Twelve

Articles," because it was generally believed that the twelve apostles,

assembled in joint session before they were separated, soon after

Pentecost drafted this Creed, each contributing a clause. But, though

retained in the Catechismus Romanus, this is a legend which originated

in Italy or Gaul in the sixth or seventh (according to Zahn, toward the

end of the fourth) century and was unknown before this date. Yet, though

it may seem more probable that the Apostles' Creed was the result of a

silent growth and very gradual formation corresponding to the

ever-changing environments and needs of the Christian congregations,

especially over against the heretics, there is no sufficient reason why

the apostles themselves should not have been instrumental in its

formulation, nor why, with the exception of a number of minor later

additions its original form should not have been essentially what it is

to-day.

Nathanael confessed: "Rabbi, Thou art the Son of God; Thou art the King

of Israel," John 1, 49, the apostles confessed: "Thou art the Christ,

the Son of the living God," Matt. 16, 16; Peter confessed: "We believe

and are sure that Thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God," John

6, 69; Thomas confessed: "My Lord and my God," John 20, 28. These and

similar confessions of the truth concerning Himself were not merely

approved of, but solicited and demanded by, Christ. For He declares most

solemnly: "Whosoever therefore shall confess Me before men, him will I

confess also before My Father which is in heaven. But whosoever shall

deny Me before men, him will I also deny before My Father which is in

heaven," Matt. 10, 32. 33. The same duty of confessing their faith,

_i.e._, the truths concerning Christ, is enjoined upon all Christians by

the Apostle Paul when he writes: "If thou shalt confess with thy mouth

the Lord Jesus and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised Him

from the dead, thou shalt be saved," Rom. 10, 9.

In the light of these and similar passages, the trinitarian baptismal

formula prescribed by Christ evidently required from the candidate for

Baptism a definite statement of what he believed concerning the Father,

Son and Holy Ghost, especially concerning Jesus Christ the Savior. And

that such a confession of faith was in vogue even in the days of the

apostles appears from the Bible itself. Of Timothy it is said that he

had "professed a good profession before many witnesses," 1 Tim. 6, 12.

Heb. 4, 14 we read: "Let us hold fast our profession." Heb. 10, 23: "Let

us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering." Jude urges

the Christians that they "should earnestly contend for the faith which

was once delivered unto the saints," and build up themselves on their

"most holy faith," Jude 3. 20. Compare also 1 Cor. 15, 3. 4; 1 Tim. 3,

16; Titus 1, 13; 3, 4-7.

10. Apostles' Creed and Early Christian Writers.

The Christian writers of the first three centuries, furthermore, furnish

ample proof for the following facts: that from the very beginning of the

Christian Church the candidates for Baptism everywhere were required to

make a confession of their faith; that from the beginning there was

existing in all the Christian congregations a formulated confession

which they called the rule of faith, the rule of truth, etc.; that this

rule was identical with the confession required of the candidates for

Baptism; that it was declared to be of apostolic origin; that the

summaries and explanations of this rule of truth, given by these

writers, tally with the contents and in part, also with the phraseology

of the Apostles' Creed; that the scattered Christian congregations, then

still autonomous, regarded the adoption of this rule, of faith as the

only necessary condition of Christian unity and fellowship.

The manner in which Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp, Justin, Aristides, and

other early Christian writers present the Christian truth frequently

reminds us of the Apostles' Creed and suggests its existence. Thus

Justin Martyr, who died 165, says in his first Apology, which was

written about 140: "Our teacher of these things is Jesus Christ, who

also was born for this purpose and was crucified under Pontius Pilate,

procurator of Judea, that we reasonably worship Him, having learned that

He is the Son of the true God Himself, and holding Him in the second

place, and the prophetic Spirit in the third." "Eternal praise to the

Father of all, through the name of the Son and of the Holy Spirit."

Similar strains, sounding like echoes of the Second Article, may be

found in the Epistles to the Trallians and to the Christians at Smyrna

written by Ignatius, the famous martyr and bishop of Antioch, who died

107.

Irenaeus, who died 189, remarks: Every Christian "who retains immovable

in himself the rule of the truth which he received through Baptism (_ho

ton kanona tes altheias akline en eauto katechon, hon dia tou

baptismatos eilephe_)" is able to see through the deceit of all

heresies. Irenaeus here identifies the baptismal confession with what he

calls the "rule of truth, _kanon tes eiltheias_" _i.e._, the truth which

is the rule for everything claiming to be Christian. Apparently, this

"rule of truth" was the sum of doctrines which every Christian received

and confessed at his baptism. The very phrase "rule of truth" implies

that it was a concise and definite formulation of the chief Christian

truths. For "canon, rule," was the term employed by the ancient Church

to designate such brief sentences as were adopted by synods for the

practise of the Church. And this "rule of truth" is declared by Irenaeus

to be "the old tradition," "the old tradition of the apostles": he te

apo ton apostolon en te ekklesia paradosis. (Zahn, _l.c._, 379f.)

Irenaeus was the pupil of Polycarp the Martyr; and what he had learned

from him, Polycarp had received from the Apostle John. Polycarp, says

Irenaeus, "taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, and

which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true." According

to Irenaeus, then, the "rule of truth" received and confessed by every

Christian at his baptism was transmitted by the apostles. The contents

of this rule of truth received from the apostles are repeatedly set

forth by Irenaeus. In his _Contra Haereses_ (I, 10, 1) one of these

summaries reads as follows: "The Church dispersed through the whole

world, to the ends of the earth has received from the apostles and their

disciples the faith in one God, the Father Almighty, who has made heaven

and earth and the sea and all things that are in them, and in one Jesus

Christ, the Son of God, who became incarnate for our salvation; and in

the Holy Spirit, who has proclaimed through the prophets the

dispensations, and the advents, and the birth from a virgin, and the

passion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the bodily assumption

into heaven of the beloved Christ Jesus our Lord, and His manifestation

from heaven in the glory of the Father." It thus appears that the "rule

of truth" as Irenaeus knew it, the formulated sum of doctrines mediated

by Baptism, which he, in accordance with the testimony of his teacher

Polycarp, believed to have been received from the apostles, at least

approaches our present Apostolic Creed.

11. Tertullian and Cyprian on Apostles' Creed.

A similar result is obtained from the writings of Tertullian, Cyprian,

Novatian, Origen and others. "When we step into the water of Baptism,"

says Tertullian, who died about 220, "we confess the Christian faith

according to the words of its law," _i.e._, according to the law of

faith or the rule of faith. Tertullian, therefore, identifies the

confession to which the candidates for Baptism were pledged with the

brief formulation of the chief Christian doctrines which he variously

designates as "the law of faith," "the rule of faith," frequently also

as _tessara,_ watchword and _sacramentum,_ a term then signifying the

military oath of allegiance. This Law or Rule of Faith was, according to

Tertullian, the confession adopted by Christians everywhere, which

distinguished them from unbelievers and heretics. The unity of the

congregations, the granting of the greeting of peace, of the name

brother, and of mutual hospitality,--these and similar Christian rights

and privileges, says Tertullian, "depend on no other condition than the

similar tradition of the same oath of allegiance," _i.e._, the adoption

of the same baptismal rule of faith. (Zahn, 250.)

At the same time Tertullian most emphatically claims, "that this rule of

faith was established by the apostles, aye, by Christ Himself," inasmuch

as He had commanded to baptize "in the name of the Father, and of the

Son, and of the Holy Ghost." (Zahn, 252.) In his book _Adversus

Praxeam,_ Tertullian concludes an epitome which he gives of "the rule of

faith" as follows: "That this rule has come down from the beginning of

the Gospel, even before the earlier heretics, and so, of course before

the Praxeas of yesterday, is proved both by the lateness of all heretics

and by the novelty of this Praxeas of yesterday." (Schaff, _Creeds of

Christendom,_ 2, 18.) The following form is taken from Tertullian's _De

Virginibus Velandis:_ "For the rule of faith is altogether one, alone

(_sola_), immovable, and irreformable, namely, believing in one God

omnipotent the Maker of the world, and in His Son Jesus Christ, born of

the Virgin Mary, crucified under Pontius Pilate, raised from the dead

the third day, received into the heavens, sitting now at the right hand

of the Father who shall come to judge the living and the dead, also

through the resurrection of the flesh." Cyprian the Martyr, bishop of

Carthage, who died 257, and who was the first one to apply the term

_symbolum_ to the baptismal creed, in his Epistle to Magnus and to

Januarius, as well as to other Numidian bishops, gives the following as

the answer of the candidate for Baptism to the question, "Do you

believe?": "I believe in God the Father, in His Son Christ, in the Holy

Spirit. I believe the remission of sins, and the life eternal through

the holy Church."

12. Variations of the Apostles' Creed.

While there can be no reasonable doubt either that the Christian

churches from the very beginning were in possession of a definite and

formulated symbol, or that this symbol was an amplification of the

trinitarian formula of Baptism, yet we are unable to ascertain with any

degree of certainty what its exact original wording was. There has not

been found in the early Christian writers a single passage recording the

precise form of the baptismal confession or the rule of truth and faith

as used in the earliest churches. This lack of contemporal written

records is accounted for by the fact that the early Christians and

Christian churches refused on principle to impart and transmit their

confession in any other manner than by word of mouth. Such was their

attitude, not because they believed in keeping their creed secret, but

because they viewed the exclusively oral method of impartation as the

most appropriate in a matter which they regarded as an affair of deepest

concern of their hearts.

It is universally admitted, even by those who believe that the apostles

were instrumental in formulating the early Christian Creed, that the

wording of it was not absolutely identical in all Christian

congregations, and that in the course of time various changes and

additions were made. "Tradition," says Tertullian with respect to the

baptismal confession, received from the apostles, "has enlarged it,

custom has confirmed it, faith observes and preserves it." (Zahn, 252.

