_________________________________________________________________ Historical Introduction Third Chapter History of the Augsburg Confession From THE AUGSBURG CONFESSION, A Collection of Sources. J.M.Reu. Concordia Theological Seminary Press, Fort Wayne, Indiana. Pgs. 349-383. Part one of four ______________________________________________________________ THIRD CHAPTER THE HISTORY OF THE CONFESSION a) In Germany The Lutheran princes and estates had hardly made their confession in Augsburg, in spite of the attempts of the Emperor to dissuade them, before it was adopted by others as their confession and doctrinal basis.1 In the very same year (1530) Duke Albrecht of Prussia issued a decree to the effect "that if anyone shall teach anything contrary to the Augsburg Confession, he shall be excommunicated, and if he does not recant, he shall he cast out from the Church absolutely."2 When the Evangelical princes and estates met at Schmalkalden between December 22 and 30, even Strassburg accepted the Augsburg Confession.3 Then on the 27th of February, 1531, the Smalcald League was formed while its organization was perfected at Schweinfurt in April, 1532. And the confession of the League was the Augsburg Confession and its Apology. With that the Augsburg Confession became authoritative (1532) in Saxony, Hesse, Braunschweig-Lueneburg, Braunschweig-Grubenhagen, Anhalt-Koethen (Prince Wolfgang), Mansfeld and in the cities of Strassburg, Ulm, Konstanz, Reutlingen, Memmingen, Lindau, Biberach, Isny, Luebeck, Magdeburg, Bremen. This was also true of certain territories, which, although they were not members of the League, adopted the Confession, such as the Mark Brandenburg, the city of Nuernberg, etc. The South German cities were allowed to retain, aside from the Augsburg Confession and Apology, their separate confession (Tetrapolitana) which made an especial rejection of the Zwinglians unnecessary.4 In 1534 Anhalt-Dessau also joined the federation and with it History of the Confession 143 accepted the Augsburg Confession. From the day of Schmalkalden, 1535 all members, who subsequently joined, were pledged, "to have the Word of God and the pure doctrine of our Confession . . . uniformly taught and preached."5 In the book of church discipline, which Bugenhagen wrote for Pomerania in 1535, the ministers were pledged "to teach of faith, works and the sacraments according to the Confession and Apology presented to the Emperor at Augsburg by the Evangelical Princes.6 In 1536 the Duchy of Wuerttemberg in the south, Hannover and Hamburg in the north joined the Smalcald League and with that accepted the Confession. In the same year those who were active in writing the Wittenberg Concord acknowledged the Augsburg Confession and Apology (C. R. III, 76). The Day of Schmalkalden of 1537 produced some specially noteworthy results. There, in anticipation of the Council, the theologians were requested to again review the Augsburg Confession and Apology and to strengthen it with new arguments from Scripture and the Fathers. However, no changes were to be made which were contrary to its own contents or that of the Wittenberg Concord; only the nature of the papacy was to be defined more clearly.7 Due to the lack of books nothing more was done, aside from adopting Melanchthon's Tractatus de potestate papae, than with their signature to pledge themselves anew to the Augsburg Confession and its Apology. By this action the Confession again was confirmed as the foundation of the Smalcald League and, as it were, the symbol of all the participating churches. In the following years the Augsburg Confession was received in all those states which were opened to the Reformation through the influence of Wittenberg. So 1539 in the Duchy of Saxony and Palatinate-Zweibruecken;8 1540 in Mark Brandenburg (in Brandenburg-Kuestrin already in 1537) and in Mecklenburg, 144 Historical Introduction 1541 in Halle, 1542 in Schleswig-Holstein,9 Kalenberg and Goettingen and the Duchy of Braunschweig in the north; in the south in Palatinate-Neuburg and Regensburg; the Duchy of Liegnitz in the east and soon thereafter in Hildesheim; 1544 in the Earldom Henneberg and in Merseburg. Hardly 15 years had passed since the presentation of the Confession, and yet it had been adopted by nearly all of Evangelical Germany! Even along the lower Rhein and in East Friesia, where as yet no clear position had been established, many had adopted the Confession. How greatly they valued the Confession in many places may be seen, aside from what has been said