_________________________________________________________________ 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 4 of 6 ______________________________________________________________ Another of Eck's lines is geographic. It cuts straight across Origin of the Confession 61 Germany and unites, according to provinces, here individuals, there larger heretical groups. From his immediate neighborhood Eck names John Freisleben, Henry Spelt, Theobald Billikan, Hans von Schwarzenberg and the city of Memmingen; from Nuernberg: Osiander, the two priors George Pressler and Hector Poemer, the clerical college, Sebald Heyden, Ulrich Zeuleysen, Willibald Pirkheimer, Lazarus Spengler and the city's council; of Augsburg: Michael Keller and Urban Rhegius; from Swabia: Michael Stiefel, John Lonicer, Conrad Som and Philipp Mehlhofer; from Hessia: Franz Lambert; from Magdeburg: Eberhard Weidensee, John Fritzhans and some obscure Premonstrant; from Amsterdam: the local Augustintians. If some well-known names are missing it may be traced back to the fact that he had not quoted from their works. In the quotations which he offers he not only, to give the whole an appearance of reliability, cites the source from which they are taken but also gives the very page number. And yet in several ways the very opposite of sincere objectivity, yes even a willful attempt to lead the reader astray, is noticed: 1. He does not separate the quotations of the Lutherans from the Sacramentarians, Anabaptists and fanatics but, by throwing them together, gives the impression that there is very little difference between the Lutherans and th_________________________________________________________________ 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 4 of 6 ______________________________________________________________ Another of Eck's lines is geographic. It cuts straight across Origin of the Confession 61 Germany and unites, according to provinces, here individuals, there larger heretical groups. From his immediate neighborhood Eck names John Freisleben, Henry Spelt, Theobald Billikan, Hans von Schwarzenberg and the city of Memmingen; from Nuernberg: Osiander, the two priors George Pressler and Hector Poemer, the clerical college, Sebald Heyden, Ulrich Zeuleysen, Willibald Pirkheimer, Lazarus Spengler and the city's council; of Augsburg: Michael Keller and Urban Rhegius; from Swabia: Michael Stiefel, John Lonicer, Conrad Som and Philipp Mehlhofer; from Hessia: Franz Lambert; from Magdeburg: Eberhard Weidensee, John Fritzhans and some obscure Premonstrant; from Amsterdam: the local Augustintians. If some well-known names are missing it may be traced back to the fact that he had not quoted from their works. In the quotations which he offers he not only, to give the whole an appearance of reliability, cites the source from which they are taken but also gives the very page number. And yet in several ways the very opposite of sincere objectivity, yes even a willful attempt to lead the reader astray, is noticed: 1. He does not separate the quotations of the Lutherans from the Sacramentarians, Anabaptists and fanatics but, by throwing them together, gives the impression that there is very little difference between the Lutherans and the others. 2. In connection with some of the quotations he calls attention to the fact that it is an ancient heresy, long ago discarded and damned by the Church, which is now being warmed over again. No more effective way could be imagined to discredit the Lutherans in the eyes of the Catholics. And this was just what Eck had in mind. But he capped the climax with the preface by which he dedicated the whole to the Emperor (Second Part, 22). It is missing in the printed copies and is only found in the manuscript, sent to the Emperor, a copy of which Gussmann has published. In sending the document to the Emperor Eck hoped to secure his permission to refute the theses in public debate but also to kindle in him Ä whose mildness, 62 Historical Introduction as shown in the summons for the Diet, he could not understand Ä a new fire of hatred against all Evangelicals. The dedication opens with sheer flattery: All Catholics worship in the Emperor the vessel; chosen by divine providence, to defend the faith, to strengthen the Church, to return the priesthood to their former rights, to free Christendom from the bloody tyrant Soliman and give back the whole earth, now in anguish and woe, its lost blessing of peace and good will. Then Luther is painted in the darkest colors. With him, in spite of all fatherly admonition and warning, things have not improved but grown worse. No power of heaven or earth is safe from his delirium. As he dares to lay vandal hands on the glory of God in the highest so he defiles the