381.) When, therefore, Tertullian and other ancient writers declare that

the rule of faith received from the apostles is "altogether one,

immovable, and irreformable," they do not at all mean to say that the

phraseology of this symbol was alike everywhere, and that in this

respect no changes whatever had been made, nor that any clauses had been

added. Such variations, additions, and alterations, however, involved a

doctrinal change of the confession no more than the Apology of the

Augsburg Confession implies a doctrinal departure from this symbol. It

remained the same Apostolic Creed, the changes and additions merely

bringing out more fully and clearly its true, original meaning. And this

is the sense in which Tertullian and others emphasize that the rule of

faith is "one, immovable, and irreformable."

The oldest known form of the Apostles' Creed, according to A. Harnack,

is the one used in the church at Rome, even prior to 150 A.D. It was,

however, as late as 337 or 338, when this Creed, which, as the church at

Rome claimed, was brought thither by Peter himself, was for the first

time quoted as a whole by Bishop Marcellus of Ancyra in a letter to

Bishop Julius of Rome, for the purpose of vindicating his orthodoxy.

During the long period intervening, some changes, however, may have

been, and probably were, made also in this Old Roman Symbol, which reads

as follows:--

_Pisteuo eis theon patera pantokratora; kai eis Christon Iesoun [ton]

huion autou ton monogene, ton kupion hemon, ton gennethenta ek

pneumatos hagiou kai Marias tes parthenou, ton epi Pontiou Pilatou

staurothenta kai taphenta, te trite hemera anastanta ek [ton] nekron,

anabanta eis tous ouranous, kathemenon en dexia tou patros, hothen

erchetai krinai zontas kai nekrous; kai eis pneuma hagion, hagian

ekklesian aphesin hamartion, sapkos anastasin._ (Herzog, _R. E._ 1,

744.)

13. Present Form of Creed and Its Contents.

The complete form of the present _textus receptus_ of the Apostles'

Creed, evidently the result of a comparison and combination of the

various preexisting forms of this symbol, may be traced to the end of

the fifth century and is first found in a sermon by Caesarius of Arles

in France, about 500.--In his translation, Luther substituted

"Christian" for "catholic" in the Third Article. He regarded the two

expressions as equivalent in substance, as appears from the Smalcald

Articles, where he identifies these terms, saying: "Sic enim orant

pueri: Credo sanctam ecclesiam catholicam sive Christianam." (472, 5;

498, 3.) The form, "I believe a holy Christian Church," however, is met

with even before Luther's time. (Carpzov, _Isagoge,_ 46.)--In the Greek

version the received form of the Apostles' Creed reads as follows:--

_Pisteuo eis theon patera, pantokratora, poieten ouranou kai ges. Kai

eis Iesoun Christon, huion autou ton monogene, ton kurion hemon, ton

sullephthenta ek pneumatos hagiou, gennethenta ek Marias tes parthenou,

pathonta epi Pontiou Pilatou, staurothenta, thanonta, kai taphenta,

anastanta apo ton nekron, anelthonta eis tous ouranous, kathezomenon en

dexia theou patros pantodunamou, ekeithen erchomenon krinai zontas kai

nekrous. Pisteuo eis to pneuma to hagion, hagian ekklesian, hagion

koinonian, aphesin hamartion sarkos anastasin, zoen aionion, Amen._

As to its contents, the Apostles' Creed is a positive statement of the

essential facts of Christianity. The Second Article, says Zahn, is "a

compend of the Evangelical history, including even external details."

(264.) Yet some of the clauses of this Creed were probably inserted in

opposition to prevailing, notably Gnostic, heresies of the first

centuries. It was the first Christian symbol and, as Tertullian and

others declare, the bond of unity and fellowship of the early Christian

congregations everywhere. It must not, however, be regarded as inspired,

much less as superior even to the Holy Scriptures; for, as stated above,

it cannot even, in any of its existing forms, be traced to the apostles.

Hence it must be subjected to, and tested and judged by, the Holy

Scriptures, the inspired Word of God and the only infallible rule and

norm of all doctrines, teachers, and symbols. In accordance herewith the

Lutheran Church receives the Apostles' Creed, as also the two other

ecumenical confessions, not as _per se_ divine and authoritative, but

because its doctrine is taken from, and well grounded in, the prophetic

and apostolic writings of the Old and New Testaments. (CONC. TRIGL. 851,

4.)

14. The Nicene Creed.

In the year 325 Emperor Constantine the Great convened the First

Ecumenical Council at Nicaea, in Bithynia, for the purpose of settling

the controversy precipitated by the teaching of Arius, who denied the

true divinity of Christ. The council was attended by 318 bishops and

their assistants, among whom the young deacon Athanasius of Alexandria

gained special prominence as a theologian of great eloquence, acumen,

and learning. "The most valiant champion against the Arians," as he was

called, Athanasius turned the tide of victory in favor of the

Homoousians, who believed that the essence of the Father and of the Son

is identical. The discussions were based upon the symbol of Eusebius of

Caesarea, which by changes and the insertion of Homoousian phrases (such

as _ek tes ousias tou patrous; gennetheis, ou poietheis; homoousios to

patri_) was amended into an unequivocal clean-cut, anti-Arian

confession. Two Egyptian bishops who refused to sign the symbol were

banished, together with Arius, to Illyria. The text of the original

Nicene Creed reads as follows:--

_Pisteuomen eis hena theon, patera pantokratora, panton oraton te kai

aoraton poieten. Kai eis hena kurion Iesoun Christon, ton huion tou

theou, gennethenta ek tou patros monogene, toutestin ek tes ousias tou

patros, theon ek theou, phos ek photos, theon alethinon ek theou

alethinou, gennethenta, ou poiethenta, homoousion to patri, di' ou ta

panta egeneto, ta te en to ourano kaita epi tes ges; ton di' hemas tous

anthropous kai dia ten hemeteran soterian katelthonta kai sarkothenta

kai enanthropesanta, pathonta, kai anastanta te trite hemera, kai

anelthonta eis tous ouranous, kai erchomenon palin krinai zontas kai

nekrous. Kai eis to pneuma to hagion. Tous de legontas, hoti pote hote

ouk en, kai hoti ex ouk onton egeneto, en ex heteras hupostaseos e

ousias phaskontas einai, e ktiston, e alloioton, e trepton ton huion

tou theou, toutous anathematizei he katholike kai apostolike ekklesia._

(Mansi, _Amplissima Collectio,_ 2, 665 sq.)

15. Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed.

In order to suppress Arianism, which still continued to flourish,

Emperor Theodosius convened the Second Ecumenical Council, in 381 at

Constantinople. The bishops here assembled, 150 in number, resolved that

the faith of the Nicene Fathers must ever remain firm and unchanged, and

that its opponents, the Eunomians, Anomoeans, Arians, Eudoxians,

Semi-Arians, Sabellians, Marcellians, Photinians, and Apollinarians,

must be rejected. At this council also Macedonius was condemned, who

taught that the Holy Spirit is not God: _elege gar auto me einai theon,

alla tes theontos tou patros allotrion._ (Mansi, 3, 568. 566. 573. 577.

600.) By omissions, alterations, and additions (in particular concerning

the Holy Spirit) this council gave to the Nicene Creed its present form.

Hence it is also known as the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed. The Third

Ecumenical Council, which assembled at Toledo, Spain, in 589, inserted

the word "Filioque," an addition which the Greek Church has never

sanctioned, and which later contributed towards bringing about the great

Eastern Schism. A. Harnack considers the Constantinopolitanum (CPanum),

the creed adopted at Constantinople, to be the baptismal confession of

the Church of Jerusalem, which, he says, was revised between 362 and 373

and amplified by the Nicene formulas and a rule of faith concerning the

Holy Ghost. (Herzog, _R. E._, 11, 19f.) Following is the text of the

CPanum according to Mansi:

_Pisteuomen eis hena theon patera, pantokratora, poieten ouranou kai ges,

oratwn te pantwn kai aoratwn. Kai eis hena kurion Iesoun Christon ton

huion tou theou ton monogene, ton ek tou patros gennethenta pro panton

ton aionon, phos ek photos, theon alethinon ek theou alethinou,

gennethevta, ou poiethenta, homoousion to patri, di' ou ta panta

egeneto, ton di' hemas tous anthropous kai dia ten hemeteran soterian

katelthovnta ek tov ouranon, kai sarkothenta ek pneumatos hagiou kai

Marias tes parthenou, kai enanthropesanta, staurothenta te huper hemon

epi Pontiou Pilatou, kai pathonta, kai taphenta, kai anastanta te trite

hemera kata tas gpaphas, kai anelthonta eis tous ouranous, kai

kathezomenon ek dexion tou patros, kai palin erchomenon meta doxes

krinai zontas kai nekrous; ou tes basileias ouk estai telos. Kai eis

pneuma to hagion, to kurion, to zoopoion, to ek tou patros

ekporeuomenon, to sun patri kai huio sumproskunoumenon kai

sundoxazovmenon, to lalesan dia ton propheton, eis mian hagian

katholiken kai apostoliken ekklesian. Homologoumen hen baptisma eis

aphesin hamartion; prosdokomen anastasin nekron, kai zwen tou mellontos

aionos. Amen._ (3, 565.)

16. The Athanasian Creed.

From its opening word this Creed is also called Symbolum Quicunque.

Roman tradition has it that Athanasius, who died 373, made this

confession before Pope Julius when the latter summoned him "to submit

himself to him [the Pope], as to the ecumenical bishop and Supreme

arbiter of matters ecclesiastical (_ut ei, seu episcopo oecumica et

supremo rerum ecclesiasticarum arbitro, sese submitteret_)." However,

Athanasius is not even the author of this confession, as appears from

the following facts: 1. The Creed was originally written in Latin. 2.

