_________________________________________________________________ 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 6 of 6 ______________________________________________________________ But now an episode took place, which no historian as yet has been able entirely to explain and which for several days made it doubtful whether the prepared Confession would be presented at all. Shortly after the arrival of the Emperor, we find Melanchthon in negotiation with men very close to the Emperor. The Lord high-chancellor Mercurinus Gattarina, it is true, had died, but there still were the imperial 96 Historical Introduction secretaries, Cornelius Schepper (Czepper) and Alfonso Valdes, who could be approached. The former, the Netherlander, seemed to be rather reserved; he anxiously wished to avoid even the least suspicion that he was friendly toward Melanchthon (Enders VIII, 2). Valdes, the Spaniard, was more approachable. To him Melanchthon could protest against the idea prevailing in Spain that the Protestants believed neither in God nor the Trinity, that they thought nothing of Christ or Mary, so that the slaughter of a Lutheran was deemed more pleasing to God than the killing of a Turk. He soon had even made it clear to him that the doctrines of the Lutherans were very much in agreement with those of the church. The points of difference were really only in the abuses which had crept into the church and of these there were again only four points: the marriage of priests, both forms in the Sacrament, the mass, and the property of the church.l05 On the morning of June 18 Valdes was able to report to the Emperor, and_________________________________________________________________ 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 6 of 6 ______________________________________________________________ But now an episode took place, which no historian as yet has been able entirely to explain and which for several days made it doubtful whether the prepared Confession would be presented at all. Shortly after the arrival of the Emperor, we find Melanchthon in negotiation with men very close to the Emperor. The Lord high-chancellor Mercurinus Gattarina, it is true, had died, but there still were the imperial 96 Historical Introduction secretaries, Cornelius Schepper (Czepper) and Alfonso Valdes, who could be approached. The former, the Netherlander, seemed to be rather reserved; he anxiously wished to avoid even the least suspicion that he was friendly toward Melanchthon (Enders VIII, 2). Valdes, the Spaniard, was more approachable. To him Melanchthon could protest against the idea prevailing in Spain that the Protestants believed neither in God nor the Trinity, that they thought nothing of Christ or Mary, so that the slaughter of a Lutheran was deemed more pleasing to God than the killing of a Turk. He soon had even made it clear to him that the doctrines of the Lutherans were very much in agreement with those of the church. The points of difference were really only in the abuses which had crept into the church and of these there were again only four points: the marriage of priests, both forms in the Sacrament, the mass, and the property of the church.l05 On the morning of June 18 Valdes was able to report to the Emperor, and if he assured him that the Lutherans "did not believe anything contrary to the church,"106 the report regarding this statement of Valdes seems to be all the more trustworthy since it is in absolute agreement with what Melanchthon had stated at the close of Part One of the Augsburg Confession in the recension of May 31 and still more strongly in the one of June 15. Thereupon the Emperor had requested that Melanchthon present to him a "short summary of their faith without any diffuseness." The Emperor furthermore requested his secretary to confer with Campegius regarding the matter. And the Legate really let himself be drawn into a discussion regarding the cup for the laity and marriage of the priests since he understood that the Protestants were willing to concede the question of purgatory. Had not the Bohemians obtained the cup and in that part of the Greek 97 Origin of the Confessions Church, nominally united with Rome, was not the marriage of priests customary? He even reported the matter to Rome (Roemische Quartalschrift, 17, 401). According to the Protestant reports he refused to give up the private mass (C. R. II, 123), according to the Italian report he had only withheld his judgment in the matter.104a This was extremely favorable news for Melanchthon. In his letter of this period he never tires of praising the Emperors kindness. For a time he debated the question of setting aside the Confession already prepared in favor of this "short summary," for the representatives of Nuernberg reported on June 19 to the council: "As Philippus Melanchthon states, the matter will probably not come to any extended discussion but will be condensed and briefly formulated and treated. But what is intended, whether the Confession now being prepared is to be finished or a different presentation of our standpoint is to be made, will be reported by us" (C. R. II, 112f.).107 The report that Melanchthon had already handed in his "short summary" during his negotiations with Valdesl08 is very open to question, for on the 21st of June he expected to begin preliminary negotiations with the Elector and Brueck (C. R. II, 123). In