imperial edicts with his sneering comments. Already near the abyss of despair, he revolts against every law, denies every authority, glorifies sedition, fires rebellion and threatens to deliver poor, goaded Germany over to a nameless slaughter. But the generation of vipers which he has bred outdoes him, if such were possible, in this accursed horror. One heresy gives birth to another. Iconoclasts, Sacrament-defilers, Capernaumites, Neohussites, Anabaptists, modern Epicurites, fanatics, atheists join hands in endless ranks. And how they have all defiled and torn in shreds their mother, the Church! Not enough tears are at hand to bewail the misery of the Church's discord, confusion and devastation. But what distresses Eck more than anything else is the discovery that the sectarians have no scrupples in appealing to the recess of the Speyer Diet (1526) and even hope that the Emperor, in his inborn magnanimity, will call their disgraceful injustice right. Therefore as soon as the Emperor has given his sanction, he, Eck, expects to defend, at Augsburg, all the laws, doctrines, usages and traditions of the Catholic Church and slay the heretics, who wish to appear to the common people as the only true believers, with their own sword. Ferdinand, in Eck, had a man according to his own heart. His document is nothing but a malicious slander which by heaping sentence upon sentence wish to make certain that every doubt in the endless guilt of these heretics has been answered. But that does not seem to suffice. Eck is not satisfied to only see the enemies unmasked, he demands that they be punished, yes, even destroyed. His dedication knows Origin of the Confession 63 only one goal: The phlegmatic Habsburger is to be prompted to action, the wavering estates are to be whipped in line and the enforcement of the Edict of Worms is to be secured in spite of everything. We need not be surprised at Melanchthon's alarm when he read this book which was being offered for sale in the Augsburg bookstores. It was terrifying enough without the preface, which, as noted, was not contained in the printed edition. He appreciated at once the far reaching effect of this masterstroke of the opposition and saw that his "Apology" of defense would no longer be sufficient. The Apology had to be changed into a confession and also must contain a summary of the articles of faith as Brueck and the Elector had always wished. A writing was necessary which on the one hand would make clear the connection of the Lutheran church with the old faith and the doctrines accepted at the ancient general synods, and on the other hand would most emphatically stress the differences between them and the Sacramentarians, Anabaptists and fanatics. Only in this way would Eck's attack be successfully halted and the danger to the Lutherans routed or at least the influence of Eck's articles on the Emperor and his council paralyzed. So the industrious and indefatigable man at once went to work to write as an introduction to his defence of the abolishing of abuses, a short Ä the Emperor refused to hear any long discussions Ä and yet concise exposition of the Lutheran faith. The task was made much easier since the Schwabach Articles, the confession of the Franconians and Saxons, were already at hand. They formed an excellent basis no matter how much he wished to extend, supplement or change. They had been written with Luther's help; had been officially adopted by the Brandenburgers and Saxons; they had already been sent to the Emperor by the Elector as a summary 64 Historical Introduction of the faith preached in his domain (although Melanchthon hardly knew this); and above all they were formulated for just this reason, to draw the line between the Lutherans and the Sacramentarians. This last consideration recommended them to Melanchthon for the task at hand far more than the Marburg Articles in which the emphasis had been placed on things that they had in common and not those which separated them. So we must thank Eck's articles that the Augsburg Confession received its first part, the Articles on Faith. In his letter to Luther (May 11 ) Melanchthon himself voices this (Corp. Ref. II, 45.): "Our 'Apology' is being sent you, but in truth it is rather a 'Confession.' For the Emperor has not time to listen to lengthy disputations. Yet I have succinctly given nearly all the Articles of Faith, since Eck has circulated the most Satanic slanders against us. Over against these I wished to oppose a remedy. Please give judgment on the whole writing according to your spirit." But not only the adoption of the Articles of Faith in the writing of defence was due to Eck's slander but in detail Melanchthon's whole arguments are now motivated by his opposition to Eck as