_________________________________________________________________ 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 5 of 6 ______________________________________________________________ The Elector's representatives for the secret negotiations with the Emperor, Count William of Nassau, William of Neuenahr and the electoral counselor Hans von Dolzig were to meet the Emperor on his journey from Italy to Augsburg (compare p. 38), They finally reached Innsbruck on April 30 after wandering through Lorrain, Savoy, Switzerland. Upper-Italy and Algau, only five days before the Emperor. On April 19 or 20, while still at Coburg, the Elector had sent a special fast messenger to his representatives urging them to greater haste in their negotiations with the Emperor. But since the messenger had better information regarding the Emperor's route he reached the imperial court before the representatives. So the Elector's message reached wrong 79 Origin of the Confession 79 hands, namely, those of the imperial Vice-chancellor and the above mentioned Henry of Nassau. Both answered the Elector, who in the meantime had reached Augsburg (May 2), in a most friendly way. This confirmed his sanguine hopes to such an extent that he not only wrote a letter to Count Henry of Nassau on May 4, expressing his great joy, but also on the 5th wrote to Hans of Minckwitz, then in Innsbruck, where the Emperor had in the meantime arrived. Minckwitz was to announce the Elector's arrival in Augsburg to the Emperor and express his willingness to meet him in Innsbruck or somewhere on the way.91 Before Minckwitz reached Innsbruck Dolzig had submitted all the matters, excepting those of religion, to the Emperor. These included the questions regarding the electorate, marriage contract, a fair for Gotha, safe conduct for the Countess of Brandenburg, and the current reports regarding Wuerttemberg. The Countess of Nassau and Neuenahr had agreed to speak with the Emperor about the religious matters. Their first accounts led them to believe that their efforts were effective so quarters were privately engaged for the Elector. But on the 8th of May, Dolzig was compelled to report to his master that the Emperor had refused to have him come to Innsbruck, that he had postponed his decision in all the other matters; that he was very much wrought up because the Elector had arranged Evangelical preaching in Augsburg; that all arguments regarding such preaching had made no impression on the Emperor and that shortly an official request would reach the Elector to discontinue this preaching. Added to this was what at the time was not told the Elector but is now certain from Italian sources found by Brieger and published by J. W. Richard, Stange and the catholic St. Ehses, that on the same day (May 8) the Emperor had received the Elector's confession (The Schwabach Articles in a poor, hasty Latin translation).92 80 Historical Introduction It made a very bad impression on the Emperor. It at once was remarked that the confession was, "In the beginning the most sacred and catholic of the world but in the middle and the end full of poison." The fact that it recognized only two sacraments was enough to condemn it. The papal legate Campegius reported it to Rome on May 9, although at the time he had not seen it. What he had heard regarding the Confession in the imperial council was enough to form an opinion. On the same day, while riding with the Emperor, he made two requests: That the Emperor would not receive any one who did not confess wholly and completely all the articles of the old religion; 2. that he was not to permit anyone to dispute with him in matters of this religion. The Emperor promised and asked him to put down his opinion in Italian as to what procedure was to be followed and what remedies were to be applied. The document that resulted was the famous "Instructions" which demanded the extermination of these stiff-necked heretics with fire and sword. Maurenbrecher has again brought these instructions to light (Second Part, 23). The Emperor fully agreed with the document. On the 12th of May, the Bavarian Dukes and Duke George of Saxony came to Innsbruck and by the next day Campegius had these old enemies of the Reformation under his thumb.93 Melanchthon hardly realized the seriousness of the deliberations, which were taking place in Innsbruck, when he wrote to Luther under date of May 11: Habentur de cervicibus nostris comitia, i.e., at the Emperor's they are holding a diet over our heads (C. R. II, 45), since he had placed his whole hopes (in his letter of May 22) in the sick imperial chancellor Mercurinus! At that time also a clean copy of Eck's theses, containing the dedication, probably reached the Emperor to have its evil effect on him.94 But it did not turn him from his Origin of the Confession 81 promise in the summons for a diet. He still was ready to hear everyone's opinion. But he was also more than ever determined to hear these opinions, if possible, in private and use his office as judge to declare the Catholic religion as the only true one. Furthermore he was