It is mentioned neither by Athanasius himself nor by his Greek

eulogists. 3. It was unknown to the Greek Church till about 1200, and

has never been accorded official recognition by this Church nor its

"orthodox" sister churches. 4. It presupposes the post-Athanasian

Trinitarian and Christological controversies.--Up to the present day it

has been impossible to reach a final verdict concerning the author of

the Quicunque and the time and place of its origin. Koellner's

_Symbolik_ allocates it to Gaul. Loofs inclines to the same opinion and

ventures the conjecture that the source of this symbol must be sought in

Southern Gaul between 450 and 600. (Herzog, _R. E._, 2, 177.) Gieseler

and others look to Spain for its origin.

Paragraphs 1, 2, and 40 of the Athanasian Creed have given offense not

only to theologians who advocate an undogmatic Christianity, but to many

thoughtless Christians as well. Loofs declares: The Quicunque is

unevangelical and cannot be received because its very first sentence

confounds _fides_ with _expositio fidei._ (H., _R. E._, 2, 194.)

However, the charge is gratuitous, since the Athanasian Creed deals with

the most fundamental Christian truths: concerning the Trinity, the

divinity of Christ, and His work of redemption, without the knowledge of

which saving faith is impossible. The paragraphs in question merely

express the clear doctrine of such passages of the Scriptures as Acts 4,

12: "Neither is there salvation in any other, for there is none other

name under heaven given among men whereby we must be saved;" John 8, 21:

"If ye believe not that I am He, ye shall die in your sins"; John 14, 6:

"Jesus saith unto him, I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life; no man

cometh unto the Father but by Me." In complete agreement with the

impugned statements of the Athanasian Creed, the Apology of the Augsburg

Confession closes its article "Of God" as follows: "Therefore we do

freely conclude that they are all idolatrous, blasphemers, and outside

of the Church of Christ who hold or teach otherwise." (103)

In the early part of the Middle Ages the Quicunque had already received

a place in the order of public worship. The Council of Vavre resolved,

1368: "Proinde Symbolum Apostolorum silenter et secrete dicitur quotidie

in Completorio et in Prima, quia fuit editum tempore, quo nondum erat

fides catholica propalata. Alia autem duo publice in diebus Dominicis et

festivis, quando maior ad ecclesiam congregatur populus, decantantur,

quia fuere edita tempore fidei propalatae. Symbolum quidem Nicaenum post

evangelium cantatur in Missa quasi evangelicae fidei expositio. Symbolum

Athanasii de mane solum cantatur in Prima, quia fuit editum tempore quo

maxime fuerunt depulsa et detecta nox atra et tenebrae haeresium et

errorum." (Mansi, 26, 487.) Luther says: "The first symbol, that of the

apostles, is indeed the best of all, because it contains a concise,

correct and splendid presentation of the articles of faith and is easily

learned by children and the common people. The second, the Athanasian

Creed, is longer ... and practically amounts to an apology of the first

symbol." "I do not know of any more important document of the New

Testament Church since the days of the apostles" [than the Athanasian

Creed]. (St. L. 10, 994; 6, 1576; E. 23, 253.)

17. Luther on Ecumenical Creeds.

The central theme of the Three Ecumenical Symbols is Christ's person and

work, the paramount importance of which Luther extols as follows in his

tract of 1538: "In all the histories of the entire Christendom I have

found and experienced that all who had and held the chief article

concerning Jesus Christ correctly remained safe and sound in the true

Christian faith. And even though they erred and sinned in other points,

they nevertheless were finally preserved." "For it has been decreed,

says Paul, Col. 2, 9, that in Christ should dwell all the fulness of the

Godhead bodily, or personally, so that he who does not find or receive

God in Christ shall never have nor find Him anywhere outside of Christ,

even though he ascend above heaven, descend below hell, or go beyond the

world." "On the other hand, I have also observed that all errors,

heresies, idolatries, offenses, abuses, and ungodliness within the

Church originally resulted from the fact that this article of faith

concerning Jesus Christ was despised or lost. And viewed clearly and

rightly, all heresies militate against the precious article of Jesus

Christ, as Simeon says concerning Him, Luke 2, 34, that He is set for

the falling and the rising of many in Israel and for a sign which is

spoken against; and long before this, Isaiah, chapter 8, 14, spoke of

Him as 'a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense.'" "And we in the

Papacy, the last and greatest of saints, what have we done? We have

confessed that He [Christ] is God and man; but that He is our Savior,

who died and rose for us, etc., this we have denied and persecuted with

might and main" (those who taught this). "And even now those who claim

to be the best Christians and boast that they are the Holy Church, who

burn the others and wade in innocent blood, regard as the best doctrine

[that which teaches] that we obtain grace and salvation through our own

works. Christ is to be accorded no other honor with regard to our

salvation than that He made the beginning, while we are the heroes who

complete it with our merit."

Luther continues: "This is the way the devil goes to work. He attacks

Christ with three storm-columns. One will not suffer Him to be God; the

other will not suffer Him to be man, the third denies that He has

merited salvation for us. Each of the three endeavors to destroy Christ.

For what does it avail that you confess Him to be God if you do not also

believe that He is man? For then you have not the entire and the true

Christ, but a phantom of the devil. What does it avail you to confess

that He is true man if you do not also believe that He is true God? What

does it avail you to confess that He is God and man if you do not also

believe that whatever He became and whatever He did was done for you?"

"Surely, all three parts must be believed, namely, that He is God, also,

that He is man, and that He became such a man for us, that is, as the

first symbol says: conceived by the Holy Ghost born of the Virgin Mary,

suffered, was crucified, died, and rose again, etc. If one small part is

lacking, then all parts are lacking. For faith shall and must be

complete in every particular. While it may indeed be weak and subject to

afflictions, yet it must be entire and not false. Weakness [of faith]

does not work the harm but false faith--that is eternal death." (St. L.

10, 998; E. 23, 258.)

Concerning the mystery involved in the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, the

chief topic of the Ecumenical Creeds, Luther remarks in the same tract:

"Now, to be sure, we Christians are not so utterly devoid of all reason

and sense as the Jews consider us, who take us to be nothing but crazy

geese and ducks, unable to perceive or notice what folly it is to

believe that God is man, and that in one Godhead there are three

distinct persons. No, praise God, we perceive indeed that this doctrine

cannot and will not be received by reason. Nor are we in need of any

sublime Jewish reasoning to demonstrate this to us. We believe it

knowingly and willingly. We confess and also experience that, where the

Holy Spirit does not, surpassing reason, shine into the heart, it is

impossible to grasp, or to believe, and abide by, such article;

moreover, there must remain in it [the heart] a Jewish, proud, and

supercilious reason deriding and ridiculing such article, and thus

setting up itself as judge and master of the Divine Being whom it has

never seen nor is able to see and hence does not know what it is passing

judgment on, nor whereof it thinks or speaks. For God dwells in a 'light

which no man can approach unto,' 1 Tim. 6, 16. He must come to us, yet

hidden in the lantern, and as it is written, John 1, 18: 'No man hath

seen God at any time; the only-begotten Son, which is in the bosom of

the Father, He hath declared Him,' and as Moses said before this, Ex.

33: 'There shall no man see Me [God] and live.'" (St. L. 10, 1007; E.

23, 568.)

F. Bente - Historical Introductions. III. The Augsburg Confession

III. The Augsburg Confession.

18. Diet Proclaimed by Emperor.

January 21, 1530, Emperor Charles V proclaimed a diet to convene at

Augsburg on the 8th of April. The manifesto proceeded from Bologna,

where, three days later, the Emperor was crowned by Pope Clement VII.

The proclamation, after referring to the Turkish invasion and the action

to be taken with reference to this great peril, continues as follows:

"The diet is to consider furthermore what might and ought to be done and

resolved upon regarding the division and separation in the holy faith

and the Christian religion; and that this may proceed the better and

more salubriously, [the Emperor urged] to allay divisions, to cease

hostility, to surrender past errors to our Savior, and to display

diligence in hearing, understanding, and considering with love and

kindness the opinions and views of everybody, in order to reduce them to

one single Christian truth and agreement, to put aside whatever has not

been properly explained or done by either party, so that we all may

adopt and hold one single and true religion; and may all live in one

communion, church, and unity, even as we all live and do battle under

one Christ."

In his invitation to attend the diet, the Emperor at the same time

urged the Elector of Saxony by all means to appear early enough (the

Elector reached Augsburg on May 2 while the Emperor did not arrive

before June 16), "lest the others who arrived in time be compelled to

wait with disgust, heavy expenses and detrimental delay such as had

frequently occurred in the past." The Emperor added the warning: In case

the Elector should not appear, the diet would proceed as if he had been

present and assented to its resolutions. (Foerstemann, _Urkundenbuch,_ 1,

7 f.)

March 11 the proclamation reached Elector John at Torgau. On the 14th

Chancellor Brueck advised the Elector to have "the opinion on which our

party has hitherto stood and to which they have adhered," in the

controverted points, "properly drawn up in writing, with a thorough

confirmation thereof from the divine Scriptures." On the same day the

Elector commissioned Luther, Jonas, Bugenhagen, and Melanchthon to

prepare a document treating especially of "those articles on account of

which said division, both in faith and in other outward church customs

and ceremonies, continues." (43.) At Wittenberg the theologians at once

set to work, and the result was presented at Torgau March 27 by

Melanchthon. On April 4 the Elector and his theologians set out from

Torgau, arriving at Coburg on the 15th, where they rested for eight

days. On the 23d of April the Elector left for Augsburg, while Luther,

who was still under the ban of both the Pope and the Emperor, remained

at the fortress Ebernburg. Nevertheless he continued in close touch with

the confessors, as appears from his numerous letters written to

Augsburg, seventy all told about twenty of which were addressed to

Melanchthon.