has been pointed out by Plitt, Kolde, Ficker, and Willkomm and shown in detail by Gussmann. This opposition is to be seen in every part, the Preface, the Articles of Faith, the Articles against the Abuses and the originally planned Conclusion. Since, thanks to Kolde and Willkomm, we now know the various forms of Melanchthon's Preface this influence is clearly seen, In the first draft Melanchthon already sought to blame the uncouth preaching of indulgences and also Luther's opponents for the changes in the religious situation and the abolishing of abuses. He did the same in the second draft although he now calls Luther by name. But although he there, in regard to Luther's Origin of the Confession 65 appearance, only stated, "it had been done in a Latin sermon" (therefore, not before the open public), in the third draft (Second Part, 31), he plainly said, "in several minor writings in school and not before the people, without slandering or injuring the Pope." The action of the Elector in regard to Luther and his teachings is more clearly defined as demanded by conditions and conscience: "Therefore since this teaching had been accepted by many pious people so that it would have been difficult for the Elector of Saxony, in view of so many splendid and learned people who clung to it, and in view of his own conscience, to undertake anything definite against the originators of this doctrine" (Compare the whole section in the Second Part. 31). We note three facts in the Preface which were caused by Eck's writing: 1. A sharp division from the Sacramentarians, Anabaptists and Bohemians; 2. A clear statement as to the beneficial effects of the new doctrine in Saxony as are shown in the comforting, truly Christian conditions in church, schools and life, which are a refutation of Eck's absolutely opposite statements: 3. The endeavor to minimize as much as possible the deviation, in public services and other church usages, from the Catholic Church. That probably is also the reason why in the third draft of the Preface the statements regarding the abuses are considerably shorter. But when Melanchthon says of the mass that the difference in its celebration in the Electorate is merely in that the German hymn is also used besides the Latin he has reached the border of sophistry. For the canon missae, which although it was not found in the liturgy of the mass in the first centuries, but had gradually become its very heart, was after all abolished from the Evangelical mass, not to mention the abolishing of the private mass, etc. But not only in the Preface Ä which later on was abandoned 66 Historical Introduction Ä but in the articles themselves this influence of Eck's writing is felt. Here also the sharp contrast between them and the Swiss and Anabaptists is seen. Melanchthon disagrees with the Swiss in the doctrine of original sin; the two natures in Christ, the means of grace, the Church, Baptism, confession, the Sacraments, the secular government, and writes in Article 10: "Here the opposite teaching is condemned," and in the 24th Article (according to the oldest form) even says, "Here is condemned the unchristian doctrine which denies that the Body and Blood of Christ is truly present." Emphasizing the differences in the teachings of the Lord's Supper was certainly to be expected after all that we today know about the days of Rotach and Schmalkalden, as was also his reluctance to associate in any way with the Strassburgers and Swiss; but that he voiced both so energetically and, in spite of Marburg, also formulated all the other points in opposition to the Swiss, can hardly be explained in any other way than due to his reaction to Eck's grouping the Lutherans with the Swiss and other Sacramentarians. Naturally his line of demarcation against the Anabaptists is even sharper. In five separate places we hear the unrelenting "Damnant Anabaptistas" and in four other places their views are, at least objectively, dismissed. The stressing by name of the Lutheran agreement with the old, yes, with the one holy Christian Church, the same through all ages, is not only found Ä as in the Schwabach Articles Ä in the article on the Church but going beyond these Articles also in the First Article of the Confession with its recognition of the Nicaean Creed and the rejection of the Manichaeans, Valentians, Arians, Eunomians, Mohammedans and Somosatenes; in the Second where it condemns the Pelagians; in the Third which recognizes the Apostles' Creed and undeniably borrows the whole passage regarding the Son of God from it, also in Origin of the Confession 67 the passage found in the Editio princeps, "and we condemn all heretics who oppose this article;" in the Sixth appealing to Ambrosius; in the Eighth with its condemnation