judging this action of Melanchthon the historians differ widely. In his Luther biography (II, 592) 1893 Th. Kolde places the whole responsibility for this episode upon Melanchthon. Fearing the Emperor's ire and the rupture of the Church he had opened these negotiations, and secretly carried them on which delayed the completion of the Confession. Then when on the 21st of June he found it necessary to take the Elector and Brueck into his confidence they had demanded the termination of these negotiations and had taken the completion of the Confession into their own hands. A number of investigators have accepted Kolde's statement, 98 Historical Introduction as v. Bezold, Kawerau, K. Mueller-Ellinger.109 But in 1903 Theo. Brieger110 decidedly opposed this view. In its place he offered the following explanation: 1. The negotiations with the Imperial secretaries were opened by them and not by Melanchthon. 2. They were carried on by Melanchthon, not by his own authority alone, but with the consent of the Elector's counselors; 3. Melanchthon's reply to the Nuernberg delegates, who were urging the presentation of a complete confession, must not be understood as an attempt to compromise; it merely had reference to the proposal made by Vogler, the Margrave's chancellor (who, in order to change the Emperor's intentions regarding the preaching, advised, on June 16, "to present to him as an intermediate action the Articles of Faith"); and that the briefest possible confession which he had in mind, was in reality this confession, composed of 19 articles and still extant in the Ansbach manuscript and other copies of the same period. So the completion of the Confession was not delayed even a day and Melanchthon is to be exonerated from every charge of indecision. But Kolde's answer in his essay "Melanchthon's Negotiations with Alph. Valdes and Lor. Campegio" of l906111 seemed sufficiently to refute Brieger's view. But this summer J. v. Walter has presented new material from the Italian archives. The report of Bagaroto, ambassador of Venice which was known from Sanuto's diary (53,326) had called the four demands which were germane to the negotiations with Valdes, the Emperor and the delegates, demands of the princes, but it had seldom been taken seriously. And a pertinent dispatch which Tiepolo sent to Venice on June 19 was only known from Sanuto's poor copy. But in 1928 J. v. Walter made known the dispatch in the Italian original,112 while for those who do not read Italian he published a German version in the Luther Jahrbuch of Origin of the Confession 99 1930, p. 41. So we have, aside from scattered notes especially in Melanchthon's letters, the following two detailed reports of Melanchthon's negotiations. 1. The report of the Nuernberg delegates in C. R. 11, 122f: "We are told that Alfonsus Waldensius, one of the chief secretaries of His Imperial Majesty, has called Philipp Melanchthon several times and conferred with him regarding the Lutheran situation and finally has demanded that he report to him what the Lutherans demand and what could be done in the matter. Thereupon Melanchthon . . . gave him approximately the following report. The Lutheran situation is not as detailed and difficult as it probably has been reported to his Imperial Majesty. The dissension centers primarily in these articles: of both forms in the Sacrament, of the marriage of priests and monks and of the mass, since the Lutheran cannot accept the private separate mass. If these articles could be settled he held that in all others satisfactory solution could be found. Alfonsus undertook to present this statement to his Imperial Majesty and returned it to Philippus on Saturday with the report that Imp. Maj. was glad to hear this statement which suited him well; also commanded him, Alfonso, to report on it to the papal Legate Ä which he had done Ä who also was well pleased with the report nor were the two things, of the two forms in the Sacrament and the marriage of priests and monks especially offensive, but he could not agree to abolish the private mass. Finally Alfonsus told Philippus: Imperial Majesty's desires are, that he, Philippus, is to draft briefly those articles which the Lutherans desire to be granted and deliver them to him, Alfonsus; he would deliver them to the Emperor so that they could be considered. However, his Imp. Maj. desires especially that this summary be made modestly, briefly, and not verbosely, so that his Maj. would have all the more reason to consent and come to an understanding regarding the abolishing of these errors. His Maj. also deems it more fruitful to take up the matter in privacy and quietness and not in extended public discussions and disputes, for such discussions and quarrelsome disputations only breed new quarrels and no peace. Philippus agreed to think over the matter and formulate such a summary; however he first wishes to confer with Dr. Brueck and the other learned men regarding the matter today (June 21) and after that formulate a summary of our position and submit it to the Elector and if found good it will be discussed and handed to Alfonsus." Tiepolo's dispatch of June 19 according to Walter's resume, p.419: 100 Historical Introduction On the morning of June 18 the Emperor called a meeting of Catholic princes in which the question of suppressing Protestant preaching was to be discussed. Some radical proposals