19. Apology Original Plan of Lutherans.

The documents which the Wittenberg theologians delivered at Torgau

treated the following subjects: Human Doctrines and Ordinances, Marriage

of Priests, Both Kinds, Mass, Confession, Power of Bishops, Ordination,

Monastic Vows, Invocation of the Saints, German Singing, Faith and

Works, Office of the Keys (Papacy), Ban, Marriage, and Private Mass.

Accordingly, the original intention of the Lutherans was not to enter

upon, and present for discussion at Augsburg, such doctrines as were not

in controversy (Of God, etc.), but merely to treat of the abuses and

immediately related doctrines, especially of Faith and Good Works. (66

ff.) They evidently regarded it as their chief object and duty to

justify before the Emperor and the estates both Luther and his

protectors, the electors of Saxony. This is borne out also by the

original Introduction to the contemplated Apology, concerning which we

read in the prefatory remarks to the so-called Torgau Articles mentioned

above: "To this end [of justifying the Elector's peaceable frame of

mind] it will be advantageous to begin [the projected Apology] with a

lengthy rhetorical introduction." (68; _C. R._, 26, 171.) This

introduction, later on replaced by another, was composed by Melanchthon

at Coburg and polished by him during the first days at Augsburg. May 4

he remarks in a letter to Luther: "I have shaped the Exordium of our

Apology somewhat more rhetorical (_hretorikoteron_) than I had written

it at Coburg." (_C. R._, 2, 40; Luther, St. L. 16, 652.) In this

introduction Melanchthon explains: Next to God the Elector builds his

hope on the Emperor, who had always striven for peace, and was even now

prepared to adjust the religious controversy in mildness. As to the

Elector and his brother Frederick, they had ever been attached to the

Christian religion, had proved faithful to the Emperor, and had

constantly cultivated peace. Their present position was due to the fact

that commandments of men had been preached instead of faith in Christ.

Not Luther, but Luther's opponents, had begun the strife. It was for

conscience' sake that the Elector had not proceeded against Luther.

Besides, such action would only have made matters worse, since Luther

had resisted the Sacramentarians and the Anabaptists. Equally unfounded

were also the accusations that the Evangelicals had abolished all order

as well as all ceremonies, and had undermined the authority of the

bishops. If only the bishops would tolerate the Gospel and do away with

the gross abuses, they would suffer no loss of power, honor, and

prestige. In concluding Melanchthon emphatically protests: "Never has a

reformation been undertaken so utterly without any violence as this [in

Saxony]; for it is a public fact that our men have prevailed with such

as were already in arms to make peace." (Kolde, _l.c._, 13.) The

document, accordingly, as originally planned for presentation at

Augsburg, was to be a defense of Luther and his Elector. In keeping

herewith it was in the beginning consistently designated "Apology."

20. Transformation of Apology into Confession Due to Eck's Slanders.

This plan, however, was modified when the Lutherans, after reaching

Augsburg, heard of and read the 404 Propositions published by Dr. John

Eck, in which Luther was classified with Zwingli, Oecolampadius,

Carlstadt, Pirkheimer, Hubmaier, and Denk, and was charged with every

conceivable heresy. In a letter of March 14, accompanying the copy of

his Propositions which Eck sent to the Emperor, he refers to Luther as

the domestic enemy of the Church (_hostis ecclesiae domesticus_), who

has fallen into every Scylla and Charybdis of iniquity; who speaks of

the Pope as the Antichrist and of the Church as the harlot; who has

praise for none but heretics and schismatics; whom the Church has to

thank for the Iconoclasts, Sacramentarians, New Hussites, Anabaptists,

New Epicureans, who teach that the soul is mortal, and the Cerinthians;

who rehashes all the old heresies condemned more than a thousand years

ago, etc. (Plitt, _Einleitung in die Augustana,_ 1, 527 ff.) Such and

similar slanders had been disseminated by the Papists before this, and

they continued to do so even after the Lutherans, at Augsburg, had made

a public confession of their faith and had most emphatically disavowed

all ancient and modern heresies. Thus Cochlaeus asserted in his attack

on the Apology, published 1534, that Lutheranism was a concoction of all

the old condemned heresies, that Luther taught fifteen errors against

the article of God, and Melanchthon nine against the Nicene Creed, etc.

Luther, he declared, had attacked the doctrine of the Trinity in a

coarser fashion than Arius. (Salig, _Historie d. Augsb. Konf.,_ 1, 377.)

These calumniations caused the Lutherans to remodel and expand the

defense originally planned into a document which should not merely

justify the changes made by them with regard to customs and ceremonies,

but also present as fully as possible the doctrinal articles which they

held over against ancient and modern heresies, falsely imputed to them.

Thus to some extent it is due to the scurrility of Eck that the

contemplated Apology was transformed into an all-embracing Confession, a

term employed by Melanchthon himself. In a letter to Luther, dated May

11, 1530, he wrote: "Our Apology is being sent to you--though it is

rather a Confession. _Mittitur tibi apologia nostra, quamquam verius

confessio est._ I included [in the Confession] almost all articles of

faith, because Eck published most diabolical lies against us, _quia

Eckius edidit diabolikontatas diabolas contra nos._ Against these it was

my purpose to provide an antidote." (_C. R._ 2, 45; Luther, St. L. 16,

654.)

This is in accord also with Melanchthon's account in his Preface of

September 29, 1559 to the German _Corpus Doctrinae_ (Philippicum),

stating: "Some papal scribblers had disseminated pasquinades at the diet

[at Augsburg, 1530], which reviled our churches with horrible lies,

charging that they taught many condemned errors, and were like the

Anabaptists, erring and rebellious. Answer had to be made to His

Imperial Majesty, and in order to refute the pasquinades, it was decided

to include all articles of Christian doctrine in proper succession, that

every one might see how unjustly our churches were slandered in the

lying papal writings. ... Finally, this Confession was, as God directed

and guided, drawn up by me in the manner indicated, and the venerable

Doctor Martin Luther was pleased with it." (_C. R._ 9, 929.)

The original plan, however, was not entirely abandoned, but merely

extended by adding a defense also against the various heresies with

which the Lutherans were publicly charged. This was done in an objective

presentation of the principal doctrines held by the Lutherans, for which

the Marburg and Schwabach Articles served as models and guides.

21. Marburg, Schwabach, and Torgau Articles.

The material from which Melanchthon constructed the Augsburg Confession

is, in the last analysis, none other than the Reformation truths which

Luther had proclaimed since 1517 with ever-increasing clarity and force.

In particular, he was guided by, and based his labor on, the Marburg

Articles, the Schwabach Articles, and the so-called Torgau Articles. The

Marburg Articles, fifteen in number, had been drawn up by Luther, in

1529, at the Colloquy of Marburg, whence he departed October 6, about

six months before the Diet at Augsburg. (Luther, St. L., 17, 1138 f.)

The seventeen Schwabach Articles were composed by Luther, Melanchthon,

Jonas, Brenz and Agricola, and presented to the Convention at Smalcald

about the middle of October, 1529. According to recent researches the

Schwabach Articles antedated the Marburg Articles and formed the basis

for them. (Luther, Weimar Ed., 30, 3, 97, 107.) In 1530 Luther published

these Articles, remarking: "It is true that I helped to draw up such

articles; for they were not composed by me alone." This public statement

discredits the opinion of v. Schubert published in 1908 according to

which Melanchthon is the sole author of the Schwabach Articles, Luther's

contribution and participation being negligible. The Schwabach Articles

constitute the seventeen basic articles of the first part of the

Augsburg Confession. (St. L. 16, 638. 648. 564; _C. R._ 26, 146 f.)

The so-called Torgau Articles are the documents referred to above,

touching chiefly upon the abuses. Pursuant to the order of the Elector,

they were prepared by Luther and his assistants, Melanchthon,

Bugenhagen, and possibly also Jonas. They are called Torgau Articles

because the order for drafting them came from Torgau (March 14), and

because they were presented to the Elector at Torgau. (Foerstemann, 1,

66; _C. R._ 26, 171; St. L. 16, 638.) With reference to these articles

Luther wrote (March 14) to Jonas, who was then still conducting the

visitation: "The Prince has written to us, that is, to you, Pomeranus,

Philip, and myself, in a letter addressed to us in common, that we

should come together set aside all other business, and finish before

next Sunday whatever is necessary for the next diet on April 8. For

Emperor Charles himself will be present at Augsburg to settle all things

in a friendly way, as he writes in his bull. Therefore, although you are

absent, we three shall do what we can today and tomorrow; still, in

order to comply with the will of the Prince, it will be incumbent upon

you to turn your work over to your companions and be present with us

here on the morrow. For things are in a hurry. _Festinata enim sunt

omnia._" (St. L. 16, 638.)

Melanchthon also wrote to Jonas on the 15th of March: "Luther is

summoning you by order of the Prince; you will therefore come as soon as

it is at all possible. The Diet, according to the proclamation, will

convene at Augsburg. And the Emperor graciously promises that he will

investigate the matter, and correct the errors on both sides. May Christ

stand by us!" (_C. R._ 2, 28; Foerstemann, 1, 45.) It was to these

articles (Torgau Articles) that the Elector referred when he wrote to

Luther from Augsburg on the 11th of May: "After you and others of our

learned men at Wittenberg, at our gracious desire and demand, have

drafted the articles which are in religious controversy, we do not wish

to conceal from you that Master Philip Melanchthon has now at this place

perused them further and drawn them up in one form." (_C. R._ 2, 47.)

