_________________________________________________________________ FIRST CHAPTER: THE ORIGIN OF THE AUGSBURG CONFESSION. From THE AUGSBURG CONFESSION, A Collection of Sources J.M.Reu. Concordia Theological Seminary Press Fort Wayne, Indiana. pgs. 3-113 Part 1 of 6 ______________________________________________________________ FIRST CHAPTER THE ORIGIN OF THE AUGSBURG CONFESSION Theodor Kolde, Theodor Brieger, Hans von Schubert, and Wilhelm Gussmann Ä these are the men who during the last thirty years have helped us to an accurate and correct understanding of the origin of the Augsburg Confession.1 Since 1908, when H. von Schubert began his investigations of the various events leading up to this Confession, it has become clearer than ever that all these events depend on two concepts and the facts connected with them: BUENDNIS and BEKENNTNIS, federation and confession. In accord with these investigations it is also necessary to distinguish three, instead of two periods: The first period aiming at a political federation of the Protestant forces; the second, the period of disintegration of these forces, and the third, in which, a political federation made way for a confessional union, which found expression in the Augsburg Confession. While the lines of demarcation between the first two periods are obvious, those between the second and third are not so distinct, since the period of political disintegration was brought about by the emphasis upon the confession and so was preparatory for the third period. a. The Period of Political Federation The Second Diet of Speyer, 1529, is the starting point for a correct understanding of the events leading up to the Augsburg Confession. The decision of the First Diet of Speyer, 15263 had been very favorable to the Evangelicals. Although Emperor Charles V had demanded that the Edict of Worms, 1521,2 4 Historical Introduction be carried through, thus ending the whole work of Reformation, the political situation prevented him from realizing his aim. Pope Clement VII, Francis I of France, the cities of Milan, Venice, and Florence had just then (1526) formed the alliance of Cognac against the Emperor, thereby bringing about the Second Italian war. Then, in the same year, Ferdinand, the brother of Charles V, by the death of Louis II, had inherited Bohemia and Hungary. Welcome as this inheritance may have been, it made acute the menace of the Turk for the Habsburg possessions. The Emperor was face to face with two enemies, either one strong enough to make trouble. In this situation he was powerless to prevent the Evangelical princes of North Germany, under the leadership of the Landgrave Philip of Hesse and the Elector Johann of Saxony, from forming a confederacy at Torgau in 1526. Nor could he prevent them from forcing a decision at the First Diet of Speyer in 1526, which gave them, in the matter of the Reformation, a free hand for the following years. Two resolutions were decisive. On the 7th of August, the Diet decreed that, for establishing religion and maintaining peace and order, it was necessary that a lawful general or provincial council for Germany be held within a year. The Emperor was to come to Germany as soon as possible to arrange it. Of still greater importance was the decree of August 27. Until the council met, each estate was to so live, govern and conduct itself as it hoped to answer to God and His Imperial Majesty. In form this was merely a postponement of the religious question. In reality, however, it was a charter of mutual toleration. Each estate was left free to regulate its religious affairs as it saw fit. We know in what measure they made use of this decree. During the years, 1526 to 1529, the Reformation struck firm and deep root in many districts, nor was the Emperor able to prevent it. Origin of the Confession 5 However, when the Second Diet of Speyer was called for February 21, 1529, the political situation had completely changed.4 The Emperor had signed a treaty at Barcelona with the Pope, in June 1528, and expected to negotiate peace with Francis I which was actually signed in July at Cambray. On the Evangelical side the Landgrave Philip had seriously injured their cause by the notorious Pack affair. The Lutherans came to Speyer disorganized and discouraged to face a compact, confident Catholic opposition. The Emperor, still detained in Spain, was unable to be present and so his brother Ferdinand presided. According to the summons5 (Second Part, 3), the Diet was to take up the matters of the Turkish invasion and the religious schism in Germany. The Emperor also promised in this summons, that, since his relations with the Pope had improved, he would soon call a general council in order to bring about unity of faith. But until such a council could be held, the sovereigns, both spiritual and temporal, were forbidden, under penalty of the ban, to allow their subjects to join any false faith or new sect. Thus, the Emperor, upon his own authority, declared null and void the Speyer decree of 1526. Until recently this has been generally believed. But Kuehns5 furnished proof in 1927 Ä more detailed in 1929 Ä that the well known Imperial proposition which led to the severe decree and so to the protest of the Evangelicals, had been substituted by Ferdinand because that of the Emperor, who was then in Spain, had not reached the Diet in time. When it finally did reach Speyer it proved to be very much milder in its demands. We present it in Part Two as document No. 3a. Here Ferdinand, as so often, again proved to be the firebrand. When, however, the Emperor's document arrived, the events had taken their course and Charles evidently backed up his brother. 