were made. Some demanded immediate action against the Protestants, others wished that they first be banned from the country, while the third proposed further discussions through friendly princes, but in case of disobedience the Protestants were to be punished. However the Emperor declared himself in favor of greater leniency. He would not hear of any threat of punishment but sent the princely mediators to the Protestant princes. They returned with good news: The Protestant princes declared themselves willing to submit, provided the four points stated by Melanchthon were granted. Thereupon followed the agreement in the matter of preaching; the Emperor not only forbade the Protestant estates but also their opponents to permit their ministers to preach. He reserved to himself the right to allow preaching.113 [We knew that the Emperor held a meeting with the princes on June 19, the Sunday following the public announcement of the prohibition of preaching. But we did not know that in this meeting other things were discussed aside from the opening program of the diet and the ranking of the different princes (Schirrmacher, @ Briefe u. Akten, 72f.; Roemische Quartalschrift, 17, 397) . The dispatch of Tiepolo tellls more.] In this session on Sunday, June 19, the Emperor still acted as mediator, first dealing with the two parties separately, then with them together and in agreement with the Legate let the Lutherans hope that by agreeing with their requests, as far as this was in harmony with the Christian faith, peace could be again established in the Church. As a token thereof all were to attend the opening mass on June 20 and then take up the work of the diet. So there can hardly be any doubt that the princes agreed to Melanchthon's four points and they must have been told of them on the morning of the 18th or before, certainly not first on the 21st and hardly through anyone else but Melanchthon himself. In order to understand why the princes agreed to these points, several things must be kept in mind: 1. The possibility, that the princes were willing to be satisfied with the granting of the three or four points only in order to reach an agreement in the question of preaching, must not be rejected, but that does not mean that with it the whole Origin of the Confession 101 question of religion was to be settled. 2. But if the latter really is the case one must keep in mind that they, like Melanchthon, were convinced that their doctrines were in harmony with those of the church which were valid according to the testimony of the recognized Fathers. Therefore there was no quarrel about the first part of the Confession which had been prepared but only regarding the abuses treated in its second part. Therefore a possible elimination of the first part could not, according to their judgment, be regarded as a denial. Were not the Wittenberg theologians of the opinion in March that for this very reason a presentation of their doctrine was not necessary and Melanchthon was only prompted to prepare a confession by Eck's articles? If the Emperor and the Legate did not identify themselves with Eck but were willing to remain in Church fellowship with the Evangelicals then why a presentation of their doctrine? Did not Melanchthon in his draft of May 31 and again in June 15 express this same opinion of the unity of their faith, a statement which also remained in the final draft of June 25? Did not the princes declare, in their letter of June 17, regarding the question of preaching (Part II, 34) that their ministers had preached the same pure gospel as the tried and proven men of the church had preached and expounded and that they had preached nothing else nor anything new? And had not even the Landgrave at yonder memorable first meeting with the Emperor taken the same stand"1l4 It may be considered a foolish delusion that the princes and theologians thought it possible that their doctrine, even if in harmony with the best teachers of the ancient church, still had, or could attain a place in the present Roman Church. But it must not be considered a moral defect in these men. It may have been a lack of judgment on their part, but it was not a fault of character. 102 Historical Introduction Then there remains only the other consideration that with this agreement, if it really was to be decisive which is not at all certain, the second part of the Confession they had prepared would have undergone a serious curtailing. For these points, even if they really would have been conceded, while they were indeed important points of the second part, did not include all of them. This would have been Ä always under the supposition that the position taken by the princes was final Ä an unwarranted retreat. The facts are not changed even if we are reminded that there was no unity even in the Evangelical camp regarding the rejection of the episcopal jurisdiction, which after all was acknowledged in the final form of the 28th Article; and that it could be said that with the conceding of the four points principles were granted which would work out their own solution of the other questions contained in the second part of the Confession as it then stood. Moreover, we now have a better understanding of a passage in Melanchthon's letter to Camerarius of June 19 (C. R. II, 119). He writes: Non dubitabam, quin Apologia nostra videretur futura lenior, quam mereatur improbitas