of Pomerania, Prussia and Liegnitz,10 from the following: When the Saxon Articles of Visitation of 1533 direct that in every parish the Augsburg Confession and Apology must be at hand in both the Latin and German version this surely was ordered so that the ministers would study them and preach in accordance with their teachings. In the Statutes of the Wittenberg Theological Faculty, written by Melanchthon in 1533, the first article reads: "As in the churches of our dominion and in the juvenile schools, so in the University, in which there ought always to be clear supervision and oversight in doctrine, we will that the pure doctrine of the Gospel be piously and faithfully set forth, preserved and promulgated in harmony with the Confession we delivered to the Emperor Charles at Augsburg in the year 1530, which doctrine we firmly believe to he the pure and uninterrupted consensus of the Catholic Church of God."11 From the same year on all those who took theological degrees, were pledged, under oath, to the Augsburg Confession.12 Likewise after 1535 no one was admitted to the ministry in Wittenberg who was not in agreement with the doctrines of the Confession. Even if the ordination formula did not expressly state this, the History of the Confession 145 ordination was preceded by an examination which ended with a pledge to teach and preach in harmony with the Lutheran doctrines expressed in the examination. This was then at tested in the ordination certificate. It is true that the Augsburg Confession was not as a rule named in these ordination papers, but when Wittenberg spoke of the "doctrina incorrupta, quam ecclesia nostra profitetur" it certainly had the Augsburg Confession in mind.13 In the German "Ordinanden Examen" of 1552 (C. R. XXIII, p. XXXVVIIf.), however, the Augsburg Confession is expressly named.14 No less than 1700 pastors were ordained in Wittenberg in the years 1537-1555 who found charges in the various parts of Germany.15 It is also of record that the Augsburg Confession was used in the upper classes of the grammar schools and that an edition was published for this purpose.l6 In passing it may be of interest to note that it was also published in verse.17 The Augsburg Confession was likewise made the in dispensable basis for every religious colloquy. So in the deliberations with the envoy of the King of England 1535-1536 (cf. part g of this chapter); in the colloquy with the Catholics in Hagenau and Worms in 1540 and again in Regensburg 1541. When in Hagenau the Lutherans were asked to present, in short form, the points in question, they answered: The Confession of our faith and Apology was presented at Augsburg ten years ago; to this we still adhere, being ready to satisfy any that find fault with it. So it was decided to take up the articles of the Augsburg Confession at the continuation of the colloquy at Worms. In Regensburg the Lutherans declared again and again that they would re main true to the Augsburg Confession: "This entire kind of doctrine, which is set forth in our churches, and which exists in our Confession and Apology, is the doctrine which is handed down in the Gospel and in the consensus of the Catholic Church 146 Historical Introduction of Christ."18 When the Lutherans in 1551 found it necessary to prepare for the Council of Trent they requested Melanchthon, in the north, and Brenz, in the south, to work out confessions which were to he supplementary to the Augsburg Confession. So the Confessio Saxonica and the Confessio Wuertembergica (Part II, 54.55) came into being of which the first went under the name Repetitio Confessionis Agustanae.19 In the first paragraph of the preface to the Confessio Saxonica it is declared: "We mean simply and faithfully to reiterate the sum of the doctrine which is preached in all the churches that embrace the Confession of the Reverend Dr. Luther, and we repeat the doctrine of the Confession which was presented to the Emperor Charles at the Diet of Augsburg in the year 1530, although some things are here more fully recited." This Repetition was endorsed and approved by synods, universities, superintendents, and theologians from Prussia to Strassburg and was incorporated in several Corpora Doctrinae (C. R. XXVIII, 327ff.; 457-468). On the other hand the Confessio Wuertembergica was not only acknowledged by the Wuertembergers and Strassburgers but also by the Electorate of Saxony. At the Naumburg Convention in May 1554, the question of presenting articles of faith at the coming diet was discussed. It was agreed to