6 Historical Introduction What stand would the Diet take toward the proclamation offered them as Imperial? In a resolutions committee of eighteen, there were only three Evangelicals, the Elector of Saxony, Jacob Sturm of Strassburg, and Christopher Tetzel of Nuernberg. They, obviously, were not able to accomplish anything. The majority recommended the revocation of the Decree of 15266 (Second Part 4). The Edict of Worms was to be enforced in such a way that, in those territories where it was in force, secession to the Evangelical faith was still prohibited. In the territories where the new faith had found entrance, and from which it could not be expelled without the use of arms, all further innovations were rigidly to be avoided until the meeting of the proposed council. Sects, who denied the sacrament of the true Body and Blood of Christ, were not to be tolerated; Anabaptists were to be suppressed everywhere and all religious books were to be under censorship. Although the three Evangelical members of the committee refused to sign this report, the majority report was adopted by the Diet on April 19, and became a law of the Empire. The Evangelicals were much alarmed by this action of the Diet, all the more so because it was understood to be merely a first step in the Emperor's policy. Much more drastic measures were expected to follow. George Vogler, the Chancellor of the Margrave of Brandenburg-Ansbach, was commissioned to draw up a formal reply. When presented, King Ferdinand refused to accept it and declared the incident closed. The Evangelicals, however, were successful in having their Protest read in the Diet and so included in the minutes. They furthermore refrained from attending any subsequent sessions of the Diet. On the following day, April 20, the Protest was rewritten, enlarged in form, but unchanged as to contents. In this form it was signed by John, Elector of Origin of the Confession 7 Saxony, George, the Margrave of Brandenburg-Ansbach, Ernst, Duke of Brunswick-Lueneburg, Philip, Landgrave of Hesse, and Wolfgang, Prince of Anhalt. On April 22, these protesting princes were joined by fourteen imperial cities: Strassburg, Nuernberg, Ulm, Constanz, Lindau, Memmingen, Kempten, Noerdlingen, Heilbronn, Reutlingen, Isny, St. Gallen, Weissenburg in Franconia, and Windsheim. This Protest7 as it is expressly named, has been rightly called the Instrumentum Magnum of the Reformation ( Second Part, 5). Two reasons are given for protesting against the decree of the Diet and refusing to be bound by it. The first is constitutional: Since a council had been promised to consider religious matters, but none had been called, a mere majority cannot set aside this unanimous Decree of 1526. The second reason is a religious one: The Decree contains matters that "concern the glory of God and the welfare and the soul's salvation of every one of us"; as to these things they are pledged in Baptism and by the divine Word to hold God as highest King and Lord of lords. In matters of religion the Word of God alone can decide. We give the full text of the "Protest" in the Second Part of this book (document No. 5), here we call attention only to a few high lights: "In matters concerning the honor of God, the welfare and salvation of our souls, each stands for himself and must give account before God. Therefore, in this sphere no one can make it another's duty to do or to decide less or more, which one is not bound to do for other honest, well-founded and good reasons. If we would concede to the Decree, we would not only implicitly but openly deny our Lord and Saviour Christ and His holy Word, which beyond all doubt we hold to be pure, clear, clean and right, and (would) not confess that He has redeemed us from sin, death, the devil and hell and would give the Lord Christ 8 Historical Introduction ground also to deny us before His heavenly Father." In answer to the Decree's demand that the preaching of the Word of God be in accordance with the teachings of the Church, the "Protest" states: "That would be agreeable if all parties were agreed as to what is the true Holy Christian Church. But as long as there is a great contention about this "we propose to abide by the Word of God alone, since indeed according to the command of God nothing else shalt be preached, and to make clear and explain one text of holy divine Scripture by another; as indeed this same holy divine Scripture in all things needful for Christian men to know, will be found in itself clear and bright enough to illumine all darkness. Therefore we purpose, with the grace and help of God, to abide by it to the end, that only the Word of God and the holy Gospel of the Old and New Testament, as contained in the biblical books, shall be preached clearly and purely, and nothing that is against it. For with that, as the one truth and the correct rule of all Christian doctrine and life, no one can err or fall, and whoso builds on it and endures shall prevail against all the gates of hell. Nevertheless, on the other hand, all human