determined to use the Edict of Worms against all those who would not submit to his official judgment. All of his actions of the next weeks and months were animated by this decision. Between the 13th and 15th of May, Count von Neuenahr and Dolzig brought the Emperor's answer to the Elector's request. They promised nothing and what was of the greatest importance, the position the Emperor expected to maintain in matters of religion, was not even mentioned. The Elector was so angered by this omission that he was about to leave Augsburg and return to Saxony. Deeply grieved, Neuenahr and Dolzig returned to Innsbruck and reported to the Emperor ( Second Part, 28) . Their report occasioned Charles' message of May 27 to the Elector which has been published by Foerstemann (Second Part, 29). Even if they originally. were only instructions as to what the messengers, the Counts von Nassau and Neuenahr, were to report to the Elector, still they really were meant for him and in fact were delivered to him. In it the Emperor accused the Elector of despising the Edict of Worms, which had been unanimously adopted by him and all of the other six Electors (including his own brother, the Saxon Elector Fredrick) and suppressing it to its own disgrace and the mortal harm of the Empire, and furthermore had even joined with other enemies of the Edict and as their leader had endangered the Empire and all Christendom. He expected the Elector to enter no more agreements and "like the others deport himself willingly and obediently as it is proper for an honorable Elector." Although a personal meeting with him or the prince in Innsbruck or in 82 Historical Introduction Muenchen Ä which was on his way from Innsbruck to Augsburg Ä would be very welcome, still, the Emperor repeated, that even then an agreement would only be possible if the Elector was not tied by other alliances and would in good will behave himself as is proper. He closes with the determined words: "At that, he or they both may come to Muenchen or not, as they see fit" but he does demand that they "with their preachers absolutely cease their preaching and avoid much disputation." This imperial document showed the Elector how he had deceived himself in regard to the Emperor. On the 31st of May he answered with dignity, yet determination (Second Part, 30): "The Emperor is in error when he states that his brother Fredrick had agreed to the Worms Edict. Its contents have nothing to do with His Imperial Majesty and the honor of the empire but only with God's eternal Word and our holy faith. These could be so little opposed that at every diet since Worms the edict has been ignored and a free, Christian council had been unanimously demanded. He is well able to give an account of his faith as he also knows how to expose the abuses in the preaching and in other matters. These abuses are the cause of much of the religious dissension and for just this reason he has come to the Diet to express his "opinions and ideas. ' The Emperor's right to appeal to the Edict of Worms is doubtful for the imperial call states in clear words that it is impossible to declare a thing wrong "unheard and unconsidered." As to the federation the Elector answered: It is well known that in matters of the gospel he and his brother have never depended on federations but solely upon God. Such federations, however, as he had entered, had been made necessary as protection and defence, in the Emperor's absence, against attack and danger, and were easily explained when one remembered these Origin of the Confession 83 ominous threats that were afloat. It is also an undeniable fact that the opponents had started this making of agreements. As to the Emperor's demand that preaching cease, he pleaded, urged by his conscience, that the Emperor would not insist upon this. Their preaching is based on the word of God, is necessary yet loyal, checks and instructs the people and had also been allowed in Speyer. To forbid it now would cause only dissension and awaken the suspicion that the Emperor, contrary to his own word of the summons, expected to suppress the Evangelical doctrine without a hearing. The whole valiant letter closes with the solemn warning not to let anyone turn him from the goal set in the summons. Anyone who urges differently does so to the ruin of the Emperor, Empire and all Christendom. He, the Elector, expected to act as he can account to God, his imperial Majesty, the estates and everybody. The Elector had not received an answer by the 10th of June, not even by the 12th. The fact that it did not arrive at all Ä the Emperor reached Augsburg on the 15th Ä must have finally completely opened the Elector's eyes to the fact that nothing good could be expected of the Emperor either for himself or for the gospel. So it is not surprising that suddenly he became more willing to unite with other Lutherans in a common confession. Something else also complicated the situation.95 The delegation sent to Augsburg to arrange for the Emperor's arrival, declared that, as Emperor crowned at Rome, Charles would settle the religious controversy at