hold to the Augsburg Confession and either present it or the Confessio Wuertembergica or Confessio Saxonica to the Emperor. In the first paragraph of the declaration, written by Melanchthon and adopted by all, it was stated: "We appeal to the published and well-known Confession which was delivered to his Imperial Majesty at Augsburg in the year 1530, and by which our churches through the grace of God still stand, because they know that this is the sole, eternal consensus of the Holy Scriptures and the true Catholic Church of Christ" (C. R. VIII, 284). During March 1555 sixteen Lutheran History of the Confession 147 princes again assembled at Naumburg and resolved: "That, as to religion, they would not exceed the terms and limits of the Augsburg Confession," and they insisted on the execution of the Articles in the Passau Treaty (1552), which provided "that those of the Augsburg Confession shall also be admitted into the Imperial Council.19 Then on the 25th of September 1555 religious peace was established in Augsburg which assured all adherents of the Augsburg Confession complete religious freedom in the German Empire. Here the Protestant Princes "wrung from the Catholics the Decree of absolute religious independence in the sense and to the extent that neither the Emperor, nor the King of the Romans, nor any Prince or Estate of the Empire, for any cause or pretext whatever, shall attack or injure the adherents of the Augsburg Confession on account of their religious faith nor shall they by command, nor in any other way, force any adherent of the Augsburg Confession to forsake his religion, or to abandon the ceremonies already instituted or hereafter to be instituted; and the Emperor and the King and the Estates shall suffer them without hindrance to profess the religion of the Augsburg Confession, and peacefully to enjoy their goods, possessions, rents and rights."20 But which form of the Augsburg Confession was it which was so widely circulated and was now recognized at the Diet of Augsburg as the basis of the Evangelical Church of Germany? The story of the various editions of the Confession and the disputes arising from them make this question necessary. At first the Confession was circulated only in manuscript form. This is true for the time before the Diet, 1530, and probably immediately thereafter. The Lutheran Princes and representatives of cities present in Augsburg certainly desired a copy of what they were to confess, or had confessed. Up to 1901 we knew of 25 such manuscripts. Then P. Tschackert discovered 11 more which he described 148 Historical Introduction in 1901, with the other 25, in his critical book on the texts of the Augsburg Confession.21 Of these 36 copies 24 were of the German, 10 of the Latin Confession, one a German translation of the Latin and another a French translation of the Latin. Aside from the Latin Codex Wimariensis of 1561 they are all of the year 1530. Some of these are incomplete while the others have the complete text. In 1901 the following German texts were among the first class named: Ansbach 1, Weimar 1, Muenchen. Dresden 1, Hannover, Palatinate-Neuburg 1, Mainz, Wuerzburg, Augsburg, Noerdlingen, Memmingen, Lindau, Weimar 2 Dresden 2, Palatinate-Neuburg 2, Constanz, Strassburg. Among the second class are: Zerbst, Reutlingen, Nuernberg, Marburg, Ansbach 2, Ansbach 3, Koenigsberg. Of the Latin manuscripts the following have incomplete texts: The Codex Marburgensis I, Wirceburgensis, Ratisbonensis, Onoldensis, Wimariensis, Hannoveranus, Norimbergensis, Marburgensis II Among these must also be counted the German and French translations of the Latin text. But since 1901 the picture has been completely changed. In 1904 Tschackert found three new manuscripts of 1530. In 1906 Kolde published Baumgaertner's German translation of the Latin text of May 31. In 1930 Ficker published the German form of June 15 and furnished proof that the Mainz manuscript, mentioned above, is an exact reproduction of the lost German edition of June 25. He also found two absolutely reliable copies of the Latin form of June 25. We have shown in Chapter I the vast importance of these manuscripts found in 1906 and 1930. In this year Bornkamm discovered still more so that today we know of 50 manuscripts of 1530 containing the Confession Compare the forthcoming Article of Bornkamm in Zeitschrift f. Kirchengeschichte. The two original manuscripts containing the Latin and the German text and handed to the Emperor on June 25, so far could not be recovered. They probably are