BX 8068 .A3 1851 Lutheran Church. The Christian Book concord of THE CHRISTIAN BOOK OF CONCOED OR SYMBOLICAL BOOKS OF THE* EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN CHURCH; \ COMPRISING THE THREE CHIEF SYMBOLS, THE UNALTERED ATTGSBXJRG CONFESSION, THE APOLOGY, THE ARTICLES OF SMALCALD, LUTHER's SMALLER AND LARGER CATECHISMS, THE FORM OF CONCORD, AN APPENDIX, AND ARTICLES OF VISITATION. TO WHICH IS PREFIXED AN HISTORICAL, IISTROD UCTIOÄ TRANSLATED FROM THE GERMAN. NEWMARKET : PUBLISHED BY SOLOMON D, HENKEL AND BRS. 1851. Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year lS51j by S. D. HENKEL & BRS., In the Clerk's Office of the District Court of the United Stales for tue Western District of Virginia. I PREFACE. The Book of Concord, comprising the Symbols of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, has as yet enjoyed but a limited circulation in the United States. Wrapped in the obscurities of its original dialects, — the Latin and German languages, — that venerable relic of the Refor- mation has been left to slumber almost entirely in silence and neglect. Numerous causes have contributed to prolong this neglect. The de- scendants of German emigrants in America, have never cultivated the language and literature of their fathers with due interest ; many of them are unable to read German ; while many, able to read, and occupying exalted stations, have never manifested a laudable zeal for the doctrines of the church. The most obvious cause, however, seems to be, that the larger portion of Lutherans in America, are accustomed to read the English language only, and conse- quently have never had an opportunity to appreciate the value of their Symbols. Yet we cherish the anticipation of a brighter day in the Luth- eran church. In a land of freedom, of science and art, where the generous spirit of political wisdom encourages the exer- cise of reason, and guards the decisions of conscience ; where indus- try, energy, and enterprise, though daily attaining fresh prospects of future improvement, are continually unburying the sacred treasures of the past ; we believe that the doctrines of our church will ulti- mately be reclaimed, and that men of our western clime will enter into the investigation of these doctrines with all the avidity natural to a love for the truth. That these doctrines and these principles of im- mutable truth, are congenial with the tastes and feelings of the Amer- ican mind, we may fearlessly deduce from recent facts. Within the last few years, the Book of Concord and Luther's House-Sermons have been reprinted in this country ; and several of Luther's works have lately been translated into the English language, and circulated extensively. It was, therefore, reasonable to presume, that a faithful translation of the Book of Concord into the English language, was loudly de- manded by the necessities of the times, and would eflectually co- operate with these laudable exertions. Pnrtinl translations indeed iv PREFACE. of the Augsburg Confession had been made at different times ; but it had never been fully rendered into English until 1831, when a trans- lation was completed by the Rev. Charles Henkel, assisted by professor Smith, of Columbus Seminary, Ohio ; and several small fragments from the Book of Concord, were subsequently translated by others. At the urgent solicitation of many zealous members of the church, we announced, Oct. 9, 1845, our resolution to procure a correct En- glish version of the entire work, and publish it as soon as practica- ble. Since that period no time or labor has been spared to fulfil our promise. We have had to engage the talents not only of men familiar with the Lutheran doctrine, as well as with the German and English lan- guages, but, in consequence of the obsolete style in which the Ger- man copy of this work wms originally written, we have constantly had recourse to men who were able to consult the Latin copy when- ever it was requisite. And here we feel bound in justice to the in- dustry and valuable abilities of those who contributed their friendly aid, to specify the several portions furnished by each. The Augsburg Confession, the Apology, the Articles of Smalcald, the Appendix, and the Articles of Visitation, in a version purely lit- eral, were furnished by the Rev. Ambrose and Socrates Henkel. The Larger Catechism was translated, in the same manner, by the Rev. J. Stirewalt ; the Epitome by the Rev. H. Wetzel ; and the Declaration by the Rev. J. R. Moser. The Smaller Catechism was copied mainly from the translation by the Rev. Daa^d Henkel, published in 1827. Much assistance in reviewing the proof- sheets throughout the publication of the w^ork, was rendered by Joseph Salyards, principal of the New Market Academy, who has lonor cultivated the studv of science and general literature: and he likewise furnished translations of all the prefaces, from the Latin» and of the Historical Introduction, from the German. All these translations when collected, were carefully compared with the original by the Rev. Ambrose Henkel, and aflerwards, with the exception of the Historical Introduction and the prefaces, were revised, transcribed, and prepared for the press by the Rev. Socrates Henkel. We have derived considerable assistance, too, in the progress of the work, from the Rev. L. Eichelberokr. The principal translations were made from the German edition of 1790, published at Leipsic: and, being favored by the Rev. C\ F. Krauth, with a copy of the original German Dresden edition of 1580, we were enahlcil 1() {•ompiirp them with thai also. Th»^ IjUtw. PREFACF., V copy, to which uniform reference was made in comparing ihe trans- lations, was that published by Hase in 1846 ; and from this the pre- faces were all translated. Whenever the German copy presented insuperable obscurities, recourse w^as also had to this edition in nu- merous passages. The Appendix was taken from the German and Latin edition published by Müller, printed at Stuttgard, 1843, from which the Historical Introduction was also translated. Deeming it most compatible with the nature of the work, — the subjects being chiefly of a didactic and doctrinal character, — we have endeavored throughout to preserve as just and uniform a medium as possible, between a translation purely literal, and one which admits all the freedom and elegance of English composition. We have la- bored to be faithful, and yet not to offend the fastidious ear. We have been anxious to preserve the serious tone and spirit of the pi- ous original. But, as imperfection is the fate of all human efforts, the candid reader will no doubt discover many inaccuracies. Any friendly suggestion, therefore, pointing out such defects, will be re- ceived with gratitude, and enable us to render a second edition more worthy of an intelligent public. May our labors be the instrument, in the hands of Providence, for promoting an acquaintance with the Book of Concord, the norm of all genuine Lutherans since 1580, and for extending the doctrine;^ faught by the illustrious Reformer I THE PUBLISHERS. Newmarket, Shenandoah, Va., July 4th, 1851. RE:;, h^ TESQI : Mm CONTENTS. HisTOEiCAL Introduction, - - - Mandate of Christian II., - - - - - Preface to the Book of Concord, - - - THE THREE CHIEF SYMBOLS, - I. The Apostolical Confession or Symbol, II. The Nicene Confession or Symbol of Faith, III. The Athanasian Confession, . . _ THE UNALTERED AUGSBURG CONFESSION Address to the Emperor, Charles V., - - . Articles of Faith and Doctrine, . _ . Article I. Of God, - - 20 « II. Of Original Sin, - " " III. Of the Son of God, - 21 « IV. Of Justification, page IX 1 13 14 17 m from th^ir supreme control ; but in all simplicity it arranges itself under the Scriptures, looks up to them for every supply, as the glass does to th" fountain from which it is filled. Indep°ndent of, or in opposition to, the word of Ged, it is nothing. But this only th° church desires, that the conformity of her Symbol? of doctrine with the purity of Scripture, b'» acknowledged by those, who wish to b^ connect'ed with her, and to share th° advantae:°s of her society. Not that she would by the force of Symbols, impair the freedom of faith and con- science among her memb':>rs, but she wishes to guard that freedom in the proper manner. For she forces no one to subscribe to her doctrines, against his own in- ternal convictions, and she can nevr have a considerate adherent, who is unable to make h°r Confession his own. With this view, however, the church cannot con- struct h^r Symbols on so broad a basis, that in consequenc'=' of the d'=>finitions of her belief b-'ing as little confined by lim'ts as possible, there misrht be full room and play- ground for every one; but she must speak out with precision, what she b-'lieves, and Avhat she does not believe ; what doctrine she adopts as founded upon the word of God, and what doctrine she rei°cts, from the same airthority. Were she to act otherwise, she would make h°r^elf the rendezvous of all heretics, and be guilty of her OAvn destruction, (Book of Concord, page 510.) But a very important question is this: Are the doctrines of the Scripture con- tain'^d in the Symbols; is the Confession itself the true expression of divine, re- vealed Truth, or not? With this question they must stand or fall; and just as she herself desires an acknowledgment of her conformity with the Scriptures, so she must likewise give satisfaction to her opponents, setting aside all frivolous phrases about systems of Symbols, changes of Symbols, compunction of conscience, spirit- ual fetters, paper popery, &c., and requiring only a proof of their contradictions. " Our Symbols have been drawn from the venerable Apostolic Symbols, with care and precision, — especially the Epitome, the invaluable Form of Concord, — drawn indeed from the Scriptures themselves, founded as to their fundamental principles in immutable truth, and shall a mere error in opinion, then, be referred to and pointed out ?" We have examined with all possible diligence for something of this kind, but we ha\e found nothing, and we are em.boldened to challenge anj' opponent, who charges our Symbols with being independ'^nt authorities of faith, wishing to exalt INTRODUCTION. XV themselves even above the holy Scriptures, to furnish only a single reference in proof of his charge. We assume for our Symbols no claim of divine inspiration, — as they do not term themselves " divine writings," — we claim no divine authority, but merely an ecclesiastical authority, and we give them no preference above other Christian writings, except as expressing the authority of the church. We vaunt ourselves not in the vain boast that there may riot be found here and there some historical, literary, or other error in the formalities of expression, but this can never prove in- jurious to their authority, for that authority depends not upon these secondary, but upon far more important, considerations, and more especially upon those considera- tions which relate to a soul-saving faith; — " Our Symbolical Books are chargeable with no essential errors, and they continually agree with the doctrines of the holy Scriptures." A further objection has been urged against the authority of church Symbols, that the free exercise of opinion, and consequently the church itself, or the efficiency of the Holy Ghost in the church, is limited by them, as by an infallible rule of doctrine. But who can be so ignorant as to moan, that the operative power of the Holy Ghost can bs diminished or impaired by the feeble institutions of men? For it belongs to the Lord only to reveal a new path to salvation, and to erect his church on a foun- dation diffjjent from that upon which it has hitherto been standing ; and who would then dare to warn him, and say, " So fat shalt thou go and no farther ?" But now, we are well assured that the foundation upon whi/?h the church stands, is impreg- nable and eternal ; that wo are living in the latter times, when we are not to expect anew revelation. (Eph. 2, 20; 1 Cor. 3, 10; Gal. 1, 8; :tuke 16, 29 ; John 14, 6.) Indeed those who pronounce the authority of Symbols an obstacle to a free devel- opament of doctrine, exp?ct another revelation, not from the Spirit of God, but from their own spirit ; for this the}^ demand the liberty to frame a religion which may adapt itself to all the temporary fluctuations of their natural convictions. Not only the Symbols do they treat in this manner ; still more do they act in opposition to the word of God. They do not wish to expand their own comprehension, and ex- plain the divine manifestation of doctrine, but to set up a new, self-conceived doc- trine in its stead ; and thus it would come to pass, that, though they might be in the right, soon there' would no more be found one undivided system of faith, but as many systems as there are individuals. But in this way the church itself would soon cease to exist. She must therefore secure a necessary union by the establishment of Symbols. She does not depend, however, upon these, but upon the eternal power alone of the word of God. Hence delivering her Confession to the Diet at Augsburg, " An evidence of her faith and of her doctrines," she says, " And if any one should be found who has an objection to them, v.'e are ready to give him further information, with reasons from holy Writ," page 511. In the Form of Concord she confesses again, page 506 : " We embrace also that original and unaltered Confession; and we do this, not because it was ivritten by our theologians, but because it is drawn from the word of God, as the Symbol of our day;" likewise also, in the preface, page 3 : " As an evidence and expression of the faith of those who were living at the time, how they understood and explained the Scriptures, and how they refuted the doc- trines opposed to them." And Luther himself says in reference to the Augsburg Confession : " We shall hold on to it, until the Lord shall give us a better one." "Th3 church then does wish to claim for her Symbols an immutable power; she yields whenever any one shall point out an obvious defect; she finds it merely a temporary expression other faith; she reserves to herself expressly the privilege to improve them, to complete, or to extend, as occasional necessity may require. But she would not here be understood as speaking in reference to the doctrines tliey contain, or In refr-renc;; to the principles, but merely of the form and phrase- XVI HISTORICAL ology under which those doctrines are brought before the public eye. But she doej.' not encourage the opinion that a time will or may come, when the faith which she professes, must be abandoned, as false, or as insufficient for salvation. On the whole, she now avows her resolution to hold fast this faith, and therefore, through divine permission, she will resolutely maintain the divine truth once ac- knowledged and delivered at Augsburg, 1530. Every step of progress upon the foundation of this faith, every thing that can contribute to a better explanation and defence of it, to a clearer manifestation of its truth, to a more effectual opposition to the errors arrayed against it, is entitled to all gratitude as a rich acquisition, as an evidence of the lasting operation of the Holy Ghost in the congregation of Christ ; but an explanation of doctrine, by which the doctrine itself would be changed or abolished, the church utterly denounces. To an enlargement of the structure, by which the very basis of truth would be re- moved, even indeed undermined, she extends not her hand. Her system is pre- pared ; it rests upon an immovable foundation ; and now whoever wishes to dwell with her in this building, and wishes to contribute something in his own way, to its security, its utility, or its beauty, that man is welcome. But this objection also will be made against the lasting effect of church Symbols : Will not deplorable divisions among Christians be as it were perpetuated, and that union so earnestly desired of the separate denominations, especially the Lutheran and Reformed churches, be ultimately prevented ? Wasserschieben is altogether right in the assertion, that the Symbolical books hitherto existing, are totally in- compatible with any such union; for excommunications and condemnations must necessarily lose their signilicancy, if the separate divisions unite themselves again ; and when, in opposition to doctor Ribbeck, he says : " How can the objector main- tain, that there will be no longer a Lutheran or a Reformed member, and still hold fast to the principles of both, to the separate Symbolical books of both? Have these lost their peculiarity, their exclusive character distinguishing them from other denominations, presenting doctrinal distinctions entirely unessential ? Then indeed there can be no obstacle to a union internal and durable." We confess that any one bears the Christian name unmerited, who does not from the bottom of his heart desire this durable internal union of the separate denominations ; in- deed we are convinced, from John 10, 16, that the Lord in due time will bring about this desirable union. But he only can effect it. If men form a union; if especially the civil authorities take this object in hand, evil results must necessa- rily follow, as we may readily learn by examining the institutions of our time ; that such a union as does not satisfactorily reconcile existing contradictions, but only covers them over, will really be no union at all in spirit, and therefore can possess no durability, but will only create mischievous schisms. This is the pri- mary evil of all recent attempts at union ; — that men will repose, with religious indifference, more or less, on the strength of their alliances, without which the effort would never come to a conclusion ; that in view of historic truth, from which they might always deriye invaluable benefits, they shut their eyes and say, no dif- ferences exist ; they anticipate the natural course of things, and only cause com- motions ; they draw the church out of the path pointed out by the Lord, and in- troduce her into one constructed by men, which therefore can never lead her to her proper destiny. What benefit is it to say, " there is no contradiction any longer," if contradictions still exist ? to say " they are subdued," when they are prevailing all around ? Let us observe these differences closely, and learn to in- terpret their meaning ; let us pay due attention to history, and form a correct esti- mate of every confession ; for by union-making no advantage can be gained, but each denomination must lose. But there should be a proper reference not only to the incongrultif^'^ of confessions, but their correspondence also. Whoever regards INTRODUCTION. XVII both sides in the right spirit of wisdom, — love and truth, — will most effectually contribute to hasten and promote an endless union in spirit and in truth. 6. The Authority of church Symbols gives ihem also their Binding Force, especi- ally in relation to those who perform the official duties of the church. The church must indeed make their conformity with her ideas of doctrine laid down in her Sym- bols a condition, under which alone they can be received into her communion, and so she must naturally desire this conformity more definitely still of those who wish to become her servants. In section third we have alluded to the reasons for this desire. We here enforce this necessity by the additional consideration of the ob- ligation imposed by church Symbols. We maintain that the church will generally be in the right, if she requires her ministers to acknowledge the authority of her Symbols, and declare themselves unequivocal supporters of the Symbols. This is to be done by formal oath, by the tinion of hands, by a written article, or by verbal stipulation ; for the church has full power to prescribe to those, who wish to become her servants, as the ministers of truth, in express terms the manner they have to act. Now the form of expla- nation, indeed, may seem irrelevant, yet this is not the case with the sense, for it should be definitely and clearly expressed, upon what the church is founded, — the acknowledgment of the conformity of her Symbols with the Scriptures, in every thing relating to opinion ; and this expression, lecause also, — not indeed so far as they wish to acknowledge this conformity, but heca^tse they wish to regulate them- selves in the church by her directions. This requisition can be assented to only by such a one as feels internally convinced that the church Symbols are adequate expressions of the doctrines of the Scripture, that they have grown out of the word of God, and conform in all essential points v\'ith it. If these convictions exist, the obligation imposed by the Symbols is neither a fetter to the spirit, nor a burden to the conscience; if they do not exist, ho naturally cannot become a minister of the church, not in consequence of the obligation, but from the impossibility of admis- sion to the office. For the church has not only the right, but also the duty, to in- vestigate the religious convictions of eveiy member, who wishes to become her servant. She must, so far as it is possible, probe his conscience, as to determine whether he will be for her, or against her; whether he will gather with her, or scatter abroad. It is indeed more than natural, to desire an office in the church and, at the same time, freedom and privilege, not only to desire a different doc- trine from that which the church professes, to preach under its authority and power, but also to dare, for this is a necessary consequence, to war against the doctrines of the church, to represent them as false, and finally to pervert them entirely. Whoever assumes an office, be it in the state or in the church, assumes the addi- tional obligation of discharging the necessary duties of that office, together with the surrender of a portion of his personal liberty. He acts in the capacity of self- abasement. Indeed an unlimited, abstract state of freedom in a society with other men, independent of any social obligation, is utterly impossible. But some one may say, that the obligation imposed by Symbols makes hypo- crites, without being of any advantage to the v/hole ; for the church cannot guard with sufficient vigilance the observance of these imposed obligations. Just as men even now discover, so it is in every thing to be feared ; it is natural to man, to hold on to a desirable office, to yield his assent to something, of which he is not con- vinced, or which he is not Vvdlling to maintain. But is this the fault of the church ? " The church must not judge of secrets." She cannot see into the heart of any man ; sTie must believe of every man, so long as his opposition remains concealed, that he means what he speaks. The state imposes an obligation upon her servants also, to discharge their functions, not according to their own opinions, but accord- ing to her positive advancement. If they do not do this, they break their oath; c XVIU HISTORICAL they betray the state : so she takes back this violated authority again, and no one is surprised at it. Should the church only allow every one of her servants the lib- erty to distort and to expand her fundamental doctrines to wider limits, and still retain the unfaithful incumbent in office and in honor; yes, advance him further and further, only to turn against herself the weapon which she had given him for her protection and defence? And all this affects the church infinitely more than similar conduct does the state. It affects the salvation other members; and she has to render an account in future, how she has observed, or how she has neglected this duty. Another enquiry is this, — How shall the church act towards desponding natures, who in all candor of disposition have been drawn into doubts ? The church, with her counsel, takes them by the hand ; she admonishes them to search for the truth, with prayer for the illumination of the Holy Spirit, and only not to let their doubts have an influence upon their official labors. Thus she regards these doubts as the natural result of human weakness and infirmity, because she has the power to overcome them, and because she knows, that a real experience of doubt, is ever followed, in due time, by additional light from the Lord, from which every doubt immediately vanishes. The church conducts and regulates these difficulties, not by the arts of political authority, but in the spirit of meekness ; she does not break, but she heals ; she does not enforce her penalties on this hand and on that, but she soothes and conciliates; and she dismisses from her service that man only, who has already been admonished with all her understanding and all her strength. But says one, " The obligation imposed by church Symbols should be at least subordinate, for they have no effect in preventing a single deviation or transgres- sion." From the same reasoning, we should have to abrogate all laws divine and human, they too being transgressed and violated every day. The church does exactly what her duty demands ; she institutes her obligations and she exer- cises her vigilance, over him who acknowledges that he needs the sanction of her obligations. In this way she regulates her own government, she exercises a su- pervision over her servants, by means of her established organs. Beyond this, whatever remains concealed, she subm.its to the disposal of the Lord, for her in- terest is indeed no other than His own. INTRODUCTION. XIX PART II. Of the chief subjects in the Bool; of Concord. I. The three ecumenical or catholic Symbols. The ecumenical or catholic Symbols form the basis of church Symbols. The church has placed these as leading articles in the front part of the Book of Concor d, and of her peculiar Symbolic writings, adding her own to these, with the declara- tion that her Symbols are intended to introduce no new doctrine, but they should be regarded merely as a growing expansion of the earliest Confession of the church, by historic explanations of the diversified relations of the church. To the same effect Luther asserts in his writings, that the three Symbols or Con- fessions of faith in Christ, have been unanimously used in the church. " Al- though," he continues, "I have taught and written a great deal already concern- ing faith, what it is, and what it is able to accomplish, and have also submitted my confession to the public, what I believe and where I am determined to stand, yet I have in addition to this been willing to see the three Symbols, as we usually term them, or Confessions brought before the world in the German language, — Confessions which have, up to the present time, been maintained, read, and sung in the whole church ; and at the same time I here testify that I hold with the true Christian church, which has as yet continued to maintain these Symbols or Con- fessions, and not with the false Romish church, which is the bitterest enemy to the true church, and which has introduced many idolatries by the side of these beautiful Confessions." In this sense also they are named in the Form of Con- cord, (Epitome, page 465) : " And as, immediately after the time of the Apostles, and even while they were yet living, false teachers and heretics insinuated them- selves, against whom Symbols, that is, short, plain confessions, were drawn up in the first churches, and these were unanimously held as the universal Christian faith and confession of the orthodox and true churches, namely, the Apostolic Symbol, the Nicene Symbol, and the Athanasian Symbol ; we acknowledge these, and hereby reject all heresies and doctrines, which, contrary to these, have been in- troduced into the church of God." So the Declaration likewise refers to them, page 506, characterizing them as the " three catholic and general Symbols of high authority;" and in reference to that treatise of Luther's called " The three chief Symbols or Confessions of Christian faith, unanimously used in the church," they were introduced into the Book of Concord. They were called ecumenical or catholic Symbols, and indeed first called so, within our knowledge, in the Lutheran church, because they originally obtained and enjoyed the most general acknowledgment and influence in the church above other confessions, and have been regarded always as the truest and purest expres- sion of the doctrines of the church. Hence they possessed too high a value to re- quire the addition of particular Symbols, which had been attached to them, and then were rejected ; as Hutter (1) says in reference to this matter : " Those Sym- bols, such as the three ecumenical Symbols, which had been approved by the unanimous consent of the whole catholic church, obtained far greater authority than those which were received by the judgment and approbation of some particu- lar churches." For these general Confessions had for their object the secure pre- servation of the unity and purity of the church. A Sym.bol of concord, on the other hand, should express the conformity of views between the minister and his «everal congregations or provincial churches. These ecumenical Sym.bols will be reviewed in the following order : (1) Comp'^nd. loc. 1, Qu. 15. XX HISTORICAL A. The Apostolic Symbol. B. The Nicene. C. The Athanasian. In the discussion of each of these will be considered — 1. Its Appellation and Origin. 