adversariorum. Ego tamen complexus sum ea, quae sunt in causa praecipua. Jurisdictionen totam à ç æà reddo Episcopis. Hoc fortasse urit quosdam, qui aegre patiuntur sibi libertatem suam adimi. Sed utinam vel duriore conditione pacem redimere possimus. These words were written just at the time when complying with the Emperor's request he expected to shorten the second half of the Confession to his four points, completely eliminating the 28th Article. It is true he had written in the recension of June 15: "Our church does not ask that the bishops should restore peace and concord at the expense of their dignity and honor" and again said the same thing in the form of June 25, but at the same time he was ready to show them his willingness to grant their jurisdiction by ignoring the whole matter. Origin of the Confession 103 What here is said to the credit of the princes applies also to Melanchthon. Yet one thing must be charged to his account. One can not banish the thought that the first meeting with the Imperial secretaries was arranged by him. Tiepolo's dispatch does not deny it, since it was written after these negotiations were already under way. Neither does the report of the Nuernberg delegates make this impossible. Even if they claim that the request for a meeting came from Valdes they do not state what had gone before. Valdes's request was not necessarily the first step in the matter. As one received the impression from Melanchthon's letters (C. R. II. 118f.) that it was he who sought connections with Schepper, so it was probably also he who directly or indirectly got in touch with Valdes after Schepper proved inaccessible. However, it was probably not so much the ire of the Emperor which prompted him as the fear that the unity of the Church would be disrupted and they would be considered outcasts. That Melanchthon held to these three or four points of the second part is probably due to the fact that he really saw in them the praecipua in causa; still Walter may be right when he thinks that he wasttle the matter of preaching but did not involve the whole question of religion, or whether they realized that the Legate would not let himself be bound by these points, or whether the opening services, in which the speaker Nuntius Pimpinella "with full hand dealt out blows" (to the heretics),115 or whether the oration with which the Emperor opened the diet in connection with the opening services, through the Palsgrave Fredrick, in which antiprotestant stings were not lacking,116 whether these facts singly or together, or other o“$ê@ anê@nish the common confession. The Landgrave had meanwhile joined in the deliberations. He had received Luther's letter (Second Part, 35), and that probably helped to overcome his difficulties. How the princes and theologians, in spite of the preceding negotiations with the Emperor regarding the four points, could now go back to the previously pr and finish the common confession. The Landgrave had meanwhile joined in the deliberations. He had received Luther's letter (Second Part, 35), and that probably helped to overcome his difficulties. How the princes and theologians, in spite of the preceding negotiations with the Emperor regarding the four points, could now go back to the previously prepared Confession and finish it for presentation, is not quite clear, especially as the princes, complying with their promise given the Emperor, all had attended the opening services on June 20. Whether in their opinion the four points were only a means to settle the matter of preaching but did not involve the whole question of religion, or whether they realized that the Legate would not let himself be bound by these points, or whether the opening services, in which the speaker Nuntius Pimpinella "with full hand dealt out blows" (to the heretics),115 or whether the oration with which the Emperor opened the diet in connection with the opening services, through the Palsgrave Fredrick, in which antiprotestant stings were not lacking,116 whether these facts singly or together, or other unknown happenings were instrumental, we do not know. We, however, can only rejoice that they did go back to the Confession which had already been prepared. From the above it is clear that the meeting of June 21 dealt primarily with the formulation of the preface and conclusion, for Melanchthon had already come to the conclusion, on June 15, that these had to be changed, as the Confession had ceased to be merely a Saxon confession. It was a different question, however, as to whether the contents, which had been fixed since June 15, was to be changed. We are fortunate in that we know the form in which the Origin of the Confession 105 Confession was read on June 25. The articles themselves show only slight changes but the preface and conclusion are entirely new. True, it has long been contended that we do not know the form of the Confession of June 25. It has been said that we have manuscripts from the time before June 25 and printed editions from the period following this date; but since the German and Latin copies of the Confession, which were handed to the Emperor, are lost, we have no way of knowing the exact wording of these copies. This is not correct. It is to the credit of Johannes Ficker117 that he cleared up this error. Had his findings appeared at a different time than during the world war they would have received