lost. The Latin manuscript in Melanchthon's own handwriting was preserved for several decades at the Imperial archive at Brussels and by the order of Philip of Spain was sent to Spain. Here it probably was burned up that it could bring no further harm. Compare Kolde, Neue Augustanastudien, 1906. Of the whereabouts of the German original history does not give us even a hint, since we know that it was not the original but a copy of the German original that came to Mainz. Although the Emperor forbade the printing of the Confession History of the Confession 149 even during the Diet, a considerable number of editions were printed by unauthorized printers. Of these six German and one Latin editions are known. They are all carefully described by Bindseil in Corpus Reformatorum XXVI. Since these editions were all incorrect and could cause evil consequences Melanchthon, in spite of the Emperor's ban, immediately upon his return from Augsburg began to prepare the official edition of the Confession. We here follow Kolde who has given the question much attention in his "Neue Augustanastudien" of 1906 and has given a splendid resume of his investigations in his "Historische Einleitung" of 1907. Melanchthon began his task at once after his return.22 But since he intended to include an Apology, which he was continually rewriting, the date of publication was delayed. It went to press in the fall of 1530 but was not completed.23 This official edition, with the Apology, finally appeared at the end of April or May 1531 at George Rhau's in Wittenberg. Since the German edition of the Apology, made by Justus Jonas, was not finished, only the Latin text was first published; the German text followed, probably in the fall of 1531, and was then very likely sold together with the Latin. The title read CONFESSIO FIDEI º exhibita inuictiss. Imp. Carolo V.º Caesari Aug. in Comicijs º Anno º M.D.XXX º Addita est Apologia Confessionis. º Beidr Deudsch º Vnd Latinisch. º Psalm 119. º Et loquebar de testimonijs tuis in con- º spectu Regum et non confundebar. º At the end of the Apology we read: Impressum per Georgium Rhau. M.D.XXXI. The title of the German edition is: Confessio odder Be º kantnus des Glau- º bens etlicher Fuersten º vnd Stede: Vber- º antwort Keiserlicher º Maiestat: º zu Augspurg. º Anno M.D.XXX. º Apologia der Confessio. º At the end of the Apology we find: "Printed at Wittemberg by George Rhau. Anno M.D.XXXI." This bilingual edition of the Confession and Apology is in quarto form. Of this Editio princeps however, there are at least two different versions or kinds to be distinguished. They probably were caused by small differences which crept in during the printing of the various folios, or that the differences appeared as a result of certain corrections that had been made. The printer, however, as was often done in those days, sold the uncorrected as well as the corrected copies. How does the Editio princeps compare with the text which was presented on June 25? We know that the Latin copy, which was handed to the Emperor, was Melanchthon's own handwriting since no time was available to prepare a clean copy. Therefore, at least 150 Historical Introduction for the Latin text, he had no available copy at hand for his Editio princeps. He was compelled to fall back on former copies of the Latin text and probably some notes he had regarding the changes he had made in the presented copy. Now he himself emphasizes that he had taken his text ex exemplari bonae fidei. And the fact that he regarded the Augsburg Confession as an official document is shown by the fact that, unlike the Apology, he does not name himself as the author. But under such conditions he was not able to deliver a text which was correct, word for word. Only when Ficker publishes his certified copy of the Latin text presented to the Emperor will we be able to say anything definite regarding the relation of his Latin text to the one of June 25. Now we only have his statement: "Both copies confirm the value of the copies made in Augsburg in 1530 (especially the Wuerzburg and Regensburg manuscripts) as well as the printed text of Fabricius in his Harmonia confessionum."25 This much, however, will probably be established: the Latin text of the Editio princeps varies from the text of the copy that was actually presented in many points, Kolde was right when he said, in reference to the 13th and the 18th Article: That the "damnationes" found here, were not in the presented copy is plainly seen from the fact that the Confutatio Pontificia does