2. Its Nature and Design. 3. Its Importance in the regulation of the church ; from which we inay learn in what relation they stand to each other, and to the Confessional writings of the Lutheran church. A. — The Apostolic Symbol. 1. Its Appellation and Origin. — The Apostolic Symbol, by its very name refers back to the times of the Apostles. For, though it cannot be proved that it was composed and published by the Apostles, still it reaches back to the earliest times, and stands in perfect harmony with the doctrines of the Apostles, (Acts 2, 42.) There has always been an opinion, that as we have to thank the Apostles for the name, so we ought likewise to thank them for the origin of this Symbol ; and in- deed it has been asserted that the Apostles composed it, either before their mis- sion among the Gentiles, in obedience to the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, or about the time of the persecution by Herod, — that this inference may be drawn from the Acts of the Apostles, 12, and that it was composed not only as a bond of union, but also for the purpose of having a general summary of doctrine and rule of faith. Per- sons attached to this opinion would find a reference to our Symbol in several places of the Apostolic writings, as John 10 ; Heb. 5, 12 ; Rom. 12, 6 ; 2 Tim. 1, 14. Indeed they have described the very mode and manner, in which the Apostles composed it, and the share which each of them had in the work. In the year 390, Ruffinus (1) says: "All, therefore, convened, and being filled with the Holy Ghost, they com- posed, for themselves as we say, that brief formulary of future ministry, by compar- ing together what each believed, and resolved to commit it as a rule to believers." More definitely still is the author of the writing described in the " Sermons con- cerning the times," which were composed long after the time of Augustine, and inserted in the Benedictine edition of the spurious writings of Augustine (2). In the introduction he says : " That which is called a Symbol in Greek, in Latin is termed a collatio, or comparison of copies. It is called so, because the faith of the catholic law, mutually compared, is collected in a brief Symbol, the text of which we now declare to you, through the grace of God. Peter said, — ' I believe in God the Father Almighty;' John said, — 'The Creator of heaven and earth;' James said, — ' I believe also in Jesus Christ, his only-begotten Son, our Lord ;' Andrew said, — ' Who was conceived of the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary ;' Philip said, — ' Suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried ;' Thomas said, — ' Descended into hell ; on the third day arose from the dead ;' Bar- tholomew said, — ' Ascended to heaven ; sits at the right hand of God, the Father Almighty;' Matthew said, — ' From whence he shaH come to judge the living and the dead ;' James, the son of Alpheus, said, — ' I believe also in the Holy Spirit ; the holy catholic church;' Simon Zelotes said, — 'The communion of saints ; the remission of sins ;' Judas, the son of James, said, — ' The resurrection of the flesh ;' and Matthias completed the whole, by saying, — ' Eternal life. Amen.' " John Cassianus (3), Venantius Fortunatus (4), Isadore of Spain (T)), Wil- (1) Expositio in Symb. Apostolor. (2) Tom. V. opp. Num. 241, page 280. (3) de Incarn Domini, lib. VI. c. 3. (4) Expositiones breves Symbol! Apostolor, (.5) de divinis s. eccles. ofticies lib. II. INTRODUCTION. XXI liam Cave (1), no less than Hincmar of Rheims, and lastly Vaschasius Radbertus, unanimously declare the Apostles to be the authors of this Symbol. It was also a general belief in the Romish church that the Apostles had con- structed this Symbol, and that it was composed by them, by member and by arti- cle. This view was taken of it originally in the Lutheran church ; the Centuriator of Magdeburg adopts the opinion ; Selnecker, David Chytraus, Christopher Ireneus, DaiT. Cramer, all acknowledge themselves inclined to the same view ; and they supposed, even after the impression, of w'hich we shall speak hereafter, began to prevail, that this Symbol did not immediately proceed from the Apostles, that they could still unite, on the authority of its origin, the various divisions of the Protes- tant church. The Armenian, Christopher Sand, in his history of the church, countenances the apostolic origin of this Symbol, and he claims for it a precedence in time to the Nicene Symbol. The first opposition to this opinion arose in the Romish church itself; Laurence Valla, and after him Erasmus, who in the preface to Matthew, says: "1 do not know that it has been composed by the Apostles;" and he manfully maintains his assertion against the censures of the university of Paris. Dupin follows him, but above every writer of the Reformation, Rivetus, Thamier, Boetius, and especially John Gerh. Vossius, and the English writers Bingham, John Pearson, Peter King, and others. Among the theological writers of the Lutheran church, we notice first of all Luther himself, who does not express any definite opinion either for or against the apostolic origin of this Symbol ; but in his sermon on the Epistle, at the feast of Trinity (2), remarks : " We have neither made nor conceived this Confession, nor did the ancient Fathers ; but as the bee seeks her honey from nu- merous beautiful, airy flowers, so has this Symbol been collected from the books of the blessed Prophets and Apostles, that is, from the entire holy Scriptures, in a compendious form for children and illiterate Christians. For this reason a per- son may reasonably term it the Symbol or Faith of the Apostles ; for it is evident that no one can compose a better or more excellent one in so brief and clear a style. And the opinion has prevailed in the church, from ancient times, that ei- ther the Apostles composed it themselves, or it was collected by their best schools, from their writings or sermons." This peculiar view is elegantly illus- trated, in a pious and useful explication in his catechism by John Brentius: " Be- cause the composition of these articles by the twelve apostles, seems to depend more on tradition than unexceptionable authority, we follow that opinion which appears the more probable. For it is called the Apostolic Symbol, because it con- tains the epitome, the comjjendiitm, the snhstance of all apostolic doctrine, indeed, as Luther says above, of every treatise concerning God the Father, the Son, and Holy Spirit. Hence this Symbol ought justly to be regarded as a little bible con- veying a true knowledge of God. For there is abundance of internal evidence, that the articles, which in this Symbol have reference to Jesus Christ, were col- lected into this epitome from the first council, which Peter held on the day of Pen- tecost, the Apostles being present, and giving their approbation." Further arguments are urged against the authorship of the Apostles, as to this Symbol, by Texel, Buddeus, and Gotta. And though, indeed, if we regard the form which it now has, this Symbol may not have been composed by the Apostles themselves, yet that the nature of the materials is apostolic, no protestant can deny. John Andrew Quensted remarks that, "It is called Apostolic Symbol, not because it was framed by the Apostles themselves, (for it should be numbered among other canonical writings,) but because it was composed by apostolic men, who heard the (1) Historia litterar. scriptorum eccleseast. ('2) Church Postil, Ser. 9, page 29. XXU HISTORICAL Apostles themselves, and digested into its present form, not only from their wri- tings, but also from their oral councils." But it was not delivered to the church, in the words which it contains at present, until the fourth century after Christ. The form of this Symbol, both as to the words, as well as the connection and or- der of the articles, certainly doss not agree with the form either in the eastern or western churches, until the fourth century. The argumsnts which are employed against tho authorship of the Apostles, ^re the following : 1. The silence of the holy Scriptitres. Had the Apostles really been the authors of this Symbol, they would certainly have referred to it in their writings ; and as- suredly Luke, in the Acts of the Apostles, would not have disregarded so impor- tant a fact, since events of far less relative importance are there described. 2. The epial silence of the primitive church. The Fathers of the church, Ire- neus, Justin Martyr, Clemens Alexandrinus, Origen, TertuUian, Eusebius, Hilary, Cyril of Jerusalem, would surely have referred to this, even had it been merely as traditionary ; for it would have been a powerful weapon for them in their conflicts with the heretics. It is true Sixtus of Sienna says, that all the orthodox Fathers assert, that this Symbol was composed by the Apostles ; but he has forgotten to prove by proper authority his positive assertion. 3. The nature and import of this Symbol, in which many important articles of the Christian doctrine are passed over, and many are embraced in expiessions so general, that even persons could, and did receive it, who gave the words a different sense from that which the Apostles wish to imply. Had the Apostles really been the authors of this Symbol, as the rule of doctrine and of faith, they would cer- tainly have produced a more comprehensive and definite system. 4. The mimher and diversity of Symbols framed by synods and individual teach- ers of the church, and the confessions of the first centuries, which could not have occurred, had a Symbol existed which was sanctioned by apostolic authority. 5. The different revisions of the Symbol it-jelf, and the additions, which it evi- dently received from time to time ; and this could never have occurred, had it been recognised in the primitive church as having apostolic origin ; for in that case, al- terations in this Symbol would have no more been attempted than in the text of the holy Scriptures. G. T'he superscri-ption of this Symbol, characterizing it as apostolic, is not deci- sive. Superscriptions frequently do not specify the true author of a work, and in general they have no force, when it is not expressly mentioned from whom they originate. But if we admit that the appellation apostolic, originally and with jus- tice was applied to this Symbol, the same appellation might be understood in re- ference to the import or doctrine, just as w-ell as the Nicene Symbol is in reality frequently called apostolic on account of its doctrine. Besides, the usages of lan- guage prove the interchange of avfißoXov with collatio manifastly false. 7. The traditions of the clmrch likewise determine nothing, for they depend only upon Ruffinus, whose credibility Jerome has rendered very dubious, and upon the unknown author of a work concerning the times, attributed to Augustine. The latter is no evidence, and Rufhnus himself does not know how to introduce his in- formation in any other way than by saying: " Our Fathers have said," &c. 8. Finally, it will never do to assert, as the Roman authors Baronius, and others have asserted, in order to establish the tiaditions of the church, that the composi- tion of a Symbol by the Apostles was indispensable. Neither had the Apostles the necessity of such a bond of union, because they enjoyed the far more excellent bond of the Holy Ghost, nor was it necessary for the congregations, for these had the oral and written instructions of the Apostles. The necessity of such a rule of faith becam" far mor'"« indisp'^nsablo after tli-^ death of the Aposfl"".«, and in ronsi»- INTRODUCTION. XXlll quence of the ever increasing extension of the church, especially after the appear- ance of heresies, which disturbed the unity of the church. It is worthy of remark, that some have begun in modern times to ascribe the origin of this Symbol to the Apostles. G. E. Lessing seems determined to ascribe the verbal composition of the Symbol or rule of faith not only to the Apostles, but to Christ himself. Delbrick revives this opinion of Lessing, and says : " Whoever feels the interest of our church near his heart, must rejoice to discern, how the alleged expressions of the church Fathers agree, much to the gratification of Les- sing, in testifying decisively, that the church indeed of the first century received an infallible rule of faith immediately from Christ, as a fountain of immutable doc- trine, requiring no proof; and that the verbal and written communications of the Apostles and their successors, were only the effluences from the riches of this." J. C. Lindberg, in the Symbolical Books of the Danish church, published in Danish and Latin, 1830, endeavors to prove the assertion that the Apostolic Con- fession of faith should not be ascribed to the Apostles, entirely groundless and ra- dically false. Rudelback also boldly declares himself for the apostolic origin of this Symbol, while he suffers himself to hope a complete settlement of this con- troversy ; and indeed we should express our obligations anew to this excellent man, to whom the church owes so much, if by his means the question in this respect could be brought to a final decision. For if the apostolic character of this Sym- bol, and its adoption in the church from the earliest times, were indisputably se- cured by his explanation, no little would be gained in establishing the proof of its apostolic origin. The origin of this Symbol and the time of its production, Laurence Valla ascribes to the ecumenical council at Nice ; but Vossius on the contrary maintains that it was published by the leaders of the Romish church, an opinion with which J. H. Swicer coincides, but he places its first appearance in the second century. More especially, however, Spanheim feels assured, " that it is very probable the Symbol commonly called Apostolic was composed in the Roman church, very essential in this age of controversy as to its primary articles concerning God the Father, the Son, and Holy Spirit. The elements of the oriental Symbol were the same, used in the primitive eastern church before the council at Nice, and terminating in the article concerning the Holy Spirit." Hornbeck says in relation to this : " There was formerly in the primitive days of the church, a certain apostolic Symbol, — you may consider it to be that which is mentioned in Matthew 2S, — but our Sym- bol of twelve articles, never had the Apostles for its authors, nor had it their au- thority ; it was framed indeed a long time after the age of the Apostles, on various occasions, in opposition to various heresies, and for the support of this or of that article, which the Symbol we now possess has conveyed down to us, by what au- thor it is not known, because it was not composed by one author, or at one time." From the want of a more definite specification, the opinion has attained the greatest prevalency, that this Symbol was not completed by one person only, nor at one time, in that form in which we now employ it for the regulation of the church ; that it cannot, with complete certainty, be referred to, either in the ori- ental or in the western churches, before A. D. 400 ; and that its completion seems to fall in the sixth or seventh century. Lideed we find our text of this Symbol first published in the Greek Psalter of pope Gregory, according to which Usher makes quotations in his work on the ancient Apostolic Symbol of the Roman church. If any one would contend that the Symbol was first completed in the seventh century, because this manuscript belongs to that period, he would be as- serting too much. It is indisputably much older, and it existed in the church in the earliest times, not only in its leading principles, but in the far greater portion of its contents. This proves the origin of this Symbol among the Fathers of the XXIV HISTORICAL church. It is true that it does not stand complete in any of the works by the an- cient Fathers, a circumstance which is seriously to be regretted, but there is enough to show that its different parts were employed in their several writings. For, we ouo-ht never to forget that the Fathers did not wish to give a full relation of this Symbol in any corresponding passages of their works, but only so much as seemed necessary for the object in view. This is rendered sufficiently evident by a pas- sage in Cyprian's epistle to Magnus, to which we have already referred in assert- ing that the word Symbol was at first used for a Confession in Baptism. In that letter Cyprian makes the following remark : " This is a distinction which should prevent any one from saying, that to hold the same Novatian law, which the Catholic church holds, to baptize with the same Symbol with which we baptize, to acknowledge the same God the Father, the same Son Christ, the same Holy Spirit, enables him to usurp the same power of baptiz- ing which seems not to differ from us in the ceremony of baptism. Whoever feels inclined to oppose this, let him consider that the first rule of the Syvibol is not the same with us as with the Schismatics, nor is the interrogation the same. For when they ask, ' Do you believe the remission of sins and life everlasting by the holy church?' — they speak falsely in this interrogation, because they have no church. Besides they confess with their own lips, that the remission of sins can- not take place unless through the holy church, and, not possessing such church, they prove that the sins are not forgiven." So again in a similar passage to Fla- vianus, bishop of Constantinople, against the heresy of Eutychis, he demands : " How can any one acquire the necessary erudition in reference to the sacred pages of the New and of the Old Testament, who does not understand the begin- ning of his own Symbol? The sentiments which drop from the lips of all those about to be baptized, throughout the world, has not yet entered into the heart of this old man Eutychis. Ignorant, therefore, of what he ought to think of the in- carnation of the Word of God, nor wishing to labor in diffusing the light of intel- ligence in the full extent designed by the holy Scriptures, he has regarded, with anxious attention, that Confession, at least as ordinary and imprudent, by which all the faithful profess to believe in God the Almighty, and in Jesus Christ, his only-be- gotten Son, our Lord, who was born of the Holy Spirit, and of the Virgin Mary ; by which three expressions the schemes of almost all the heretics are destroyed." Very remarkable too appears a passage in the epistle of Ignatius to Trallianus : " Be ye deaf, then, when any one shall preach to you, without the authority of Jesus Christ, who was of the family of David, of the Virgin Mary ; who was truly begotten, triüy delivered up to Pontius Pilate, was truly crucified and died ; who also was truly raised from the dead, — his Father raising him." Although we do not find this passage introduced into any work upon our Symbol, yet we believe it demands peculiar attention on account of its tenderness, especi- ally in the words, " was delivered to Pontius Pilate," and then again, " was cru- cified," (^i?,Lidx<)V ^""^ £ttaDpu>ö;j.) Who does not feel the vigorous style of the Apostles running througli the whole ? In connection with the form of baptism naturally came the confession at bap- tism, in reference to which, the applicant for baptism was furnished with instruc- tion through the administration of that ceremony. For this contained the fundamental article of Christian faith, on which instructions of every kind are made to depend-. TertuUian calls this system, "the Christian sacrament and substance of the New Testament ;" other Fathers call it the " Canon of Truth ;" — "the ancient token of the church;" — "the rule of truth;"— "the tradition of truth;" — "the ministry, the heraldry, the faith of the church;" — "the legal, Catholic faith;" — " the 'sacrament of faith;" " the pure tradition ;" and simply, -'• the faith," " the rule," "the truth," always referring it to' the Apostles. IXTRüDUCTIüN. XXV 2. Nature and Design of this tSymhol. — An examination ol' its Aature proves, that the Apostolic Symbol was an expansion of the form of baptism, but not an explanation of the whole Christian system, constructed for the purpose of instrucr tion. It is therefore defective in many important points, — as, in reference to the unbounded grace of God, — the merit of Christ, — the personal union of the natures in Christ, and in consequence the conditional communion of attributes, — the in- fluence of the Holy Ghost, — the origin and the nature of sin, — ^justification by faith, — conversion and regeneration, — the means of grace, and many other subr jects. And who, upon these points, can discern a want of Symbols ? The Nature of this Symbol determines its Design. It was a confession at baptism, and as such, as is evident from its very character, it could represent not so well the whole system, as the historical facts of the Gospel, which are the groundwork of faith. Hence the object of a Symbol is to ascertain and explain the rule of faith or of truth in the church, which, fixing upon the words of the Symbol the definition ofthat rule, accommodates and unfolds the whole scheme of Christian confession to catechumen. The text of this Symbol was committed to the applicant a short time before baptism, with the admonition to commit it to memory ; for on the one hand, it was to be secured from the profane by the secrecy of this method, and guarded against all profanation, to be dreaded by too general a publicity ; and on the other hand, the new Christian was instructed by way of Symbols or signs, that it should be his first duty, to make the Symbol, by one invariable mode, his own, as Augustine remarks : " In order that you may retain the words of the Sym- bol, you ought by no means to write, but to learn them by hearing, nor to write them down, when you shall have learned them, but always to keep and retain them in your memory. For whatever you are about to hear contained in the Sym- bol, is contained in the divine writings of the holy Scriptures. But that which has been thus collected and reduced into a certain form, should not be written, and it serves to remind us of the promise of God, when predicting the New Testament through the Prophet, he said, Jer. 31, 33 : ' This is my covenant,' &c. For the pur- pose of suggesting this passage, the Symbol is learned by hearing, nor is it written upon tables or upon any substance, but upon the heart." And Jerome says to the same effect : " The Symbol of our faith and our hope, which was written by the Apostles, not upon paper and v/ith ink, but in the fleshly tables of the heart, — hence the Greek Fathers frequently call it •ro ,na9ri,ua." The delivery of this Symbol to young persons before baptism, corresponded with the return which they were required to make of it. When they had committed it to memory, they were required to rehearse it in the first place to their catechets, and afterwards to acknowledge it publicly before the whole congregation, and es- p3cially at baptism, to answer verbally fjom the Symbol the questions put to them upon the particular articles, of which the Öuotation from Cyprian given above, and many others from the Fathers are abundant evidence, and likewise according to what Tertullian says in his treatise concerning the origin of Baptismal rites : " After this, let us be immersed three times, making a greater number of answers than the Lord has pointed out in the Gospel." And thus the