of the Donastists; in the Tenth with a formulation of the essence of the Lord's Supper which goes so very far in meeting Rome; in the Twelfth which condemns the Novatians; the Eighteenth with its reference to Augustine with these significant words, "So that it may be seen that nothing new is here taught," in the Twentieth with the repeated reference to Ambrose and Augustine. The epilog of the first part goes farthest in this matter, where Melanchthon writes: "This is about the sum of our doctrine, in which as can be seen, there is nothing that varies from the Scriptures, or from the Church Catholic or from the Church of Rome as known from its writers." Melanchthon especially aimed at Eck's "Assertio" (Gussmann 103ff) who calls the sentences condemned by the bull as heretical, erroneous and scandalous and declares their author a heathen and publican. A fuller discussion of this phase of the subject will be given in my forthcoming book: New Studies on the Augsburg Confession. That Melanchthon, moreover went beyond his source, the Schwabach Articles, and added Articles 18-21 can be explained in part also from his opposition to Eck's sentences which completely garbled Luther's doctrine of Free Will and Faith and declared him an enemy of good works (Theses 187-208). In the second part, regarding the abolishing of abuses, it is important for our consideration to note that the church fathers have been far more extensively quoted in proof of the assertions that are made than in the Torgau Articles. Eck's Theses 294-298 are also considered in Article 23; and Article 28 speaks of the Horae canonicae and the observance of Sunday in opposition to Eck's 177-179 and 279 theses. When we mentioned above that in Melanchthon's closing words of 68 Historical Introduction the whole confession, which, however, were not adopted, an opposition to Eck's sentences is also to be noted we thought of the hardly anything else but his complete agreement with its contents. When we remember what we have said above, especially regarding the Preface we can fully understand Luther's irony.87 We do not know whether or not Luther added any marginal remarks. Origin of the Confession 69 A far different question, however, is what all the document, sent to Luther contained. In the past much has been said about it, as well as about Luther's share in writing the Augsburg Confession, which is S1º@ we º@be ready and prepared for the arrival of his Imperial Majesty whom we expect in a short time" (Second Part, 24). On the 15th of May, Luther returned the document and wrote regarding it to the Elector ( Erl. E. 54, 145): "I have read the Apology of M. Philip. It pleases me right well, and I do not know what to improve or change in it; neither would it be proper, for I cannot we may be ready and prepared for the arrival of his Imperial Majesty whom we expect in a short time" (Second Part, 24). On the 15th of May, Luther returned the document and wrote regarding it to the Elector ( Erl. E. 54, 145): "I have read the Apology of M. Philip. It pleases me right well, and I do not know what to improve or change in it; neither would it be proper, for I cannot tread so gently and quietly. Christ our Lord help that it bear much and great fruit, as we hope and pray. Amen" (Second Part. 26). In spite of the ironic reference to Melanchthon's ability to tread lightly, Luther's words are hardly anything else but his complete agreement with its contents. When we remember what we have said above, especially regarding the Preface we can fully understand Luther's irony.87 We do not know whether or not Luther added any marginal remarks. Origin of the Confession 69 A far different question, however, is what all the document, sent to Luther contained. In the past much has been said about it, as well as about Luther's share in writing the Augsburg Confession, which is ther (Second Part, 27). It is a unique presentation of the Lutheran view of the Power of the Keys, the power of the popes and bishops, since later on through all the days of Augsburg we do not again hear such a clear statement in this matter. It opens with the courageous words: "Of the power of the Keys it was formerly held that potestas clavium , by virtue of the Keys, is the spiritual and secular government and that the Pope through it had received the power to crown or discard kings and no one is to become king without the Pope's confirmation. Such deception has been practiced that those who believed otherwise were condemned as heretics" and it closes with "And if the Pope makes laws he does not do this by virtue of the power of Keys but makes such laws as any other secular prince, all of which he has no authority to do nor to dispense with or annul them again as a prince frees a tter (Corp. Ref. II. 59-61) to Luther (May 22) states that he had made many changes in the document and daily found much to change. "In the Apology we daily change many things. The Articles on Vows, as it was more meager than it should be, I have removed and supplied its place with a complete discussion. I am now treating of the Power of the Keys. I wish you had examined the Articles of Faith whether there is nothing wrong therein acording to your judgment. The remaining ones we shall treat as well as we can. One must change from time to time and adapt it to the situation." So for example we do not know if the above mentioned extraordinary conclusion of the first part: "This is about the Sum of the Doctrine in the Electorate of Saxony, in which there is nothing that is contrary to the Holy Scriptures or the Church Catholic or the 70 Historical Introduction Church of Rome, in so far as it is founded on tried and accepted teachers," which is found in the copy of May 31 was already written on May 11 and in Luther's hands when he was reading the Confession. Only the 28th Article we have, as it seems, in the form presented to Luther (Second Part, 27). It is a unique presentation of the Lutheran view of the Power of the Keys, the power of the popes and bishops, since later on through all the days of Augsburg we do not again hear such a clear statement in this matter. It opens with the courageous words: "Of the power of the Keys it was formerly held that potestas clavium , by virtue of the Keys, is the spiritual and secular government and that the Pope through it had received the power to crown or discard kings and no one is to become king without the Pope's confirmation. Such deception has been practiced that those who believed otherwise were condemned as heretics" and it closes with "And if the Pope makes laws he does not do this by virtue of the power of Keys but makes such laws as any other secular prince, all of which he has ned that the document on May 22 was retuor annul them again as a prince frees a common thief. And when these laws and dispensations are against the Word of God we owe God more obedience than man as has been said above. For, since the Keys are nothing but preaching the gospel and administering the Sacraments, the Pope has no more power through the Keys than any minister as the Canons themselves say when they declare in the Articulo Mortis that a minister may absolve all casus reservatos." in the draft of May 31 the Pope is not mentioned at all, in the following recensions, even the bishops are treated with a strange accommodation (compare the author's "New Studies in the A. C."). So Luther's opinion concerning the document of May 15, in no way must be used as an opinion of the present Confession. The document, after Luther returned Origin of the Confession 71 it, passed through some minor as well as, important major changes . To be sure, it has been claimed that the document on May 22 was returned to Luther. In America, this has been held by Dr. Krauth in his Chronicle of the Augsburg Confession, p. 26-31, and also by Schmauk in Confessional Principle, 1911 p. 363-268. There seem to be two facts which speak for this: 1. It seems strange that the Confession, returned by Luther on May 15, did not reach Augsburg until the 22nd, as Melanchthon writes in a letter of that date to Luther: Inter ss of Faith (whether or not you think there is some thing defective in them, and) if you should think there is nothing wanting in them, (then) we will elaborate the remaining ones in like manner (as we already treated the Articles on Abuses)." But 1. It is not impossible that a letter carrier from Coburg had reached Augsburg late;88 2. It is by no means certain that the words in Melanchthon's letter of May 22, "inter scribendum sunt nobis redditae tuae literae Heã$¢@wish¢@he meaning would be clear if Knaake's hypothesis that Luther had not yet returned the document sent on the 11th were true; or it wouldwish. The meaning would be clear if Knaake's hypothesis that Luther had not yet returned the document sent on the 11th were true; or it would be clear on Kolde's suggestion that Melanchthon had not yet looked at the document, returned by Luther and coming perhaps just while Melanchthon was writing, Or, if Luther had sent back the Apologia (the second part of the later Confession), and not the Articles of Faith; or if Melanchthon was sending Luther the Confession a second time, Melanchthon's words were clear. Possibly Melanchthon was elliptical: (If I be not asking too much) I wish you would examine the Articles of Faith (whether or not you think there is some thing defective in them, and) if you should think there is nothing wanting in them, (then) we will elaborate the remaining ones in like manner (as we already treated the Articles on Abuses)." But 1. It is not impossible that a letter carrier from Coburg had reached Augsburg late;88 2. It is by no means certain that the words in Melanchthon's letter of May 22, "inter scribendum sunt nobis redditae tuae literae posteriores per tabelliarium D. Apelli" refer to Luther's letter of May 15 which had just been received while he wrote and had not had the time to read. Parts of the May 22 letter read like answers to Luther's May 15 letter also we actually know that Luther wrote to Justus Jonas on May 19 and to the Elector on May 20. Why cannot the words "literae posteriores" refer to these last 72 Historical Introduction letters received in Augsburg? 