more attention. He proved that the so-called Mainz manuscript, once acclaimed so highly that the text of the Augsburg Confession in the Book of Concord was made from a copy of it, then denounced as worthless, is actually a carefully made copy of the German original which was read before Emperor and empire and was made at the time of the Diet in Augsburg for the archchancellery in Mainz. Only the signatures of the princes and cities are missing. Ficker has also promised a reproduction of this manuscript, but, as he wrote us in September, it will hardly appear before the end of the year since he has also promised to publish first a copy of the Latin original which has also been rediscovered by him.119 But we have a reproduction of the Mainz manuscript of Weber,120 which Tschackert,121 after careful examination claims to be reliable. It will serve our purpose. For things are said by Augustine in as many words." Then the individual words are added. So the title of the 20th Article Ä the only article in Part I which as yet has a title Ä has been changed from; "Of Faith and Works" to "Of Faith and Good Works." The opening of Article 21 has been made to conform with those of other articles and has been changed from, "Of the departed saints it is taught" to "Of the worship of saints it is taught by us." The definite article is omitted or added to indicate that the matter is to be stressed or not stressed. Occasionally an "exclusive particle" is added. So in Article 21 thes a passage is more effectively introduced as in Article 4. Romans 3 and 4 is no longer quoted but it is introduced by: As St. Paul said to the Romans in chapter 3 and 4. Also more stress is laid on quotations from the Fathers when in Article 18 it is no longer said; "The words of Augustin on free will are here added," but "These things are said by Augustine in as many words." Then the individual words are added. So the title of the 20th Article Ä the only article in Part I which as yet has a title Ä has been changed from; "Of Faith and Works" to "Of Faith and Good Works." The opening of Article 21 has been made to conform with those of other articles and has been changed from, "Of the departed saints it is taught" to "Of the worship of saints it is taught by us." The definite article is omitted or added to indicate that the matter is to be stressed or not stressed. Occasionally an "exclusive particle" is added. So in Article 21 the statement is no longer, "It sets before us a mediator and propitiation" but "it sets before us as the only mediator etc." Again at times words have been transposed to make the meaning clearer. So it is said in Article 12 "Welche die Absolution denen, so nach der Taufe gesuendigt hatten, weigerten." Then also the construction of the sentences is better. So it is no longer said in the article of Justification "Weiter wird gelehrt, dass wir Vergebung . . . erlangen moegen . . .. sondern wir bekommen but, "Weiter wird gelehrt, dass wir Vergebung . . . erlangen, sondern dass win Vergebung bekommen." A number of changes had been made to make the reading easier and secure the right emphasis. These changes can be seen in Ficker and a comparing of the texts in Part II, 39 will show all these little changes to the careful reader. Very appropriately Ficker, in his introduction to his reproduction of the recension of June 15, quotes Melanchthon's Latin Syntax (C. R. XX, 547): In tenui, ut ait Virgilius, labor est, at tenuis non gloria nec mediocre pretium operae, posse animi sensa citra ambiguitatem efferre, i.e., "The detailed work is tiresome but it is something great and worth all the labor to present the thoughts in their full meaning." We admire the power of concentration which, in these grave hours, could give so much time to the smallest details. The Confession gained very much by it. Origin of the Confession 107 While this detailed work was left to Melanchthon, the deliberations of June 21 centered on the form of the Preface and Conclusion. Chancellor Brueck wrote them in German while Jonas furnished the Latin translation. In regard the Preface (Part II, 36) this is expressly stated in a note of Jonas found on a copy of the first edition of the Augsburg Confession of 1531 in the Wittenberg Seminary: Reddita e germanico Pontani nunc per Iustum Jonam. The same is probably true of the Conclusion. With that Melanchthon's Preface and his tentative Conclusion (Part II, 32) were definitely cast aside and with it all particularism. With it also went the severe attacks against the Sacramentarians of which the Preface, and also the proposed Conclusion, were filled. This was a decided victory for the Landgrave. He could now much more easily unite in the Confession. With Melanchthon's Preface the statement regarding the jurisdiction of bishops also disappeared, and however much Article 28 conceded to them, it also contained the statement: "When the ordinaries are negligent in their office (which they have by human right), then the princes are in duty bound, whether willingly or unwillingly, to dispense justice to their subjects in order to prevent strife and disturbance in their lands." This again was greeted with satisfaction by the Landgrave and most of the other princes and cities. Although clothed in the juristic long-winded language of the time, the preface was a masterpiece. It removed the Confession from the realm of credulous theory to