additions and trifles shall fall, and cannot stand before God. And if this third announcement of our evident grievances is rejected . . . then we herewith protest and testify openly before God, our sole Creator, Preserver, Redeemer and Savior, who alone searches and knows all hearts, and therefore will judge justly, likewise before all men and creatures, that we for ourselves, our subjects and in behalf of all, each and every one, consider null and void the entire transaction and the intended decree, which in the afore-mentioned or in other cases, is undertaken, agreed, and passed, against God, His holy Word, all our soul's salvation and good conscience, (and we protest) not secretly nor willfully, but for reasons above stated and others good and well founded." What, in 1521, Luther alone advocated at Worms was in this critical Origin of the Confession 9 hour accepted and confessed by a third of the German Empire. Human calculations now suggested and even demanded a political federation of the signers of the Protest for the protection of the confessed gospel and the newly organized Church. It was particularly the Landgrave of Hesse who thought so and did everything to reach this goal, a goal which had been for sometime in his mind and which, with others, he had done much to reach. In North and Middle Germany the previously mentioned Torgau-Magdeburg agreement with Saxony and Hesse as a solid bloc, had materialized in 1525-26, while in South Germany certain Evangelical cities, with Ulm, Strassburg and Nuernberg as a nucleus, had combined since the Day of Ulm in 1524. Finally, with the establishing of the "Burgrecht" between Zuerich and Constanz in the year 1527,8 a third Evangelical group had come into being which soon energetically sought to establish itself in South Germany and, after winning Muehlhausen, had reached Strassburg. That the North German and Swiss group could not meet on common ground can be readily understood. Many things worked together to make this difficult. On the one hand9 it was the ancient difference of culture between north and south, based on nationality and blood, the difference between monarchial and democratic government, the position occupied by the Elector of Saxony in the Empire, and the traditional friendship between the houses of Saxony and Austria, which was even then a matter of remark; and on the other hand it was the fact that Zuerich was no longer a part of the German Empire and considered Austria its mortal enemy. All this had the effect of driving these groups farther apart. Then probably each group thought itself strong enough alone to ward off any possible Catholic attack, the North depending upon its military power, the 10 Historical Introduction South upon its influence, wealth and cleverness. To this must be added the undeniable difference in the conception of the Gospel which Zwingli, as a matter of principle, would not let go beyond Humanism, while Luther and the Wittenbergers viewed everything from the standpoint of the tortured soul in search of a merciful God. Then to all these old differences had come a new one which went far deeper: the difference in matters of Holy Communion. Zwingli's stand in the matter must have appeared to Luther as the laying of vandal hands on the Most Holy and emptying it of its contents, and as in sharpest contrast to his fundamental views regarding the divine and human, the eternal and temporal. Probably the North was also aware of the questionable tactics which Zwingli and his followers had used in the controversy regarding the Sacrament.9a Adding to this also the Diet's decree that sects denying the Sacrament of the true Body and Blood of Christ would not be tolerated, one can very readily understand why cities like Constanz and St. Gallen gladly signed the Protest, but that on the part of the North Germans little enthusiasm was shown towards a political alliance with them. The "Protest" itself, to be sure, was quite negative in tone. It did not confess a certain doctrine but limited itself to the rejection of all authorities outside of Scripture. In this point the North Germans agreed with the Swiss. There were also enough differences between the middle group of the South German cities and the North Germans. Capito, Bucer and Sturm of Strassburg, the most powerful of the South German cities that had become Evangelical, had championed a doctrine concerning the Sacrament which, although not Zwinglian, differed essentially from that of the Wittenbergers. But in the great hour at Speyer the consciousness of unity was stronger than that of difference, indeed, the latter receded so far into the background that the Landgrave Origin of the Confession 11 Philip and Sturm of Strassburg succeeded in uniting these two groups into a political federation. On the same 22nd of April, when the Catholic leaders signed the fateful Decree, the leaders of the minority, Saxony, Hesse, Nuernberg, Ulm and Strassburg (Margrave George of Brandenburg, although invited, had not yet joined,) united in a "particular secret agreement" ( Second Part, 6) . The object of this agreement was the defense of their faith when attacked or whenever hindered in the visitation of their churches under pretext of spiritual jurisdiction. In reading this document one is amazed to note in what detail questions of organization were already being