3. The difficulty vanishes if the punctuation in Melanchthon's letter is altered. I offer this change: Vellem, percurrisses articulos fidei, in quibus si nihil putaveris esse vitii. Reliqua utcunque tractabimus, and translate as in the above text. That would produce the following situation. The returned Confession and Luther's letter of the l5th had been received by the Elector in Augsburg. Luther's remark in it regarding Melanchthon's ability to tread lightly had reference to the Preface and especially the second part, the Articles on Abuses. And Luther censured the far reaching concessions that were made in just this part as he also voiced his disappointment that a more determined stand had not been taken. Of this part Melanchthon speaks in the letter: In Apologia quotidie multa mutamus. Locum de votis, quia erat exilior justo exemi, supposita alia disputatione eaden de re paulo uberiore. Nunc de potestate clavium etiam disputo. Then he goes on to speak especially of the Articles of Faith: Vellem, percurrisse articulos fidei etc.. Luther had written nothing about them since they rested on the basis of the Schwabach Articles, which had already been accepted by the Franconians and Saxons. So it seems to Melanchthon that Luther had not examined them at all and therefore he wrote: Vellem, etc. But it was just the articuli fidei Ä as we shall see Ä which at this time May 15 as well as 22 were not finished; and so: Reliqua utcunque tractabimus. Even if it should be correct that the above mentioned form of Article 28 had been sent to Luther he nevertheless could speak of Melanchthon's soft and gentle treading. The assertion that the form of the Confession sent to Luther May 11 contained the original form of article 28 would at the same time explain why on May 15 Luther did not miss a paragraph on the Pope while he did so later on. Since the finding of the mentioned Nuernberg copy we now know the form the document had acquired on May 31 (Second Part, 37). Like the copy sent to Luther (May 11) it also consisted of three parts: Preface, Articles of Faith and the Articles on the Abuses. Compared with thership of Saints" are still missing, while the articles presented show a considerable difference in their construction and even the order of succession has been changed in several places. Kolde,88a who has published the Nuernberg manuscript, stated what is important in the matter in these words: "Following the first article, of God, the Origin of the Confession 73 More remarkable are the deviations in the Article of Faith from the final form of the Confession. The two articles: "On Faith and Good Works" and "Of the Worship of Saints" are still missing, while the articles presented show a considerable difference in their construction and even the order of succession has been changed in several places. Kolde,88a who has published the Nuernberg manuscript, stated what is important in the matter in these words: "Following the first article, of God, the second, of Original Sin the third, of the Son of God who justifies and sanctifies through the Holy Ghost, comes a fourth, corresponding to the later fifth article (The Office of Teaching the Gospel), on Obtaining the Holy Ghost through the Word and the Sacraments. The article on Justification does not appear until the fifth place, and, in comparison with the later statement, in a form somewhat less dogmatical. The doctrine of the imputatio (Hanc fidem impu tat Deus pro justitia coram Deo) is not yet clearly expressed. In article six more stress at that time was laid on the "through grace," later more on the "faith." The later articles seven and eight, which are essentially in the same form, are still combined in one article and clearly show that Melanchthon's endeavor was not to treat of the Church but of the "unity of the Church." The article "On Baptism" was then an article on the necessity of infant baptism, while the one on the Lord's Supper had its present form. The later article eleven, de confessione, was intended to treat of private absolution. This