the solid ground of reality. It did not dream of Utopia but by simply appealing to the statement in the Imperial Summons established a splendid legal argument for the presentation of the Confession. The "opinions and ideas" of all had been solicited. Herewith the undersigned princes and cities presented theirs and are ready, if the other, the Catholic estates, will do the same, to discuss them in a 108 Historical Introduction proper and legitimate manner. They no longer plead but demand on the legal basis of the Summons. When reading Dr. Brueck's Preface, one notes at once that a statesman is speaking, respectfully, to be sure, but with firm determination. So it was providential that finally the Confession was placed into the hands of these fearless and determined statesmen who were better versed in the ways of the world. Melanchthon could not have written such a preface. The mutual deliberations of June 21 brought another important feature into the Preface; the offer to give an account in a free and general council. In ending the Preface with this offer, no lengthy conclusion as was originally planned for the document, was necessary. This also was a victory for the Landgrave who from the beginning had always contended that no emperor nor diet could decide the matter on hand, because it was a matter of religion. It is needless to say that the free and general council, requested by the Lutherans was of an entirely different nature from the one the Emperor had in mind.123 And as it was correct in principle to have religious matters decided by a free council on the basis of Holy Scripture so also it was in closer agreement with the past stand of the Lutherans as they had always demanded such a council. In one question, however, the Landgrave did not win out, and that was fortunate. He was not able to secure any change in the article concerning the Sacrament. The definition of the Sacrament, given in the recension of June 15, was not changed nor was the rejection of the contrary doctrine: improbant secus docentes dropped. The result of it was, it is true, that four South German cities Ä Strassburg, Constanz, Lindau, Memmingen Ä found themselves excluded. They later presented their own confession written by Bucer (Tetrapolitana),124 while Zwingli merely sent his own personal Fidei Origin of the Confession 109 Ratio 125 to the Emperor. But the confessional unity of the signers was maintained. Even the Landgrave did not disrupt this unity but signed the document. Brueck's Preface and the short Epilog as the Articles themselves are worthy of the hour when the Lutherans confessed their faith before Emperor and empire. It voices, and is willing to defend, a faith which is sure of itself, because it rests upon the Word of God. The Confession was finally completed on the 23rd of June. As early as the next day it was to be presented to the Diet although every effort had been made to obtain an extension of time to permit the preparation of a clean copy.126 Since during the last days the interest was focused on the German copy the Latin had to be presented in Melanchthon's hand writing; there was no time left to rewrite it.l27 The document was signed by Elector John of Saxony, Margrave George of Brandenburg, Duke Ernest of Brunswick-Lueneburg, Landgrave Philipp of Hesse, Prince Wolfgang of Anhalt, the representatives of Nuernberg and Reutlingen, and perhaps Prince John Fredrick of Saxony and Duke Francis of Lueneburg.128 However the Confession was not read on June 24. The Emperor, determined to prevent every public demonstration, intentionally placed a lengthy negotiation with the papal Legate and also an endless address by the representatives from Carinthia and Carniola regarding the Turkish danger on the calendar. Then due to the lateness of the hour announced that a reading of the Confession was unnecessary. But the Evangelicals, anxious to confess their faith publicly, because of ble and oldest reports130 know nothing of this. Accordingeviously granted privilege of reading it. The eloquence of their spokesman, Chancellor Brueck, finally won a hearing for the following day. 110 Historical Introduction They again met at 3 o'clock on Saturday afternoon (25) not in the town hall, where the meetings usually were held, but "in the Palatinate, in the lower large room" i.e., the small chapter room of the episcopal palace where the Emperor was lodged. This room evidently was selected (it would probably hold less than 200 people) to prevent a large gathering at the reading of the Confession. The two Saxon chancellors, Dr. Gregory Brueck with a Latin copy of the Confession, and Dr. Christian Beyer with the German, stepped to the center of the room while the Lutheran estates, who had enough courage to make a public confession, rose from their seats. Again the Lutherans were compelled to fight for their rights. The Emperor demanded Ä evidently to prevent the Germans present from following the reading Ä that the Latin copy be read. When the Elector reminded the Emperor that they were on German soil and therefore the Confession should be read in German, he agreed to their demand. So Dr. Beyer read the Confession. This took two hours but he read so clearly and distinctly that those in the outside court followed from beginning to end. So even in this particular the Emperor's plans were frustrated. Then the two copies were presented. The fearless