_________________________________________________________________ Historical Introduction 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 2 of 6 _________________________________________________________________ The Margrave had sent instructions with his representative, which left nothing to be desired in matter of clearness. These instructions were to be of the greatest importance 22 Historical Introduction for the so-called Schwabach Articles and consequently also for the origin of the Augustana. Kolde has given us the most important passage from the "Ansbach Religionsakten," now preserved in Nuernberg (Tomus VII fol. 64 ff)26 There it is stated: "For the fifth part (it is necessary) that we, the electors, princes, and other estates, who are about to form a federation for our mutual aid, before and while we establish such a federation, mutually, yet definitely, compare the present status concerning the holy Christian faith and its ceremonies in all and every estates and cities ready to join the federation, what they teach and how they hold it in all their churches, institutions and monasteries. Also what position we are to take concerning the assertion of the bishops that the decision in matrimonial and similar affairs belongs under their ecclesiastical jurisdiction, until such time when a universal or general Christian council or national convention can be held. Then we know why we are giving each other help and aid and do not act each one according to his own mind and ideas . . . Our uncle's, the Elector of Saxony, etc., theologians and other teachers are well able to supply a Christian Order and a doctrinal summary based upon a good, firm, Christian foundation. Thereby further errors would be avoided and a unified faith and life established which undoubtedly would be a guide for others. Much that is Christian and good would certainly follow such unity. And especially must we consider well and seriously whether we, even if Strassburg will not compare her doctrine of the Holy Sacrament and other matters with us, nevertheless should or want to enter a federation." According to this the Margrave demanded, as a preliminary condition for a federation, nothing less than the adoption of a uniform confession, a uniform church order and an equal rule in all questions pertaining to churches, institutions and monasteries in all domains of those who wish to join the federation. A common, uniform church order for all Evangelical states had long been a favorite wish of the Margrave.27 That, in view of the approaching council, the disputed articles were to be formulated and proven, he had already stated in a meeting with the Elector in the fall of 1528. At that Origin of the Confession 23 time the latter had also promised to have his scholars formulate the articles; Luther and the Wittenbergers had agreed to do the work.28 What the result was at the time we do not know, although there is much that leads us to believe that the Wittenbergers kept the idea alive and therefore, as we shall directly see, showed their willingness to co-operate. However, it can now be shown by documents that the idea of formulating a confession of faith for the coming council, in the fall of 1528, came from the Margrave and that, in his instructions for Saalfeld, he again voiced the slogan: A political federation presupposes a common confession of faith; such a confession must, first of all, be formulated. The Margrave's principles prevailed at the meeting in Saalfeld. Saxony, represented by H. von Minckwitz, and Brandenburg's representative, Caspar von Seckendorf, declared that on account of the Sacrament they could no longer be allied with Strassburg.29 Due to this new development the representatives (Hesse was represented by Sigmund von Boyneburg) deemed a personal meeting of the princes unavoidable. It was to be held before the day in Schwabach where not only the princes but also the cities (therefore also Ulm and Strassburg) would be represented. Naumburg was designated as the place of meeting The convention in Schwabach was to be postponed until St. Gall (16th of October).29 We must thank Kolde for the documentary proof of the Elector's reactions toward this arrangement. He found, in the Ansbacher Religionsakten, (VII fo. 36), the Elector's statement in reference to the Rotach "Notel" which also has reference to the Margrave's instructions to his representatives in Saalfeld.30 In connection with the general statement in the "Notel," "If any member of the federation is attacked on account of the divine Word, the holy Gospel or his faith" the Elector says: "So that no one, referring 24 Historical Introduction to these general words, enter into a federation with anyone who is not one in the faith with the other members of the federation, who does not now or in the future agree with us in the matter of Baptism or the Sacrament, it is necessary, as Margrave George of Brandenburg has pointed out, to confess openly the articles on which this unity of faith and Christianity rests. And if any estate refuses to do this in one or more of these articles, he is to be barred from the federation. Also, if in future it is proven that an estate has fallen from one or more articles of the confession of faith, he shall, if found guilty, no longer be considered a member of the federation." Therefore the Elector wished to see the "Notel" supplemented so that only those were to enjoy the mutual aid who were attacked on account of the articles (appended in a special sheet) relating to the holy Gospel and