the Diet; the papal delegate would be admitted in his full character and commission, with precedence over all other ambassadors and electors, and that the Emperor expected to celebrate the festival of Corpus Christi, with all the estates, with all the papistic ceremonies. This promised little good for the Evangelicals. Then came the news that the 84 Historical Introduction imperial Chancellor Mercurinus, the only true friend the Elector had at the imperial court, had died June 5. He is reported to have said: "There is nothing I desire so much as to see the Elector of Saxony and his allies persevere courageously in the profession of the gospel, and call for a free religious council." Also the fact that Luther's courageous "Admonition to the Clergy Assembled at the Diet of Augsburg" (Second Part, 33), which in a way was to take the place of his personal appearance, had just then left the press and was being circulated in Augsburg (June 7) where it caused much comment, hardly helped to strengthen the Elector's hope of a peaceful settlement. Even if it (the admonition) spoke of the Emperor with consideration ("At Worms the noble blood, our dear lord Emperor Charles was compelled to do your wishes and condemn me and my whole doctrine") it nevertheless did not spare the Pope, bishops, priests and monks and recited a long list of abuses fostered by them. The diet, said Luther, is not necessary on his or the Evangelical's account, but it is necessary on account of the clergy and the poor people under their jurisdiction and for their sake the Emperor must act so that these conditions do not grow worse.96 Not later than the 15th of June, the day the Emperor entered Augsburg, the Elector decided to drop the particularistic character of the confession and admit the other estates as co-confessors. For on this day the two delegates from Nuernberg, Christoph Kress and Clemens Volkamer wrote to the council of Nuernberg: "Now the Saxons' short summary of faith has been completed in German and we send your Wisdom herewith a copy. Preface and conclusion are still lacking. Melanchthon declared that these two parts probably might be so changed that they be put forth not in the Elector's name alone, but in the name of 85 Origin of the Confession all the united Lutheran princes and estates, as he has already made such changes in the German articles. For when the Latin text still states that this or that is preached in the Electorate, the German already has substituted a general term comprising all the estates in place of "Electorate of Saxony." Such summary your Wisdom will please hand to the ministers and jurists to be considered by them and inform us of your thought and opinion" (C. R. II, 105). Gussmann was fortunate in finding (1925) this German copy in the Germanic Museum in Nuernberg. He reported on it in the "Theologisches Literaturblatt" and "Kirchliche Zeitschrift" of the same year. He intended to publish it, but the owners of the manuscript had granted this privilege to Johannes Ficker who in the same year mentioned it in the "Christliche Welt." Last July Ficker gave it to the public in an expensive facsimile edition accompanied by an introduction and a text edition. The title is: Die Augburgische Konfession in ihrer ersten Gestalt als gemeinsames Bekenntnis deutscher Reichs staende zum 25. Juni 1930 in Lichtdrucktafeln herausgegeben im Einverstaendnis der von Scheurl'schen Familie von der Gesellschaft der Freunde der Universitaet Halle-Wittenberg, Halle 1930. We give the text of this valuable edition in Part II, document 38 (with corrections of the errors which crept into Ficker's copy). Out of consideration for our English readers we present it in a partly modernized form without however changing the contents. This form of the Confession of June 15 is of the greatest importance. It differs considerably from the one of May 31 which was found by Schornbaum and published by Kolde in 1906 and which we also offer in modernized form in Part II, 37. It practically covers, as far as the articles are concerned, the final form which was read on the 25th of June. As the Nuernberg representatives reported in the above mentioned letter of June 15, the preface and conclusion are missing. Melanchthon's preface, which we know from the form of May 31, (Part II, 31) had been dropped since the 86 Historical Introduction Confession had ceased to be a separate Saxon confession while the conclusion, proposed by Melanchthon, (Part II, 32) is not included. Both were to be replaced by new ones. The articles themselves cover those of the form which was read on June 25 so that everything we said above p. 72f. regarding the form of May 31 and the final form can be said of the one of June 15. To supplement we stress a few things. The very first sentence of the First Article shows that it no longer is purely a Saxon confession, for the words: "In the Electorate of Saxony it is with common consent taught" have been replaced by: "First it is taught with common consent." The antithesis of the First Article is already enlarged while the one of the Second Article, which