22. Luther's Spokesman at Augsburg.

The material, therefore, out of which Melanchthon, who in 1530 was still

in full accord with Luther doctrinally, framed the fundamental symbol of

the Lutheran Church were the thoughts and, in a large measure, the very

words of Luther. Melanchthon gave to the Augsburg Confession its form

and its irenic note, its entire doctrinal content, however must be

conceded to be "_iuxta sententiam Lutheri,_ according to the teaching of

Luther," as Melanchthon himself declared particularly with respect to

the article of the Lord's Supper. (_C. R._ 2, 142.) On the 27th of June,

two days after the presentation of the Confession, Melanchthon wrote to

Luther: "We have hitherto followed your authority, _tuam secuti hactenus

auctoritatem,_" and now, says Melanchthon, Luther should also let him

know how much could be yielded to the opponents. (2, 146.) Accordingly,

in the opinion of Melanchthon, Luther, though absent, was the head of

the Evangelicals also at Augsburg.

In his answer Luther does not deny this, but only demands of Melanchthon

to consider the cause of the Gospel as his own. "For," says he, "it is

indeed my affair, and, to tell the truth, my affair more so than that of

all of you." Yet they should not speak of "authority." "In this matter,"

he continues, "I will not be or be called your author [authority]; and

though this might be correctly explained, I do not want this word. If it

is not your affair at the same time and in the same measure, I do not

desire that it be called mine and be imposed upon you. If it is mine

alone, I shall direct it myself." (St. L. 16, 906. 903. Enders, _Luthers

Briefwechsel,_ 8, 43.)

Luther, then, was the prime mover also at Augsburg. Without him there

would have been no Evangelical cause, no Diet of Augsburg, no

Evangelical confessors, no Augsburg Confession. And this is what Luther

really meant when he said: "_Confessio Augustana mea;_ the Augsburg

Confession is mine." (Walch 22, 1532.) He did not in the least thereby

intend to deprive Melanchthon of any credit properly due him with

reference to the Confession. Moreover, in a letter written to Nicolaus

Hausmann on July 6, 1530, Luther refers to the Augustana as "our

confession, which our Philip prepared; _quam Philippus noster paravit._"

(St. L. 16, 882; Enders 8, 80.) As a matter of fact, however, the day of

Augsburg, even as the day of Worms, was the day of Luther and of the

Evangelical truth once more restored to light by Luther. At Augsburg,

too, Melanchthon was not the real author and moving spirit, but the

instrument and mouthpiece of Luther, out of whose spirit the doctrine

there confessed had proceeded. (See Formula of Concord 983, 32--34.)

Only blindness born of false religious interests (indifferentism,

unionism, etc.) can speak of Melanchthon's theological independence at

Augsburg or of any doctrinal disagreement between the Augsburg

Confession and the teaching of Luther. That, at the Diet, he was led,

and wished to be led, by Luther is admitted by Melanchthon himself. In

the letter of June 27, referred to above, he said: "The matters, as you

[Luther] know, have been considered before, though in the combat it

always turns out otherwise than expected." (St. L. 16, 899; _C. R._ 2,

146.) On the 31st of August he wrote to his friend Camerarius: "Hitherto

we have yielded nothing to our opponents, except what Luther judged

should be done, since the matter was considered well and carefully

before the Diet; _re bene ac diligenter deliberata ante conventum_." (2,

334.)

Very pertinently E. T. Nitzsch said of Melanchthon (1855): "With the son

of the miner, who was destined to bring good ore out of the deep shaft,

there was associated the son of an armorer, who was well qualified to

follow his leader and to forge shields, helmets, armor, and swords for

this great work." This applies also to the Augsburg Confession, in which

Melanchthon merely shaped the material long before produced by Luther

from the divine shafts of God's Word. Replying to Koeller, Rueckert, and

Heppe, who contend that the authorship of the Augsburg Confession must

in every way be ascribed to Melanchthon, Philip Schaff writes as

follows: "This is true as far as the spirit [which Luther called

'pussyfooting,' _Leisetreten_] and the literary composition are

concerned; but as to the doctrines Luther had a right to say, 'The

Catechism, the Exposition of the Ten Commandments, and the Augsburg

Confession are _mine._'" (_Creeds_ 1, 229.)

23. Drafting the Confession.

May 11 the Confession was so far completed that the Elector was able to

submit it to Luther for the purpose of getting his opinion on it.

According to Melanchthon's letter of the same date, the document

contained "almost all articles of faith, _omnes fere articulos fedei._"

(_C. R._ 2, 45.) This agrees with the account written by Melanchthon

shortly before his death, in which he states that in the Augsburg

Confession he had presented "the sum of our Church's doctrine," and that

in so doing he had arrogated nothing to himself; for in the presence of

the princes, etc., each individual sentence had been discussed.

"Thereupon," says Melanchthon, "the entire Confession was sent also to

Luther, who informed the princes that he had read it and approved it.

The princes and other honest and learned men still living will remember

that such was the case. _Missa est denique et Luthero tota forma

Confessionis, qui Principibus scripsit, se hanc Confessionem et legisse

et probare. Haec ita acta esse, Principes et alii honesti et docti viri

adhuc superstites meminerint._" (9, 1052.) As early as May 15 Luther

returned the Confession with the remark: "I have read Master Philip's

Apology. I am well pleased with it, and know nothing to improve or to

change in it; neither would this be proper, since I cannot step so

gently and softly. Christ, our Lord, grant that it may produce much and

great fruit which, indeed, we hope and pray for. Amen." (St. L. 16,

657.) Luther is said to have added these words to the Tenth Article:

"And they condemn those who teach otherwise, _et improbant secus

docentes._" (Enders, 7, 336.)

Up to the time of its presentation the Augsburg Confession was

diligently improved, polished, perfected, and partly recast. Additions

were inserted and several articles added. Nor was this done secretly and

without Luther's knowledge. May 22 Melanchthon wrote to Luther: "Daily

we change much in the Apology. I have eliminated the article On Vows,

since it was too brief, and substituted a fuller explanation. Now I am

also treating of the Power of the Keys. I would like to have you read

the articles of faith. If you find no shortcoming in them, we shall

manage to treat the remainder. For one must always make some changes in

them and adapt oneself to conditions. _Subinde enim mutandi sunt atque

ad occasiones accommodandi._" (_C. R._ 2, 60; Luther, 16, 689.)

Improvements suggested by Regius and Brenz were also adopted. (Zoeckler,

_Die A. K._, 18.)

Even Brueck is said to have made some improvements. May 24 the Nuernberg

delegates wrote to their Council: "The Saxon Plan [Apology] has been

returned by Doctor Luther. But Doctor Brueck, the old chancellor, still

has some changes to make at the beginning and the end." (_C. R._ 2, 62.)

The expression "beginning and end (_hinten und vorne_)," according to

Tschackert, is tantamount to "all over (_ueberall_)." However, even

before 1867 Plitt wrote it had long ago been recognized that this

expression refers to the Introduction and the Conclusion of the

Confession, which were written by Brueck. (Aug. 2, 11.) Bretschneider is

of the same opinion. (_C. R._ 2, 62.) June 3 the Nuernberg delegates

wrote: "Herewith we transmit to Your Excellencies a copy of the Saxon

Plan [Confession] in Latin, together with the Introduction or Preamble.

At the end, however, there are lacking one or two articles [20 and 21]

and the Conclusion, in which the Saxon theologians are still engaged.

When that is completed, it shall be sent to Your Excellencies. Meanwhile

Your Excellencies may cause your learned men and preachers to study it

and deliberate upon it. When this Plan [Confession] is drawn up in

German, it shall not be withheld from Your Excellencies. The Saxons,

however, distinctly desire that, for the present, Your Excellencies keep

this Plan or document secret, and that you permit no copy to be given to

any one until it has been delivered to His Imperial Majesty. They have

reasons of their own for making this request. ... And if Your

Excellencies' pastors and learned men should decide to make changes or

improvements in this Plan or in the one previously submitted, these,

too, Your Excellencies are asked to transmit to us." (2, 83.) June 26

Melanchthon wrote to Camerarius: "Daily I changed and recast much; and I

would have changed still more if our advisers (_sumphradmones_) had

permitted us to do so." (2, 140.)

24. Public Reading of the Confession.

June 15, after long negotiations, a number of other estates were

permitted to join the adherents of the Saxon Confession. (_C. R._ 2,

105.) As a result, Melanchthon's Introduction, containing a defense of

the Saxon Electors, without mentioning the other Lutheran estates, no

longer fitted in with the changed conditions. Accordingly, it was

supplanted by the Preface composed by Brueck, and translated into Latin

by Justus Jonas, whose acknowledged elegant Latin and German style

qualified him for such services. At the last deliberation, on June 23,

the Confession was signed. And on June 25, at 3 P.M., the ever-memorable

meeting of the Diet took place at which the Augustana was read by

Chancellor Beyer in German, and both manuscripts were handed over. The

Emperor kept the Latin copy for himself, and gave the German copy to the

Imperial Chancellor, the Elector and Archbishop Albrecht, to be

preserved in the Imperial Archives at Mainz. Both texts, therefore, the

Latin as well as the German, have equal authority, although the German

text has the additional distinction and prestige of having been publicly

read at the Diet.

As to where and how the Lutheran heroes confessed their faith, Kolde

writes as follows: "The place where they assembled on Saturday, June 25,

at 3 P.M., was not the courtroom, where the meetings of the Diet were

ordinarily conducted, but, as the Imperial Herald, Caspar Sturm,

reports, the 'Pfalz,' the large front room, _i.e._, the Chapter-room of

the bishop's palace, where the Emperor lived. The two Saxon chancellors,

Dr. Greg. Brueck and Dr. Chr. Beyer, the one with the Latin and the

other with the German copy of the Confession, stepped into the middle of

the hall, while as many of the Evangelically minded estates as had the

courage publicly to espouse the Evangelical cause arose from their seats.