discussed. It shows what preliminary work Sturm of Strassburg and Philip of Hesse must have done when they had met the previous Christmas in Worms. This secret agreement was a great triumph for Philip.10 His fond hope,11 the political union of all Protestants and with it a solid front against the Catholic Emperor and Rome, seemed to become a reality. At the time, when Germany permanently separated into a Catholic and Evangelical part, he not only preserved the unity and union of North and South German Protestantism, but also the unity of the new German intellectual life. A number of prospective members for this little group were at once at hand. The addition of Margrave George of Brandenburg-Ansbach, as much to the interest of the Princes as of Nuernberg, and suggested by the negotiations of the previous year between Saxony and Brandenburg, was at once considered. Furthermore, it was presupposed that all who had joined in the Protest would show a willingness to join the federation. Beyond that there were the members of the North German Torgau-Magdeburg confederacy, and to the south the German cities which already were united in a German-Swiss federation. This brought even Zuerich Historical Introduction 12 in line as a possible member of the new Union. To the north the way would easily lead, by way of Hamburg and Schleswi-Holstein, to Denmark and Sweden. But would not Zwingli's and Luther's difference in doctrine, concerning the Sacrament, bar the way? Even for this the Landgrave had an answer. He was certain that a religious colloquy would clear the way of all obstacles. He had already agreed with Sturm of Strassburg; on the same day (April 22) he wrote to Zwingli; Melanchthon would arrange the matter with Luther, and even the Elector himself was now not adverse. At the beginning of June the final negotiations concerning the federation were to be held at Rotach in Franconia. The federation could also be advanced when at the end of May they would meet in Nuernberg to dispatch their representatives with the appeal to the Emperor, as had already been decided in Speyer.12 The Landgrave now seemed to be the leader of Protestantism and everything apparently hinged on the thought of a political federation. "Federation," was the cry. Little was heard of "Confession." It is not once mentioned in the secret alliance of April 22. And in the instructions for Rotach13 (Second Part, 7) the confessional standpoint, for which possessions and blood are to be sacrificed if necessary, is briefly mentioned as "the articles which are to be discussed at the council" (to which they had again appealed at Speyer). True, "the divine Word," "the holy Gospel, our faith and religion," are mentioned in the recess of the convention, called Confederations-Notel,14 but nowhere are they defined nor is it stated how they are to be understood. b. The Period of Political Disintegration. Melanchthon had been at Speyer but had not insisted upon a separation from the Swiss and Strassburgers and also had declared his willingness to take part in the religious Origin of the Confession 13 colloquy planned by the Landgrave. The meeting was hardly past when his eyes were opened. He bitterly reproached himself for remaining silent regarding the differences in the doctrine of the Sacrament which separated the Wittenbergers from the Swiss and their faction. He now became convinced that a clear cut separation from the Swiss at Speyer would have made a more favorable impression upon the Roman Catholics and would probably have helped to obtain a more agreeable decision. He also clearly saw that the Landgrave merely wished to use this religious colloquy as a foundation for the desired political federation of all Protestants. Melanchthon probably returned home from Speyer on the 6th of May. As early as May 14, he wrote John Fredrick, the Elector's son, with whom he had had a personal discussion in Weimar regarding the matter. He enclosed a copy of his Judicium which he had there presented orally. In it he stated: "Personally I am not afraid to discuss the Sacrament with Oecolampadius and his ilk, and so I have not refused it to the Landgrave . . .; to deal with Zwingli is entirely useless. So I thought that not he, but Oecolampadius is to be summoned; for if he has been summoned, it is not to be expected that he will come . . .. I persist in this that I will have nothing to do with the Strassburgers as long as I live, for I know that Zwingli and his associates are wrong in their writings regarding the Sacrament" (C. R. I, 1069 f.). Three days later, May 17, he opened his heart in letters to Camerarius, Spengler and Baumgaertner in Nuernberg regarding the union. To Camerarius he wrote: "I have (since my return from Speyer) been so restless that I almost died. I suffered all the pains of hell" (C. R. I, 1067). To Spengler: "My conscience is in no small peril regarding the matter. In the mean time I am helpless about it" (C. R. I, 1069). To Baumgaertner: "My conscience urges me to write 14 Historical Introduction you regarding this matter" (C. R. I, 1070). But Melanchthon went still farther in these letters to his friends in Nuernberg. He directly asked for aid in his efforts to thwart the federation. For to Baumgaertner he wrote in the same letter: " I plead with you to do everything you can that the Zwinglians will not be admitted to the