was still missing on May 31, is included. The fourth Article now treats of justification and has, in place of the statement that the Holy Spirit is received through faith, the new statement concerning the imputation of faith for righteousness with the proof passage Rom. 3 and 4. If this has shortened the Fourth, the Fifth is now longer and is in the final form. The Sixth Article now has the quotation from Luke 17. The Seventh Article of May 31 is already divided into the Seventh and Eighth. In the Ninth, infant baptism is already in the second place and the Tenth for the first time has the equivocal form "under the form of bread and wine." The Eleventh already has the quotation from Scripture, as also the Twelfth where, in comparison with May 31, the antitheses are reversed. The Thirteenth sounds more complete. The Fourteenth, which is missing in the Nuernberg translation, probably due to an error of the copyist, is included. The statements in the Fifteenth are reversed. In the Sixteenth the Scripture passage is not only included but the place is named where it is to be found. In the Seventeenth the reference to the followers of Origin as well as the conquest of the promised land has been deleted. In the Eighteenth the second sentence is also enlarged and the quotation from Augustin is more complete. The Nineteenth omits the passage from Hosea 13 and replaces it with one from John 8. While on May 31 the two articles "Of Faith and Good Works" and "Of Worship of Saints" yet missing they are both included in the manuscript of June 15. Although the closing sentence of the First Part is fuller it unfortunately no longer has the statement regarding the agreement of the Confession with the teachings of "the common Christian Church, yes even the Roman Church" with the same clear restrictions as on May 31. The statement "insofar they are founded in the Origin of the Confession 87 proven and accepted teachers" has been modified to, "as far as can be seen from the writings of the Fathers." The Second Part is a thorough revision of the text of May 31 as may be seen from the considerably expanded form. Already in the First Article "Of Both Forms in the Sacrament" which agrees more than the others with the previous form, aside from Cyprian and Gelasius, attention is also called to Jerome, and Cusanus is likewise mentioned. The fuller use of proofs from the Fathers and the canons of the ancient church as well as the greater exactness in stating where these proofs may be found is to be noticed in the whole Second Part. In the closing sentence of the 22nd Article, participation in the Corpus Christi procession is refused. In the completely recast 24th Article the position to those who deviate from the doctrine of the Sacrament is toned down; for while yet in May 31 it was still said at the close of the article: "Here is also rejected the unchristian doctrine, which denies that the Body and Blood of Christ are truly present" now at the very beginning of the article is the statement: "At the same time instruction is offered against other false doctrines of the Sacrament." In the 28th the episcopal jurisdiction is vastly curtailed by the sentence: "but where the ordinaries fail, princes are bound, if willingly or against their will, to dispense justice to their subjects, for the maintenance of peace to avoid discord and serious unrest in the land." Since in Part II, 37-40, we present the recensions of the Confession of May 31, and June 15 side by side (as well the one of June 25 and the German form of the Editto princeps) all other differences can easily be ascertained by the reader himself. So it is evident that Melanchthon did much work on the Confession in the time between May 31 and June 15. Three things may have influenced him: 1. Regard for the Emperor, whose attitude toward the Evangelicals he no longer could ignore, probably prompted him to avoid all expressions which would arouse his ire. So in the tenth article he chose a form that goes surprisingly far in meeting Rome's official terminology. So he still toned down Article 28. For the same reason there was greater care in citing proofs from the Scriptures, the Fathers and the canons. Was it not just this first week in June when Cochlaeus, Duke George's chaplain, got 88 Historical Introduction in touch with Melanchthon and persuaded him to urge the Elector to abstain from eating meat on fast days and so not provoke the Romanists? (cf. C. R. II, 82.) It was at this same time that Melanchthon got in touch with Archbishop Albrecht of Mainz. Kolde has published a letter which the Ansbach theologian, John Rurer, wrote on June 4 from Augsburg to Andrew Althamer97 in which he said: Scripsit Philippus literas ad archiepiscopum Moguntinum, quibus petit, quo operam det, ne res ad arma deducatur; quid is responderit aliquando cognosces, nondum Philippus responsionem sed solas suas literas nobis communicavit. 