the faith. So while Saxony ignored the Margrave's wishes regarding uniform church order, etc., it accepted in full and even augmented, his request regarding the formulating of an agreement concerning a confession of faith. They were, from the start, quite certain that under such conditions Strassburg, and probably other cities, "would withdraw from the federation and would not care to compare this article of Christianity with us (Saxons and Brandenburgers)." Still the consequences of these correct principles did not cause them to waver. The Margrave had already reckoned with the possibility, and the Elector agreed with him, that in their place such cities as Noerdlingen, Memmingen, Bibrach, Weissenburg and Windsheim could be gained.31 Immediately before the day of Schwabach, Nuernberg was to receive their confidence. Above all it was necessary to win the Landgrave for their new plans. Both the Elector and the Margrave were well aware that this would be no simple matter; so in harmony Origin of the Confession 25 with their representatives at Saalfeld, they agreed that a personal meeting with him would be necessary. It is easily understood that the decision of Saalfeld offended Landgrave Philip. While he had prepared everything to peacefully iron out existing differences between the leaders of the two factions Ä the official invitations for the Marburg Colloquy, to be held end of September, had been sent to Wittenberg on July 1 Ä Saxony and Brandenburg, without even considering the possible success of the Hessian peace movement, followed a plan which was to shatter all of his dreams! He declared the intended meeting of the princes in Naumberg as unnecessary. Regarding the insinuation, that Strassburg and Ulm were not orthodox in matter of the Sacrament, he said: "Since this article is not of such supreme importance that our faith and salvation depends upon it Ä and, at that, Strassburg is not so very much at variance with us regarding this article since they also confess Christ in the Sacrament as do we Ä for these reasons and others we ought not to separate from them."32 He also calls to attention that according to Scripture the erring are not to be "cast aside nor despised" all the more since they are willing to listen to "friendly discussions and instructions." He expresses the hope that the Elector will urge Luther and the others to adjust their differences with each other in a Christian and brotherly way." The Elector, however, did not let this deter him, even though he did substitute, as a place for the meeting, the town of Schleiz which was more accessible for the Hessians. On the 10th of August, he set the 16th of October as the date of the Colloquy of Schwabach while the meeting of the princes in Schleiz was to be held during the first week of October. This he did in spite of the fact that he must have been aware that it would conflict with the Marburg 26 Historical Introduction Colloquy and so it would hardly be possible for the Landgrave to attend. The new state of affairs, as definitely decided in Saalfeld, must have in some way, become known at once in Wittenberg. How else can we understand why Luther and Melanchthon who on the 22nd and 23rd of June still hesitatingly answered the Landgrave's invitation to the colloquy,33 now, on July 8, and therefore at the time of the meeting at Saalfeld, no longer have any qualms about attending,33 in spite of the fact that it was not to be held in Nuernberg, where conditions would still have been tolerable, but in Marburg under the very eyes of the Landgrave. If only a confession of faith was formulated beforehand and adopted as the basis of the planned federation, then the colloquy had lost its terrors. Be the result what it might, it could not then have a baneful influence upon the course of events. If the Swiss and Strassburgers embraced the confession Ä which was hardly to be expected Ä then one could federate with them; if, however, as was to be expected, they rejected it, then the necessary basis would be lacking and they would withdraw voluntarily. On the 23rd of September both the Elector and the Margrave urgently begged the Landgrave to appear personally in Schleiz on the 3rd of October. His reply,34 that due to the Colloquy it would be impossible for him to be in Schleiz, made little impression on the other two princes. They came and held the meeting from October 3-6. The Landgrave was represented by several of his counsellors who, however, were instructed to agree to nothing regarding Strassburg and the Rotach "Notel." So it seemed that the other two princes would have little opportunity to come to an understanding with the Landgrave before the imminent meeting in Schwabach (October 16). This did not prevent them Origin of the Confession 27 from presenting a solid front against Strassburg. So they wrote an exhaustive letter and requested the Hessian delegates to deliver it in all haste to the Landgrave. Kolde has published this document for the first time.35 In unmistakable language it announces the break with those of the South and, if the Landgrave persists in his stand, also with him. The princes declare that they could not, with a good conscience think of defending with arms anyone who advocates a doctrine which they themselves, by the grace of God, "recognize as a sham and an unbelievable piece of business," and so important "that not only those who, for the sake of the doctrine, adhere to it are to be reckoned as unbelievers and under the wrath of God, but also every one who through