knovvledge of the Symbol and of the Lord's Prayer was the least of that which the church required of those who "wished to become her members ; while they, in consequence of the regulation, that those who were destitute of this knowledge should not be allowed the privilege of becoming sponsors, (for it was the duty of the sponsor to direct his god-son or god-daughter in the knowledge of the Creed,) or to enjoy the privilege of communion, but to be subjected to the rigor of canonical laws, these, I say, were bound to secure the preservation of this Sym- bol. Members at their confirmation also, were required to rehearse the baptismal confession, so that this rehearsal by those vt-ho had received the rite of baptism D XXVI HISTORICAL when children, might serve instead of the recitation usually made in other cases at baptism. The evangelical church has connected this rehearsal of the Symbol with the confirmation of members, and she considers a knowledge of the Symbol an indispensable attainment for the Christian. Now, in the commencement, the Design of the Symbol was exclusively inter- nal, when the knowledge and the use of it was first applied to the mysteries of the church, and it still should be reasonable that this Symbol continue a defence to the Christian against the injurious attacks of heretics, who will never cease their assaults from without. We shall, indeed, no more refer to the purely external view of Samuel Basnage and others, according to which each of the twelve arti- cles of the Symbol, into which it was originally divided, through the fond belief that every particular article was constructed by one of the twelve apostles — every word indeed was supposed to be directed against some particular heresy ; but still we shall have to observe a reference to heretical doctrines as connected with the design of this Symbol. As heresies are directed against the prosperity of the church, this Symbol must naturally be brought into conflict with them, and it will serve as a shield to every true confessor. In this conviction, we should be perfectly satisfied if any one shall say to us : " The second article, — ' the almighty Creator of heaven and earth,' — is directed against the Gnostics ; the fourth, — ' con- ceived of the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary,' — is against the heretical opin- ions of Ebion, Cerinthus, and others, who denied the supernatural conception of Christ, as it is against Jovinian, who denied the undefiled virginity of Mary after the birth of the Lord, indicated by the expression, ' A virgin conceived, but a virgin did not bring forth;' the fifth, — 'suffered under Pontius Pilate and was buried,' — is against Menander, Cerdon, Saturninus, and others, who believe only in an apparent body of Christ ; the sixth, — ' descended into hell,' — is against the Arians, the Eunomians, and especially against the Apollinarians; the seventh, — ' ascended to heaven, sits at the right hand of God the almighty Father,' — is against Apelles and his followers ; the eighth, — ' from whence he shall come to judge the world,' — is against Marcian, Cerdon, the Valentinians, the Basilidians, the Carpocratians, and others ; so too the tenth article, — ' of the communion of saints, and the remission of sins, '^-is against the Donatists, and against the Mon- tanists and Novatians ; finally, the eleventb, — ' of the resurrection of the body,' — is against the opponents of that doctrine." But to be convinced that to suppose- this Symbol composed against these heresies, and for no other purpose, — to suppose t'.iat heresy was the sole cause of its origin, does actually refer its composition to' an object entirely external, we need only remember the remarkable expression of Rudelback : " There is a conclusion forever infallible, — the Truth which was manifested in Christ, was first, and the lies came hobbling after it." For the purpose of affording a brief view of the important diversities of text,- which appear in existing copies of this Symbol, we shall give some examples^ from the atlmirable Library of the Symbol by Hahn. 1. The Roman form of the Sym.bol according to Ruffinns : ''1 believe in God" the Father almighty ; and in Jesus Christ, his only-begotten Son, our Lord. Who- was born of the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary, crucified under Pontius Pilate,, and buried ; on the third' day he arose from the dead, ascended into heaven, sits at the right hand of the Father ; from whence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead. And in the Holy Spirit, the holy church, the remission of sins, the re- surrection of the body." 2. Confession of the Faith by Marcellus of Ancyra : " I believe in God almightv, and in Jesus Christ his only-begotten Son, our Lord, who was born of the Holy Ghost and of the Virgin Mary, who was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and bu- ried, and on the third day arose from the dead, ascended into heaven,, and sits at INTRODUCTION. XXVU the right hand of the Father, from whence he will come to judge the quick and the dead; and in the Holy Ghost, the holy church, the remission of sins, the re- surrection of the body, and life everlasting." 3. A Greek Formula, from a manuscript of the eighth century, according to Jacob Usher : " I believe in God the Father almighty, and in Christ Jesus, his only-begotten Son, our Lord, who was born of" &c., — "and in the Holy Ghost, the holy [church], the remission of sins, the resurrection of the body, Amen." 4. A Latin Formula, from a manuscript of the seventh or eighth century, ac- cording to the same authority. (The verbal errors must be set to the account of transcribers) : " I believe in God the Father almighty, and in Christ Jesus, his only-begotten Son, our Lord, who was born of the Holy Ghost and of the Virgin Mary, who was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and was buried; on the third day he arose from the dead, ascended into heaven, sits at the right hand of the Father, from whence he will come to judge the quick and the dead. And in the Holy Ghost, the holy church, the remission of sins, and the resurrection of the body." 5. This Form, — abridged for the Liturgy, — is according to the Sacramentarium of Gelasius. Hahn, with great reason, believes this form to be the original one : '•I believe in God, the Father almighty, and in Jesus Christ, his only-begotten Son, our Lord, who was born and who suffered ; and in the Holy Ghost, the holy church, the remission of sins, the resurrection of the body." 6. Text transcribed from the Greek Psalter of pope Gregory, according to Usher- " I believe in God the Father almighty, maker of heaven and earth. And in Chrisi Jesus, his only-begotten Son, our Lord, who was conceived of the Holy Ghost, born ■of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried, descended into hell, on the third day arose from the dead, ascended into heaven, sits at the right hand of God, the Father almighty, from whence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead. I believe in the Holy Ghost, the holy ca- tholic church, the communion of saints, the remission of sins, the resurrection of the body, and life everlasting. Amen." 7. Aquilenian Form of the Symbol, according to Ruffmus : "I believe in God the Father almighty, invisible and impassive; and in Christ Jesus, his only-begot- ten Son, our Lord, who was born of the Holy Ghost, of the Virgin, was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and was buried, descended into hell, on the third day he arose from the dead, ascended into heaven, sits at the right hand of the Father : from whence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead. And in the Holy Ghost. The holy church, the remission of sins, the resurrection of the body." 3. The Atrthority and Significancy of this Symbol. — ^That the church from the earliest times ascribed the highest importance and significancy to the Apostolic Symbol, is incontestable. A manifest proof of this is, its careful concealment in the first century. And then the use which the church made of it as a general bap- tismal confession, at the communion table, and generally in divine service ; but more especially the fact, that she made it an integral part of the Catechism, as an introduction to her own doctrines and instructions. Nor is its importance any less in our own times, since we make not only a nominal use of it, but have to observe it, since the Reformation, as a bond by which the protestant churches are to be held together. Though we should hope and strive for a union founded upon the efficacy of this Symbol, as Calixtus, Laterman, Dreyer, and others wish to see, it is sufficiently discussed in those critical controversies, and with reason denied. It is true in- deed, that "if not all the articles of faith are contained in it with formal and de- finite distinction," still they can all be deduced from it, implicitly, virtually, and by an easy inference, as a necessary consequence ; and it shows us the history of ■the Christian system of doctrine, iiow soon the church saw it necessary to estab- XXVlll HISTORICAL lish the apostolic creed or a broader explanation of this Symbol. And the fact too, that heretics themselves employed this Symbol as their confession of faith, and drew from it the same interrogatories as the orthodox church, which they put to those about to be baptized, proves incontestably, that it is not improper for the church to guard well the union and purity of her faith in her temporal relations. This double import of this Symbol ever continues to be at once a bond of union to the whole Christian church, and the rudiments out of which the other Symbols are formed ; and if in our days, fallen as it seems in utter confusion, so ill-founded an opposition has arisen against the efficacy and use of this Symbol in the church, we may deplore the new symptoms of disease, in the unbounded strifes and efforts of visionary minds, and renounce every claim, every argument for the evidences of truth which holds this only to be " the original and infallible Christian Sym- bol," continuing at the same time to be Christians and members of the Christian church, — yes, even in the discharge of high functions, and delivering our instructions from the remarkable and complete confusion of ideas which is prevalent in this gen- eration. We may here, however, introduce the w'ords of Ireneus, from his work written in opposition to the heretics : '• The church has employed the same pro- clamation, and the same faith ; although that church is dispersed into all parts of the woi-ld, it watches with the same vigilance as if occupying but one house, and preserves the same uniformity of faith, as if it had but one soul and one heart, pro- claiming these truths, teaching and imj)arting instruction, as if it vrere collected and framed into one body." B. — Tae Ni.csm Syuihol. 1. Its Appellation and Origin. — This Symbol derives its name from the first general church-council, held at Nice in Bithynia, where the bishops of Europe, Asia, and Africa assembled in obedience to the summons of Constantine the Great, in the year 318, in order to restore the peace of the church, agitated by the heresy of Arius. Here the necessity immediately presented itself, to secure the elements of Christian faith, contained in the Apostolic Symbol, by a new Form of doctrine unanimously agreed upon, and calculated to compose impending controversies, and in addition to this, to determine, with due care and accuracy, the meaning of some passages in the Apostolic Symbol, under the color of which Arius might insinuate his false opinions. For Arius did not refuse to acknowledge the Apostolic Symbol with the rest of the church, but always understood it in a sense widely different from that of the orthodox church. Hence arose his separation from the church, and at the same time a reason for the differences betvv^een the Nicene and the Apostolic creeds. This Confession of Faith was adopted at Nice, and afterwards by the second Ecumenical council held at Constantinople in 381 ; and in proportion to relative passages which this church-council had introduced, it was increased by additions directed against the heresies which had arisen since the council at Nice. In the form which it now assumed, it obtained universal influence in the church, and it was afterwards distinguished by the peculiar appellation, the Nicene-Constanti- nopolitan Symbol. The following individuals are mentioned as authors of the Nicene Form : — 1. Hosius, bishop of Corduba, who sat as president of the council, and of w^hom, according to Athanas, the Arians, Ursacius and Valens say to Constantius : " This man also constructed the creed at Nice ;" by which it is to be understood, not that he composed it, but that he made a verbal delivery of the faith in the name of the Synod. 'S, Eusebius. bishop of Cxsarea, one of the most learned members INTRODUCTION. XXIX of the Synod, entertaining the opinion, however, that the doctrine of Arius was not in opposition to the faith of the church. 3. Hermogenes, concerning whom Basil the Great says in his letter : " The beloved Hermogenes, who wrote our great and accurate creed in the illustrious council." 4. Athanasius, at that time deacon. 5. Macarius, bishop of Jerusalem, concerning whom Josephus, the Egyp- tian, says : " The emperor ordered the creed which the bisliop of Jerusalem had written to him, to be read in the synod of bishops, and they adopted it by a vote of 318 bishops." A very manifest truth is, that the emperor had given orders to a greater number of bishops, to compose a form of Faith, among which that of Eusebius obtained the general approbation, the only one containing the additional word O|U0oröto5, w-hich w'as inserted at the request of the emperor, as Eusebius himself informs us. This Form of the creed was originally written in the Greek language, and was afterwards translated into Latin by Hilaiius of Pictavium. 2. Its Nature and Design. — To be able to estimate with precision the nature and design of this Symbol, it is necessary to examine the original text of both the Nicene and the Constantinopolitar. Symbol, and to bring under one view the dif- ferences between them. We shall give the Form of the first according to the epistle of Eusebius to the people of Cassaria ; of the second, according to the Acts of the council of Constantinople and of Chalcedon. a.) Nicene Symbol : " We believe in one God the Father, almighty Creator of all things visible and invisible, and in one Lord, Jesus Chiist, the Son of God, only-begotten of the Father, of equal power with the Father, God of God, light of light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, of like nature with the Father, and by him all things were made which are in heaven and in the earth ; who for us mortals, and for our salvation, came down, and took upon himself human flesh, and became man, suffered and arose the third day, ascended into heaven, and will come to judge the quick and the dead. And we believe in the Holy Ghost. And let the catholic church anathematize those who say that there was a time ■when the Son of God was not, — that before he was begotten, he did not exist, — and that he came from nonexistence into being ; or those who say that he is of a dif- ferent substance or property, or that he was created, produced, or that he is a different being." U.) The Constantinopolitan Symbol : " We believe in one God, the Father al- mighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible; and in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, who was begotten of the Father from all eternity, light of light, very God of veiy God, begotten, not made, of like nature with the Father, by whom all things were made, who for us mor- tals, and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and entered into flesh, from the Holy Ghost and the Virgin Mary, became man, and was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered, and was buried, and rose on the third day accordmg to the Scriptures, ascended into heaven, and sat down at the right hand of the Father, and shall come again in his glory to judge the quick and the dead, and of liis kingdom there shall be no end. And we believe in the Holy Ghost, the J_iord, the Giver of life, who proceedeth from the Father, who with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified, who is spoken of by the Prophets. We believe in one holy, catholic, apostolic church ; We confess one baptism for the remission of sins; we believe the resurrection of the dead and life everlasting to come." If both these Forms be compared with the Apostolic Symbol, and with each other, it will be perceived that the former sufficiently agrees with the latter, that there is not one variation, but merely an extension, rendered indispensable by the necessities of the times, and hence the design of these additions immediately be- comes evident. It was especially necessary too in this form against the heresy of Arius, to ac]cnow]ed'hom he himself should have expressly granted the privilege. In the second place, it was an earnest desire of the Emperor, that the evangelical princes should take part in the festival of Corpus Christi, about to take place the following dav : but Ihis lik. -wise wn.- so pertinacionr-ly refused by the margrave INTRODUCTION'. XXXVll George, that king Ferdinand wept with indignation. On the other hand, the emperor refused, and even determined, not to let the Confession of the evangelical party be read or delivered at the general diet. For while the members of the diet were convened in the forenoon of Saturday, the tw-enty-fifth of June, and after an address of the Pope's legate in reference to the religious difficulties, and the movements of the Turks, after the reception like- wise of a message from the Low Countries in the east, praying for assistance against the Turks, the princes of Saxony, Brandenburg, Lüneburg, and Hesse, who to- gether with the representatives of Nuremburg and Reitlingen, had subscribed to this Confession on the twenty-third, appeared with the instrument in their hands, and Dr. Brück, in their name, entreated the emperor to permit it to be read aloud, it appeared that this request, so just and reasonable in itself, and of so much im- portance to the evangelical party, had not become in the least degree more accep- table than before. The Register above referred to, relates the interesting pro- ceedings, in which the Confession of the evangelical party finally vanquished, through the assistance of God, in so perspicuous a manner, that we cannot avoid quoting several remarkable passages here : " His majesty, after the conference with the elector and princes, at first absolutely refused this request, and peremp- torily required the Confession to be presented to him ; and when the princes who made the application, continued to agitate the matter, observing that necessity highly required it, because it greatly concerned themselves, the salvation of their souls, their honor, and their reputation; unless this w^ere done, they must stand before his royal highness in a very disreputable light, as having suffered unbe- coming doctrine and opinions to be disseminated in his provinces ; on account of thisit would be necessary for their OW'U character to be publicly heard. His impe- rial majesty again refused a third time, but the elector and the princes con- tinued to press the matter, and desired with humility and piety, that he would suffer the Confession to be read here publicly. For nothing had been written in it except what necessity demanded, and no one was assailed with abuse. Then his imperial majesty caused them to be informed, that he felt inclined to grant their request, but as it had become late, it was his desire that their electo- ral and princely graces would deliver the Confession to his imperial majesty, and that he would hear it at two o'clock in the afternoon, in his palace, in the presence of the elector, the princes, and estates. " On the other hand, the elector and princes caused it to be intimated, that it was their principal desire for his majesty and the estates to hear their Confession, with the further request, if it w^ould be agreeable to him, that he, at the appointed hour at which he had proposed to hear them at the palace, appear again at the council chamber, and permit their manuscript to be read there, suffeiing them to retain it in order to review and correct it, as it had been drawn up in haste. His highness persisted in the determination of hearing it at the palace, but was wil- ling to permit the elector and princes to retain the manuscript ; and to this the princes had to submit. " At three in the afternoon, the Confession was subscribed by the elector of Saxony and the other princes, and likewise by the representatives of Nuremburg and Reitlingen. It was first read from a German copy by the Saxon chancellor, in a clear and audible voice, so that all who attended might understand it, and then deliv- ered in Latin and German to his imperial majesty, in presence of the elector, the princes, and estates. Thereupon his majesty, after some consultation wdth the other electors and princes, caused it to be said by duke Frederick to the elector of Saxony and his attendants, that his impel ial majesty had heard the Confession, and because the due consideration of it would be tedious, involving matters of the greatest importnncp. necessitv r°qniTed his majestv to reflfct maturely upon it, XXXVlll HISTOÄICAI, and to take counsel ; that his imperial majesty would do so ; that he would exam- ine it thoroughly as became his Christian character ; in this determination he would persist, and that he would grant the elector and princes who had spoken another hearing. This answer, and especially the gracious audience which had been promised, drew from the elector and his attendants, the warmest expressions of gratitude towards his majesty, the king, the electors, princes and estates, pro- mising their humble services and obligations in the most friendly terms. And it was further decided that they would conduct themselves towards his majesty with submissive loyalty, and that they would faithfully observe and perform his ma- jesty's orders, not only in reference to this matter, but also in reference to all the business of the diet. "Afterwards his imperial majesty charged the elector and princes, still urging their cause with earnest entreaties, to keep this dangerous manuscript with them- selves, and not have it published ; and they promised to have this atten- ded to." That which was aimed at from the first as an apology, became a confession. In consequence of its apologetic character, Melanchthon had at hrst named it Apology ; but it must be remarked that it ought to ba much rather called a Confes- sion. In the reports of the delegates of Nuremburg, other appellations still appear : they speak of it as a Proposal or Proposition, and as the Saxon Abstract or Report. For it was originally the intention, that each evangelical delegation should hand over their own written statement, but the margrave George advised that they should all unite in one general Confession, and receive Melanchthon's Apology as such a Confession, which on account of its great importance, and the place where it was delivered, was called the Augsburg Confession. In later times, during the con- troversy with the Jesuits, it was distinguished by the name of the Evangelical Apple of the eye, (Prov. 7, 2,) in consequence of the high importance which the evangelical church attributed to it. And lastly it still remains to mention, that the Emperor himself took both copies of the Confession, which the chancellor Brück, after having read them, wished to deliver to the imperial secretary, Alexander Schweis ; and it was his intention to keep the Latin copy himself, and to transfer the one in Geiman to the elector of Mentz as chancellor of the empire, to be deposited in the archives of the govern- ment. In this manner the Latin copy of the Confession came into the archives at Brussels, whence the duke of Albo afterwards carried it with him to Spain. Our gratitude is due to the determinate resolution of the elector of Saxony, that the Confession was read in the German language, when the ernperor, not without design, wished the Latin text to be read. For tlie elector is said to have cried out, that they were on German ground, in a German land, and he hoped the em- peror would not refuse to hear the German copy. At the same time the evangel- ical party asserted, that the Latin copy had been written in so much haste, that it would be very difficult to read it. 2. Its Nature, its Composition, and Design. — The Confession of Augsburg, as we have already observed, comprises the three manuscripts which had been consigned to Melanchthon, for the purpose of being revised and formed into one system. From these three manuscripts arose the tvv'o parts of the Con- fession,— the first of which, consisting of twenty-one articles, on Faith and the doctrines of the church, and the second, consisting of seven articles, on abuses which are there corrected, are diawn up in a clear, artless, firm, and elegant style. In these articles Melanchthon comprises the opinions of the theologians ; the pre- face and conclusion were added by chancellor Brück. It is said that the Latin text, without the preface, however, and the conclusion, and without the twentieth article, was finished a long timj before the German copy, and that this text alone INTRODUCTION. XXXIX was sent to Luther. We find, indeed, in the Register of tlie 14th of June, this remark : '' The Saxon Abstract of the articles of Faith ccnnposed in Gei man, is to be aEcribfd to tlie Saxcn delegates, ytt will out a Prcfi.ce or a Ccrclusicn, and as Philip Melanchthcn urdertook to revise it, he did not wish to attach any Preface or C crclusicn of his cvvn 1o it in Gejman, as he believed that the Prelace and Con- clusion ought to be composed rot only in the name of the elector, but in that of all the Lutheran princes and estates ; ard a\ hile he was rendering the articles in Ger- m.an, namely, where it is saiti in the Latin trxt tl at this or that was preached or m.aintaincd by the Saxon electors, in the Gtiman he has left cut the Saxon elec- tors, and substituted a general term, which is ecually applicable to all the estates." Eut this German copy, which the delegates rf KuurrAurg