2. The second was the presence of the Landgrave. It may have induced Melanchthon, in consideration of the Marburg Articles, to strike all attacks on the Sacramentarians unless absolutely necessary (as in Articles 10). For even now the Landgrave very much desired a confession broad enough to take in the South German cities. So the above mentioned closing sentence in the article on the Mass was discarded. Aside from the main fact, which we shall discuss later on, that no special conclusion was found necessary, this may also have been the reason why Melanchthon's conclusion, "Ungeferlicher beschluss" (proposed conclusion), again found by Willkomm (Part II, 32), proved to be unsuitable since it also contained a very sharp statement against the Sacramentarians. 3. The documents which some of the cities had brought to the Diet, the "Short Epitome of the Papal Rights" by Lazarus Spengler and especially the various "Opinions" of the ministers of Brandenburg-Ansbach were also not without influence in effecting these changes. It is to the credit of Gussmann that he threw recent light on these various documents and showed the use made of them by Melanchthon. The cities and documents in question were those of Ulm, Origin of the Confession 89 Heilbronn, Nuernberg, Reutlingen, (translation of the Confessio Wirtembergica), which will be found in Gussmann ( I, 2). The Brandenburg-Ansbach "Opinions" have been published in part by Gussmann and are now more completely in the collection "Die Fraenkischen Bekenntnisse," 1930). But did Melanchthon really have these documents at hand and were they familiar to him?9s Hardly before the thought of a common confession arose, although he probably saw them later on. The Nuernberg opinion had been sent in as early as May 18 and had Melanchthon's express sanction. Concerning the Franconian Opinions or Confessions, however, we have no direct testimony. Still Camerarius, this intimate friend of Melanchthon, wrote in his biography of him, that in Augsburg, complures descriptiones, quaedam etiam admodum verbosae" were at hand. Furthermore, Melanchthon, himself wrote to Cruciger in 1537, Vidi Augustae confessiones aliquot; magna erat dissimilitudo." Therefore, it is certain that Melanchthon had examined other confessions. Finally we have some more direct evidence. In the letter of 1537 and in the preface to his Corpus doctrinae Misnicum of 1560 Melanchthon is reminded of a theologian who, in an opinion on the inner divine service, had quoted the grammarian Dionysius Cato as proof of the Evangelical doctrine of justification. This quotation is found in the Culmbach "Opinion." Since it is a very singular quotation it is more than probable that Melanchthon had the Culmbach "Opinion" at hand. But if he had these he probably had others. But did the reading of these influence Melanchthon? F. W. Schmidt is very reserved in a statement on the matter, "A touch which makes a direct Franconian influence probable is the tendency to build up the proof from Scripture and from the church fathers (Gussmann proved that nearly all of the passages which were at this time adopted from the church fathers are found in the Franconian confessions). It is also in harmony with the tendency of Nuernberg and Ansbach that the article on food was recast into a comprehensive attack on human traditions in general. Finally they are well-known Franconian principles, which since 1524 had played a far greater role in Ansbach than in Wittenberg, when the omission of the Corpus Christi procession is expressly named and the use of the German language in the churches is based on Paul. If we find ourselves here on very uncertain ground how much more when we consider the numerous cases where an extensive agreement in 90 Historical Introduction material if not in words is to be noticed. Alongside a parallel with the Franconian Confession we find a parallel with Luther. If the Ansbachians took their material from Luther in 1524 then it becomes an unsolved riddle in 1530 whether Melanchthon recalled Luther's works or if the Franconian opinions at hand influenced him to insert these passages." Gussmann probably judges more correctly, at least more favorably, regarding the connection of these various opinions with the Augsburg Confession. Were these connections to be seen in the first draft of the Confession then Schmidt's statements would have more effect, but since they are met only later on, and were therefore, added as an afterthought at a time when Melanchthon had read these opinions and had found those thoughts which he adopted, the borrowing from this source becomes more likely. In speaking of this influence on Melanchthon we do not think merely of the borrowing of sentences, thoughts, or proof-passages. Often it may have been the very ambiguity found in these documents which prompted him to make his own clearer, more precise and versatile. What an improvement it was to move the article on justification up from the fifth to the fourth place! This position at once emphasized its central importance. And if this article, in matter of contents and form, became so biblical, precise and short it may have been just the confusion found in the "Opinions" of these Brandenburg-Ansbach clergymen (he complained about this until his end) which caused