Caspar Sturm reports: 'Als aber die gemeldeten Commissarii und

Botschaften der oesterreichischen Lande ihre Werbung und Botschaft

vollendet und abgetreten, sind darauf von Stund' an Kurfuerst von Sachsen

naemlich Herzog Johannes, Markgraf Joerg von Brandenburg, Herzog Ernst

samt seinem Bruder Franzisko, beide Herzoege zu Braunschweig und

Lueneburg, Landgraf Philipp von Hessen, Graf Wolf von Anhalt usw. von

ihrer Session auf; und gegen Kaiserliche Majestaet gestanden.' The

Emperor desired to hear the Latin text. But when Elector John had called

attention to the fact that the meeting was held on German soil, and

expressed the hope that the Emperor would permit the reading to proceed

in German, it was granted. Hereupon Dr. Beyer read the Confession. The

reading lasted about two hours; but he read with a voice so clear and

plain that the multitude, which could not gain access to the hall,

understood every word in the courtyard." (19 f.)

The public reading of the Confession exercised a tremendous influence in

every direction. Even before the Diet adjourned, Heilbronn, Kempten,

Windsheim, Weissenburg and Frankfurt on the Main professed their

adherence to it. Others had received the first impulse which

subsequently induced them to side with the Evangelicals. Brenz has it

that the Emperor fell asleep during the reading. However, this can have

been only temporarily or apparently, since Spalatin and Jonas assure us

that the Emperor, like the other princes and King Ferdinand, listened

attentively. Their report reads: "_Satis attentus erat Caesar,_ The

Emperor was attentive enough." Duke William of Bavaria declared: "Never

before has this matter and doctrine been presented to me in this

manner." And when Eck assured him that he would undertake to refute the

Lutheran doctrine with the Fathers, but not with the Scriptures, the

Duke responded, "Then the Lutherans, I understand, sit in the Scriptures

and we of the Pope's Church beside the Scriptures! _So hoer' ich wohl,

die Lutherischen sitzen in der Schrift und wir Pontificii daneben!_" The

Archbishop of Salzburg declared that he, too desired a reformation, but

the unbearable thing about it was that one lone monk wanted to reform

them all. In private conversation, Bishop Stadion of Augsburg exclaimed,

"What has been read to us is the truth, the pure truth, and we cannot

deny it." (St. L. 16, 882; Plitt, _Apologie,_ 18.) Father Aegidius, the

Emperor's confessor, said to Melanchthon, "You have a theology which a

person can understand only if he prays much." Campegius is reported to

have said that for his part he might well permit such teaching; but it

would be a precedent of no little consequence, as the same permission

would then have to be given other nations and kingdoms, which could not

be tolerated. (Zoeckler, _A. K._, 24.)

25. Luther's Mild Criticism.

June 26 Melanchthon sent a copy of the Confession, as publicly read, to

Luther, who adhering to his opinion of May 15, praised it yet not

without adding a grain of gentle criticism. June 29 he wrote to

Melanchthon: "I have received your Apology and can not understand what

you may mean when you ask what and how much should be yielded to the

Papists. ... As far as I am concerned too much has already been yielded

(_plus satis cessum est_) in this Apology; and if they reject it, I see

nothing that might be yielded beyond what has been done, unless I see

the proofs they proffer, and clearer Bible-passages than I have hitherto

seen. ... As I have always written--I am prepared to yield everything to

them if we are but given the liberty to teach the Gospel. I cannot yield

anything that militates against the Gospel." (St. L. 16, 902; Enders, 8,

42. 45.) The clearest expression of Luther's criticism is found in a

letter to Jonas, dated July 21, 1530. Here we read: "Now I see the

purpose of those questions [on the part of the Papists] whether you had

any further articles to present. The devil still lives, and he has

noticed very well that your Apology steps softly, and that it has veiled

the articles of Purgatory, the Adoration of the Saints, and especially

that of the Antichrist, the Pope." Another reading of this passage of

Luther: "_Apologiam vestram, die Leisetreterin, dissimulasse,_" is

severer even than the one quoted: "_Apologiam vestram leise treten et

dissimulasse._" (St. L. 16, 2323, Enders, 8, 133.)

Brenz regarded the Confession as written "very courteously and modestly,

_valde de civiliter et modeste._" (_C. R._ 2, 125.) The Nuernberg

delegates had also received the impression that the Confession, while

saying what was necessary, was very reserved and discreet. They reported

to their Council: "Said instruction [Confession], as far as the articles

of faith are concerned, is substantially like that which we have

previously sent to Your Excellencies, only that it has been improved in

some parts, and throughout made as mild as possible (_allenthalben aufs

glimpflichste gemacht_), yet, according to our view, without omitting

anything necessary." (2, 129.) At Smalcald, in 1537, the theologians

were ordered by the Princes and Estates "to look over the Confession, to

make no changes pertaining to its contents or substance, nor those of

the Concord [of 1536], but merely to enlarge upon matters regarding the

Papacy, which, for certain reasons, was previously omitted at the Diet

of Augsburg in submissive deference to His Imperial Majesty." (Kolde,

_Analecta,_ 297.)

Indirectly Melanchthon himself admits the correctness of Luther's

criticism. True, when after the presentation of the Confession he

thought of the angry Papists, he trembled fearing that he had written

too severely. June 26 he wrote to his most intimate friend, Camerarius:

"Far from thinking that I have written milder than was proper, I rather

strongly fear (_mirum in modum_) that some have taken offense at our

freedom. For Valdes, the Emperor's secretary, saw it before its

presentation and gave it as his opinion that from beginning to end it

was sharper than the opponents would be able to endure." (_C. R._ 2,

140.) On the same day he wrote to Luther: "According to my judgment, the

Confession is severe enough. For you will see that I have depicted the

monks sufficiently." (141.)

In two letters to Camerarius, however, written on May 21 and June 19,

respectively, hence before the efforts at toning down the Confession

were completed, Melanchthon expressed the opinion that the Confession

could not have been written "in terms more gentle and mild, _mitior et

lenior._" (2, 57.) No doubt, Melanchthon also had in mind his

far-reaching irenics at Augsburg, when he wrote in the Preface to the

Apology of the Augsburg Confession: "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

might the more readily be effected. 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, 11.)

Evidently, Melanchthon means to emphasize that in the Augustana he had

been conservative criticizing only when compelled to do so for

conscience' sake.

26. Luther Praising Confession and Confessors.

Luther's criticism did not in the least dampen his joy over the glorious

victory at Augsburg nor lessen his praise of the splendid confession

there made. In the above-mentioned letter of June 27 he identifies

himself fully and entirely with the Augustana and demands that

Melanchthon, too, consider it an expression of his own faith, and not

merely of Luther's faith. July 3 he wrote to Melanchthon: "Yesterday I

reread carefully your entire Apology, and it pleases me extremely

(_vehementer_)." (St. L. 16, 913; Enders, 8, 79.) July 6 he wrote a

letter to Cordatus in which he speaks of the Augustana as "altogether a

most beautiful confession, _plane pulcherrima confessio._" At the same

time he expresses his great delight over the victory won at Augsburg,

applying to the Confession Ps. 119, 46: "I will speak of Thy testimonies

also before kings, and will not be ashamed,"--a text which ever since

has remained the motto, appearing on all of its subsequent manuscripts

and printed copies.

Luther said: "I rejoice beyond measure that I lived to see the hour in

which Christ was publicly glorified by such great confessors of His, in

so great an assembly, through this in every respect most beautiful

Confession. And the word has been fulfilled [Ps. 119, 46]: 'I will speak

of Thy testimonies also before kings;' and the other word will also be

fulfilled: 'I was not confounded.' For, 'Whosoever confesses Me before

men' (so speaks He who lies not), 'him will I also confess before My

Father which is in heaven.'" (16, 915; E. 8, 83.) July 9 Luther wrote to

Jonas "Christ was loudly proclaimed by means of the public and glorious

Confession (_publica et gloriosa confessione_) and confessed in the open

(_am Lichte_) and in their [the Papists'] faces, so that they cannot

boast that we fled, had been afraid, or had concealed our faith. I only

regret that I was not able to be present when this splendid Confession

was made (_in hac pulchra confessione_)." (St. L. 16, 928; E. 8, 94.)

On the same day, July 9, Luther wrote to the Elector: "I know and

consider well that our Lord Christ Himself comforts the heart of Your

Electoral Grace better than I or any one else is able to do. This is

shown, too, and proved before our eyes by the facts, for the opponents

think that they made a shrewd move by having His Imperial Majesty

prohibit preaching. But the poor deluded people do not see that, through

the written Confession presented to them, more has been preached than

otherwise perhaps ten preachers could have done. Is it not keen wisdom

and great wit that Magister Eisleben and others must keep silence? But

in lieu thereof the Elector of Saxony, together with other princes and

lords, arises with the written Confession and preaches freely before His

Imperial Majesty and the entire realm, under their noses so that they

must hear and cannot gainsay. I think that thus the order prohibiting

preaching was a success indeed. They will not permit their servants to

hear the ministers, but must themselves hear something far worse (as

they regard it) from such great lords, and keep their peace. Indeed,

Christ is not silent at the Diet; and though they be furious, still they

must hear more by listening to the Confession than they would have heard

in a year from the preachers. Thus is fulfilled what Paul says: God's

Word will nevertheless have free course. If it is prohibited in the

pulpit, it must be heard in the palaces. If poor preachers dare not

speak it, then mighty princes and lords proclaim it. In brief, if

everything keeps silence, the very stones will cry out, says Christ

Himself." (16, 815.) September 15, at the close of the Diet, Luther

wrote to Melanchthon: "You have confessed Christ, offered peace, obeyed

the Emperor, endured reproach, been sated with slander, and have not

recompensed evil for evil; in sum you have performed the holy work of

God, as becomes saints, in a worthy manner. ... I shall canonize you

(_canonizabo vos_) as faithful members of Christ." (16, 2319; E. 8,

259.)