could have sent home on the fifteenth, as they had alrcccy en the third of June transmitted the Latin copy, is complete ; and we have a Geiman mrinufciipt, in vhich the preface, the conclus on, and the twentieth article also, are wanting. Thus it appears that the German text was ccmpletfd, seen after the ccn^pletion of the Latin probably, but certainly after it. We believe indeed that we are able to adduce a more positive evidence, that both copies were tranfmitted to Luther at Coburg. On the six- teenth oJ May, according to the Register, " the delegates of INurtmburg asked of the Saxon chancellor, what his grace desired to discuss at this diet in reference to subjects relating to religion ? He answered that it was in reference to a proposi- tion concerning this article, first sketched here at Augsburg, in order that it be written out in German and Latin, but that it was still unfinished, having been sent in order that Luther might revise it ; that in a few days it would be returned, not to be retained, but to be sent back." If we observe that the delegates speak of sending a draft in Latin, "and when the report is brought into German, the draft will also become manifest;" hence we need only assume that they mean the German Confession in its complete state; ibr the draft, according to the testimony of the Saxon chancellor, was completed already on the 16th of May. It appears too, by the testimony already adduced from the above particulars of the 14th of June, that the Confession by Melanchthon was made from a transla- tion of the Latin text, which, however, may serve no less for a true original ; be- cause Melanchthon, after he had completed it by the addition of a Preface and Conclusion, with all diligence applied himself to the improvement of the German text. He himself introduced numerous alterations ; and it is not reasonable to sup- pose that Luther hud the management of ;hese, which gradually gave to the ori- ginal draft quite a different form. " I have rendered the Preface of our Con- fession somewhat more rhetorical than that which I had written at Coburg," he writes to Luther on the fourth of May; and on the twenty-second of the same month : " I am making many alterations every day in the Apology. I wish you would glance over the articles of faith. If you think there is nothing wrong in them, I will know better how to complete the rest. For they must be gradually changed and accommodated to changing circumstances." And on the day after the delivery of the Confession, he writes toCcmerarius, that he had altered and im- proved the chief parts every day, and that he would have made still greater alter- ations, if his counsellors had permitted him ; so that he had good reason, on trans- mitting his copy, after the remarks above quoted, to write to bishop Dietrich re- specting Luther : " I desire to know what the doctor thinks of my Apology." So long as Melanchthon was preparing this Confession for his master, the elec- tor, he was under less restrictions in reference to these alterations. But when those princes and estates had come with their theologians, with writings on the same subjects to the diet, and had agreed to present a general Confession, and even this of Melanchthon's, which we believe, was completed in the first weekin June, lam the sTv-crul artieh-s had to be ^etthd in genT^l council, and established in Xl HISTUJUCAL full conference. And hence says Melanchthon with great reason : " I have as- sumed nothing on my own authority, each sentence and each article being dis- cussed in order by the princes and other rulers and advisers, who were present." Thus we distinctly perceive that the existing manuscripts or copies deposited in archives, differ widely from each other. There appear to be nine Latin manu- scripts, twelve German, and one in French. The Latin copies are — 1. The Hes- sian, in the public archives, at the castle of the elector of Hesse, together with another Latin, a German, and a French manuscript, brought home from the diet by the landgrave Philip ; and it has been characterized with this epithet properly enough by Forsteman, and though it occupied the second place among the public copies, we have introduced it first, because it manifestly contains the Confession in its original form, that is, not as a system of faith under the title " Chief articles of Faith." 2. The Dessauan manuscript, in the general archives of Anhalt, brought home from the diet by prince Wolf. It has neither Title, Preface, nor Conclusion. 3. The manuscript of Regensburg, among the public documents of the cathedral ; to this manuscript, Gemeiner, the keeper of the archives, with great inaccuracy would add the title of " the eighth copy from the original text." It is written in two different hands, and has numerous corrections from copyists and other causes. 4. The manuscript of Wurtsburg, in the archives of Wurtsburg. This agrees, like the foregoing one of Regensburg, mostly with the text of Fabri- cus, and both show when the original draft of the Confession was completed. 5. The manuscript of Ansbach, in the archives of Nuremburg, belonging to the public records of Brandenburg, brought from the diet by the margrave George, together with three German manuscripts of the same. It is entire, its principal differences being in the article concerning the vows of the monks, where the words are omitted from " the Canons teach in every vow," to " are exposed to the eyes of men;" and in the article concerning the power of the church, a considerable addition appears, which, however, we still may notice in the oldest impression. From an examination of this manuscript, we can defend Forsteman against Weber, that the preface very probably was written at the same time with this text. The ink is not faded, and on both the leaves upon which the preface is written it ex- tends over the whole surface of the paper, and to both margins, the other part of this containing a part of the controverted article. 6. The manuscript of Hessia. It is the first manuscript in the volume of records, containing numerous corrections, and agrees in general with the first Latin impression. 7. The Hanoverian manu- script, in the archives of Hanover, brought by duke Ernest of Lüneburg from the diet, with a German manuscript. It is complete, yet almost illegible in conse- quence of the numerous corrections. 8. The manuscript of Nuremburg, in the archives of Nuremburg, excepting the want of the antitheses in articles thirteenth and eighteenth, agrees with the quarto edition by Melanchthon, in 1531. It has apparently many corrections, and, a circumstance of some importance, the names of seven princes subscribed. 9. The manuscript of Weimar, in the public records of the General History at Weimar. It is found in the records of the convent of Naumburg, 15C1, and was written at that time, as Weber and Forsteman have proved. It agrees with the quarto edition of Melanchthon, word for word, though the antitheses in articles thirteen and eighteen are wanting. The French translation of the Augsburg Confession appears in the archives ot the elector at Cassel, and was inserted in the volume of public records with a Latin and German manuscript. Like the first Ansbach German manuscript, it wants the preface and the controverted articles ; on the other hand, it contains the article concerning the invocation of saints, and thus resembles the Spalatin manuscript. It is quite probable that this is a translation of that manuscript, concerning which, on the 2Sth of Mav. 1530. the drl-^gates of Nuremburg wrote to th'jir master ; INTRODUCTION. xH " The Report, that is, the Augsburg Confession, was composed in Latin, German, and French." The author, no doubt, was Tücher of Nuremburg, who by order of the elector of Saxony, translated into French a copy of instructions to be deliv- ered to the emperor. On the authority of Forsteman, the imperial secretary had nothing to do with the translation of this article. The German manuscripts are the following: — 1. That of Spalatin, in the ar- chives of Weimar. It is in Spalatin's own hand-writing, without the Preface, and containing the third part only of the articles concerning monastic vows. Among all manuscripts this exhibits the Confession in the most ancient form. 2. That of Anspach. It wants the Preface, the twentieth and twenty-first articles, and likewise the controverted articles. It still, however, agrees in its details more with the manuscript of Spalatin, than with later ones. Though it exhibits varia- tions from the former, which are wanting in the latter, and thus it seems to oc- cupy a kind of medium position between the two. 3. That of Hanover. This is considered original, entirely corresponding with the foregoing only from the first to the nineteenth article, together with the Conclusion, and the Introduction to the controverted articles, and then, it was certainly written by a different hand, the Preface, together with the twentieth and twenty-first article and the contro- verted articles is added, and some necessary variations from the first draft are made, probably by the same hand, yet in so careless a manner, that it is forgotten to insert the conclusion to the articles of faith and the introduction to the contro- verted articles after the nineteenth article ; but in the proper place of this introduc- tion, the twentieth and twenty-first articles, omitted in their own place, are writ- ten, and then the conclusion and introduction follow. 4. That of Hessia. It contains corrections from a hand, not contemporary indeed, and not so late as the last. It is complete, and corresponds almost entirely With that of Augsburg. 5. That of Nuremburg. It exhibits numerous instances of conformity with those of Weimar, Anspach, and Hanover, more especially, however, with the copy in the records of Mentz ; and contains the names of eight princes subscribed. 6. That of Munich, in the public archives of Munich. It shows a strict correspondence with later manuscripts in their complete form. It frequently adds the text from the leading edition of IMelanchthon, and is remarkable on account of some peculiar readings, ending however, with the article concefnhig the Mass, in the words, far andre Lebendigen und Todten. 7. That of Weimar. It is only a copy of a copy, agreeing mostly with the above manuscript of Mentz; it contains readino-s, however, which occur in the oldest impressions, and in the editio princeps. 8. That of Nordlingen, in the public archives of Nordlingen. It betrays deficiencies which characterize it as an incorrect transcript, and agrees in general with the Augsburg manuscript, and the impression of Oberland. 9. That of Augsburg, in the library at Augsburg. It agrees with that of A'ordlingen, and also with the copy of Ober- land, and especially with the last; so that it appears, both have originated from the same source. 10. The second manuscript at Augsburg. This is, incontesta- bl)', a very important manuscript. It agrees with that in the public records at Mentz ; it exhibits corrections, however, in which the original reading« are changed, and those inserted which occur in other manuscripts, and in the editio 2>rincrj>-t. These corrections, with few exceptions, are written by the same hand, and they may be a still greater evidence, that this manuscript was compared with the original copy, when it was used by the evangelical and Roman Catholic par- ties, in the examination of tlie draft, which was made at the diet. From the most positive evidence we can declare, that this very manuscript affords us the text of the Augsburg Confession, in a form which exhibits the highest degree of confor- mity with that which was delivered to the emperor. The variations from the ori- ginal seem to consist mostly in differences of orthography among the writers ; as to F Xlii HISTORICAL the text, no further variations appear. " With all propriety this manuscript may be used as a ground for a new edition of the Augsburg Confession." This is the opinion of Forsteman, which we cannot vouch for, without an actual inspection of the manuscript. 11. The third manuscript of Anspach. Weber calls this merely a transcript of the foregoing manuscript, by the same hand, in which his correc- tions are introduced into the text. Forsteman opposes this ; and we can agree with him too, from our own comparison of both manuscripts. If Forsteman is right, as we believe, this manuscript stands pre-eminent among them all, and no- thing should prevent us from declaring it a true copy of the original. 12. The copy from the records of Mentz, from which the text of the Book of Concord has been usually taken, because it was long regarded as the original itself, although it is nothing but a copy, and more than this a defective one. Before we describe how this copy attained the unmerited honor of furnishing the text for the Book of Concord, we must make some necessary remarks concerning the first publication of the Confession, because the history of this, especially of the so-called editio variata, shows us why recourse was had in the compilation of the Book of Concord to a manuscri^jt of the Confession, in preference to Melanch- thon's editions. As remarked above, the empsror ordered the evangelical party not to publish the Confession, and these had promised to obey. But without the knowledge or consent of these men, there appeared even during the diet, and immediately after the conclusion of it, seven different editions, six in German and one in Latin, and indeed, as was natural enough, without betraying the printer, the publisher, or the editor. They were all published from one manuscript ; the first four German edi- tions were published in the Swiss dialect ; the fifth in the dialect of Lower Saxo- ny; the sixth in the high German dialect. They differ but little from each other. The first four abound in typographical errors, the fifth still more, but the sixth is more correct. The Latin publication, in its peculiarities, approaches the manu- script of Anspach, and has likewise numerous typographical errors, from which it is evident that the publisher knew very little about Latin. The want of authenticit)'' in these publications, caused Melanchthon, as he saj's himself, in his Latin preface, not indeed from the positive order of the elector, and yet not without his previous knowledge, to issue a publication of the Latin and German text. This edition has the following title : " Confession of Faith, exhib- ited to the invincible emperor, Charles Augustus, at the Diet of Augsburg, 1530 ; to which is added the Apology of the Confession, both in German and Latin. Wit- temburg." And at the end, — " Printed by George Rhau, 1531." From this last date, we must not conclude, that this edition first appeared in 1531. 1. Because Melanchthon says in the preface to his editio prliiceps concerning that first publi- cation : " It was published two months before, by some speculating typographer." 2. Because the date, 1531, is not applicable to the publication of the Confession, but to that of the Apology. The Confession was published, and in circulation, before the publication of the Apology. 3, Because we learn from a letter of Pis- torius, dated, Midda, 18th of January, 1561, addressed to the landgrave Philip, on the occasion of the Naumburg Convention, where the princes v/ished to subscribe to the authentic copy of the Confession : " Since I have heard that your princely grace has sought, witli so much diligence, for a copy of the Augsburg Confession, corresponding with the one delivered to his imperial majesty, in 153U, in order to provide against our adversaries, who keep circulating t!ie injurious report, that we have no longer the Confession which was delivered to the emperor. Now, I have two copies, one in Latin and one in German, of the very first edition in quarto, prLated at Wittemburg. and brought to the Diet ct Augsburg. Thcic copi« s I INTRODUCTION. xliÜ transmit to you, which I received of Dr. Biück, and which agree in every respect with the nnanuscript delivered to his imperial majesty." This publication has the eifect of presenting both texts united in one copy, though they both at the same time can be separated in such a manner that comparative forms of examples can be viewed at pleasure. More numerous editions of this text rapidly succeeded each other, different examples of which are those of Feuerlein» Weber, and Dr. Gottler, in his invaluable Monography, and in addition a critical lit- erary history of the original copy of Melanchthon's Augsburg Confession and the Apology in Latin and German, printed at Nuremburg in 1830. Concerning the formation of this text, Melanchthon says in the preface of his publication, "that he himself prepared it from a copy of great authenticity." It is now uncertain whether these words have reference to the Latin only, or to the Latin and Ger- man both ; and it is still more uncertain, whether Melanchthon inserted the amend- ments which he had already made in his first publication, and in what relation his text stands to that delivered to the emperor. Both of these very important inqui- ries it may be our duty in this place to answer. 1. The words which we have quoted from the preface, have reference only to the Latin text ; for Melanchthon took his draft from this, which, in a very immature state in consequence of the great haste, w^as delivered to the emperor ; nor can it be said with any more rea- son, that he derived it from a copy finished before the delivery. Indeed of the German text, he still had the draft in his own hands. 2. In the Latin text Me- lanchthon made very little alteration, of which assertion the readings furnish abundant evidence, as well as the silence of the archbishop Lindanus, who, in his late work on the discrepancies in the Concordia, 15S3, only reproaches the German text, and the later Latin publications of the Concordia, pointing out spurious read- ings, but not from the Latin editio prii/ceps ; and in reference to this matter, Lind- anus w^as the best qualified to judge, for he had himself seen the Latin draft in the archives of Brussels. The German text w'as diligently revised by Melanchthon, and frequently changed, not only in letters and in words, but the twentieth, twen- ty-seventh, and twenty-eighth articles, were entirely remodelled. From particu- lar instances, of which we shall speak hereafter, we are convinced that our text approaches much nearer the original copy which was delivered to the emperor, than does the editio priuceps of Melanchthon. For, — 1. Our text is derived from the best manuscripts, especially the second of Anspach. We shall not presume, however, that any one of these manuscripts, even the third of Anspach itself, would have been correct, according to this text of Melanchthon, if he delivered that one to the emperor. 3. It was not a very long time before that he had writ- fen the dral^t of the Latin text in its purity, and so it was also but a short time till important alterations of the German text w-ere made, which the numerous contro- versies on the subjects of the text had rendered necessary. 4. Melanchthon him- self says, that his counsellors had forbidden him to make any further alterations ; that he had improvements in readiness, which he was not suffered to apply; so that he seized the first opportunity which presented, to accomplish what still seemed requisite, and this was the publication of the Confession. 5. Our text may be regarded, if prejudice could bo laid aside, as the publication of the original copy, while the text of the editio princeps is much more labored, more profound, and more refined. Ill reference, however, to the names subscribed to the' Confession, they may, indeed, prove the editio princejis to be historically correct. For Melanchthon must certainly have known who subscribed the Confession, and he could neither have added to, nor taken from it, a single name Avithout incurring the reprehen- sions of his adversaries. But the subscribers of the editio princeps defend its .Tci'uracy up to th" y^ar IS??, when an edition at Brand^^nburg, accordinij to a col- Xliv HISTORICAL lation by Cffileslin and Zoch, appeared with a catalogue of false names, which were afterwards transferred into the German edition of the Book of Concord. It inay, indeed, be correctly inferred from this, that the elector Frederick and duke Franz subscribed the Latin copy of the Confession, as the more important one, but not the German copy, because they were not then in the exercise of any civil office. This is a source from which nothing cjan be conceived and nothing known, when such a difference between the two copies was made. In relation to the edi- tio princeps it may still further be said, to judge from its correspondence with the Latin copy and the manuscripts, that no objection was made in this respect to Philip, landgrave of Hesse, at the conventioij in Naumburg in 1561, where he was then still present, and further that Lindanus seems to remember nothing of any such occurrence. These alterations by Melanchthon in the quarto edition of 1531, which sooij after received further amendments in the octavo edition of 1531 and 1538 in Latin, and then in German 1533 and 1536, excite no further attention, since they only affect the composition and the style, but by no means make any innovation upon the Lutheran doctrine. For, although Wigand, with some plausibility, says in reference to the first octavo edition : " Some time after, in the same year, another edition appeared in octavo form, which Melanchthon, without consulting others, began to change in several places, introducing injurious alterations as well as good," — yet we have a more certain evidence against this objection, in the Apol- ogy of the Augsburg Confession: "In the first ten years, that is, from 1530 to 1540, no alteration appeared which could be regarded as serious in reference to any real doctrines, or points aff'ecting our articles of faith." Melanchthon indeed, as the alterations themselves prove, was entirely and exclusively inlluenced by the desire to render that evangelical system of truth, so gloriously acknowledged at Augsburg, always better, to defend it always with still greater energy and success, on which account it has come to pass, that this Confession and Apology has ever been regarded as the general Confession, but by no means as Symbolic writings in our sense ot that term. On the other hand, it is a circumstance of much im- portance, that in the year 1510, a new Latin quarto edition, by George Rhau, ap- peared, which presents the tenth article, — concerning the Lord's Supper, — in the following words: "Respecting the Lord's Supper, they teach, that the body and blood of Christ may be represented with bread and wine to those who participate in that sacrament ;" whereas in its original form it read thus : " Respecting the Lord's Supper, they teach, that the true body and blood of Christ are truly pres- ent, and are distributed to those who participate in the Lord's Supper, and the learned likewise approve it." This alteration was, in every sense, a deviation from the Lutheran doctrine of the Lord's Supper, and an approach towards the Calvinistic doctrine, which article, when so rendered, can be conveniently cx- plahied in accordance with his doctrine; as Calvin, in 1557, writes to M. Schel- ling : "J do not reject the Augsburg Confession, to which I willingly and cheer- fully would subscribe, as the author himself has explained it." But that which the Calvinist would regard merely as an interpretation, elucidation, indeed, as it would naturally seem to him, an improvement, the Lutheran must view as a dan- gerous and unwarrantable perversion of his Confession of Faith; and, indeed, this is evident from the attack of Eck upon Melanchthon at the colloquy at Worms, 1511, where the altered copy of the Augsburg Confession was brought forward, and equally evident must it be from the further history of the Lutheran church. At this collo(]uy Melanchthon at last was obliged to discontinue his reference to ,the altered edition, and the elector, John Frederick of Saxony, declared, " that he was determined to disregard thr new edition, and adhere only to the original." From this it evidently appears, that the ehn-tor could not sanction tlu'^e altera- INTRODUCTION. xlv tions of the Confession ; besides the plector had before this time taken umbrage at the frequent alterations made by Melanchthon. For Luther, during the session of the Convention at Smalcald, said to the princes who visited him in his illness : " After my death, dissensions will occur at the university of Witteniburg, and my doctrines will be altered." The elector took this so deeply to heart, that imme- diately after the recovery of Luther, he came to Wittemburg, and intimated to Luther and Bugenhagen, through the chancellor Brück, that he did not like to hear that Melanchthon and Creuziger employed modes of expression, in the articles of Justification and Good Works, different from those of Luther; that Melanchthon indeed, in editing the Augsburg Confession, had taken upon himself the responsi- bility, without consulting his friends, to alter several words. " These alterations taking place now," said the elector in a prophetic spirit, "what will occur, Dr. Martin, when we both close our'cyes ? Our oldest prince is still a child, and our brother is yet young, and there is a great deficiency in competent men." Much less could he call the altered edition a good one ; and indeed Brück had to speak in reference to this matter, with Melanchthon, at the request of the elector, and make him acquainted with that nobleman's dissatisfaction. In the General History of the doctrines of the Protestants, by Weber and Planck, the evidences may be seen which have been employed to refute the foiegoing assertions. But although both these allow no weight to these assertions, and especially wish to make it appear, that Luther was aware of the alterations of Melanchthon, not viewing them with silence, but even sanctioned them, yet this would be an objection against which many evidences can be adduced, in all respects claiming our attention. For the evidence of Wigand is worthy of remark, who says : "I heard from George Rorarius, that Dr. Luther said to Melanchthon, — 'Philip! Philip! you are not doing right, in altering the Augustan Confession so often ; for it does not belong to you, but to the church.' " And this was far from