him to recast his own, at first, rather uncertain draft. By considering this material, either positively or negatively, instead of ignoring it and confining himself to his own Saxon draught, the Confession became also more and more an expression of the common faith of the Lutheran Estates. The Emperor reached Augsburg on June 15th,99 determined that every action was to bring him a step nearer his goal. Schmauk (393) has well described the events from this viewpoint: "For the past week the Emperor's baggage trains had been making a din in the waiting city Ä the home of the Welsers and Fuggers, the great capitalists of Europe, and the great trading center between Italy and the Levant, and the towns of Northern Europe. At five o'clock on the morning of the 15th the Elector and the princes assembled in the Origin of the Confession 91 town hall. At one in the afternoon they went forth on horseback to meet his Majesty, and stood ready for his coming at the bridge of the Lech. After some hours of waiting, clouds of dust and much noise on the other side of the bridge heralded the approach of the Emperor's soldiery. The Elector and princes were recognized by Charles with an amiable smile, and he very graciously shook hands with each. He had no sooner alighted from his horse for the greeting, than he expressed the desire to the Elector that he cause the preaching to cease. The Archbishop of Mainz delivered the address of welcome. Apart from the group, on a little elevation, sat the Roman Legate in purple, supported by two cardinals, the Archbishop of Salzburg, and the Bishop of Trent. When Campegius, the Legate, saw the Emperor and the princes dismounted and greeting each other, he lifted up his hands and blessed them. They, with the Spaniards, Italians, Netherlanders and Germans in the train, fell on their knees, but the Elector John and his fellow Protestants stood bold upright and refused the papal benediction. The magnificent procession, eclipsing anything heretofore seen in the, empire, now entered the city with the soldiers of the six electors in advance. After the princes and electors came John of Saxony bearing the glittering naked imperial sword before the Emperor, on whose right was Mainz and on whose left was Koeln, with King Ferdinand and the Papal legate Campegius immediately following. The procession wended its way to the Cathedral, where the Bishop of Augsburg and his whiterobed clergy struck up the Advenisti desirabilis. The Emperor entered the Cathedral and knelt before the altar with hands extended to heaven. During the Te ergo quaesimus he again knelt on the bare stones, and all the assembly with him. But the Elector and the Landgrave remained standing. Campegius pronounced the benediction, and the procession resumed 92 Historical Introduction its march to the bishop's palace, which had been prepared for the Emperor's use, and reached there after ten o'clock at night. From five o'clock in the morning until ten at night the old Elector had been kept on his feet, and now the surprise of the day was to be sprung Ä "the nocturne of treason were about to begin." Charles had dealt with the Protestants with great personal grace; but after waiting till evening for his appearance, they had been hurried along into the ceremonies of state under the auspices of the church. It was almost impossible to distinguish between civil and religious duty. Tomorrow the Emperor must celebrate Corpus Christi; and the procession of the holy Sacrament was even then being arranged. The Lutherans were to be given no time to think, to consult, or to appeal, but were to be involved by the swiftness of events, the exigencies of their civil positions, the personal favor and grace of the Emperor, in such a way that later on they would not consistently be able to take a stand against the church. Charles had made several attempts, at a distance, to get them to yield, now he would meet them on the spot, and try his diplomacy face to face. After the cathedral service the princes entered the palace with the Emperor. Then the Romanists were told to depart, and Charles invited the Elector, George of Brandenburg, Philip the Landgrave, the Prince of Anhalt and the Duke of Lueneburg to follow him into his private apartments. King Ferdinand followed the party as interpreter." The Emperor now repeated his twofold demand: 1. That no Evangelical preaching be allowed; 2. That the Lutheran Princes join the Corpus Christi procession on the following day.l00 But as the Lutheran princes had rejected the papal blessing so they now also remained steadfast in this dangerous hour of the night. Neither the Emperor's personality nor his diplomacy could make them waver. It was here the Margrave 93 Origin of the Confession said in regard the first demand: "We plead with his Imperial Majesty not to remain in this demand since we preach God's pure word as did Augustin, Hilary and other teachers of the past; of this his Imperial Majesty may convince himself. We cannot live without the Word of God nor deny the gospel with a good conscience. In this the Landgrave joined with: "Imperial