association, assistance and aid shares in it." They also ask the Landgrave to ponder the fact that they "do not intend to enter a federation with such as are now or in future connected with these errors in matter of the Sacrament; neither with such who will not confess the chief articles of Christianity with us." Now since the Colloquy was past, it ought to he easily seen whether these enemies of the truth were willing to be instructed by the Word of God. After the departure of the Hessian delegates they probably set to work formulating the instructions for the meeting in Schwabach. After the above, it is easy to guess their contents.36 In conjunction with the above mentioned demands of the Margrave they stated: "In order not to federate with anyone who is not agreed, with every other member of the federation, in one true Christian faith, as well as in matter of Baptism and the Sacrament, it is absolutely necessary that they openly confess their faith, one to the other. And this confession is to be incorporated, article for article, in the constitution of such federation." But were these articles of faith, again and again 28 Historical Introduction mentioned since the Brandenburger instructions for Saalfeld, actually already formulated or were they agreed on at Schleiz or shortly after that meeting?37 To history they are known as the "Schwabach Articles" (Second Part, 8) since they were presented at Schwabach on the 16th of October. Until 1908 it was generally held that they were formulated shortly after the Marburg colloquy, immediately before the meeting in Schwabach, and that Luther was their author. It was thought that Luther, on his return from Marburg, had, upon request of the Elector, come to Schleiz from Eisenach by way of Weida and had there written the articles. Or, since Kolde has proven that Luther had not gone to Schleiz at all upon a counter command of the Elector, he had done so in Eisenach where he, with Melanchthon and Justus Jonas, had arrived on the 7th of October and remained for two days. Since Luther himself later on said of the articles, "It is true that I have helped in writing such articles (for they are not of me alone)" (E. E. 224, 337) we may also include Melanchthon and Justus Jonas, who were with him in Eisenach,39 as the authors. Then on October 9, they probably were sent to the Elector who, on the following day sent a copy to his representative at Sehwabach, H. von Minckwitz. He was to hand the articles, with a letter from the Elector, to the Council of Nuernberg so that they could fully inform themselves (letter and articles reached them on October 13) and with the Saxons and Brandenburgers plead a united cause at Schwabach on the 16th. Over against this H. von Schubert, in 1908, (on the basis of Kolde's fruitful investigations of the events between Rotach and Schwabach) furnished the proof that the Articles were not incidentally written during the journey but in the time between Saalfeld and Marburg. Or to be more exact between the 8th of July, or yet closer, the 26th of July Ä Melanchthon in a letter of that date to Origin of the Confession 29 Camerarius states that he is busy formulating a number of articles of faith 38 Ä and the 14th of September, the day Luther, Melanchthon and Justus Jonas were called to Torgau to discuss the "most important matters." They left for Torgau either on the 15th or 16th of September. Aside from other considerations H. van Schubert bases his conclusions on the following two points: 1. When on the 2nd of December at Schmalkalden, Saxony and Brandenburg were asked by Strassburg and Ulm to tone down the Articles of Schwabach, they declared, "upon their conscience they knew nothing they could change since the articles of faith had been well considered and had been formulated by an impressive council of theologians and laymen."40 There is little time between Marburg and Schwabach for such an important affair of state which commanded an impressive array of theological and lay counsellors. 2. The text of the instruction for Schwa bach, agreed upon in Schleiz,41 presupposes the Articles, for it states: "When the councellors reach Schwabach they are above all to demand that the basis of our federation, that is, our holy belief, and what we believe of the holy sacraments of Baptism and the Body and Blood of Christ be openly confessed and at once present the articles of confession, which they have received with these instructions. For us they are also to declare that neither can nor will enter a federation for mutual aid with anyone who does not now fully agree with us in our faith, in matter of the Christian Sacrament and other Christian usages, and remain therein." These reasons of Schubert's are decisive. Otherwise it would certainly seem odd that the Wittenberg theologians, in spite of the fact that both Saxony and Brandenburg recognized and emphasized the necessity of formulating articles of faith, and in spite of the fact that the Schwabach meeting was postponed until such articles could be secured and the Landgrave's agreement 30 Historical Introduction obtained before the meeting, as well as the fact that they would be so valuable for the Marburg colloquy, would have waited until the last moment to formulate such articles. It is equally unbelievable that the Brandenburgers, who since the Nuernberg Diet in 1524 had been anxious to confer with other Evangelical states regarding the form of the Evangelical faith, and now since 1528 had again and again demanded a formulating of the sum of their articles of faith, had