not consider them.26 We are more certain regarding the differences between the German text of the Editio princeps and the one presented to the Emperor, since we know that the Mainz manuscript is a true copy of the lost German original. There the vast differences in Articles 4, 5, 13 and especially in 20, 27 and 28 are surprising. They have, in part, become entirely new articles as may be seen by comparing the German form of the Editio princeps in Part II, 40. This is all the more surprising since Melanchthon here had reliable material at hand. Did he not have the recension of June 15 which differed only in preface and conclusion from the presented copy? It may be true what Kolde said, that the changes in the Editio princeps were made in interest of clearness; that they are valuable as authentic explanations of Melanchthon's; that nowhere they can be taken as changes in doctrine; that the Evangelical estates and theologians, who could have noticed these changes since many of them had copies of their own, never objected, but for decades accepted it as the authorized edition, Ä yet all of this does not change the fact that Melanchthon made some very extensive, unauthorized changes History of the Confession 151 in an official document. He here entered on that course which found its final result in the Variata of 1540. The second Latin edition, this time in Octavo, was issued in 1531. It, and those following, are described by Bindseil in Corpus Reformatorum and need not be considered here. Of note, however, is the German Octavo edition of 1533 with appended Apology and dated M.D.XXXIII. We again note considerable changes in Articles 4, 5, 6, 13, 15, and especially in 20 where, for the sake of clearness, Melanchthon added thoughts from the Apology. It is another step toward the Variata of 1540. Elector John Fredrick probably became aware of these changes for on May 5, 1537 he wrote (C. R. III, 336): "So M. Philipp has also presumed to change the Confession of his Electoral Grace and the other princes and estates, which was made before his Imp. Majesty in Augsburg, by modifying it and having it printed elsewhere."27 But Melanchthon's changes reach their climax in his Latin Quarto edition of 1540. Due to its many changes this edition received the name Variata.28 Kolde has the complete Latin text in his Augsburgische Konfession. H. E. Jacobs has the English text in his Book of Concord which again is based on the Harmony of Confessions of 1586. Due to lack of space we can only give a few articles in Part II, 53. Kolde's description of the changes is reliable: "Some of them are purely formal as when he rearranges the articles of the second part more logically. Others consist of extensive amplifications due to a desire for greater clearness. By bringing in passages from the Apology he has developed a greater keenness in combating the Roman opponent. He also included a more extensive proof from Scripture. Then there are, however, real changes or modifications which are of a dogmatic nature. Such are the enlarging of Articles 6 and 20, with their stressing the necessity of repentance and good works. Then those in Article 18 which could be construed as synergistic.30 This is not due so much to its wording as it could be misunderstood when taken in connection with Melanchthon's changed convictions voiced in later editions (after 1535) of his Loci Communes.30 The new form of Article 10 though not immediately regarded as objectionable, became a serious stumbling block later on. What the article states regarding the Sacrament is true and in itself could pass as a statement of Lutheran faith. De coena domini docent, quod cum pane et vino vere exhibeantur corpus et sanguis Christi, vescentibus in coena domini. It becomes suspicious 152 Historical Introduction and a stumbling block when we keep in mind that it omitted vere et substantialiter adesse and the improbatio of the form of 1530. How tenaciously they had held to this improbatio at Augsburg, even at the danger of losing the Landgrave's consent! And now it had been discarded! What prompted Melanchthon to do this? It is hardly correct to say that he had undergone a change of faith in the doctrine of the Supper and was seeking a phrase to express it Ä if thereby is meant that Melanchthon doubted the real presence of the Body and Blood in the Sacrament. It is a different matter, however, if one wishes to say thereby that he doubted the excluding power of such conviction. That probably is true. He personally still believed in the actual presence