federation. It is not right to defend their ungodly opinions (impiam sententiam) or to strengthen those who follow godless dogmas (impium dogma) so that their subtle poison may spread . . .. Some of us do not reject the association with the Strassburgers but I beg of you, act so that this shameful federation (turpis societas) be not established." To Spengler again he wrote: "I adjure you for God's sake that you take care of this matter with all your wisdom and piety, otherwise not only the Empire but religion itself will be endangered." Melanchthon knew why he turned to Nuernberg. The pastors there, especially Osiander, were strong opponents of the Sacramentarians; also, in future negotiations, the Saxons would be more successful if the Nuernbergers were in agreement with them and came to their aid. Then, also, the representatives of the signers of the Speyer Protest were to meet in Nuernberg on the 23rd of May for the purpose of instructing the delegates who were to submit their appeal to the Emperor. What was it that prompted the gentle and reserved Melanchthon to take such steps? Was it his opposition in the matter of the Sacrament that disquieted him and drove him to attempt to frustrate the federation before it became a reality? Certainly, but this was not the only reason. From his letter to John Schwebel (C. R. I, 1046 f.), written from Speyer, it is evident that neither Zwingli's nor the Strassburg doctrine of the Sacrament offended him as much as it did Luther. There was much, beside the Sacrament, that could cause him and many other Wittenbergers to reflect. Origin of the Confession 15 H. von Schubert has formulated these doubts in the following words:15 "Conditions in Saxony were already more stable. The second Evangelical ruler was on the throne, the Evangelical succession was secure; visitations were held and order maintained; Catechisms were being written for the unlearned; Mayence had withdrawn the episcopal jurisdiction from Saxony and Hesse; Hesse was even the proud possessor of an Evangelical university. However, the city republics were still struggling with the Catholic minority, among them those high and mighty in the council; Strassburg had only as recently as February abolished the mass; the Evangelical victory had been won but was not completely established in Ulm; in Augsburg the Catholics, Lutherans, Zwinglians and Anabaptists were quarreling. It, also, had had a deep impression on the Wittenbergers that even such cities as Schwabian-Hall, the home of Brenz, had lacked the courage to join the Protest at Speyer. To be sure, it is never enticing for monarchies to federate with republics! Did it not weaken one's own position to unite with such unstable people? And even if one was certain that the Reformation had finally been victorious in certain localities, what peculiar ideas these people held! One would also be responsible for them in case of a federation. Since a new center, independent of Wittenberg, had been established in Switzerland, from whence a strong uncontrollable stream of propaganda poured down upon the cities; since the peasant uprisings and the Anabaptists had thrown everything in confusion, any sort of doctrine seemed possible there. Did not even the very foundation of the old and new doctrines tremble, even faith in the two natures in Christ and the ancient doctrine of the Trinity? Did not justification by faith give way again to a doctrine of good works, and did not Scripture share her authority with the inner workings of the Holy 16 Historical Introduction Spirit? Were not all visible means of grace ignored and Baptism, especially infant Baptism set aside! The worst rumors were faithfully carried to Wittenberg by good friends. Not everything, however, was untrue. Schwenckfeld at that time came to Strassburg and remained there for years, the guest of a Strassburg pastor; Capito also caused Bucer deep embarrassment; Zwick, in Constanz, wrote about the last conversations of Hetzer, who had been executed for bigamy and adultery: "Would to God we had printed it!" and Thomas Blaurer published a report of his edifying end: Right or wrong, Wittenberg believed anything. And this was what a Christian government was to defend even with the sword! And at what price? The end could only be the ruin of the unity of the church, especially the German. For this ideal of unity was by no means extinct in Wittenberg. Saxony still kept alive the supposition that they were on the way towards accomplishing the reformation and cleansing of the true Catholic Church, of which the Emperor, the true supreme authority, was regarded as the protector. On the other hand, however, the spirit of revolution was also felt, according to which, in line with Zwingli's well known words, empire and emperor were as much Roman offshoots as the papacy. The association with such people must be shunned. Care was to be taken not to let Zurich and the confederates entangle one in strange plans." Two sentences in Melanchthon's letter to Spengler, "There is danger that from these beginnings not only a change in the Empire may follow," and "Not only the Empire but also religion is in serious danger" are proof sufficient for this statement of Schubert. Whether Luther at this time, 1529, still seriously believed that the whole church of Germany could be reformed and retain the Emperor as protector