not demanded that these articles be submitted to them for a complete review by their theological and lay counselors before they staked their whole future upon them. And again, since these articles of faith were finally to form the foundation of a political federation the Elector could hardly do otherwise than discuss the whole matter in detail with his secular counselors. There was hardly time enough for this in October, but the summer between the meetings of Saalfeld and Marburg would have been ample. In this time the Articles of Schwabach, and with them the first part of the Augsburg Confession, came into being. From the deliberation of Brandenburg and Saxony in connection with Saalfeld and Rotach light is shed on a passage in the Articles of Schwabach.42 When it is stated in Article XII: "This church is nothing else than the believers in Christ, who hold, believe and teach the above mentioned articles in all their parts and for this suffer persecution and martyrdom in the world," this is absolutely in agreement with the demands made by the Margrave, and also the Elector, that such general terms as "Gospel" and similar ones are not sufficient to determine the basis of church fellowship. From the above it is also seen how incorrect it is simply to name Luther as the author of the Articles of Schwabach. Although sentences in the Fifth ( justification) and the Seventh Articles (the oral Word which produces faith) unmistakably point to Luther, yet according to his own words, mentioned Origin of the Confession 31 above, we must ascribe a considerable, if not the major part, to someone else, probably Melanchthon (compare my "New Studies in the A. C."). While the Elector and Margrave, from October 3 on, were conferring in Schleiz, regarding the course to be followed at Schwabach, the well known Colloquy at Marburg between the Wittenbergers on one side and the Upper Germans and Swiss on the other had already begun.43 It lasted (although the Strassburgers arrived on the evening of the 27th of September and the Wittenbergers on the morning of the 30th) from the first to the fourth of October and must be divided into two distinctly separate sections. The first section was taken up by private discussions between Luther and Oecolampadius and between Zwingli and Melanchthon. These discussions did not deal with the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper but with other articles of faith of which it was said, partly in truth and partly in error, that the Swiss had deviated from Scripture. According to Melanchthon's own statements they discussed original sin, the office of the ministry, the use of the sacraments, the Trinity, the divinity of Christ, justification by faith and the question how such a faith is obtained. In this both Luther and Melanchthon proceeded from the articles which they had formulated in the time between July and September (the so-called Articles of Schwabach). Although in regard these points the differences were cleared away, and the Swiss had "yielded," Luther, in the second section of the colloquy, the public session (Oct. 2-3), once more went back to these articles so, as Hedio reports, "those at home could not say that he was afraid to open his mouth." The following deliberations regarding the Holy Communion (October 2-3) are in their main parts well known or can be conveniently read in Koehler43 and compared with the letters and documents which have been handed down to us. 32 Historical Introduction In the main they were without results. But another thing has been nearly forgotten, namely, that on the evening of the 3rd of October, another private effort to unite was made which resulted in Luther making far-reaching concessions. Bernhard Bess43 had again called attention to it in 1901; but in 1928 H. von Schubert gave us the facsimile of Oecolampadius' notes.43 When Koehler, in 1929, made an effort to reconstruct the whole Colloquy, he republished these notes. We present the exact text of Luther's statement in the second part of this book. With it Luther, who for his stand in Marburg has ever since been decried as "obstinate," presented a proposition with which the Strassburgers may well have been satisfied. Both Zwingli and Oecolampad rejected Luther's offer because they could not interpret it in the sense of spiritual manducation, which they alone granted. So the Marburg colloquy ended, notwithstanding Luther's advances, with the well known Marburg Articles. These, in the first fourteen points, recount the apparent concord, but in the Fifteenth Article, in agreement with the Franconian-Saxon Articles (i.e. the so-called Articles of Schwabach), stated the difference in the doctrine of the Lord's Supper, which could not be settled. That Zwingli was also not really convinced regarding many of the fourteen points was soon apparent, and is manifest in his Fidei Ratio44 which he sent in 1530 to Augsburg. That the Marburg Articles, especially the already noted proposition of Luther's, had been of great value in promoting the co-operation of Erhard Schnepf with Ambrose Blaurer since 1534 in Wuerttemberg, and bringing about an understanding with the Strassburgers in the Wittenberg Concord of 1536, has been shown by von Schubert43 but does not concern us here. Neither is this the place to consider the fact that the Landgrave, in the days before the arrival of the Origin of the Confession 33 Wittenbergers, seriously discussed the possibility of a Hessian-Zuerich federation with Zwingli, Sturm and Bucer. On the other hand, however, it