but no longer believed that on account of this conviction he ought to exclude from church fellowship those who believed differently. He may have thought of the fact that the Strassburgers had not been asked to condemn the Zwinglians and that the Wittenberg Concord lay between 1530 and 1540. He probably believed that his form of Article 10 was absolutely in harmony with the common basis expressed there. And that he permitted himself to undertake such extensive changes he also could justify with the reminder that at the day of Schmalkalden in 1537 the theologians (however not an individual!) had been asked to again review the Confession and Apology, and to prove it with new arguments from Scripture and the Fathers. At that time the Wittenberg Concord had been expressly mentioned.31 Luther hardly objected to the fact that Melanchthon made changes. He, himself, had made changes in the manuscript of the Articles of Schmalkalden while preparing them for the printer when he thought Ä although wrongly Ä that they had been adopted by the estates. The conception of the inviolability of a public document was not clearly defined in those days. He probably was sorry that Melanchthon made the changes just in Article 10, but he let it pass. Neither do we hear that he challenged Melanchthon's doubtful statements in his Loci of 1535 and 1543. He also let the articles of 1536 with the English (cf. Section g) pass as sufficient.32 Neither do we hear that there was any other objection to the Variata. "They used the new edition freely as one prefers a new edition to an older one (Kolde). An objection, however, was made, not by the Lutherans but by Eck and Cochleus. When, at the time of the Colloquy of Worms, the Variata was used they noticed the difference and sent for the copy ("The Original") at Mainz so as to establish the History of the Confession 153 changes.33 To be sure, Melanchthon declared that there were no changes in the "matter, substance and meaning." Still so little did he expect objections from his own camp that in the edition of 1542 he even made other changes. Without question no difference was made in the following years between the Editio princeps and the Variata, both were accepted as designations for the same thing. In the negotiations regarding the peace in Augsburg the Catholics again raised the question of these differences and they were used, especially by the representative of Treves, in an effort to exclude those who were Calvinisticly inclined, and as to recognize only the confessors of the Augsburg Confession of 1530. But this was frustrated by the Protestants. The Zwinglians, Anabaptists etc. were excluded from the peace but not the Calvinistic domains, since they approved of the Variata. Even the Electorate of Saxony defended it. And yet a difference in the valuation of the Variata arose about this time. Three things caused this: The doctrinal quarrels which began in connection with the Interim, in which the later so-called Gnesiolutherans rightly attacked so many of the positions maintained by Melanchthon and his pupils; the fact that the "Melanchthonians" and South Germans made the edition of 1540 their party symbol; the events at the Colloquy at Worms (1557) where the Protestants sought to exclude each other and were compelled to let the Jesuit Canisius differentiate between a pure and impure Augsburg Confession. The Day of the princes in Naumburg, who had met to formulate matters for the next Council of Trent, was also to bring about a stand regarding the editions of the Augsburg Confession. They acknowledged the German text of the Editio princeps and the Latin Octavo edition of 1531,34 yet, at the same time expressed as their opinion, that in accepting the edition of 1531 they also acknowledged those of 1540 and 1542 as "the ones which at the present time are, for the greater part, used in our churches and schools" and 154 Historical Introduction "which are formulated a little more in detail so that the divine truth be brought to light and faith and dependency upon the satisfaction and merits of Jesus Christ, above all human tradition and ordinances, be delivered pure and undefiled to our children." Which is to say, they expected to remain in the confession of 1530 and accepted it in the acknowledged form of 1531 and while praising the Variata, yet gave the edition of 1530 (printed 1531) a peculiar standing.35 This then brought about a change. Duke John Fredrick of Saxony deeply felt this peculiar rating and unreservedly acknowledged the Confession of 1530 (1531) as