I will not answer now. He certainly knew all of these doubts and shared most of them; decisive Origin of the Confession 17 for him, however, were the religious reasons against the projected federation. Both are apparent in his significant letter of May 22 to the Elector.16 We quote it here in extenso: "Grace and peace in Christ! Serene Highness, most gracious Lord, M. Philip has brought me, among other things, the news from the Diet that the Landgrave of Hesse is to establish a new federation with certain cities. All of which moves me not a little. For I was severely burned last year, when God by His wondrous grace released us from the dangerous federation (Luther is thinking of the Pack affair). And although I hope God will continue to preserve us, and will give your Grace His Spirit, to keep you henceforth from all such and similar federations, I have, nevertheless, due to the prompting of my conscience, not been able to desist from writing to you, since one cannot be too diligent in circumventing the devil. Christ, our Lord, will hear our prayer and grant that, although the Landgrave continues his making of federations (May God have mercy on him), you be not fettered and bound by them, for we cannot even conceive of the trouble that would follow therefrom. "First of all this is certain that such a federation does not come from God, or from trusting in God, but arises from human wit and human help alone, all of which is building without a good foundation and likewise is fruitless, aside from the fact that such a federation is unnecessary. For the mob of Papists have neither the courage nor the ability to undertake anything against which God has not already protected us with the wall of His might. So the federation will accomplish nothing more than incite the opposition to do the same and undertake for their protection and safety things they would otherwise not do. Then we must remember Ä it is probably very certain Ä that the Landgrave, after he has established such a federation, inasmuch as he is a restless young prince, might not keep the peace, but, as happened last year, may find cause not only to defend but attack. It is certainly not godly to assume this attitude, since no one is pursuing nor seeking us. "In the next place, and this is the worst of all, we will be compelled to admit into this federation those who strive against God and the Sacrament, as wanton enemies of God and His Word. We shall all become participants in their blasphemy and become entangled with them. No more dangerous alliance could be undertaken to disgrace and suppress the Gospel and damn us in body and soul. 18 Historical Introduction This is what the devil desires. If there is no other way, may God help your Highness to part from the Landgrave as I have heard that the Margrave (George) says he will. Our Lord Jesus Christ, who in the past has helped your electoral Grace without the Landgrave, yes, even marvelously against the Landgrave, will doubtless help and guide in the future. In the third place, God has always condemned such human alliances in the Old Testament, as Isaiah 30,15 says, "in quietness and in confidence shall be your strength," for we are to be children of God in faith and trust. Are we to have such a federation then it will be given us without our planning and seeking as He promises in Matt. 6: "Take no heed therefore, all this shall be added unto you if ye seek the Kingdom of God." and St. Peter says: "Cast your burdens upon Him for He cares for you," and Isaiah: "Who art thou, that thou shouldest be afraid of a man." The Landgrave, who once has made such a great mistake, is not to be trusted, especially since there does not seem to be any change in him, nor has he experienced any repentance or sorrow for his sin. "This I have written your Grace in the hope that Christ already has in a better and fuller measure given it into your heart. We pray, and will continue to pray, and hope to be heard, that God, the Father of all grace, would guide us and protect your Grace from all onsets and attacks of the devil. Amen. May your Grace pardon this letter." This letter of Luther, containing as it did the principle "No federation without confessional unity," made a deep impression on the Elector. It agreed so completely with his own thoughts which the efforts of the Landgrave had been only momentarily able to repress. From now on all his actions were animated by the thought of thwarting the planned federation or at any rate joining only such as were of the same faith. As early as May 19 he had stated, in a letter to Melanehthon,17 that the religious colloquy, which was to formulate the basis for securing the Swiss as members of the federation, would at all cost be postponed. It would be still better, he wrote, to drop it, as well as the federation, entirely. At any Origin of the Confession 19 rate, no federation should be definitely established before the colloquy had established unity of faith. At the same time the Landgrave must be counterbalanced by such dependable Lutheran powers as Margrave George of Brandenburg-Ansbach, the Duke Ernest of Lueneburg and those other princes who were united by the Torgau-Magdeburg agreement. Like Melanchthon, he also turned his eyes to Nuernberg.18 It was to bring them back from the course on which they had entered and prevent the consummation of the federation