must be noted that the Marburg Articles were important for the discussions which finally ended in the Augsburg Confession; here the Landgrave had an instrument at hand which went much farther in meeting the Strassburgers and Swiss than the Saxon-Franconian confession, and so, if necessary, could be used against it. For this reason we touched on the Marburg Colloquy. And for the further reason: The Marburg Colloquy did not produce the necessary foundation for a federation with the Swiss. Since Rotach the general trend of things was not toward concentration of the Evangelicals, but toward decentralization, not toward union but toward disintegration. In place of the cry "Federation, federation," the other, far louder cry, "Confession, confession," was heard. Schwabach and Schmalkalden led these lines of development to the end. When the representatives of the princes and cities met in Schwabach, on the 16th of October, Saxony-Franconia simply presented, according to the instructions agreed upon in Schleiz, their confession, consisting of seventeen articles, the so-called Articles of Schwabach. They were here for the first time, although not yet offered the general public, nevertheless placed before the representatives of the Landgrave and the cities. The representatives from Strassburg and Ulm, however, were compelled to declare that they were not authorized to deal with this matter, and since the Articles were to form the basis of the federation they wished to submit them, for examination, to their principals. So it was agreed to meet again at Schmalkalden at the end of November, and at that time settle the matter of sending a delegation with an appeal to the Emperor, (they had namely received bad news regarding the fate of delegates sent from 34 Historical Introduction Nuernberg on the 23rd of May) and also, to settle the question of confession and federation45 (Second Part, 10). Since the final decision was to be made in Schmalkalden, the Landgrave through his representative, Sigmund Boyneburg, end of October once more made a stirring appeal to the Elector to consider how much stronger the federation would become if Strassburg and Ulm were not barred on account of their teachings regarding the Sacrament. So, on November 14, the Elector commissioned Chancellor Brueck to again confer with the Wittenberg theologians if, and how far they would go in making concessions.46 The result of this conference will be found in Brueck's Opinion in the Second Part of this book, document number 13.47 But Strassburg was also prepared, for Bucer had drawn up a counterconfession to the Articles of Schwabach48 (Second Part, 11) and the theologically trained Sturm was able to present it. The meeting at Schmalkalden began on the 29th of November49 (Second Part, 12). The Elector as well as the Landgrave were present; the Margrave was represented by his Chancellor, Vogler. Nuernberg by Christopher Kress, Ulm by Bernhard Besserer, Strassburg by Jacob Sturm. The negative result of the discussions was to be foreseen. Sturm and Besserer declared that their principals had examined the seventeen Articles but had found them "too rambling, conducive to discord and debatable" and that they could not accept them in this form. The Landgrave again demanded, although again in vain, that the question of the Sacrament, at least for the time being, be put aside and not be allowed to block the federation. Nuernberg declared itself in harmony with the Articles of Confession but was not willing to enter a federation, not even the Torgau-Magdeburg agreement, without the other cities.50 Saxony and Brandenburg declared, through the Elector, that "On their conscience they did not Origin of the Confession 35 know of anything in the Articles they would change for they had been well considered and formulated by an eminent council of theological and lay scholars."40 The lay delegates held a private meeting on the 2nd of December51 Also, the leading statesmen, Sturm, Vogler, and Brueck, held a secret conference in which Sturm, casually referring to Bucer's counterconfession, undertook to show why Strassburg objected to the seventeen Articles.52 In the "Religious Documents of Ansbach" we still have short notes of Sturm's main objections. Schubert has noted them in his reprint of Bucer's counterconfession. However, this secret conference of the statesmen did not change the course of events.53 So Schmalkalden (Second Part, 14) is the end of the line which began with the "secret agreement" of April 22. The proposed federation was wrecked on the rock of a common confession! Such a confession was now at hand Ä that is the lasting gain of these months Ä but Strassburg and Ulm, refusing to accept it, made their exit before the federation ever became a reality. Without them, Nuernberg, although it accepted the confession, would not enter a federation, and Brandenburg again would not join without Nuernberg. The confession had defeated the federation! At Schmalkalden a definite decision was also to be made regarding the appeal. The Emperor had very ungraciously received the messengers with the first appeal against the Decree of Speyer, and had even thrown them in prison. Was a second one now to be dispatched? In connection with the appeal something happened which, on the whole, was rather unnecessary. It was thought by the Saxons that also in the matter of the appeal they no longer could go with all the signers of the Protest, but only with those with whom they were one in faith.54 At first this went too far even for the