also the Articles of Schmalkalden. Aside from the Elector of the palatinate, who leaned toward Calvinism, all of the princes gradually joined the Duke of Saxony. It is true that the Variata, by being included in the Corpus Doctrinae Phillippicum,36 which was widely circulated and in 1566 was expressly acknowledged in the Electorate of Saxony, enjoyed for a time considerable prominence. But soon the Corpus Philippicum was opposed by other corpora doctrina which did not contain the Confessio Variata, but the Confessio Invariata and other writings, mostly of Luther. The Confession of Reuss-Schoeneburg especially treated the Variata severely. It said, the Variata is only being used "by the Adiaphorists, Sacramentarians, Antinomians, teachers of a new work righteousness and the like, so that under the true Augsburg Confession they may find shelter for their errors and forgeries . . . and to give the appearance of also being confessors of the Augsburg Confession so that under its protection against the hail and rain, they may enjoy the religious peace and so sell, further and spread their errors, under the aspect of friendship, all the more unmolested and freely."37 As harsh as this may sound time proved it to be entirely correct. Under the banner of the Augsburg Confession of 1540 Calvin gained considerable History of the Confession 155 ground in Germany and took much Lutheran territory. Under the same banner the Philippists undertook to take even Saxony from the Lutherans and open it to Calvinistic theology. It is also not accidental that just the leaders of the Philippists, after the fall of Cryptocalvinism in Saxony, went over to the Reformed Church. It is little surprising, therefore, that the Augsburg Confession of 1530 (1531) again was highly appreciated and that the authors of the Book of Concord were from the beginning certain that it must be acknowledged as the uncorrupted form and that only the text of 1530 or as nearby that text as could be ascertained, was to be included in their book. When some writers indulge in sneering at the term "Unaltered Confession of Augsburg" which came now more and more in use, they overlook the fact that this term is to be understood historically. Although it is true that the Editio princeps itself contained a number of considerable changes from the text presented to the Diet, in comparison with the edition of 1540 it was rightly called the "Invariata" or Unaltered Confession. In regard the finding of the German text of June 25 preliminary work had already been done by the Elector Joachim II. He had sent his Chaplain Coelestin and Andreas Zoch, the chancellor of the Archbishop of Magdeburg, to Mainz in 1566 where the original, which had been read on June 25, was supposed to be kept. They were to get a reliable copy of the same or make one themselves. They brought a copy home which the Elector Joachim published in 1572 in his Corpus Doctrinae Brandenburgicum. It was again published by Chytraeus in 1576 and also by Coelestin in 1576 and again in 1597. In the Corpus Brandenburgicum this form was expressly designated as: "From the true original, which was presented to Emperor Charles V. at the Diet of Augsburg, 1530.38 156 Historical Introduction Elector August of Saxony went back to this edition but, probably since the form in the Corpus Brandenburgicum differed so widely from the Editio princeps and since Coelestin had been proven as unreliable, he had a new copy made in Mainz in 1576. This was the foundation of the one reproduced in the Book of Concord. We can see in it nothing but a merciful guidance of God. Even if it was an error to accept the Mainz copy as the original, it still was an absolutely reliable copy of the same. The German text of the Book of Concord has been done bitter injustice when it was so contemptuously treated as Kolde still does (Hist. Einleitung, XXXI). To be sure, it added the names of the subscribers which are missing in the manuscript at Mainz, and a few errors have crept in; but in so far as it reproduces the Mainz copy it is the Confession which was read in Augsburg on June 25. The situation is different, however, in matter of the Latin text of the Book of Concord. Here they also honestly tried to give the original text of 1530 but were on the wrong track. Although it could have been known from Lindanus'39 book of 1568 that the Latin Original was in Brussels, they also sought it in Mainz. But when they received no satisfactory answer from there they ceased their search and Selnecker, in haste and without