Brueck, in doing son spoke these beautiful words:129 "Most gracious Emperor, this is a confession which, with the grace and help of God, will prevail even against the gates of hell." The details of the presentation are variously reported. Generally it is said that the Emperor accepted the Latin copy and gave the German to the Archchancellor (the Elector of Mainz) for safekeeping. But the most reliable and oldest reports130 know nothing of this. According to them the Emperor accepted both copies and expressly objected to having them given to the Archchancellor. He wished Ä to follow Ficker's (Die Originale, 248) clever conjecture Ä to show that, Origin of the Confession 111 by power of his Imperial office, he intended to keep the decision of the religious questions in his own hands. This same motive probably prompted him, immediately after the presentation, to ask the Protestant princes that they promise not to publish the document, although this was not the only reason. The Confession made a deep impression, even on many of the opponents. The Nuernberg representatives reported home on June 26: "His imperial Majesty was not at all ungracious in the matter. We have also heard more than one say that such articles were not to be condemned, and some electors and princes have declared them to be modest." (C. R. II, 143). Brenz, it is true, records that the Emperor slept for a half hour during the reading of the Confession (C. R. II, 245) Ä which, by the way, he is also supposed to have done during the reading of the Confutatio. But Jonas, the only Protestant theologian present, wrote to Luther: "Satis attentus erat Caesar," i.e., the Emperor was sufficiently attentive. In the same letter (C. R. II, 66) he reported that the Bishop Stadion of Augsburg said in private conversation: "Everything that was read is the truth, the pure truth and we cannot deny it." The Bishop of Salzburg is also supposed to have said that he also desired a reformation of the Mass and freedom in matter of food and other traditions, but that a single "angelus" was to bring about such a reformation was intolerable. Melanchthon wrote that the Bavarian dukes were more quiet since they had heard the Confession (C. R. II, 145). Spalatin relates that Duke William, after the reading, remarked to Eck, "I have been told very differently regarding Luther's doctrine than what I have heard from their confession. You have also consoled me with the promise that it could be refuted." To this Eck replied, "With the fathers I can refute it but not with Scripture. 112 Historical Introduction "Thereupon the Duke turned his back on Eck and walked away. According to another report he is supposed to have said, "So I understand that the Lutherans are sitm. _________________________________________________________________ This text was converted to ascii format for Project Wittenberg by Karen Janssen and is in the public domain. You may freely n to ë7â@s" câ@ssion grouping it with the Catechism as: "Catechismus, tabulae, Confessio Augustana mea." Compare the chapter "Luther's Share in the A. C." in my forthcoming "New Studies to the A. C." When we look back and consider the course of events from the Second Diet at Speyer to the day when the Augsburg Confession was presented, we can only thank God whose strong hand guided the whole development until the Lutheran estates were united, not in a political federation but a confessional union. And while thinking of the Confession itself, in which they joined, and remember the timidity, short-sightedness and selfishness which so often blocked the way, then we can only praise God that he overcame these hindrances. And above all do we thank Him that in the Augsburg Confession we have a testimony of divine truth, which although not free from shortcomings, is nevertheless truly biblical in its contents and remarkably clear and simple in its form. _________________________________________________________________ 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. Ë<@s" c@ssion grouping it with the Catechism as: "Catechismus, tabulae, Confessio Augustana mea." Compare the chapter "Luther's Share in the A. C." in my forthcoming "New Studies to the A. C." When we look back and consider the course of events from the Second Diet at Speyer to the day when the Augsburg Confession was presented, we cans" confession grouping it with the Catechism as: "Catechismus, tabulae, Confessio Augustana mea." Compare the chapter "Luther's Share in the A. C." in my forthcoming "New Studies to the A. C." When we look back and consider the course of events from the Second Diet at Speyer to the day when the Augsburg Confession was presented, we can only thank God whose strong hand guided the whole development until the Lutheran estates were united, not in a political federation but a confessional union. And while thinking of the Confession itself, in which they joined, and remember the timidity, short-sightedness and selfishness which so often blocked the way, then we can only praise God that he overcame these hindrances. And above all do we thank Him that in the Augsburg Confession we have a testimony of divine truth, which although not free from shortcomings, is nevertheless truly biblical in its contents and remarkably clear and simple in its form. _________________________________________________________________ This text was converted to ascii format