Margrave's representative but the Elector's 36 Historical Introduction bitter word, "Those cities who teach wrongly regarding the Sacrament, consciously sin against the Word of God and the Holy Spirit," and Brueck's "opinion" (Second Part, 13) brought them again into line. That the Elector took this stand was partly due to the fact which the advocates of the federation again and again emphasized, that the federation is a necessary consequence of the Protest. He simply drew the conclusion. The general doubt regarding a union with the South German or even the Swiss cities, as above noted, also the idea that much more could be gained from the Emperor if among the appellants none were found who leaned toward Zwingli, may have helped him draw this conclusion. Other questions then hanging fire between him and the Emperor Ä of which we shall speak later on Ä may have unconsciously helped to swing the balance. But even if the Elector did not lack a number of non-religious reasons, not they, but the religious ones were the driving factor in his stand against a common Protest and Appellation, and for opposing a proposed federation without a united confession. The session in Schmalkalden ended with a decision to meet again at Nuernberg on Epiphany 1530. Only those in agreement with the seventeen Articles were asked to attend. This meeting was to decide if a separate appeal against the Decree of Speyer, signed only by Lutherans, was to be sent to the Emperor. Therefore only the Lutherans, Saxony and Brandenburg, Lueneburg, Anhalt and Mansfeld, Nuernberg, Reutlingen, Windsheim and Weissenburg (in Franconia) attended this meeting.55 The Landgrave thought it unwise to break with the Lutherans and so also sent a representative. This was taken as an indication that he now was ready to accept the Confession. So the second period ended with the Speyer federation broken up; the Zwinglian, Swiss and South German cities Origin of the Confession 37 eliminated; all agreed that a united faith was the necessary foundation of all federations, and such a confession now at hand. Furthermore, at the meeting in Nuernberg, nearly all of the states and cities who then on June 24, or immediately thereafter, in Augsburg signed the Augsburg Confession, had come in touch with each other. c. The Union of Confession When the representatives of the Lutheran princes and cities met, in Nuernberg, in January, 1530, they agreed not to send a new appeal to the Emperor since he had announced that he soon would come to Germany to hold a diet. The very thought of the Emperor's coming made it evident to the Elector that a personal meeting before the diet, would be highly advisable. There were many things that hung fire which must be settled.56 One was the matter of the electorate. Although the Elector had been ruling since 1525 the Emperor had not officially conferred him in the electorate, but had silently permitted him to hold his position. All efforts in the past to secure the confirmation had been in vain. On other questions it had been impossible to obtain the Emperor's answer. An example of this was the important agreement in the Juelich-Kleve succession question.57 It had been agreed that if the Duke of Juelich died. Without a legitimate male heir, his son-in-law the electoral prince John Frederick or his heir, was to be his successor. The Elector had also been compromised by the Pack affair. His interest in the Speyer Protest and the joining with those who stood near the Sacramentarians; the gossip that he, by force, intended to restore the Duke of Wuerttemberg to office and prevent the Emperor's visit, as well as other matters made it advisable for the Elector to confer with the Emperor. That at this time the question of faith could not be ignored is also evident. So he greeted with satisfaction the invitation 38 Historical Introduction of his own and his son's friends, the Counts of Nassau and Neuenahr, to send a special delegation to the Emperor with a detailed report regarding all of these matters.58 Count Henry of Nassau had at one time been Charles' V tutor and now, since 1522, lived at the royal court as his lord-chamberlain while his brother, William of Nassau, resided in Dillenburg. The Elector had met his two friends in the fore part of February at the Day of Arnstadt in Thuringia when about thirty counts met to settle the quarrel of the Mansfeld counts, and had discussed the matter with them.59 They, partly guided by selfish interests, represented the matter as of such great importance that they wished the Elector's experienced Chancellor be sent with them to settle all of these questions with the Emperor before the meeting of the Diet. The Elector agreed in so far that he promised to send his Counsel, Hans von Dolzig, to Dillenburg before the 27th of March to accompany the Counts to the imperial court. In the meantime, March 11, the Imperial summons, dated January 21, for the Diet April 8, reached the Elector.60 It brought what no one had hoped for nor expected: The Emperor invited all the Electors, princes and estates of the holy empire to help deliberate, decide and execute "How in the matter of errors and divisions concerning the holy faith and the Christian religion we may and should deal and resolve, and so bring it about, in better and sounder fashion, that divisions may be allayed, antipathies set aside, all past errors left to the judgment of our Saviour, and every care taken to give a charitable hearing to every man's opinion, thoughts, and notions, to understand them, to weigh