being a Flacian tale, as Planck would represent it ; indeed the theologians of Jena had made the assertion, at the colloquy in Altenburg, held in 1568, without contradiction by their oppo- nents. Selnecker and Chytraus, who at first had expressed a favorable opinion of tlie alterations of Melanchthon, signed the report addressed to the elec- tors of Saxony and Brandenburg, dated March 15, 1578, in which it is said, that the Augsburg Confession was altered, by the advice, consent, and recommendation of the devout Dr. Luther, as the alteration was undertaken and accomplished dur- ing his life. This cannot be indicated by the authority of any theologian; for it is true that there were several still living, who could vouch that no alteration of the Augsburg Confession, or of the Loconim Communium, met the approbation of Dr. Luther. And that this is the general view of the subject, is proved especially by the important declaration of the Reformed theoloü:ian, John Vossius, against Hugo Grotius, who asserts that to view the Belgic Confession as having been altered is inevitable, because that alteration was made at Augsburg. Vossius writes to him: "You say that the Augustan Confession has been changed. I know not whether that is of any great consequence, since it was altered by the private judg- ment of Melanchthon, but, if I am not deceived, it was never altered by public authority. This one thing at least I know, that Melanchthon was frequently re- proached by Luther for doing this, without seeking the counsel of others. I know also that the princes of Germany, who adhere to the Augustan Confession, ac- knowledge no other except that exhibited to Charles V. in 1530." It is true that no public declaration of Luther's upon this point has come down to us, but it is abundantly sulHcient for us to know what is said in the Apology of the Augs- burc Confession, that Luther had by no means approved the interferences of Me- lanchthon, but indeed guarded against them with the greatest diligence. At first he £aid nothing publicly respecting it, until finally he determined to write to him, Xlvi mSXOKK.AL when in the name of tha elsctor, hn was entreatid by chancellor Brück, in thi; foUowinn- language : " I have several times offered the best admonitions to Me- lanchthon, but he has not followed them. Do you, therefore, make all the efforts in your power, and, in the name of God, do your utmost to preserve the purity of our holy doctrines." Luther was exceedingly mortified, on seeing that it would be necessary for him to act in opposition to Mclanchthon ; and we need not be sur- prised, if he bewailed the unfortunate circumstance in a letter to his friends. " He had so long regarded Melanchthon as a true and active co-laborer, to whom he himself, to whom the church, owed so much gratitude, might he not hope to win him back by gentle and soothing admonitions, and restore him again from these dangerous and p3rnicious deviations ?" In the church, the copy of the L':itin Confession of 1510, was that which particularly vi'as said to be altered, while the earlier impressions, and the German copy, were not included under this characteristic, this copy having obtained at no time any considerable repute. At the time when the Cryptocalvinists had the supremacy, it did prevail to some extent, even so far as to induce the princes op- posed to it, to enter into an examination of the discrepancies at the Convention of Naumburg in 15(31, as " it was referred to, on the part of the papists, was handed about and used, in the religious discussions and disputes at Worms in 1540, and at several other places. The editlo prinxep-^, however, was the only one subscribed and dcfentled." No doubt the evangelical party, at the diet of Augsburg in 1559, were distressed in consequence of these discrepancies, charged upon them by their opponents» and they proved, in their Protestation of May 1st, that they all unani- mously parsevered in maintaining the Confession delivered in 1530, and acknowl- edged exclusively in the Form of Concord, the first unalrered Augsburg Confession, and by this acknowledgment, they denied all authority, in the church expressly, to every other edition. When their opponents undertook to found th"ir arguments upon the alterations of Mclanchthon, and especially to withdraw, after his death, to a lamentable ex- tent, his adherents from the Lutheran church ; when it became necessary, for the protection of the doctrines of the church, to embody the Symbolic writings into a system of doctrine, then it also became an object of deep solicitude, to recover the true text of the Confession delivered at Augsburg. Now where was this to be found, if not in the archives of Mentz ? With this view, the elector Joachim IL Avas sent in company with the archbishop Sigismond of Magdeburg, in the year 1566, to the court chaplain, George Ccelestin, and to the counsellor, Andrew Zoch, at Mentz, for the purpose of determining whether this same be the real originaL This copy appeared in 157G, by order of the elector August of Saxony, and the German text recovered by this examination has been introduced into the Book of Concord. There is reason to believe that we have the true original, and the best authorities, the chancellors of Mentz, can believe nothing less. PfafF, the chan- cellor of Tübingen, was the first to excite a doubt on this subject. During his re- sidence in Svvalbach in 1729, he had an opportunity to seek for the original in the public archives of that place, but it could not be found, and it is now evident thnt the real copy, which the Register names as the original, is that which was pub- lished after the above-mentioned examination. The assertion of PfafF, however, received the less credit, as in a short time after this, Feucrlein, a member of the consistory, made known the declaration of Gudenu-«. the assessor of the judif'ial court, from which it becomes evident that the German as well as the Latin origiJ nal still exists entire in the archives. Feuerlein "has even described the external appearance of the German copy, as being a book in small quarto form, bound in^ black leather, with red margins; and from this, the duchess dowager of Weimar, who, at th-> instance of Seidior, th,> chief ouns •llor of th-^ conn=rr>ry, hid ask-'d IKTKODUCTION. xItÜ for a transcript of the authentic text, received an accredited transcript as a copy of the true original. Weber, the minister of the collegiate church, had this prin- ted, and as it presented a text quite different from that of the Book of Concord, it could not escape various assaults from every side. From this Weber was induced to search the archives himself, and found to his astonishment, that the text which he had published was a copy of the edition of 15-10, which Griesbach had already indicated, in his critical dissertations. It is really astonishing, that the civil coun- cil could presume to call this printed copy an original, while on the very title of it, the date 1Ö40 appeared ! The further researches of Weber were attended with similar results. The original copy delivered to the emperor Charles, had long since disappeared; aud very probably it w'as sent, with other public documents, to Trent in 154G, and had not been returned. The investigation which took place in the year 1506 and 157l3, was conducted in accordance with a transcript, which -Weber discovered, under the name of Protocol. From this it is perceived, that Cadestin, upon whose authority the credibility of the German and Latin text of the Confession received into the Book of Concord principally depends, Avas ei- ther dishonest, or at least very insincere. This Latin text, which he wishes to consider the original from the one preserved at Mentz, while indeed it was never there, is a reprint of the one published by Fabricius, and his German text is merely a transcript of the Protocol above mentioned, and yet he and the civil counsellors published it as a copy of the original. In addition to this, it also appeared that this Protocol had subscribers, although Cadestin exhibits some names, yet not the full number. Hence it is to be inferred, that our text in the Eook of Concord by no means pre- sents the true original. Indeed we are obliged to acknowledge still further, that it has been taken from a copy of the Confession, which has no small number of errors, namely, typographical errors, omissions, and transposition of sentences. Still, however, it can by no argument be established, that this is not a transcript from the original deposited in the public archives, the errors of Avhich are not so much to be ascribed to the original, as to the carelessness and negligence of copy- ists, though we perhaps sliould find it improbable, as in that case the names of the signers should have accompanied the text. Mindestens cannot be persuaded that this text corresponds most closely with the best manuscripts, and that its errors might easily be corrected from that copy, and from the editio priiiceps ; so that we have no reason to remove the text received by the church, and to introduce another in its place, when we cannot be certain that it approaches any nearer to the original copy. We appeal here to what was said above of the reception of this text in relation to the substance of the editio princeps, and to the evidences of the various leadings. With great cheerfulness we acknowledge the value and the ex- cellence of Weber's work, yet we cannot entirely exculpate him from all partial- ity. Ke takes no pains to conceal it, that he is an undisguised enemy of the Form of Concord. By this disposition he has exeicised no small influence on many, and numbers have permitted themselves to be led into error by him. lie has invali- dated the authority of the Book of Concord, and as much as possible abused the text received by the church. .'). Its Aitthoriti/ and Iiwportxnce. — Luther called the Diet at Augsburg, '•' The trumpet of the Last Day;" so might we, with equal propriety, denominate the Testimony which was presented there, the sound of this trum.pet, which, because it proclaims the Gospel of God in a louder strain, has extended, as the sound of that trumpet will extend, into every land. The emperor himself sent it to numer- ous princes, and to the univ^ersity.at Lowen, for the purpose of ascertaining their opinions on th-Jse subj-jcts. His secretary, Alexander Schweis, translated it into rr3nch. aad A1ph-»u5 V^ilda.?;ug ja^ tU^, %a'ii5li l&r!,gna,gq. ■ T-he cardinal Campe- xlviii HISTORICAL gius translated it into the Italian language, for the convenience of the pope, who did not understand much Latin. Other pious delegates caused translations to be made for their particular courts. Thus the calumniations, which had continued to pour upon the evangelical party, now experienced the most powerful opposition, and their Confession could now be best defended in the open light of the public mind. A perusal of the Confession makes the deepest and most favorable impression. The emperor did not express his opinion publicly indeed in reference to this Con- fession ; and we cannot refer to any free expression of his internal convictions, be- cause such an expression would not have been consistent with his civil policy. But he did hear the clear sound of the Gospel ; and the fact, that he strove to re- tain both copies of the Confession, that he actually did retain the Latin copy, as well as his strict attention during the two hours of reading the Confession, con- vinces us that he knew the importance of the subject, and felt the necessity of giv- ing it a mature consideration in private. And though he nevei appeared friendly to the Reformation, yet there arose after his death a wide and prevailing impres- sion, that he died in the evangelical faith. His brother, king Ferdinand, conducted himself afterwards with a great deal of moderation towards the evangelical party ; and the reproach, which the pope on a subsequent occasion, in 1559, endeavored to throw upon him, — that he would have to number prince Maximilian among the Lutherans, — proves that the Confession of Truth did not waste all its influ- ence on him. Henry, duke of Brunswick, although a bitter enemy to the Luther- ans, invited Melanchthon to his own table, when he made the declaration, that he could not reject the article concerning the two forms, — the marriage of priests, and the distinction of meats. William, duke of Bavaria, said many friendly things in reference to these subjects, to the elector when there on a visit, and made a number of remarks favorable to the enterprise and the doctrine, which no one had ever suggested to the elector before ; indeed when Eck once made an allusion to his promise to write a confutation of the Confession, saying that he cordd not do so from the Scripture, but from the Fathers he probably could ; " Well," replied the duke, taking the words from the lips of Eck, " the Lutherans then are sitting on the Scripture, and we papists are sitting close by." Frederick, the prince pal- atine, Eric of Brunswick, Henry of Mecklenburg, the duke of Pomerania, George Ernst of Heneburg, were all convinced of the truth. The cardinal Matthew Long, archbishop of Salzburg, openly declared himself as entertaining feelings consonant with the articles concerning the Mass, and that concerning meats and human tra- ditions, with the sole exception of the intolerable circivmstance that a mere monk should undertake a reformation. Other cardinals spoke also to the same effect, and numerous bishops made declarations of a friendly and favorable character, as well as many among the civil princes, — one indeed, very probably Stadion of Augsburg, was heard to say: " This is the pure truth, we cannot deny it ;" and he acknowledged, in his introductory discourse during the negotiations for a gen- eral pacification, that it was evident that the Lutherans held no opinions opposed to the articles of the Catholic faith. These evidences, many more of which might still be adduced, proclaim loudly for the character and high importance of the Augsburg Confession. She victori- ously repelled the calumnies which had been heaped upon the evangelical paity, tri- umphed over prejudices, and overpowered the hostility of many, through the silent but irresistible power of truth. This was by far a more glorious victory, than if the league of the evangelical party had subdued the emperor and all its opponents by the power of arms. For the church herself reaped the greatest blessing re- sulting from it. The Confession served her as a banner, around which she rallied her true nmnlurs ; it served as a sure Ibuudatioii, iipoH which she re-established INTRODUCTION. xlix herself; it served as a wall of defence, not only against the attacks of enennies, but also against the attempts of srctarians and fanatics. And while the Augustan Confession is to he viewed mainly as an event of its time, and of the ecclesiastical relations under which it was foimed, and also as an evidence of the faith of those who lived at that time, just as obvious is its connection with the past and future history of the church, — that it is in harmony with the first Symbols of the church, and at the same time a foundation, upon which the further expansion of the church might take place, without danger of being betrayed again fiom the word of God to human traditions, so long as we adhere to its fundamental doctrines. In the evangelical Lutheran church, the Confession naturally exerted a general influence. It became not only the basis of internal, ecclesiastical peace, by the league of Augsburg in 1555, but also of political tranquillitj^, by the league of West- phalia in 1648. Distinct from this is the relation of the German Reformed church. Zwinglius had sent a confession of his own to Augsburg ; the cities of Oberland had sent in their Confessio Tetrajmlitana. After this they had neither power nor inclination to embrace the Lutheran Confession. Although this took place after- wards, they only had reference to the variata, to which the Lutheran church never attributed symbolic authority. III. The Apology of the Augsdürg Confessiois. 1. Its Appellation and Origin. — Of the impression which the perusal of the Confession produced, we have spoken above. It was like the beams of the sun, one effect of which is to harden, another to soften ; but all knew that a suppres- sion of the differences in regard to faith, was pressingly requisite to the security of the empire. Above all the emperor felt the incalculable importance of the pe- riod in relation to himself; for the reduction of his political pow"er, his imperial authority in and out of Germany, could be obviated only by a reunion of the dis- membered parties. This was still possible; but his counsels would have to be formed commensurate with the rising opposition, the ecclesiastical powers would have to be summoned to many a council, and, through a hundred difficulties of the German nation, united upon a new and radical reformation in leader and in mem- bers, if the western division of Christendom could be restored to harmony. Only Eck and his associates were absent from the diet. Nor could any thing bet- ter be effected by the counsel which the Catholic estates, on the 27th of June, in conformity with his instruction, had submitted to the emperor, — " The Con- fession of the evangelical party, applauded by all intelligent, candid, and moder- ate men, had adopted what was commensurate with the Gospel, the word of God, and the Christian church, but what was not so, it had confuted by the word of God, and exposed in all its native deformity." At the same time the enquiry was pressed upon the evangelical party, whether they were determined to adhere to the Confes- sion already presented, or whether they had something further to introduce, in order that all might be brought to one determination, and led to pursue the same object. But now commenced the artifices of the Roman theologians, and especially of the Pope's legates and their subordinates, whose plan it was, not to enter into any fur- ther discussions, but to bring these differences to a termination by force. These men, however, were not successful in their infamous designs, and even the well disposed found but little more success in the accomplishment of their lau- dable intentions. Indeed it finally came to this result : the emperor desired a re- futation of the Confession to be drawn up in his name, to be read before the elector •;.nd his attendant", aud afterward.- the whole subject to be determined according I HISTORICAL to his proposition. In consequence of this instruction, the Roman theologians were induced to commence a preparation of this Refutation. Am©ng these were the above-mentioned John Ecic, who had been created prebendary of Regensburg for king Ferdinand ; John Schmidt or Fabsr, provost of Ofen, and court chaplain of the king; John Cochlaus, court chaplain of duke George ; Augustine Marius, the suffragan bishop of Wartzbuig ; Conrad Wirapina of Frankfort, who composed the text of the Conclusion against Luther; Conrad Colli, prior of the cloister at Rhau, who wrote against the marriage of Luther, and on that account was highly applauded by Reuchlein ; the monk Medartus, minister of king Ferdinand, whom Erasmus, in his colloquies, omits. But it was a long time before they came to the authorities with their work. They brought a great number of their contro- versial writings against Luther and his doctrine, so as to collect and compare each treatise against the Confession; but according to Chytraus, their first draft was so miserable, that it was rejected with indignation by the emperor himself; and five times had it to be revised, before it could be brought to a sufficient degree of accuracy so as to satisfy the emperor. This was not effected until the third of August, when finally the work, which was called the Confutation, was permitted to be read in the German language, by Alexander Schweis, the private secretary of the emperor, before the members of the diet in session, in the same hall in which the Confession itself had been delivered. This Confutation was drawn up according to the Latin copy of Jhe Augsburg Confession, — in fact, like that copy, composed in Latin and German at the same time, so that the arguments might be directed against the several articles in order, rejecting some entirely or in part, or such as pleased the writers, approving par- tially or in full. The testimonies of the Fathers, the decrees of councils, the can- ons, the resolutions and doctrines of the Roman church, were principally employed as the basis of their arguments, but to the holy Scriptures they appealed very sparingly indeed. They expressed an entire conformity with the first, third, eighth, ninth, sixteenth, seventeenth, eighteenth, and nineteenth articles ; they partly accordeii with the second, fourth, fifth, sixth, tenth, eleventh, twelfth, thir- teenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth articles, with the addition, however, of the spe- cific Roman doctrine concerning original sin, the meritorious nature of good works, of satisfaction, and the canonic statutes, the insufficiency of faith for righteous- ness, and especially with the addition of transubstantiation to the tenth article, the doctrine of auricular confession to the eleventh article, and the seven sacra- ments to the thirteenth article. The seventh, twentieth, and twenty-first arti- cles were entirely rejected, and the same fate attended the second part of the Confession concerning abuses, though, at a later peripd, with the acknowledgment that abases do exist in the church, especially among the spiritual orders, and that they were not unwilling to have them corrected. At the conclusion the emperor declared to the evangelical partj^, that he now perceived an entire agreement be- tween them and their adversaries^-and yet, as protector and guardian of the church, he would cause them to confer again on these subjects at another time. In the meantime, the emperor might feel that the Confutation, even in its im- proved form, still exhibited very numerous blemishes, on account of which, he re- fused to the evangelical party the transcript of the Confutation which they solic- ited, and he would not even receive the Refutation. In compliance with the order of the elector, and some other theologians, who instructed him to prepare an Apology of the Confession, Mclanchthon composed this Refutation according to the short sketches of the Confutation which Camerarius had been able to make during the time of its being read before the members of the diet ; probably too some notes and other writings of the Roman theologians were employed. Now when, on the twenty- second of September the journal of the diet was read, and it IN'TEODUCTION. " was there asserted, that the Confession of the evangelical party had been entirely invalidated by the Confutation, the elector of Saxony caused the Apology to be in- troduced and presented by Brück. Frederick, the prnice palatine, had already received it, and the emp3ror himself had extended his hand to take the manuscript, v^'hen king Ferdinand pushed back the hand of the emperor, whispered into his ear, and advised him to refuse the reception of the instrument. The first copy of the Apology was composed at the same time in Latin and Ger- man. Chytraus was the first wlio published the Latin text, according to the manu- script of Spalatin ; one other manuscript, partly by Spalatin, partly by Melanchthon, was discovered in the library at Wolfenbüttel, and earlier still, in the library of the university at Helmstadt, and a third one is contained in the Acts of the diet at Brandenburg. Both the last, Forsteman has made public, and the second in- deed, in his new book of Records, page 357, the third, page 485. The first im- pression of the German text, we find in Ccelestin's first Augsburg publication of the German text of the Augsburg Confession, 1577, published again in 1597 and in 1603, and after that transcribed in a literary review by Bertram. Forsteman has also given an edition of the manuscript found in the archives at Cassel. Now when a second journal of the diet appeared, in harsher language, still mak- ing the reiterated assertion, that the Confession had been totally invalidated by the Confutation, necessity itself forcibly impelled its friends to make this Apology more generally known. It is true Melanchthon had already been thinking of the effort, and he had commenced a revision of the first draft, the full completion of which was not effected until the middle of April, 1531, when it appeared in print. The Latin text was composed entirely by Melanchthon, the German by Justus Jonas, though not translated from the Latin exclusively by him; for Melanchthon in connection with the translation still made such additions and alterations as seemed proper, and all such additions and alterations as do not appear in the La- tin, derive their authority, however, from the same hand. Melanchthon gave this treatise the title of "The Apology of the Confession;" and in the German text, " The Apology of the Confession, translated from the Latin into German, by Justus Jonas." The term " Apology" was applied to this for the purpose of ex]3ressing the opposition which the Confessi9n encountered, on account of which they desired at the convention of Schweinfurt, that the term " Assertion"be substituted for it, or that the term Apology be explained by a de- finition made to accompany it. Brück declined this request, in the name of the evangelical party, while he replied, "that the term could not be omitted; that Apology was the correlative of Confession ; that the princes, however, and his friends did not wish that other articles be taught different from those treated of here." 2. Its Nature, Formation of the t?.xt, and its Design. — The character of the Apology depends naturally upon that of the Augsburg Confession, of which it should be viewed as a defence. Vv ith this Confession it corresponds article by article, in consequence of which Brück, with great reason, called it " the cor- relative of the Confession ;" but as it had to be at the sam-e time directed also against the arguments of the Confutation, some articles which had not been op- posed, were dispatched with a brief notice, in order to afford room for a more full explanation, a further confirmation and defence of those which had been made the subject