Majesty's conscience is not lord and master over our conscience." And again the Margrave said: "Before I let any one take from me the Word of God and ask me to deny my God I will kneel and let them strike off my head" (Corp. Ref. II 106, 114, 115). In regard to the second demand both maintained their stand. "Christ has not instituted His Sacrament for the purpose of adoration." Although the Emperor did not withdraw his command he extended the time for an answer until the following morning. The princes were to present in writing their arguments why Evangelical preaching was not to be abolished. In the same night the Landgrave informed the representatives of Wittenberg of what had happened. The theologians met at once to formulate an opinion regarding the Corpus Christi procession. Spalatin finished it before dawn. It said: "The Sacrament was not instituted to be worshipped like the brazen serpent of the Jews. We are here to confess the truth and not to confirm abuses." On the following morning Margrave George acted as spokesman for the Lutherans. He said to the Emperor: "My ancestors and I have always supported you; but in the things of God, the commandments of God compel me to put aside the command of man. If, as we are told, death is to be the fate of those who persevere in the true doctrine, I am ready to suffer it." Offering the Emperor the opinion he said: "We will not countenance with our presence these human traditions, opposed to the Word of God; on the contrary, we declare 94 Historical Introduction unitedly that we must expel them from the church, lest those in it who are still sound should be affected with the deadly poison." To this Ferdinand replied: "If the love of God will not impel you to go with the Emperor, then do so for the love of the Emperor, and as vassals and princes of the Empire, His Majesty commands you. He begs you." The princes replied: "This is an act of worship and our conscience forbids it." The Emperor had taken his last step and exhausted his last resource; and now, after all the planning from Innsbruck down, had lost the cause. Saying: "We wish to see whether you will obey his Majesty or not," Ferdinand, with the Emperor left the room, and the princes, instead of following, returned to their quarters. The Emperor, behind the host, carried by the Archbishop of Mainz, marched alone with scarcely one hundred citizens of Augsburg following him, in the procession of Corpus Christi.101 So irritated was he on his return to the palace that he threatened to dismiss the Lutherans to their homes, with a safe conduct, the next day, and the Diet would uphold the Church and the empire without them. But the German princes saw that this would lead to terrible war so they supplicated his Majesty asking him to wait until his anger cooled. On the 17th of June the Lutherans presented the document, written by Brueck, which set forth their position in the matter of preaching (Second Part, 34). We have discussed these events in detail, probably too detailed for a critical review, because they, especially the night session of June 15, disclose the courageous stand taken by the leading laymen. They also show a very important change in the course of events. That night session was important for the Elector in two ways. Schmauk (396) rightly stresses the fact that the Emperor did not call him alone, which he might have expected from his previous position and also 95 Origin of the Confession because of his private negotiations. That he was called together with the other princes showed plainly that the Emperor did not expect to consider him alone nor enter separate negotiations with him. That again released the Elector from any consideration or responsibilities toward the Emperor which separate negotiations would otherwise have made necessary. The determined stand and firm testimony of both the Margrave and Landgrave in that momentous hour, when he himself was horrified and made speechless by the Emperor's demands (C. R. II, 106), must have shown him the value of confederates. It also must have shown him how wise it had been to drop his solitary stand and permit other estates to join his proposed confession. Already on the following day the princes acted as a closed body as may be seen from the Brandenburg chancellor's opinion of the same day.103 The Margrave was probably admitted first since the Nuernbergers received from him and the Elector the assurance on June 18th that "they were to be consulted in matters of faith" (C. R. II, 112). Then also Duke Ernest of Lueneburg, Prince Wolf of Anhalt, and the city of Reutlingen were admitted as co-confessors not in a political federation but a confessional union. The Landgrave, due to his connections with Zwingli and the South German cities, was still in doubt but undoubtedly now began a study of the articles of faith which were handed him,104 for we know that finally he also joined the union. _________________________________________________________________ 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 ________________________________________________________________