them, to bring and reconcile them to a unity in Christian truth, to dispose of everything that has not been rightly explained or treated of on the one side or the other, to see to it that one single, Origin of the Confession 39 true religion may be accepted and held by us all, and that we all live in one common church and in unity." How was this friendly summons, which probably had its origin in the German chancery, and was most likely written by Vice chancellor Balthasar Merklin, Prior of Waldkirch, to be understood? Gussmann and J. van Walter have given the best answer to this.61 After attaining full manhood, basking in the glory of his victories and power, master of his own thoughts and deeds, one who had defeated his enemies, had forced the Pope to his side, had established order in Italy and Spain, the Emperor felt himself the autocratic ruler of a vast domain and not the willing tool of the Roman papal court. What therefore animated his actions and conduct was not so much regard for the Church as the political necessities of the Spanish-Habsburg empire. This may already be seen from the place allotted the question of faith in the summons; it had to give first place to the Turkish danger. In certain respects that was a matter of course. The skies were still dark with the unspeakable horrors of the last Ottoman attack which had reached the very heart of Germany and was checked only at the walls of Vienna. The horror of this recent experience still re-echoed in the agitated sentences and involuntarily threw the question of a determined defence in relief. But the Turkish danger did not seem quite as important to the German estates, who felt that they were only indirectly endangered, as it did to those of the house of Habsburg who were fighting for their very existence, for their possessions and for the front rank in the empire. So a common crusade of the whole German people against the Turk was not to be thought of as long as their recent religious differences had not been settled. Even if religious and ecclesiastical motives may also have helped Charles V to determine his actions, they certainly were not decisive. Those motives 40 Historical Introduction were political considerations. If he, by defeating the Turk, expected to come a step nearer his dream, a Spanish-Habsburg world power, he first must establish peace in Germany just as, according to the conceited words of the summons, he had already brought peace to two parts of his empire, Spain and Italy. But would not force be the simplest and easiest way to accomplish this? Many things argued for this solution. On one hand there was the church's decision, voiced in the papal bull of condemnation "Exsurge Domine" of June 15, 1520, together with the Papal bull "Decet Romanum pontificem" of June 3, 1521, and on the other hand the state's resolutions regarding the Edict of Worms and the ever renewed attempts to give it weight and authority. Again, on one hand, were the binding agreements, from the one with the Spanish estates to the more recent one with Pope Clement VII in Bologna, and on the other hand, the Emperor's solemn coronation oath which in the eyes of all the world placed on him, as patron of the Church, the responsibility to watch over the purity of the Christian faith. All of these facts pointed toward an immediate and thorough extermination of the German heretics by force. Yet this was only the one side of the question. On the other side there were not lacking many weighty aspects which urged just the opposite, a peaceful agreement with those who dissented. Whether among them were those odd reports, which were then current at the royal court, and spoke of a strong longing for peace of the Elector John of Saxony and his theologians, we leave undecided. At any rate the Emperor could not ignore one fact. During his long sojourn in Spain, especially since the Decree of Speyer, 1526, a decided change had taken place in his empire. What Charles would face in Augsburg, and actually did face, was not longer as in Worms, a lone Origin of the Confession 41 individual, without position or rank but the regularly convened representatives of the newly organized, established church, the princes of the Holy Empire and the free cities with whom he would be compelled to reckon in every way. Without their consent there would be no enduring relief from the Turk, much less the election of his brother Ferdinand as Roman King, not to speak of a religious peace. It is not surprising, therefore, that the Emperor did not at once go to extremes but first tried peaceful methods. In the same measure, however, as the reformatory movement went forward and, led by the aspiring princes of the Empire, found a secure support in the orderly affairs of life, the church question became one of political power for which there was only one solution, sword and blood But everything forbade the Emperor from trying such a solution at this time: The unstable political situation, the continual lack of financial and military aid, the wavering position of the Pope, the indifference of the orthodox faction, Austrian lands endangered by the Sultan Soliman and finally his own pondering nature which never struck without having coldly calculated each and every contingency. So after all a peace policy would be the better way as he had taken this way when he sent his mild proposition to Speyer 1529 (compare page 5f.). _____________________________________________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________________________________________