of controversy by their opponents. Only the latter articles in the editio prbiceps and in the Hook of Concord have their titles superscribed, but neither the one nor the other is distinguished by liaving numbers to the articles. Thus, arti- cle L concerning God, and article IIL concerning Christ, are but briefly discussed, while article IL concerning original sin is treated more at large ; the same may be Eaid of article IV. concerning justification, to which a subdivision, co:;cerninglove In HISTORICAL and the fulfilment of the law, with a reply to the arguments of the adversaries is attached, and here too is controverted, what the opponents of the Reformation have alleged, in connection with their ohjections to article IV., concerning the efficacy of love and of good works. Melanchthon has passed over articles V. and VI., con- cerning the ministry of the church, and the good fruits of faith, because he had already referred to the objections of his opponents, in the foregoing articles. Ar- ticles VI. and VII., concerning the church, and w"hat the church is, he has brought together under a single view, and he has only cast a short glance at the eighth, which found a willing reception ; so too, in reference to article IX. concerning baptism, article X. concerning the Lord's Supper, article XI. concerning confes- sion, briefly discussing what relates to article XL, still further explaining and de- termining the evangelical doctrine concerning confession, as treated in the subdi- visions of article XII. Article XII. concerning repentance connected with the subjects of repentance, is treated at the same time w ith article XL In article XIIL, concerning the number and use of the sacraments, the doctrine of the Augs- burg Confession concerning the sacraments, is established, and at the same time the argument is prosecuted against the seven sacraments of the Roman church. Article XIV., concerning ecclesiastical orders, is treated briefly, as well as article XVI., concerning political orders; article XVII., concerning the return of Christ to judgment, and article XIX., concerning the cause of sin, and also article XVIII. concerning freewill, are reviewed with brevity, in reference to the Pelagian errors of the opponents, and the errors thence resulting ; so too the tv.'entieth article con- cerning good works is discussed the less explicitly, because these objections had come under consideration alreadjr in article IV. On the contrary, Blelanchthon has treated the fifteenth article, concerning human traditions in the church, with the greater earnestness and precision, because the enemies of the Confession sought to defend the spiritual necessity of human institutions. Nor has he examined ar- ticle XXL, concerning the invocation of saints, with less circumspection. With equal diligence he has defended the controverted articles, — article XXII. of the abuses in reference to both elements, article XXIII. abuses concerning the mar- riage of priests, article XXIV. abuses concerning the mass, article XXVII. abuses concerning monastic vows, article XXVIII. abuses concerning the power of the church, — while article XXV., abuses concerning confession, article XXVL, abuses concerning the discrimination of food, are passed over, because they had already been treated in the articles concerning confession and satisfaction, and concerning human traditions. Since no manuscripts of the Apology exist, either in Latin or in German, we can only refer to the edition of Melanchthon, from which has been derived vt^hat was said above concerning the Augsburg Confession. While the first edition was go- ing through the press, Melanchthon made entire alterations in the text, and, on this account, the sheets from I. to O. had to be reprinted. Vitrus Dietrich pre- served six of these sheets, and they still exist in the public library at Nuremburg, and they were brought before the public by the rector Hummel, in his " New Li- brary of rare Books," 1777. The two Latin editions of 1531 and 1538, appear not less amended, the text of which, as well as that of the Confessio t-ariata of 1510, is distinguished with the names too of the variata,. We have already remarked that the first edition in German, was no translation, but merely a revrsion of the La- tin; and this text, in a later edition, especially that of 1533, greatly changed, as may be inferred from the title: ''With numerous emendations." This first La- tin and German edition, was received into the Book of Concord. 3. Its AutJwrity and Importance. — As the first draft of the Apology was not accepted by the emperor, and as it was not published by the evangelical party, it has Consequently lost its original pyrribolic authority; and this vrould result ncc- INTRODUCTION. liii essarily from the alterations made on it by Melanchthon. But it did not first appear, as Baumgarten contends, by its reception into the Book of Concord, but it was brought forward, already in 1532 at the convention of Schweinfurt, by the evangelical party, as an acknowledgment of their faith; and in 1537 at Smalcald, it was subscribed together with ihe Confession, nor was it less included in the Corpora BoctrincF., before the publication of the Book of Concord. Concern- ing its Importance, the attacks of the adversaries furnish abundant evidence ; for they must have deeply felt with how much force these clear, lucid, and elegant arguments, the logical acuteness, the quiet serenity, as well as the warm benevo- lence with which this treatise was composed, would bear upon the trembling in- firmity of their own doctrines. Even Cochlaus himself had to complain, " that the Apology was gratifying even to most of the members of the Roman church, it was therefore necessary to prepare a brief confutation." Indeed so great and so universal was the impression made by this Apology, that he could find no one who would print his confutation. That there may be found some errors in mat- ters of secondary importance, detracts nothing from its value. On the most es- sential point, namely, on doctiine, it is as pure as the Confession itself, as a com- pletion of which it was written. IV. The Articles of Smalcald. 1. The A'pjiellation and Origin. — These articles derive their name from that of the Convention held at Smalcald, in February, 1537, this being the sixth conven- tion of the seven occasioned by the league of Smalcald, where these articles were laid before the theologians collected there on the summons of their rulers, and there they were subscribed by these theologians. Pope Paul III., in the year 1530, had proclaimed a general and long desired council, to convene on the 23d of May, 1537, and the evangelical party were also invited to attend by the Pope's legate, Peter Paul Vergerius. The evangelical party, however, entertained no great hopes as to the beneficial result of such a council ; indeed it was their opin- ion, as Luther declared, that there was no need of a council on their part. Yet they wished to keep themselves in readiness, if it should happen, to present their Confession as they had done before the emperor and the assembly at Augsburg. With this view the elector of Saxony gave instructions to Luther, on the eleventh of December, 1536, to prepare articles of faith, which could be made the grounds of deliberation at that council. Luther drew up these articles, privately at Wit- temburg, in accordance with the charge of the elector, and immediately at his re- quest laid them before Agricola and Spalatin at Amsdorf, for their examination. By these men his manuscript was approved, and on the third of January, 1537, it was sent to the elector by Spalatin. There is an appendix attached to the articles of Smalcald, which was composed also at the request of the elector, and indeed of the Convention itself. But al- though this injunction was made in the presence of all the theologians, and it is reasonable to suppose that all had received a copy of the work, yet we know that Melanchthon took up the pen, and that he is to be regarded as the exclusive au- thor. For he writes to Justus Jonas : " I have been desired to write something against the power of the pope of Rome. I have written it with a little more as- perity than I am accustomed to use." Both of these writings, at the request of the elector, were subscribed by the theologians who were present at Smalcald. Yet we need not suppose that the subscription was completed by them all at the same time in public convention; but it seems much more probable, ?n far as it relates to the articles of Smalcald, liv HISTORICAL that they were subscribed by some already at Wlttemburg, by others on the way, to whom Spalatin presented a copy for subscription, and that many subscribed after the conclusion of- the Convention. The signature of Melanchthon is quite characteristic, and it has been used as a great objection to him. Keiner has un- dertaken the justification of Melanchthon, and, as it appears to us at least, has ren- dered it evident, that his overture, which has been made the subject of so much reproach, arose from his unceasing efforts to secure a more desirable position for the church in relation to the state. We must leave it with our readers, to exam- ine for themselves, this important explanation of Keiner. We give here one from numerous other overtures mads by Melanchthon, which we find in a letter of his to Camerarius : " I do earnestly wish that I were able, not indeed to establish the dominion, but to restore the administration of the Roman priests. For I see what kind of a church we are about to have, a clergy most irregularly organized. I per- ceive that there will be a more intolerable tyranny hereafter, than has ever yet appeared." How exactly did Melanchthon foresee the future condition of the church! The signatures were attached to the appendix after its completion at Smalcald, from the 23d to the 26th of February. For, on the 23d the request of Brenz was made to Bugenhagen, and on the 26th Melanchthon makes known to the elector that all the theologians who were present had subscribed. 2. Its Nature, Formation of the tixt, and Design. — The articles of Smalcald consist of a preface which Luther first prefixed to them, when he caused the arti- cles to be printed in 1538, and of three parts, the first of which contains the arti- cles of the high, the divine Majesty, founded upon the ecumenical Symbols; the second contains the article concerning the office and work of Jesus Christ, and three articles more, concerning abuses of the papists, which have special reference to the merit of Christ; the third part contains the fifteen articles concerning re- maining points of Christian doctrine, of which Luther makes this remark : *' The following points or articles we might discuss with learned and reasonable papists, or among oin'selves." And then follows the discussion concerning the power and supremacy of the pops, and concerning the power and authority of the bishops. In this way the evangelical princes wished to justify their objections to some transactions of the pope ; for they had already determined not to acknowl- edge the authority of this council. And thus, these articles ought to be consid- ered, not so much a confession of faith, as a collection of all that the evangelical party taught as true, and all that they rejected as erroneous. An acknowledg- ment of the former they urged upon the council, and by an explanation of this, they expected the doctrines of the Roman church to be reformed. But the power to establish what ought to be taught in the church, and what ought not, they were determined never to yield to the council. The German text of the articles of Smalcald, as they flowed from the pen of Luther, affords an evidence of his keen, independent mind, which was not to be bribed or bartered in what he had learned from the word of God, and what he knew to be true ; here he always expresses his own convictions with that vigor and acuteness, which were peculiar to him. Nor is the peculiarity of Melanch- thon less observable in his portion of the work : the logical analj^sis, the compact and learned argument, the noble and dignified expressions, deserve our unreserved acknowledgment, and secure the lasting influence of this treatisi in the church. Both manuscripts, which have been used in framing the text of the articles of Smalcald, have fortunately been preserved down to our time : — the original copy of Luther, which was kept in the library of Heidelburg, and published m 1817 by Marheineck, and the copy of Spalatin which was exhibited at the Convention, and there subscribed. This %vas discovered in the archives of Weimar, and in the year INTRODUCTION. 1v 1553, was published by the theologians who were there, to which some later ad- ditions of Luther's were attached, under certain definite signs, and the places of omitted passages are likewise distinguished by marks. This copy was taken into the German Book of Concord of 1580. Luther himself in 1538 had caused the ar- ticles of Smalcald to be published in quarto by Hans Luft, at Wittemburg, and in the same year two other editions appeared in quarto, and then again in 1543. In 1545 an octavo edition followed, which was edited by Luther himself, as remarked above, containing many alterations, either by additions or omissions, which do not, however, change the sense. Luther's work was published in 1541, in a Latin translation by Peter Gennera- nus, a Dane of the village of Gennera near Apenrade, who studied theology during eight years in Wittemburg, supported by the king of Denmark, and was an inmate at Luther's house, and, at a later period, became pastor and provost of Apenrade, but finally a Roman Catholic and a professor at Ingolstadt, where he died in 1584. But, in consequence of the apostacy of the author, this translation was not re- ceived into the Book of Concord. A different translation, — alas, by far a worse one, — the author of which is supposed to have been Selneckei, though it is more probable that he was only the editor of an edition of it, published at Wittemburg in 1579, has been received. At least Feuerlein has remarked that the text of Selnecker of 1580 and the edition of 1579, have the same striking errors of the press, as nltimaim fercidiim instead of ultiimi')n judleinm. Besides, Selnecker pub- lished a particular German and Latin edition of the articles of Smalcald in the year 1582, and a second time in 1609, in which last edition the Latin text of the origi- nal appendix is given. For as Luther wrote these articles in German, so Melanchthon wrote his appendix in Latin. Yet not the original of Melanchthon, but the German translation made by Vitrus Dietrich, was presented to the estates at the convention as an official text, and subscribed by the theologians. Now, although Dietrich published this work already in 1541, with the remark: " Written by Philip Melanchthon, and trans- lated into German by Virtus Dietrich," — yet it was still forgotten that Melanch- thon vras the author of it, and in the subsequent publications of 1540, 1542, 1549, 1560, &c., it was distinguished as being without an author. Hence it happened that the theologians of Weim.ar when they in 1553, as above mentioned, published the articles of Smalcald with this translation from the manuscripts found in the archives of Weimar under the superscription empio)-ed in our Book of Concord, without any reference to a translation, with the remark, however, that it answered as the German original text; and Selnecker, in his Latin Concordia of 1580, em- ployed a different Latin, translation arranged according to the German copy, al- though Chytraus had printed in 1571 this appendix as the composition of Melanch- thon, yet under the false date of 1540. Hence the original text again became public ; and finally it was received into the Corpora, Boctriiice of the corrected Latin Concordia of 1584. Since, however, a title peculiarly incorrect was here retained, we must be very careful not to be led into error by the misapplication of a word. There is another German translation never received, however, in the church, which Gcyeiberg mads according to the Strasburg copy of 1540. For all these literary explanations our thanks are due to the industry of Bertram, whose history of the Symbolic Appendix to the articles of Smalcald, Riederer has pub- lished at Altdoy in 17 70, enlarged by Editions. 3. Its Authority and Importance. — The articles of Smalcald together with the appendix of Melanchthon, constitute an important part of the symbolic defence of the Lutherans. They were composed at the request of the evangelical princes and estates, presented before a public assembly of these nobles, approved and adopted, and in connectloa with tli; Aygjburg Co^i^eisioii and the Apology, were subscribed ivi HISTORICAL by the theologians. Thus it was proper to form them into one system with the first Symbols ; but they have, in consequence of their nature explained above, an independent significance ; because in these the Lutherans have, for the first time, explained with fullness and precision, their relation to the pope and to papists. We may say that in and through these, the Reformation has been established, and a separation of the evangelical from the Roman churches definitely settled. With great justice then do they receive a place in the Coriiora Doctrines, and in the Book of Concord. V. VI. The two Catechisms of Luther. 1. Their Appellation avd Origin. — The first church had catechumen indeed, but not catechists, in our sense of the term. Those were called catechumen, who had manifested their desire to become members of the Christian church, were known to be fitting, and now stood in immediate preparation for the reception of baptism. These catechumen were very far different from those of our time. They were persons of riper years, whose instruction had to be conducted quite differently both on this account, and in consequence of the forms then prevalent, as we perceive from the Catechesis of Cyril of Jerusalem, and from other works. Such were the catechumen mentioned in the New Testament, as Cornelius, the chamberlain from Etheopia, Aquila, and Priscilla, Apollos, the learned Jew of Alexandria, and others ; such were the earliest of the church Fathers, — Justin, Athenagoras, Tatianus, Ireneus, Tertullian, Cyprian, Arnobius, Ambrose, while bishop, Augustin and others, and if we refer to the catechetical schools of early times, Constantino the Great, who a short time before his death, caused himself to be recorded in the number of those under preparation for baptism, and showed him- self in this peculiar relation, as humble as he Avas ardent and fond of learning. As to the instruction of these catechumen, which was performed, not in churches, but in particular buildings called xa7"/;;>;orjUiva, catachets were more especi- ally necessary for the improvement of these catechetical schools, and suitable books had to be prepared, as that by Gregory of Myssa, — the o xo-^oi xafy^xv "iixoi o fisyac, and that by Augustine, — de catechizandis rudibus, — a guide by which Augustine shows to the deacon Deogratias, how he had to manage catechu- men who were men of business, learned individuals, grammarians, and other per- sons already grown and well educated. These and other catechetical writings of the first century, necessaiily were compelled to have reference always to the po- lemical objections of the Jews and pagans against the Christian system ; but on the other hand, they had to be adapted to the character of the times, until the church attained a secure position, the access of adults became less frequent, and the baptism of children grew into general practice. The form of instruction gra- dually approached more and more our form of confirmation, and alas, it was lost with the cessation of controversy, and the difficulty of observing it ; chiefly too did the zeal of instructors introduce numerous forms of instruction and external ceremonies in the place of confession and of a living faith. Applause, however, is due to Charles the Great, who perceived the importance of religious instruction, and earnestly labored to promote its extension. He and Lewis improved the institutions for the catechetical instruction of the people, in the common language of the Romans, as well as in the theological language of the church. In the eighth and ninth centuries, the first German catechisms appeared, namely, those by Kero of Salle, and Godfrey of Weisenburg, and then again in the eleventh centufy by Notker Labeo. Ulric, bishop of Augsburg, made it the •;Hpecial duty of the clergy to attend to the catechetical instruction of the people; INTRODUCTION. IvÜ &nd Otto of Eamburg assigned forty days to the pagan applicants as a period of pre. paration for baptism. On the whole, however, there appeared much less solici- tude in regard to catechetical instruction in the dominant church, up to the time of the Reformation. Only the treatise of Gerson, de parvnlis trahendis ad Chris- tum, and the treatise of the bishop of Chester, Reginald Peacock, can he named as elementary woiks on the Christian religion. But so much the more active were the sects which had seceded from the church, — the Albigenses and Waldenses, the Wickliffs and Hussites ; for they were well assured that their own existence, un- der the oppressions of the dominant church, chielly depended upon a radical iti- struction of the young. Luther was also aware of this. The Reformation Would prosper then only, when its interest was identical with that of the people, and this could only then take place when the people from their youth, under suitable instruction, were initiated into the doctrines of the church, by the confession of the truth. Already in 1518 he published some works adapted with this view to the instruction of the people, and these were treatises which w^e may very properly term the first cate- chisms,— " Short forms of the Ten Comm.andments, of the Creed, and of the Lord's Prayer ;" which were printed in that year five tim.es, once in the following year, and still more frequently without any mention of the year and place. Other meft followed his example; and in 1525, Jonas, and Agricola of Eisleben, by the in- struction of the elector, undertook the preparation of a catechism. But all the catechisms which appeared in the early days of the ReformatioHj could not retain the general esteem of the people; they all had to yield to the ca- techism of Luther. Very early he had conceived the design of writing a cate- chism ; for he says in the preface to his edition of the Scriptures : " In the name of God, a plain, simple, unadorned catechism is necessary, first of all in the Ger- man service, for the Mass and the arrangement of divine worship. But a cate- chism is a book of instruction, in which we may teach the heathen, who wishes to become a Christian, what he ought to believe, to suffer, and to know. Hence those young sttidents, who are to receive instruction, and who must learn the Creed before they are baptized, are called catechumen. And let no one think him- self so wise as to despise this amusement of children. When Christ wished to gain men, he himself had to become a man ; so if we expect to gain children, we must become children with them." But Luther readily perceived how absolutely necessary it was that he should undertake this work, when he assisted in the church visitation held in Saxony in 1527 and 1529. Of this he speaks himself in the beginning of the preface to his Smaller Catechism : " The deplora- ble wretchedness which I recently witnessed, when I visited your parishes, has impelled me to publish this catechism, drawn up in a very simple and brief form. Eternal God! what distress did I behold! — The people, especially those living in the country, and even parishioners for the most part, possessing so little knowl- edge of the Christian doctrine !" Thus on both hands Luther observed deficien- cies,— on the part of the people, the want of Christian knowledge, on the part of ministers, an unfitness for the proper perform.ance of their official duties. Both of these deficiencies affected him to che heart ; to both parties assistance must be afforded, and thus the two catechisms took their origin, which afford, in a manner as yet unexcelled, not only all that is necessary for a Christian to know, but to the minister also the most excellent instructions for a profitable use of these doc- trinal books. Though such be the origin of both catechisms, it must not be supposed, how- ever, that Luther composed his large catechism, which he had commenced already at the end of 1528, from the first as a manual for the teacher ; but according to his shorter preface, he designed this catechism " as a book of instruction for children IT iVui HISTORICAL and illiterate psrsons, and he explains at the Conclusion, the threefold division of the catechism, which was ths usual practice among the ancients, — The Ten Com- mandments, the Creed, and the Lord's Prayer, — where he says, that he would close v/ith these three divisions; and these he arranges under the superscriptions, "the first Part," "second Part," "third Part;" and he then gives the article concerning baptism and the Lord's Suppsr as an appendix. With equal precision he has expressed himself also in the explanation of the principal divisions: at the beginning of the part concerning baptism, he says: "We have now prepared the three principal- divisions of the Christian doctrine; in addition ro these, we have still to speak of the two sacraments," &c. ; and in the Conclusion he enters still further into the consideration of the design of the work for the old and young. With this the declaration of Luther, in his letter of the 15th of January, 1529, to Martin Görlitz, exactly corresponds : " I am now engaged in preparing a catechism for the uninstructed members of the chureh ;" where, there is no need of suppos- ing, as seems to have been done up to the present time, that he spoke in reference to the Small Catechism alone. Judging from the plan of the Larger Catechism, and from his own declaration above referred to, Luther from the first had not the design of writing two catechisms. But his work expanded under his hand, and at the completion of it, he knew that it vrould not be suitable, in this form, for the instruction of the common people, of children, and the unlearned, and hence he de- termined to prepare for these