was followed with slight variations and changes of order by the articles on "Repentance" and the "Use of the Sacraments," and then (in an order which was soon thereafter changed) the 13th article, "Of Human Ordinances," Of the ordo ecclesiastics (evidently omitted in the manuscript), and 15th, Of Civil Affairs. The following 16th, which was later changed to the 17th, "Of the Second Coming of Christ," originally treated, in a by no means biblical fashion of the 74 Historical Introduction resurrection of the dead ("That all deceased shall be awakened with the same body of theirs in which they had died"). It turned against the doctrine of the "followers of Origin and the Anabaptists" of the ultimate redemption of the damned and the devils, and rejects, besides Chiliasm, specially those who "in Jewish manner teach that the promise of the possession of the Promised Land is to be considered in a corporeal sense." This is followed by the article (17) on the "Freedom of the Will," the "Cause of Sin" (18) and the Summary, with their wording only slightly different from the final form. Of the Preface Kolde in 1906 still could rightly say that it was the most important part of the Nuernberg manuscript of May 31, since up to the time of the finding of this manuscript it was unknown. But now (since 1912) that we know the Coburg form of the Preface and even a later changed form, (Second Part, 20 and 21) this statement of Kolde's is no longer true. Nevertheless, the form of May 31 still retains its value for us. The influence Eck's 404 Articles had on it has already been noted above. This third form of the Preface (Second Part, 31) differs from its predecessors mainly in three things: In its opening, which voices its faith in the Emperor's mercy and justice and of whom everything is expected ("his electoral grace places next to God, his whole hope and trust in his imperial grace and mercy"), is far more extensive and speaks of the Emperor's love for peace in a highly "rhetorical" manner; 2. In its lengthy discourse, regarding the Elector's house which stresses his merits, especially his loyalty. Due to this copiousness former sections, which maintained that in matters of faith the Scriptures can be the only guide and that from the time of Paul until Hadrian (1522/23) it had been recognized as one's right, as well as duty, to protest against and abolish abuses which had arisen in the church, fell by the wayside; 3. That it Origin of the Confession 75 showed in detail how well regulated the religious and church affairs were in the Eelectorate of Saxony. True this third Preface is decidedly more "rhetorical" but it has also lost in firmness and backbone. We are learning to appreciate Luther's words about "treading softly" more and more. That on the 31st of May Melanchthon and the Saxons still thought that such a preface would serve their purpose indicates two things: 1. The complete misunderstanding on the part of the Saxons of the Emperor's intentions. They still hoped that the Emperor could be convinced of the truth of their doctrine and their right to abolish abuses in the Electorate. A passage in the quoted letter of Melanchthon's (May 22) helps, at least in a measure, to understand this mistake: "The Emperor is not yet here, and, it appears to me, will scarcely arrive before Pentecost. He has drawn neither the Dukes of Bavaria nor the Duke of Saxony into consultation about the religious affairs, for he desires to remain impartial. It is reported that there are two opinions in the Emperor's council: one, that he should not hear the Lutherans but have them speedily condemned in a public decree; the other that he should hear them in an orderly way and remove the abuses in the church. This latter is said to be the opinion of the imperial chancellor Mercurinus, an exemplary and very reasonable man, who is reported as saying that, in his bodily weakness, he followed the Emperor, inasmuch as he thought that the religious matters would end well, and consequently he would not be participating in compulsory measures. We have heard nothing which we think more worthy to communicate. And I myself have a special admiration for this utterance and judgment of this very sensible man. May Christ be with us and support us and so rule all counsels that they may serve for peace and the general welfare. 