planned at Speyer as well as block the colloquy, fostered by the Landgrave. For this purpose Nuernberg was ideal not only because its pastors were, as has been stated, avowed enemies of the Sacramentarians but also because it was in close touch with the cities of South Germany. Then, also, it had been tentatively chosen as the place where the proposed colloquy was to be held. Chancellor Beyer, who was to be in Nuernberg on the 23rd of May to instruct the delegates who were to present the appeal to the emperor, was to do preliminary work along these lines. It would also be especially valuable for the consummation of these plans to get in touch with Margrave George of Brandenburg-Ansbach. It was well known that the latter cared little for the Sacramentarians and preferred to stand alone rather than enter a political federation. A conference19 between the Elector and the Margrave at Coburg, late in October 1528, had already suggested co-operation between them. Then also Nuernberg and the Margrave were in such close relations that the City hardly would have undertaken anything definite without consulting the Margrave. So it need not surprise us to note that Chancellor Beyer also visited nearby Ansbach at the time of his stay in Nuernberg on May 23, or that the Margrave got in touch with Nuernberg regarding these matters late in May.20 He evidently had decided to send a personal 20 Historical Introduction representative to the meeting called at Rotach for June 7 where he actually was represented by Caspar von Seckendorf. Although Luther's letter had made a deep impression on the Elector, so that he was all the more determined to prevent a federation with the South Germans and Swiss, it could not prevent the meeting of Rotach, which had been decided on in Speyer. But now it was to be the means, not of bringing about a permanent federation, for which purpose it was originally called, but to postpone, if not definitely block such a federation. Since H. von Schubert has published the actual text of the instruction given H. von Minckwitz, the Elector's representative at Rotach, this is clear21 (Second Part, 7). According to these instructions Minckwitz, before he took part in the proposed meeting, was to come to an agreement with the representatives of Nuernberg that the whole action of April 22 be set aside. That, of course, was no longer possible, for Nuernberg's hands were already tied. Nuernberg had asked Spengler to work out a plan for a proposed federation which it had not only shown to the representatives of the Landgrave, who likewise were in session in Nuernberg on May 23, but had also on May 31, upon request, sent a copy to the Margrave. Then, on the 2nd of June, they submitted it to the Strassburgers, who then were on their way to Rotach.22 Still in Nuernberg the Elector's representatives found a welcome support for the idea, that nothing definite should be decided in Rotach but that a later meeting was to be called at Schwabach the 24th of August. The Elector's representative was not compelled to show his cards to gain his goal. Several things seemed to justify the postponing of definite action.26 The question concerning the number of troops each member of the federation was to furnish; regard for the Margrave, who, although represented in Rotach had not definitely decided Origin of the Confession 21 to join the federation, and the question, now asked for the first time, whether the princes of the Torgau-Magdeburg federation of 1526 were to be admitted to the planned federation, all played an important part. That Nuernberg, although it was able to meet the Elector's desires only partially, was completely won over to oppose a federation with Sacramentarians as well as the planned colloquy, may be seen from the fact that the Nuernberg council on June 22 sent an opinion of their pastors to Chancellor Beyer. In strong terms it undertook to prove "why it is not desirable to bring together, in this labyrinth of error of the Sacramentarians, these two mistaken parties to discuss their errors." and then especially emphasizes "a vast difference is to be made between believing and unbelieving members of a federation."24 More significant, however, was the fact that the Brandenburger Chancellor Vogler, referring to the Rotach "Notel" issued a document,25 "Points to be considered in proposed agreement," in which he clearly stated, "As to the fanaticism of the Strassburgers and others, we are definitely determined not to enter any federation with them." So Brandenburg had finally taken a definite stand. Now the Landgrave was also to be won over to this principle. To this end the Elector asked both the Margrave and the Landgrave to meet with him in Saalfeld for a personal conference. The Landgrave suspected at once why the meeting was being called and declared it unnecessary and at the same time warned against abandoning the South German cities. Since the Margrave was also prevented from coming, only the representatives of the three princes met at Saalfeld on July 8. ____________________________________________________________________________ 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: cosmithb@ash.palni.edu Surface Mail: 6600 N. Clinton St., Ft. Wayne, IN 46825 USA Phone: (219) 452-2123 Fax:(219) 452-2126 ____________________________________________________________________________