persons a small catechism. In April, l-')29, the Large Catechism was completed in the German language ; in May and July a translation was executed by Lonicer and Obsopoeus ; towards the end of summer the Small Catechism appeared, a Latin translation of which was in circulation so early as in September. That the Small Catechism had not yet been thought of at the completion of the larger one, is proved beyond a doubt by the remarks of Ob- sopoeus in the preface to his translation of the Laiger Catechism, July 1 : " But to this we have added the two catechisms of John Erentius, of the church of Halle, for they may serve as an abstract or epitome of this one which is more diffuse." Whether, in the composition of his catechisms, Luther had recourse to writ, ings of the kind already existing, more especially those of the Bohemian Brethren, which had become more widely diffused in this branch of ecclesiastical literature, than the Roman church was at that time, is a question very difficult to decide. Augustine denies this, asserting that these catechisms appeared much later ; but KoUner with propriety reminds us, that the Bohemian Brethren, already in 1523, had caused a catechism to be printed in German and Bohemian, and likewise sent a Latin copy to Luther, of which he draws his proof from their own writings. It is moreover worthy of observation that their catechism contains, besides the three ancient divisions of the doctrines of the church, the doctrines also concerning the sacraments and the tableof family duties. And although Luther hai adopted a sim- ilar arrangement for his Smaller Catechism, yet he has entirely remodelled that whole text, so far as it was not taken from the Bible ; and with great justice, indeed, in addition to other epithets of distinction, with which his cotemporaries and pos- terity have honored himj he seems richly entitled to that of "Father of Cate- chisms." It still remains for us to refer to the appellations, under which Luther caused his doctrinal works to appear. The smaller one he calls, " The Enchiridion, or Small Catechism for the common parishioner and minister." The larger one he calls, " The German Catechism." The name Catechism for such writings as were calculated to subserve the instruction of the young, was already in general currency. That term, however, was not applied to any works of Christian anti- q,uity. To such writings was then applied the term xar^^^j^mc, from xa,-tr^x<:^-, ia the sense of " to sound into the car ol anjr oae," that is,. " to instruct by word INTRODUCTION. lix of mouth," and then again, " to inform concerning something," " to teach about something, especially in leference to religious truth," in which sense this word soon afterwards came into general use in the church. KoUner contends that the word Catechism was first introduced by the Eohemian Brethren, who had named their catechetical writings Cat;c/ter th^ com non parishioner and minister, enlarged and improved, from Dr. Martin Luther's works published at WJttemburg, 1587." Cer- tain references to the doctrines of the Roman church, which were found in the earlier writing? of Luther, were append :'d to this work, in order tobring the articles of the ■catechism into bad repute. With no less earnestness did the Cryptocalvinists act, ■who sought to betray the people by misrepresentations of the Lutheran catechism, and to injure it by their insidious intrigues. It should be understood, that the Luth- eran theologians did not fail to oppose these wicked attempts of their adversaries, as they had done, in reference to other false charges. But such attacks could only but serve to elevate the regard of the Lutheran church for t'.ii valuable labors of her principal teacher; for the attempts of her adversaries proved throughout Germany the incalculable value of these books ; or rather much more. For they themselves afterwards made extracts out of the Small Catechism, a book drawn up in such an elementary form, that nothing is calculated to serve better as instructions for children, and nothing further can be desired for the conscience of the man of general knowledge. For this reason they have both, by the Form of Concord, with great propriety been denomina- ted the bible of the laity ; and their symbolic authority, thus established, has con- tinued and will continue, so long as the Lutheran church exists. On the contra- ry, it is very natural that, at a time when the unlimited authority of the holy Scriptures themselves has been questioned and resisted, the like oppositions must attend our catechism. Lidecd strong efforts were made b3'- the Neologists to expel the catechisms of Luther out of the churches and schools, and secretly to intro- duce, as the Jesuits and Cryptocalvinists had done, books of doctrine entirely op- posed to the principles of Luther, though sanctioned by his name. Innumerable is the multitude of those catechisms, which came to light in the course of fifty years. But whilst they have been rising and imperceptibly stealing away into forg'tfulness, the catechisms of Luther have triumphantly maintained the field, and, in the hands of true ministers, have enabled them to accomplish, even in our days, the regeneration of the church. Let us then come to the conclusion, that these false systems of faith must yield ; that our catechisms, from the great length INTllODUCTION. Ixiii of time during which they have maintained their superiority*, will prcseive their symbolic authority; let us contide in that authority ; and when we are induced to wander i'rom the picfcribed path of the church, let us thus be recalled to a more imil'orm system of belief. In regard to evidences for the great excellence of the catechifms of Luther, es- pecially the smaller one, there is no scarcity indeed : there would be easily a grea- ter number found than we can possibly introduce here. Justus Jonas, himself the author of a catechism, makes this declaration respcctirg it : " 'I he catechifm is a small book, \vhich a person can purchase for sixpence, but six thousand worlds are not commensurate with its. value. The believer knows that the Holy Ghost com- municated it to the venerable Luther." Dr. Eugenhagen always adhered to it, and made some severe remarks about the civil authorities, who, he said, did rot value it sufficiently high. Prince George of Anhalt test'fies, that in this small bible of the laity, the substance of the doctrines of all the Prophets an^ Apostles, is collected in the shortest possible compass. Mutthcsius rays that Dr. Luther, in all his life, has produced nothing more excellent and useful ; for he had used the two catechisms in his family, in school, and on the pulpit, and was conscious that the whole world could not sufficiently express their thanks to Luther. Dr. Frd. Mayer gives it the foUovviing applause : " Embracing as many ideas as words ; as many useful lessons as heads. — Brief in its little pages, but inccm.parable in the magnitude of theological principles." Dr. Sicgmond Eaumgarten calls it, "the true jewel of our church, and a most potent masterpiece of composition." To the same effect Leopold Ranke declares, that " the catechism which Dr. Luther pub- lished in the year 15:39, and concerning which he said that ' he studied it himself, though he was an old doctor,' is as excellently adapted for children as it is thought- ful; as elegant as it is incontrovertible, uniform and distinct. Haj-j-y is he who brings his soul to conform with its precepts, who will steadfastly adhere to it ! He alone can return sufficient gratitude to the wisest of the wise, who fixes his unwavering confidence every moment in the holy truths here presented in the trans- parency of beauty." The same applause has frequently been expressed too by men, who do not coincide with the doctrines of Luther. Respecting a copy of the small catechism which did not contain the name of Luther, a certain theologian exclaims : '• Blessed be the hands which wrote this holy book!" How should we not accord with this pious prayer of Matthcsius : "May Christ the Lord convey this holy cate- chism with the VVittemburgian explanations, from our hands into the hearts of pious- fathers and their chiUU-cn, and graciously bless it in the work of salvation." Vn. The For:.i of CG^"cor.rl. 1. It's Appellation and Origin. — As the Form of Concord is the latest Symbol in the Lutheran church, so it has been the most violently opposed, a circumstance which naturally resulted from its originating amidst the agitations and controver- sies of the church ; and indeed if Vv'e can form a correct judgment of these contio- versies, we can at the same time have a j)rop3r conception of the Form of Concord. Thus the members of the Lutheran church had many reasons, to form as close a union among themselves as possible after the death of Luther. And yet on the day of the meeting of Concord, in iö 16, after his death, every thing like harmony seemed to vanish from them. Lideed such a state of things could not faii to occur among the teachers of error and among sectarians, as it could not be otherwise amidst that activity of spirit and that more unrestrained freedom of speech which arose with the Refoima;t;on. Yet the p.owerfuI spirit of the illustrious Luther held them IXIV HISTORICAL down, and kept tliem under some restraint, either to perform their duties to the Christian community, or to separate themselves entirely from it. But the more the flame was smothered during his lifetime, the more fiercely it broke forth after his death. The unfortunate war of Smalcald so earnestly opposed by Luther, with all its painful consequences, and among these especially the Interim, and the controversy about the sacraments, as well ae the intrigues of the Cryptocalvinists in Saxony, gave the chief impulse to those agitations which afterwards prevailed in the Lu- theran church. Nor did they rest here ; but as jealousies arose in the controversy from a bitterness of spirit, so controversies about matters of little importance crea- ted distrust among the theologians, which, excited to the highest degree of vio- lence by presumption and obstinacy, increased the disquietude of the church. At present it may be regarded as a most important consideration, as the custom has uniformly been since the time of Planckj that the Lutherans, in this instance, did not always observe a due degree of moderation, — indeed it was too much disre- garded on both sides, — while it must not be maintained, on the one hand, that the Lutherans had any good reasons to introduce unusual forms of expression in theo- logical matters with distrust, and in consequence to apprehend injurious results in reference to the church ; and, on the other hand, that they had to act not only in conjunction with public enemies, but with false friends ; but especially that the tontest was not with one assailing their own reputation, nor invading the stability of the church, but with those who, by the most unwarrantable means, and by the most objectionable duplicity, — as by false representati'ons of the writings of Lu- ther,— through a contemptible abuse of the confidence of their princes, were en- deavoring to undermine the Lutheran system. The Lutherans never had recourse to such means; they never sought to employ such artifices in their arguments against the Confession of others. But the Lutheran church can boast of baring settled the conflict not only of these, but even of numerous eflbrts, in the proper manner, that is, by means pro- per to be employed by a church. From these efforts, in the year 1536, resulted the " Form of Concord" at Wittemburg, and in 1574 the " Form of Concord be- tween the Swiss and Saxon churches" appeared, the last of which became the foundation of our " Form of Concord." Already before this Form came into existence, numerous efforts had been made for the restoration of concord; and with this, in 1558 the diet of the electorate of Frankfort, in 1501 that of -the prince of Kaumburg, and in 1568 the colloquy at Altenburg, were held. Things, however, were not brought to an adjustment by these efforts ; on the contrary they became infinitely worse. This was especially the case between the theologians of the prince of Saxony and those of the duke of Saxony. In Saxony, especially at Wittemburg, the doctrine of the Cryptocalvin- ists prevailed, which the pupils and friends ot Melanchthon had spread over the whole country ; in the jurisdiction of the duke, the doctrines of Luther were main- tained, principally by the theologians at Jena. The political relation of these con- tending parties, as it had arisen during the war of Smalcald, naturally contributed to prolong these dissensions. August, the prince of Saxony, however, felt the ne- cessity of re-establishing the peace of the church. And when Julius, the duke of Brunswick, in company with William, the landgrave of Hesse Cassel, and Jacob Andrea, the provost of Tübingen, an accomplished and excellent man, was sent . to him, he received them graciously, and gave orders to the theologians at Wit- temburg to hold a consultation with them in reference to the controverted points, and to labor with assiduity for '.vhatever might contribute to prom.ote the security Of Christian unity. ■ Andrea h;id alrt-ady in 15CS. dr^wn up a draft, coniisfing of five articb:?, for the INTRODUCTION. IxV purpose of restoring harmony in the church, and when the consultation at Wit- temburg proved unavailing, in consequence of the insincerity of the theologians who were there, he laid it before a second convention of the theologians of Wit- temburg and Leipsic at Dresden in 1570, but here also he failed to secure the ac- knowledgment of these men. In the same year, twenty-one theologians under the jurisdiction of the elector of Saxony, of the duke of Brunswick, of the land- grave of Hesse Cassel, of John the margrave of Küstrin, of the prince of Anhalt, and of the cities of Lower Saxony, assembled at Zerbst, and united themselves under what was called the Norma, Servestana, that is, to the following effect, that only the Three Syipbols, the Augsburg Confession, and the Apology, to- gether with the writings of Luther, but not the Corpus doctrinae of Melanchthon, should prevail as a rule of doctrine. But here also the ingenious artifice of the Philippists completely deceived the simplicity of Andrea, who was even suspect- ed of having formed a secret conspiracy with them, and was compelled to defend himself openly against the charge. Precisely such was the case too, in reference to the learned Dr. N. Selnecker, through whom the duke of Brunswick charged the elector to watch the movements of the Wittemburgians, and he was sent by the elector, bearing the injunction to these, to furnish him with a plain and cor- rect explanation, by which every injurious misunderstanding might be prevented or removed. Not only was he most egregiously deceived by those men, who maintained neither the truth nor the faith, and who proved themselves like real Pharisees on the seat of Moses, that is, of Luther ; but there was also a second convention held at Dresden in October 1571, with an instrument called the Co7i- sensHs Dresdensis, drawn up by the theologians of Wittemburg, and imposed on those delegates, which soon turned out to be a real Dissc7isus, and w"as rendered nugatory by their dishonest conduct. .Still the elector continued to exercise patience towards them, and employed the mildest modes of reasoning and reference, so as to persuade them not to circulate that execrable book of Exegesis, published at Leipsic in 1574; even after the executive committee had advised severer meth- ods to be employed, and foreign kings, princes, and lords had advised the same. But in the investigations which were made, in consequence of this requisition, and especially by a letter of the secret Calvinists, sent to the elector, facts came to light at Wittemburg, and at his court, which placed the duplicity and de- signs of these men beyond all doubt, and compelled the elector to exert himself more zealously against them. In May 1574, ne brought these matters before the diet acting in cojunction with nineteen disinterested professors and superin- tendents, and articles affirmative and negative were laid before them, drawn up by Daniel Greser, Dr. Casper Eberhard, Casper Reidenreich, and Dr. Martin Mirus, while the president of the Consistory, Dr. Paul Crell filled the chair, which articles, under the name of a Declaration of the Dresden Confession, which have also been denominated the Articles of Torgau, were received and subscrib- ed. The result of the investigation was, that those who refused to subscribe these Articles, were rejected and banished from the country, or thrown into prison, some for their lifetimes. In this manner the Cryptocalvinists in Saxony were repressed, but by no means exterminated.- Andrea perceiving this, sought by the friendly power of argument to reestablish the unity of the church. He caused six sermons to be printed con- cerning the dissensions in the church, and sent them to M. Chemnitz and D. Chytraus, in order to secure the acknowledgment and signature of the Saxon the- ologians. But as these sermons did not obtain genera! approbation and assent, An- drea framed them into eleven affirmative and negative articles, which he named the Explanations of the churches of Suabia and the dukedom of Wittemburg. This work was partially altered and improved by Chytraus and Chemnitz, and received r Ixvi HlSTOmCAI. the title "The Suabian and Saxon Form of Concord." It met with great appro- bation from Julius, duke of Brunswick, who secured its reception in Lower Saxo- ny, and sent it to the elector August, who received also about the same time the Form of Maulbrun from George Ernst, the landgrave of Henneberg, who had caused this Form to be drawn up by Luke Oslander and B. Bidembach, for the purpose of allaying the controversies of the church. In the mean time the elector, on the 21st of November 1575, had referred a treatise of his own, together with a memorial, also in his own hand writing, to his private Council, in which he solicited their cooperation in this work, and showed how it should be commenced and prosecuted. We have to ascribe much weight to these exertions of the elector, against the charges of the opponents of the work of Concoid, already mentioned in section third, because they prove that an opportu- nityfor this salutary work was secured by the elector alone, and that he knew per- fectly well in what manner things might be brought into the most favorable sit- uation. The declarations of the elector are especially worthy of remark, that good in every respect must not be expected from the immortal Philip Ivlelanchthon, and that the restoration of peace must not be looked for from a colloquy, a convention or the like. On this account, Dr. P. Leyser with justice observed, that no one should intimate that the elector suffered himself to be deceived by the theo- logians ; and that he in every respect acted as they had directed him. Dr. Sel- necker likewise declares that it would be a shameless fiction, should any one presume that the wise elector should have been induced by a few theologians, to take up the labor of restoring Christian Concord. The importance of both these testimonies induces us to give the following gen- uine transcript. The passage written by the prince reads thus: " Counsellors be- loved and faithful, experience shows alas ! what good the schism among our the- ologians in our country and in other lands, is calculated to produce; and although we should have hoped that the Lord would have in some way devised means by which the theologians might have united among themselves, yet it is abundantly apparent from the colloquy at Altenburg, what kind of a union is manifested by them. And although every civil government should conduct itself with caution and timidity, in attempting interferences with the perplexed minds of the theolo- gians, yet I have foresight enough to perceive, as there is no Pope amongst us, that if government does not interpose, nothing better need be expected from this schism but a greater amount of injury and disadvantage, which will entail a train of miseries upon our posterity. And though in reference to my own person, I have re- volved considerations on each hand, so far as my understanding enabled me, yet no- thing has seemed so pleasant to me as to urge you on in this work ; as there can be no ability in me to execute a task of such magnitude, — an ability which should be re- garded as indispensable in matters of such importance, so I hope that my expres- sions and my meaning in this memorial will be sufficiently understood by every one, and that every one will perceive that I seek nothing farther- than a unity of doctrine and of the theologians ; and may God grant us his gracious aid in effecting this ! Amen . It is, therefore, my earnest request to you, that you advance to this great work, with the utmost speed, and with mature deliberation, in order to secure harmony of doctrine and of the theologians ; do not suffer yourselves to be misled, because your instructor may not be considered correct in every respect ; and on this account, look more to the honor of God than to that of mortal man, I make no doubt, that, without any suggestions of mine, you will know how to act with due diligence and deliberation , continuing to communicate to me your views and determinations, this I expect of you, and remain 5^ours most graciously. Done at Augsburg, November 21, 1575. Augustus the elector, to John of Bern- stein, Thomas of Ssbottendorf, Dr. Laurence Lindemari, and Dr. D. Feifer." INTRODUCTION, IxvÜ The following memorial accompanied this communication. " Though I have revolved the subject in various aspects, it seems to me almost impossible that there should be any unity among us, who acknowledge the Augsburg Confession, beholding, as we do, that in the jurisdiction of every Lord, there is a distinct sys- tem of doctrines, which is called a Corpus doctrinae, composed and sent abroad, in consequence of which, not only many people are led astray, but the minds of the theologians are embittered against each other, so that they become every day further and further alienated ; and alas ! it is to be feared that, through this ma- lignity and alienation of mind, the theologians, who shall succeed us, — a calam- ity which the gracious God only can avert, — will in a short time be led off entirely by new doctrines and in controversies like these, the true doctrine will be lost. Let no one, who is better qualified to effect this, however, suppose that I have anticipated him in offering the following suggestions. "And because I cannot entertain any hopes, from past circumstances and expe- rience, -painful as it may be to make the acknowledgment, that the theologians can be induced to feel reconciled, to be composed, or to hear the voice of reason calmly from one another, in any colloquy or any other convention, far less to frame a system of union among themselves, yet I have been thinking, though it may not be the best way, that we, who acknowledge the Augsburg Confession, unite ourselves in a friendly spirit ; that every lord name some theologians who are lovers of peace, to the number of three or four persons, as well as an equal num- ber of political counsellors, and appoint a day for them to assemble. Then let every lord bring his Corpus doctrinae with him, and deliver it over to the assem- bled theologians and civil counsellors, that they cause the Augsburg Confession to be their model, and try, and deliberate, and determine, how they may, by the grace of God, according to that Corpus <^of<^/-/;«ae, form a single Corpiis doctrinae out of all that may be presented, to which we may all make acknowledgment; that book or Corpus doctrinae, ba reprinted and sent to every lord for his own special perusal and conviction." The private counsellors could only sanction the proposition of the elector, and they advised an early promulgation of this view together with the theologians who accompanied them ; and thus a communication was sent to other evangelical .princes and lords, as the elector John George of Brandenburg, the landgrave "Will- iam of Hesse Cassel, George Frederick, margrave of Brandenburg and Anspach, And George Ernst prince of Henneberg; and in February 1576, a convention of twelve theologians was summoned at Lichtenburg, a castle of the elector, near Prettin on the Elbe, in order that their plans might there be proposed and discuss- ed. There were three points which they proposed for their special reference and consideration. 1. That all reproaches, all charges should be laid aside and forgot- ten, and that every controversy should be regarded as extinct and exterminated. 2. That the Corpus doctrinae of Melanchthon should no longer be forced upon the conscience as a rule and Confession of Faith; but that the prophetical and apos- tolic writings only should maintain their authority without limitation or restric- tions of any kind, and after these the three general symbols ; the original and un- altered Augsburg Confession, together with its Apology, Luther's Smaller and Larger Catechisms, and the A.rticles of Smalcald, to which might be added Lu- ther's Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians in reference to the doctrine of justification. But all the books of the Cryptocalvinists, as the new Cat- echism of Vfittemburg, the Book of Questions, the Proof, like the Consensus Dresdensis, should be rejected. 