76 Historical Introduction Mercurinus has also said: "The Diet of Worms proved that nothing substantial can be accomplished with compulsory measures! For he was in Worms in the Emperor's retinue and council" (C. R. II, 59f.). To what straws men clung in such a portentous hour! 2. A complete ignoring of the faith and welfare of the other Evangelical or even Lutheran territories. When others are mentioned it is in reference only to the Anabaptists, Swiss, and Sacramentarians, eventually, also the Landgrave (though not by name), and if they are mentioned it is only as a dark background against which the Elector and his country stand out so much the brighter. Not even George of Brandenburg or Nuernberg are considered and yet they had been in close touch with them since the Diet of Speyer. Neither is the general council, to which they habitually referred, mentioned by a single word. They simply considered the Diet as such. Granted that the Elector and the Wittenberg reformers, when once they had won their own religious freedom, expected to help others to gain the same rights; and no matter how much we emphasize the fact that the Emperor in his call asked for the opinion of every individual prince and city; and even if we admit that the Elector in recent years had only too often experienced the bitter truth that too many cooks spoil the broth, we still can hardly come to any other conclusion than that the Saxons displayed a selfishness and lack of love toward their fellow-Lutherans as one would hardly have expected. Gussmann, therefore, calls the document of May 31 "narrow-chested."89 If we then also keep in mind the secret negotiations with the imperial court, instigated in January, begun in March and now in May carried on in all secrecy; and if we remember that such negotiations were being held simply for the benefit of the Saxons, then this impression is heightened. In opposition Ä a Origin of the Confession 77 justifiable and necessary opposition Ä to a federation that was not based on the unity of faith they were now on the way to a particularism which no longer knew its own fellow-believers. Still God found a way to lead the Saxons out of this narrowness and bring the Lutherans to a common confession of faith. He demolished, blow by blow, their foolish hopes of gaining the Emperor's approval and, through the splendid confessions of the other Lutheran princes helped them to realize how self-evident and precious it is to have brothers in the faith. Rightly Schmauk gave a whole chapter of his book, on the origin of the Augsburg Confession Ä although at the time many of the details were still unknown to him Ä the heading: "The Hand of God in the Formation of the Augsburg Confession." It was no easy matter to induce the Elector to leave his particularistic ways. The Landgrave of Hesse, who after all had come to Augsburg, forgot all the treatment he had received in matters of his planned federation and declared that he was willing to join the Saxon Confession (although in no wise completely satisfied with its present form). This was done probably very shortly after the Margrave George's arrival (May 29) by the councellor of Ansbach and the representatives of Reutlingen and Nuernberg.90 But the Elector would not listen to them. To the Nuernbergers he said through Chancellor Brueck: "His electoral Grace did not like too many counsellors in such an affair, for the devil is fond of too much counsel." They obtained, according to their letter of May 17 to the Nuernberg Council (C. R. II, 53), merely the promise that they would be allowed to see the Confession when it had been returned by Luther. But also the fulfilment of this promise was postponed. The Confession had been returned about two weeks before they received the above mentioned copy of May 31 which they forwarded to the council 78 Historical Introduction of their city. Still as late as June 8, the Brandenburger Chancellors and the Nuernberger Kress, complain that the Confession was made only in the name of the Elector. They thought what Melanchthon had said in the Preface regarding the Elector he easily could also say about all of the princes and estates (C. R. II, 88f.). Still the Confession even then would have been primarily a confession of the Saxons in which the others had joined. However, about this time the Elector began to listen to reason. The previously mentioned secret negotiations with the Emperor had taken a very unexpected turn. Since this turn of affairs was the weapon in God's hand to demolish the Elector's particularistic ideas and lead to a common confession of all Lutherans, we shall examine it more closely. We owe it to the eighth essay in Hans v. Schubert's "Bekenntnisbildung and Religionspolitik 1529-30" that we are able to say anything certain regarding it. Since this essay, like everything that has been produced by the German Augustana critics since 1906, and even since 1888, has been ignored by the American historians, I will take up the matter in detail. _________________________________________________________________ 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 ________________________________________________________________