27. Manuscripts and Editions of Augustana.

As far as the text of the Augsburg Confession is concerned, both of the

original manuscripts are lost to us. Evidently they have become a prey

to Romish rage and enmity. Eck was given permission to examine the

German copy in 1540, and possibly at that time already it was not

returned to Mainz. It may have been taken to Trent for the discussions

at the Council, and thence carried to Rome. The Latin original was

deposited in the Imperial Archives at Brussels, where it was seen and

perused by Lindanus in 1562. February 18, 1569, however, Philip II

instructed Duke Alva to bring the manuscript to Spain, lest the

Protestants "regard it as a Koran," and in order that "such a damned

work might forever be destroyed; _porque se hunda para siempre tan

malvada obra._" The keeper of the Brussels archives himself testifies

that the manuscript was delivered to Alva. There is, however, no lack of

other manuscripts of the Augsburg Confession. Up to the present time no

less than 39 have been found. Of these, five German and four Latin

copies contain also the signatures. The five German copies are in verbal

agreement almost throughout, and therefore probably offer the text as

read and presented at Augsburg.

The printing of the Confession had been expressly prohibited by the

Emperor. June 26 Melanchthon wrote to Veit Dietrich: "Our Confession has

been presented to the Emperor. He ordered that it be not printed. You

will therefore see that it is not made public." (_C. R._ 2, 142.)

However, even during the sessions of the Diet a number of printed

editions six in German and one in Latin, were issued by irresponsible

parties. But since these were full of errors, and since, furthermore,

the Romanists asserted with increasing boldness and challenge that the

Confession of the Lutherans had been refuted, by the Roman Confutation,

from the Scriptures and the Fathers, Melanchthon, in 1530, had a correct

edition printed, which was issued, together with the Apology, in May,

1531. This quarto edition ("Beide, Deutsch Und Lateinisch Ps. 119") is

regarded as the _editio princeps._

For years this edition was also considered the authentic edition of the

Augsburg Confession. Its Latin text was embodied 1584 in the Book of

Concord as the _textus receptus._ But when attention was drawn to the

changes in the German text of this edition (also the Latin text had been

subjected to minor alterations), the Mainz Manuscript was substituted in

the German Book of Concord, as its Preface explains. (14.) This

manuscript, however contains no original signatures and was erroneously

considered the identical document presented to the Emperor, of which it

was probably but a copy. In his Introduction to the Symbolical Books, J.

T. Mueller expresses the following opinion concerning the Mainz

Manuscript: "To say the least, one cannot deny that its text, as a rule,

agrees with that of the best manuscripts, and that its mistakes can

easily be corrected according to them and the _editio princeps,_ so that

we have no reason to surrender the text received by the Church and to

accept another in place thereof, of which we cannot prove either that it

is any closer to the original." (78.) Tschackert, who devoted much study

to the manuscripts of the Augsburg Confession, writes: "The Saxon

theologians acted in good faith, and the Mainz copy is still certainly

better than Melanchthon's original imprint [the _editio princeps_] yet,

when compared with the complete and--because synchronous with the

originally presented copy--reliable manuscripts of the signers of the

Confession, the Mainz Manuscript proves to be defective in quite a

number of places." (_L.c._ 621 f.)

However, even Tschackert's minute comparison shows that the Mainz

Manuscript deviates from the original presented to the Emperor only in

unimportant and purely formal points. For example, in sec. 20 of the

Preface the words: "Papst das Generalkonzilium zu halten nicht

geweigert, so waere E. K. M. gnaediges Erbieten, zu fordern und zu

handeln, dass der" are omitted. Art. 27 sec. 48 we are to read: "dass

die erdichteten geistlichen Orden Staende sind christlicher

Vollkommenheit" instead of: "dass die erdichteten geistlichen

Ordensstaende sind christliche Vollkommenheit." Art. 27, sec. 61 reads,

"die Uebermass der Werke," instead of, "die Uebermasswerke," by the way,

an excellent expression, which should again be given currency in the

German. The conclusion of sec. 2 has "Leichpredigten" instead of

"Beipredigten." According to the manuscripts, also the Mainz Manuscript,

the correct reading of sec. 12 of the Preface is as follows: "Wo aber

bei unsern Herrn, Freunden und besonders den Kurfuersten, Fuersten und

Staenden des andern Teils die Handlung dermassen, wie E. K. M.

Ausschreiben vermag (bequeme Handlung unter uns selbst in Lieb und

Guetigkeit) nicht verfangen noch erspriesslich sein wollte" etc. The

words, "bequeme Handlung unter uns selbst in Lieb' und Guetigkeit," are

quoted from the imperial proclamation. (Foerstemann, 7, 378; Plitt, 2,

12.)

Originally only the last seven articles concerning the abuses had

separate titles, the doctrinal articles being merely numbered, as in the

Marburg and Schwabach Articles, which Melanchthon had before him at

Augsburg. (Luther, Weimar 30, 3, 86. 160.) Nor are the present captions

of the doctrinal articles found in the original German and Latin

editions of the Book of Concord, Article XX forming a solitary

exception; for in the German (in the Latin Concordia, too, it bears no

title) it is superscribed: "Vom Glauben und guten Werken, Of Faith and

Good Works." This is probably due to the fact that Article XX was taken

from the so-called Torgau Articles and, with its superscription there,

placed among the doctrinal articles. In the German edition of 1580 the

word "Schluss" is omitted where the Latin has "Epilogus."

As to the translations, even before the Confession was presented to the

Emperor, it had been rendered into French. (This translation was

published by Foerstemann, 1, 357.) The Emperor had it translated for his

own use into both Italian and French. (_C. R._ 2, 155; Luther, St. L.,

16, 884.) Since then the Augustana has been done into Hebrew, Greek,

Spanish, Portuguese, Belgian, Slavic, Danish, Swedish, English, and many

other languages. As to the English translations, see page 6. [tr. note:

numbered section 4, above]

28. Signatures of Augsburg Confession.

Concerning the signatures of the Augustana, Tschackert writes as

follows: The names of the signers are most reliably determined from the

best manuscript copies of the original of the Confession, which have

been preserved to us. There we find the signatures of eight princes and

two free cities, to wit, Elector John of Saxony, Margrave George of

Brandenburg-Ansbach, Duke Ernest of Braunschweig-Lueneburg, Landgrave

Philip of Hesse, then John Frederick, the Electoral Prince of Saxony,

Ernest's brother Francis of Braunschweig-Lueneburg, Prince Wolfgang of

Anhalt, Count Albrecht of Mansfeld, and the cities Nuernberg and

Reutlingen. (_L.c._ 285; see also Luther's letter of July 6, 1530, St.

L. 16, 882.) Camerarius, in his Life of Melanchthon, relates that

Melanchthon desired to have the Confession drawn up in the name of the

theologians only, but that his plan did not prevail because it was

believed that the signatures of the princes would lend prestige and

splendor to the act of presenting this confession of faith. Besides,

this plan of Melanchthon's was excluded by the Emperor's proclamation.

Although Philip of Hesse, in the interest of a union with the Swiss, had

zealously, but in vain, endeavored to secure for the article concerning

the Lord's Supper a milder form still, in the end, he did not refuse to

sign. Regius wrote to Luther, May 21, that he had discussed the entire

cause of the Gospel with the Landgrave, who had invited him to dinner,

and talked with him for two hours on the Lord's Supper. The Prince had

presented all the arguments of the Sacramentarians and desired to hear

Regius refute them. But while the Landgrave did not side with Zwingli

(_non sentit cum Zwinglio_), yet he desired with all his heart an

agreement of the theologians, as far as piety would permit (_exoptat

doctorum hominum concordiam, quantum sinit pietas_). He was far less

inclined to dissension than rumor had it before his arrival. He would

hardly despise the wise counsel of Melanchthon and others. (Kolde,

_Analecta,_ 125; see also _C. R._ 2, 59, where the text reads, "_nam

sentit cum Zwinglio_" instead of, "_non sentit cum Zwinglio._")

Accordingly, the mind of the Landgrave was not outright Zwinglian, but

unionistic. He regarded the followers of Zwingli as weak brethren who

must be borne with, and to whom Christian fellowship should not be

refused. This also explains how the Landgrave could sign the Augustana,

and yet continue his endeavors to bring about a union.

May 22 Melanchthon wrote to Luther: "The Macedonian [Philip of Hesse]

now contemplates signing our formula of speech, and it appears as if he

can be drawn back to our side; still, a letter from you will be

necessary. Therefore I beg you most urgently that you write him,

admonishing him not to burden his conscience with a godless doctrine."

Still the Landgrave did not change his position in the next few weeks.

June 25, however, Melanchthon reported to Luther: "The Landgrave

approves our Confession and has signed it. You will, I hope accomplish

much if you seek to strengthen him by writing him a letter." (_C. R._ 2,

60. 92. 96. 101. 103. 126; Luther St. L., 16, 689; 21a, 1499.)

At Augsburg, whither also Zwingli had sent his _Fidei Ratio,_ the

South-German imperial cities (Strassburg, Constance, Memmingen, Lindau)

presented the so-called _Confessio Tetrapolitana,_ prepared by Bucer and

Capito, which declares that the Sacraments are "holy types," and that in

the Lord's Supper the "true body" and the "true blood" of Christ "are

truly eaten and drunk as meat and drink for the souls which are thereby

nourished unto eternal life." However, in 1532 these cities, too, signed

the Augsburg Confession.