authority,40 used the text of the Octavo edition of 1531 for the first edition of the Book of Concord. And that simply because the Quarto edition was not at hand. Only in the second edition of the Latin Book of Concord he followed the Editio princeps, i. e. the Quarto edition of the spring 1531. That is also to be regretted on account of the changes which Melanchthon had already made in the text Ä which have been described above. All the more, since we now know that a Latin text existed at the time which came far nearer the one presented to the Emperor than the Editio princeps. History of the Confession 157 It was included in the book published in 1573 by the Catholic Andrew Fabricius, Harmonia Confessionis Augustanae, doctrinae evangelicae consensum declarans,4l and again was published by Coelestin in 1577 in his Historia Comitiorum ano 1530 Augustae celebratorum, etc.42 Fabricius expressly states: Confessionem ipsam, non mutilatam, non arrosam, non interpolatam, sed integram, sed de verbo, ad verbum ex prototypo, quod Carolo Quinto Caesari fuit oblatum, descriptam collocamus.43 It is easily understood that this editition was eyed with misgiving since the text offered by Fabricius differed strongly from the Editio princeps. But the edition was trustworthy as Ficker44 has now shown by comparing it with newly discovered copies of the lost original. Fabricius evidently used one of the copies of the Latin original, which had been prepared in Augsburg for the Catholic theologians who were at work on the Confutation, or probably for one of the Catholic dignitaries. Therefore the German text of the Book of Concord has more documentary value than the Latin and it would be ill advised to use only the Latin text in the preparation of an English translation. As soon as Ficker publishes the text of the original Latin, according to the two copies found by him, we will be once more on solid ground. When the Confession was included in the Corpora Doctrinae and the Book of Concord it became a "symbolum" of the Lutheran Church and among all the symbols of this particular church the chief and fundamental. It has maintained this position through centuries. Space does not permit us to give a detailed account of all the extensive and fruitful research work done in Germany in connection with the history of the Augsburg Confession. Our bibliography in the Lutheran World Almanac (1930, p. 108ff.) of course is not complete, nor was it intended to be, but it will give an idea of the extent of the literature available. We also call attention to 158 Historical Introduction A. Galley's book, Die Jahrhundertjahrfeiern der Augsburgischen Konfession, Leipzig, 1930. The extensive literature of this year has been gratefully used by us and credited in the proper place. Compare also the author's Neue Studien zur Augustana, which will contain the chapters which could not be included in this book due to lack of space. There also will be found a list of other literature which has been used. Plitt is still a reliable guide to a historical understanding of the Augsburg Confession: G. Plitt. Einleitung in die Augustana, 2. Haelfte: Entstehungsgeschichte des evangelischen Lehrbegriffs bis zum Augsburger Bekenntnis, Erlangen 1868.45 For a number of valuable points see K. Thieme's book: Die Augsburger Konfession und Luther's Katechismen auf theologische Gegenwartswerte untersucht (Giessen, 1930). For as critical as this theologian is towards the contents of the Confession so intensive are his historical investigations regarding what the Confession actually wished to say. Leonard Fendt on the other hand, in his book, Der Wille der Reformation im Augsburger Bekenntnis (Leipzig 1930) has tried to show the abiding value of the Augsburg Confession in an impressive way, and of still greater value are Laurer's study in Neue kirchliche Zeitschrift, Doerne's articles in the Allgemeine ev.-luth. Kirchenzeitung, and Hermann's Zur theologischen Wuerdigung der Augustana in the Luther Jahrbuch of 1930. _________________________________________________________________ This text was converted to ascii format for Project Wittenberg by Karen Janssen and is in the public domain. You may freely distribute, copy or print this text. Please direct any comments or suggestions to: Rev. Robert E. Smith of the Walther Library at Concordia Theological Seminary. E-mail: CFWLibrary@CRF.CUIS.EDU Surface Mail: 6600 N. Clinton St., Ft. Wayne, IN 46825 USA Phone: (219) 481-2123 Fax:(219) 481-2126 ________________________________________________________________