Thus the seed which Luther sowed had grown wonderfully. June 25, 1530,

is properly regarded as the real birthday of the Lutheran Church. From

this day on she stands before all the world as a body united by a public

confession and separate from the Roman Church. The lone, but courageous

confessor of Worms saw himself surrounded with a stately host of true

Christian heroes, who were not afraid to place their names under his

Confession, although they knew that it might cost them goods and blood,

life and limb. When the Emperor, after entering Augsburg, stubbornly

demanded that the Lutherans cease preaching, Margrave George of

Brandenburg finally declared: "Rather than deny my God and suffer the

Word of God to be taken from me, I will kneel down and have my head

struck off." (_C. R._ 2, 115.) That characterizes the pious and heroic

frame of mind of all who signed the Augustana in 1530 In a letter, of

June 18, to Luther, Jonas relates how the Catholic princes and estates

knelt down to receive the blessing of Campegius when the latter entered

the city, but that the Elector remained standing and declared: "To God

alone shall knees be bowed; _In Deo flectenda sunt genua._" (Kolde,

_Analecta,_ 135.) When Melanchthon called the Elector's attention to the

possible consequences of his signing the Augsburg Confession, the latter

answered that he would do what was right, without concerning himself

about his electoral dignity; he would confess his Lord, whose cross he

prized higher than all the power of the world.

Brenz wrote: "Our princes are most steadfast in confessing the Gospel,

and surely, when I consider their great steadfastness, there comes over

me no small feeling of shame because we poor beggars [theologians] are

filled with fear of the Imperial Majesty." (_C. R._ 2, 125.) Luther

praises Elector John for having suffered a bitter death at the Diet of

Augsburg. There, says Luther, he had to swallow all kinds of nasty soups

and poison with which the devil served him; at Augsburg he publicly,

before all the world, confessed Christ's death and resurrection, and

hazarded property and people, yea, his own body and life; and because of

the confession which he made we shall honor him as a Christian. (St. L.

12, 2078 f.) And not only the Lutheran Church, but all Protestant

Christendom, aye, the entire world has every reason to revere and hold

sacred the memory of the heroes who boldly affixed their names to the

Confession of 1530.

29. Tributes to Confession of Augsburg.

From the moment of its presentation to the present day, men have not

tired of praising the Augsburg Confession, which has been called

_Confessio augusta, Confessio augustissima,_ the "_Evangelischer

Augapfel,_" etc. They have admired its systematic plan, its

completeness, comprehensiveness, and arrangement; its balance of

mildness and firmness; its racy vigor, freshness, and directness; its

beauty of composition, "the like of which can not be found in the entire

literature of the Reformation period." Spalatin exclaims: "A Confession,

the like of which was never made, not only in a thousand years, but as

long as the world has been standing!" Sartorius: "A confession of the

eternal truth, of true ecumenical Christianity, and of all fundamental

articles of the Christian faith!" "From the Diet of Augsburg, which is

the birthday of the Evangelical Church Federation, down to the great

Peace Congress of Muenster and Osnabrueck, this Confession stands as the

towering standard in the entire history of those profoundly troublous

times, gathering the Protestants about itself in ever closer ranks, and,

when assaulted by the enemies of Evangelical truth with increasing fury,

is defended by its friends in severe fighting, with loss of goods and

blood, and always finally victoriously holds the field. Under the

protection of this banner the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Germany has

been built up on firm and unassailable foundations: under the same

protection the Reformed Church in Germany has found shelter. But the

banner was carried still farther; for all Swedes, Danes, Norwegians, and

Prussians have sworn allegiance to it, and the Esthonians, Latts, Finns,

as well as all Lutherans of Russia, France, and other lands recognize

therein the palladium of their faith and rights. No other Protestant

confession has ever been so honored." (Guericke, _Kg._, 3, 116 f.)

Vilmar says in praise of the Confession: "Whoever has once felt a gentle

breath of the bracing mountain air which is wafted from this mighty

mountain of faith [the Augsburg Confession] no longer seeks to pit

against its firm and quiet dignity his own uncertain, immature, and

wavering thoughts nor to direct the vain and childish puff of his mouth

against that breath of God in order to give it a different direction."

(_Theol. d. Tatsachen,_ 76.) In his Introduction to the Symbolical

Books, J. T. Mueller says: "Luther called the Diet of Augsburg 'the last

trumpet before Judgment Day;' hence we may well call the confession

there made the _blast_ of that trumpet, which, indeed, has gone forth

into all lands, even as the Gospel of God which it proclaims in its

purity." (78.) The highest praise, however, is given the Augsburg

Confession by the Church which was born with it, when, _e.g._, in the

Formula of Concord, the Lutherans designate it as "the symbol of our

time," and glory in it as the Confession, which, though frowned upon and

assailed by its opponents, "down to this day has remained unrefuted and

unoverthrown (bis auf diesen Tag unwiderlegt und unumgestossen

geblieben)." (777, 4; 847, 3.)

mi�>'�A i �� �߇ -serif";color:black'>Venus (_Venusberg_)." (St. L. 15, 1635.)
ps:�>:�p �� �߇ 7.4pt 183.2pt 229.0pt 274.8pt 320.6pt 366.4pt 412.2pt 458.0pt 503.8pt 549.6pt 595.4pt 641.2pt 687.0pt 732.8pt'>The Confutators, however, the avowed enemies of truth and peace, were

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

youthful Melanchthon called old priests asses, sycophants, windbags,

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

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

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

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

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

377.)

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

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

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

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

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

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

der ganzen Legion, welche Christus von den Besessenen austrieb und

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

seinen Moenchschaedel hirnwuetig und wirbelsuechtig gemacht. Du

unruhiger, treuloser und meineidiger Kuttenbube! Du bist allein der

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

maenniglich abnehmen die Verraeterei und Falschheit deines

blutduerstigen Herzens, rachgierigen Gemuets und teuflischen Willens, so

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

offenem Maul ohne Unterlass wagest. Du treuloser Bube und teuflischer

Moench! Du deklarierter Mameluck and verdammter Zwiedarm, deren neun

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

unverstaendigste Bacchant und zehneckichte Cornut und Bestia bist. Du

meineidiger, treuloser und ehrenblosser Fleischboesewicht! Pfui dich

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

abfaelligen Pfaffen und aller Abtruennigen Hurenwirt! Ei, Doktor

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

allmaechtige Gott wird dir kuerzlich die Schanze brechen und deiner

boshaftigsten, groebsten Eselheit Feierabend geben. Du Sauboze, Doktor

Sautrog! Doktor Eselsohr! Doktor Filzhut! Zweiundsiebzig Teufel sollen

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

du als ein Hoellenhund sollst Feuer ausspruehen und dich endlich selbst

verbrennen. Ich will dich dem wuetenigen Teufel und seiner Hurenmutter

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

Charakter,_ 148.)

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

written with modesty and moderation. Melanchthon sought to keep the

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

as endorsing also the Romish doctrine of Transubstantiation.

60. Symbolical Authority of Apology.

The great importance ascribed to the Apology appears both from its

numerous reprints and the strenuous endeavors of the opponents to oppose

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

destroyed while the Confutation remained unpublished. Cochlaeus

complained that to judge from letters received, the Apology found

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

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

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

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

(Kolde, 40.)

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

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

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

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

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

an undertaking for which Melanchthon had received no commission.

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

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

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

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

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

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

himself responsible for the contents of the revised Apology.

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

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

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

designating the latter as "the defense and explanation of the

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

restricted to teach nothing else than the letter of the Augsburg

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

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

Apologiam scriptum illud, quod Caesari post Confessionem exhibitum sit,

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

imminuatur et concionatores astringantur, ut nihil aliud praedicent

quam ad litteram Augustanae Confessionis, neque libere et plenissime

adversus omnes errores doctrinae, abusus, peccata et crimina dicere

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

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

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

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

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

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

Confessionis; nolle tamen Principes et socios, ut alii articuli

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

theologians present, and thereby solemnly declared a confession of the

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

malca &�r i �߇ �_� r

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

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

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

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

articles were composed by Luther and approved by the Protestants at

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

for the convention of the Protestants for the reason that the

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

approach." (_Isagoge,_ 769.)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

article concerning Confession. The editions of 1543 and 1545 contained

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

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

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

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

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

emended edition. In the following year the Elector desired a

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

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

official Latin Concordia of 1584.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

for Melanchthon. His policy toward the South Germans was actually

repudiated by the numerous and enthusiastic subscriptions to Luther's

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

document from the archives with the subscriptions) this German

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

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

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

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

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

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

although mentioned with approval by the theologians and also included in

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

princes and estates nevertheless passed no resolution requiring its

subscription. Melanchthon writes that the princes had expressly declared

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

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

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

writing. (372.)

79. Authorship of Tract.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

privately published 1580. Apart from other errors this Latin version

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

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

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

"Tractatus per Theologos Smalcaldicos Congregatos Conscriptus."

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

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

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

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

the Tract under a title which clearly designates Melanchthon as its

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

for Melanchthon's authorship which thus became necessary was furnished

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Articles.

80. A Threefold Criticism.

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

followed by others believes himself justified in offering a threefold

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

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

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

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

there signed by the assembled Lutheran theologians and preachers and

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

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

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

exception of the suspected theologians] subscribed and thereby they

became weighty and important for the Evangelical churches of Germany;

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

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

publicly deliberated upon at Smalcald." (302.)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

the case of the Smalcald Articles this was done voluntarily rather

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

still entrust him with the composition of this very important document

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

splendidly fulfilled the consideration which he owed to the views and

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

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

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

supposition that the Elector charged Melanchthon in particular with the

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

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

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

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

_they_ did, and thereupon transmitted _their_ criticism to the Elector

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

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

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

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

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

diligently to explain the Primacy which was omitted from the Confession

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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