3. Finally it was proposed that the most dis- interested theologians, as well as those named by the landgrave William, as Dr. Chytraus, Dr. Chemnitz, Dr. Jacob Andrea, and Dr. Marbach, undertake this wnrk of r'^cnnriliation, in compliance with tIt» A^Atp of the elector and other Ixviii HISTORICAL princes, compare the articles of the Augsburg Confession again with each other, erase or correct ungrammatical forms of expression, though without any mention of names, and likewise to explain some things in a christian manner, in order that the true, sincere servants of the Lord might not appear chargeable with the errors of those who preferred the false. From this proposition of the elector, made probably on the seventeenth of Feb- ruary, he now took a further step. He sent the Form of Maulbrun and the Con- fession of Lower Saxony, to Dr. Jacob Andrea, for the purpose of receiving his advice in reference to this matter, and requested him to make the two treatises, the first of which was short, the second large and inconvenient, (it must be re- membered that the latter was compiled by Andrea himself, and revised by Chem- nitz and Chytraus,) the foundation of a new confession, and in this way to unite both the former works, rejecting the imperfections of both ; and thus it was pre- sented, on Sunday of Rogation week. May 1576, in the general assembly at the castle of Hartenfels at Torgau. Twenty theologians were summoned to this col- loquy, and eighteen actually appeared. Eleven of these, — Dr. Morlin, Dr. Crell, Dr. Selnecker, Dr. Harder, Daniel Gröser Dr. Mirus, M. Lysthen, M. Jageteufel, M. Cornicalius, M. Sciuitz, and M. Glasser, had been at Torgau in 1574, and all were then present at Lichtenburg ; the other seven, most- ly foreigners, — Dr. Andrea Musculus, Dr. Christopher Körner of Frankfort Dr. Jacob Andrea of Tübingen, Dr. David Chytraus of Rostock, Dr. Martin Chemnitz of Brunswick, M. Casper Heyderich, superintendent at Torgau, and John Zanger, coadjutor of Brunswick for the first time appeared at the summons of the elector. John Jentsch, private secretary of the elector was also present. The Synod had the most fortunate result. Its members acted in every respect according to the opinion of Andrea; and by the seventh of June 1576, they were able to deliver the fruits of their labors to the elector, who, in the same benefi- cent spirit which he had previously manifested, — that he would willingly be sub- jected to the expense of a hundred thousand guilders or more, in order to restore the peace of the church, — even with greater joy than heartfelt humility, wrote to Andrea : "Beloved lord and doctor,^with sincerity of heart, I give thanks to the benevolence of God, because the Almighty has graciously heard my humble prayer, and with his Holy Spirit has kindly assisted you in the settlement of two great Articles, as your letter informs me," — (in reference to Original sin and Freewill, upon v/hich two points Andrea had written that the members of the Synod had united and expressed one unanimous sentiment,) — "bringing your de- liberations to a happy conclusion ; and vAW he not hear my prayer, weak and contemptible as it may appear before the eternal God, to carry this work on still farther, until all the difficulties of this Cliristian assembly be brought to a conclu- sion grateful to us all? And may the Holy Trinity lend its aid to this great ob- ject! Amen. And be you entreated ever to advance, as you now have been do- ing, for the faithfulness of God will assuredly ever stand by you. Augustus, the elector." This system of Doctrine drawn up at Torgau, the arrangement of which, in twelve articles, was afterwards made a foundation for the Form of Concord, had the title : "The resolutions at Torgau, showing in what manner and by what means, through the power of the word of God, the rising dissensions between the theologians of the Augsburg Confession, may be settled and composed in chris- tian harmony, A. D. 1576." and to this was prefixed the preface to the Form of Maulbrun. So soon as the work Avas laid before the elector, he examined it not only himself, but sent it to his private council, and afterwards to other evangel- ical princes and estates, with the request that they would also examine it care- fully, and return it to him with their corrpotinns and remarks. Dr. Martin. INTRODUCTION. IxiK Chemnitz and especially Dr. Jacob Andrea wrote to others, who took great in- terest in this review ; for it was an object of earnest solicitude with the elector, to have this work examined with the utmost precision, and to have every sen- tence of it brought to as high a degree of perfection as possible. After the opinions and criticisms of most of these men had been obtained, the elector delivered them to three theologians, who have already been named very frequently, — Chemnitz, Andrea, and Selnecker, — in order that they might re- view and improve this book of Torgau from the criticisms now before them. This duty they accomplished in 1577, at the cloister of Bergen near Magdeburg, for the first time, and very probably in April of the same year, as some criticisms upon the work were still coming in, in a second conference they reviewed it a- gain ; but the final conclusion of this review was at last effected at a third and lar- gei assembly in May of the same year, where Musculus, Körner, and Chytraus were engaged in addition to the three theologians mentioned above. For the pur- pose of obviating the inconvenience complained of in consequence of the size of the Book of Torgau, an Abstract from it, called the Epitome, was made at the first convention; and at present in the title applied to the whole work, still consisting of two parts, which it retains in our Book of Concord, and which was originally "A general, clear, correct and final repetition, " instead of the first word was substituted the word " radical, " because it was indicated that all members of the Lutheran church would not adopt this book. There was still another conven- tion summoned by the electors of Saxony and of Brandenburg in 1578 at Tanger- münde, with the view of profiting by the latest remarks and corrections ; but the decision was, to be careful that no further alterations be made in the work. Other conventions, of the Hessians at Langensalza, of the theologians of Anhalt at Herzberg, and of the theologians of the elector at Smalcald ; but of these only the last proved of any consequence. Finally in January 1579, at the convention of Jiiterbock, a preface was composed by the reviewers of the book of Torgau ; in February at Bergen, especially after some remarks by the elector of Pfalz, some alterations were made, and in June it was entirely concluded at Jiiterbock. Such was the origin of this treatise, which at first was called the Book of Con- cord, and afterwards, so far as we can learn from Selnecker's Recitations, in the edition of Heidelberg of 1582, it was called the Form of Concord. For Selnecker remarks, — that "Some one, in reference to the title of the book, intimates that 'Form of Concord' may seem too ostentatious." The former appellation is the most generally current, while the latter might easily be confounded with "The Book of Concord," that is, the full collection of the Symbolic books, the codex sijinioUcus of the Lutheran church. The appellation "Book of Bergen" was orig- inally applied by the three Lutheran theologians, but at a later period it was re- tained only by the opponents of the work of Concord, to whom "Form of Con- cord" was very naturally a quite exceptionable term. 2. — Its Nature, Formation of the text, and its Design. The Form of Concord is divided as to its contents into two parts, the "Epitome," and the "Full Dec- laration." Each of these two principal parts has twelve articles, which are alike in both as to their character, and only differ from each other in form and expression ; while the Epitome, in strict conformity with its name, presents the articles in short sentences, and in such a manner, that each first represents the state of the controversy, in the second place enforces the affirmative arguments of the Christian church, and in the third place, the negative, or the antitheses, exposing the false doctrines of the opponents. The "Full Declaration " does not contain this threefold arrangement of articles, but presents the arguments more explicitly and in immediate connection, while at the same time the choice precepts of the holy Scripture, the quotations from the Fathers of the church, from the other IXX HISTORICAL symbols, and from the writings of Luther, are added. Besides the twelve arti- cles, each division has an introduction : " Of the summary, rule, and standard, ac- cording to which all doctrines are to be judged, and the errors which have arisen, are to be determined and explained in a pious manner " ; and in the Full Declara- tion, besides the preceding, there is a brief preface. In the arrangement of the articles, reference was had to the Augsburg Confes- sion ; for it was the design of the Form of Concord to furnish an explanation of the first Symbol, and to obviate successfully the objections of certain theologians directed against that Confession. But as the chief design of the authors and pro- moters of the work of Concord, as well as the most effectual defence of the Au- gustan System of doctrine, depended upon the settlement of controversies, and upon a mild and gentle correction of existing errors, so all personal insinuations were to be avoided, and distinct reference was only to be made to the doctrines, and not to the teachers of those doctrines. The Coudenmatiou in the antitheses, of false doctrine, to which so many violent objections had been made, notwith- standing the full explanation given in the preface, — while to a similar condem- nation in the Augsburg Confession and in other Symbols, no objections had been urged, intended no personal assault, much less a determination upon the eternal destiny of any one, but it should be regarded merely as a mode of expression current in the church. And because the sui^pression of the various dissensions in the Lutheran church, was the main object contemplated in the Form of Concord, so those articles of the Augsburg Confession, which had been express- ly directed against the erroneous doctrines of the Roman church, were here no farther discussed, though the opinions in opposition to the articles concerning Orig- inal Sin, Justification, Good Works, the Lord's Supper, and some other points, were always mentioned. Since, as already remarked, the Form of Concord, In the explanation of contro- verted points, expressly attacks no individual, and, concerning matters of facts themselves, treats so far only as seemed absolutely necessary, circumstances seem to demand some brief explanations. The first article concerning Original Sin is directed against the errors of Mathias Flacius and his followers, as well as against the Pelagian doctrine of the Eoman church. The second article concernin* Freewill is opposed to the doctrines of the Synergists and the Phil- lippists. The third article concerning the justification by Faith before God, at- tacks the errors of Oslander and Stancarus, and at the same time it is directed against the friends of the Intsrim, which would not admit that man is justified by faith alone. Li the fourth article concerning Good Works, the propositions of Major and Nicholaus are rejected, which are opposed to each other and culpably extravagant on both sides. In the fifth article concerning the Law and the Gos- pel, the true doctrines on both these subjects are supported in opposition to the views of John Agricola and other extravagant defenders of the Law, and they are even referred to in the course of the sixth article concerning the third use of the Law. The seventh article concerning the Lord's Supper is directed against the public and private Sacramentarians and against the Calvinists, where the papal doctrine of transubstantiation with the abuses resulting from it, are rejected. The eighth article concerning the person of Christ is directly opposed to the Crypto— calvinists, and the doctrine which denies the descent of Christ into hell, — a doc- trine not to be found in the Suabian and Saxon Form. The tenth article which describes the usages of the church, which usages are called Adia-phora or means, rejects the errors of the so-called Adiaphorists, who took their origin from the adoption and approbation of the Interim. The eleventh article concerning the eternal foreknowledge anil election of God, is opposed to the Calvinistic doctrine of predestination; and it will guard against all ambiguous expressions, by Y.hicb, INTRODUCTION. Ixxi on the one hand, men are induced to feel a groundless security, and on the other, are thrown into despair through the weakness of their faith, — a provision so much the more necessary, because the earlier Symbols had established no definite opinions on this point, and Luther himself as w'cll as Melanchthon, strongly at- tached at first to the Augustan theory, yet at a later period had forsaken it. The twelfth article concerning other sects and heresies which never had acknowl- edged the Augsburg Confession, had no other object than the perfect establish- ment of the reformation, — that the Lutheran church, in doctrine and practice never had and never would have any conformity with the propagators of commo- tion and error. A catalogue of Testimonies was added, as an appendix, however without any symbolic force, and merely as a private document prepared by An- drea and Chemnitz, which exhibits the evidences from Scripture and from the Fathers of the church, concerning the union of the two natures in Christ, and the communion of properties resulting from that union, with the positive declaration that the Lutheran church has introduced no new doctrine on this subject. As the elector of Pfalz contended that this document by the appellation of Appendix was characterized as a general division of the Book of Concord, and consequently as a symbolic writing, an authority which it could not assume, it was afterwards entirely omitted in many editions, or else no longer distinguished by the name of Appendix, as it had been in the oldest edition. On this account, tlie signatures are not attached to the Appendix, but they stand before it, and immediately after the conclusion of the Form of Concord. The original copy of these subscriptions, which we had the opportunity of seeing, are duplicate, that is, attached to the Epitome as well as to the Declaration. Like the general divisions of the Form of Concord, — the Suabian and Saxon Confession, the Form of Maulbrun, and the Book of Torgau, the whole work it- self was originally composed in the German language. The transcript of the Form of Concord, sent to the evangelical princes and estates, seems to have been composed probably after the first Convention at Closterbergen, March 1577, and sent there. We perceive likev^'ise that it has come down to us under the title "A general, plain Repetition, " whereas it was characterized originally as "A radical, plain Repetition. " Since no important alterations were made at the last Conven- tion of Bergen and Tangermünde, this transcript agrees entirely with our printed copy, though it is to be observed that numerous typographical errors were made in the impression. The first Latin translation of the Form of Concord was made by Luke Oslander, and Selnecker used this translation in his first Latin edition of löSO;but, in consequence of numerous errors, especially in his German and Latin edition of 1582, it seemed necessary to undertake another translation. As this, however, especially the portion translated by the theologians of Brunswick, contained also numerous blemishes, at the instance of Chemnitz a convention as- sembled at Quedlinburg in 15S3, and it was there revised and improved ; and then it was included in the first authentic edition of 1584. In this form it was added to the Book of Concord, and constitutes the Latin text now received in the church. Li 1705 Philip Müller republished the text of Selnecker of 1580 ; but he could not secure the public approbation to his enterprise. Another translation was to have been made by Jacob Iieerbrand for Lewis, the duke of Wittemburg; but if this was completed, it has remained entirely unknown to the public. Pfaff indeed, Walch, and others have asserted that Heerbrand had taken a part in the translation of Osianth^r ; but in opposition to this, it is merly necessary to refer to the evidence of the three delegates of the elector of Saxony to the conven- tion at Quedlinburg; for Pfalz and Brandenburg say expressly, in their report to !:he e'i'ctor, that Dr. Luke O'-iander wa^ the author of the Latin version of the Ixxii HISTORICAL Radical Repetition, that he candidly and openly acknowledged it himself, and that it would be an easy matter to defend the assertion. The Form of Concord, together with the other symbolical writings, has been translated into the dialects of Holland and Sweden. 3. Its Authority and Importance. The authority of the Form of Concord as a symbol, in the Lutheran church, is decided and important both as to its inter- nal and external influence. The internal influences arise from the peculiar na- ture of this confessional document, from the causes of its origin, and from its re- lation to the other symbols. For to these it has continual reference, and it makes no further pretensions, than to be an exposition of the church in relation to the systems of doctrine in her earlier symbols, as the Augustan for instance, and a confirmation of this symbol under temporal emergencies which had endangered its existence, — an expositon which had become indispensable from increasing errors in regard to the doctrine of Faith. We have made reference to this pecu- liarity in a preceding section ; but it would be an egregrious error, however,were we to infer from this circumstance, that the Form of Concord has merely a ne- gative tendency, while it really maintains a very positive character in the contro- versy. In relation to this character, the reproach has always been urged, that the Form of Concord transgresses the limits of the earlier symbols ; that, espe- cially in the articles concerning Freewill, concerning the Lord's Supper, and con- cerning the person of Christ, it introduces into the church new doctrines, new and ambiguous modes of expression. Now, it is true that we meet with many expressions in the Form of Concord, of which the Augsburg Confession presents no instance, in the same manner as the latter differs Avidely, in form and express- ion from the ecumenical symbol ; but of new doctrine, in reference to which alone the objection is made, the Form of Concord has introduced as little in opposition to the Augustan Creed, as that Creed has introduced in relation to the Confession of the primitive church; the only difference is that the circumstances of the church required an expansion of her system of doctrines, to which she agreed, as a necessary consequence dependent upon those circumstances. But the Form of Concord has not departed a single step from the radical and elementary doc- trines of the church, or to express our meaning more explicitly, from the doc- trines of the Word of God. All its definitions, many of which appear at first sight to want simplicity, approve themselves, on a closer and more impartial ex- amination, to be in strict conformity with the Scriptures. And whoever laments that this Form does sometimes advance to the utmost point, let him consider the great importance of driving an artful, a cunning enemy sporting with w'ords, from his last lurking-place, and not leaving him a single foot more room upon the plat- form of the Lutheran church. The Form of Concord is certainly not intended for such people as know scarcely any thing at all about the doctrines of the church, or else desire these doctrines to remain always in the same conscious state of Elasticity and suspense, for fear of being burdened with too much precis- ion. But, the very thing which these men find objectionable, we must approve and explain as a quality altogether indispensable in a confessional writing for the church, — that precision, for instance, with which it unfolds every point of doc- trine, under every aspect, so that no one can remain in doubt for a moment about its design, or the relation which it bears to him. It is composed altogether in the spirit of Luther, — a German of clear and keen discriminating powers, one who advances immediately to his point, and is utterly incapable of prevarication. The Epitome, even when viewed in reference to the purity of its doctrine, is de- cidedly a model form for confessional writings ; while both the Epitome and the Declaration deserve tobe highly esteemed and diligently studied, not only by ev- ery theologian, but by every member of the church, susceptible of knowledge. INTRODUCTION. IxxiÜ The most of those who are turned away full of apprehension at the very name of Form of Concord, have surely never read it with attention, nor compared it with the holy Scriptures. Nor is th? symbolic authority of this work less indubitable on external con- siderations; for it is not as Planck loves to call it, — the performance of a triumvi- rate,— Andrea, Chemnitz, and Selnecker, — excessively generous and mild towards the confessions of others, but ungenerous in the highest degree towards its own, but it is the work of a wise and pious prince, acquainted with the sorrows of Jo- seph from his own experience of many long years, the work of the elector Au- gustus of Saxony, who was not led by the theologians, as the old and new oppo- nents of the Form of Concord contend, but who directed, under his own super- vision, these men as well as his own counsellors. It was not conceived and written in secrecy, nor imposed upon the church by irresponsible men, but it or- iginated from the church herself, was examined by her legitimate organs, subjec- ted to public investigation, before its final conclusion, and frequently revised and improved, by reference to the criticisms which it had received. That a general assembly of the church did not encourage its introduction, as was at first intended, has its reasons partly in external relations, partly in the belief of the electors of Saxony and Brandenburg, that the approval of it in the smaller cir» cles or provincial synods might be more advantageous ; and it is not true that tha so-called Fathers of Bergan prevented a gansral synod. At last no one was compelled to receive or to subscribe it. The often repeated offences and re- proaches of its enemies, were listened to and corrected, with moderation and patience ; time was allowed to every one to consider : indeed each one was ad- monished, in the name of the elector, not to subscribe againt his conscience. Now, although Hutter contends that many may have subscribed with reluctance ; yet this is a conjecture, drawn from the mere arrangement of the signatures, which is no proof that the signatures were obtained by force. Andrea confi- dently asserts, at the same convention of Herzberg, 1578 : " I am able to de- ■clare most truly that no man was compelled to give his signature, nor subjected to any undue influence. If this is not true, the Son of God has not redeemed me with his blood, nor am I a partaker of his blood." In consequence of this dec- laration, the opponents were challenged to name only one who had been compel- led to subscribe, but they were not able: on the contrary, it was acknowledged by the theologians of Nuremberg themselves, who rejected the Form of Concord, that the signatures were obtained without compulsion. Many had subscribed the Form of Concord, and at a later period recanted ; especially is it known in refer- ence to Dr. Urban Pierius, that he Avas accustomed to number the subscription of this document among his greatest sins. But neither he nor any other per- son attempted to assert, that he was compelled to subscribe. In all Saxony only three refused theii signatures, and one, the superintendent of Koldiz, recanted, when he had obtained a situation at Nuremberg. If we consider how numerous the followers of the Philippists and Cryptocalvinists were in Saxony, we may regard this fact as a proof always as much to be lamented, as it is conclusive, that a great number were entirely influenced by the apprehension of political difficulty. But is this an argument against the work of Concord, and not much rather an evidence of the flexibility of the Philippists as contrasted with the firmness of the Flacians,who preferred to go into exile, rather than subscribe the Corpus Philipjncum? Nor is the declaration of Andrea against Chemnitz any proof, when he says : "We have been exercising tyranny upon our pastors, as an excellent man, a pious minister of the church once told me in confidence, that he was struck with astonishment when so tyrannical a proposition was made> and seemed to be hearing the promulgation of the Mosaic law from Mouat Si- K Ixxiv HISTORICAL nai ; I do not believe that equal severity was ever exercised in any placö. " Was it not a work of great moment, and could it be accomplished without the highest degree of earnestness ? Or if Andrea and his colleagues expressed themselves with much asperity towards the Cryptocalvinists, was it not their right and their duty, in view of the amount of evil which that sect had brought upon the Lu- theran church? What Andrea complains of here as actu^\ violence, was really a mere warmth of expression, and is there no difference between these ? In a word, all the accusations of Hospinianus, Balaexis, and others against the mode of introducing the Form of Concord, either amount to nothing of importance, or immediately vanish from the light of Truth. They refer indeed to histories, and appeal to the evidence of ^'credible" men, but they take very good care not to name them ; so that Hutter and Selnecker oppose to their falsehoods only a sim- ple denial. This question, moreover, is only of subordinate importance; but all depends upon the enquiry, whether the doctrine of the Foim of Concord be in conformity with the Scriptures, and whether it exhibits the analogy of faith or not ; the whole is also a contention about principles, which never can be deci- ded by the accumulation of additional circumstances. That this instrument of Confession was not adopted in a full assembly of the church, is certainly no disadvantage to its symbolic authority. For an over- whelming majority did acknowledge it ; three electors, twenty princes, twenty-four earls, the lords of the four free cities, thirty-eight members of the Diet, and a- bout eight thousand holding offices in churches and in schools, had subscribed so early as 1577 and 1578. In other provinces, in and out of Germany, it was a- dopted at a later period ; and those who refused to receive it, did so for reasons which by no means impaired its authority and importance, but only served to cor- roborate them. Its reception followed successively in the electorate of Saxony, of Pfalz, and of Brandenburg ; in the dukedom of Prussia, Wiitemberg, and Meck- lenburg ; in the margravate of Kulmbach, Baireuth, Anspach and Baden ; in Ober- pfalz,Neuburg, and Sulzbach, the princedom of Brunswick and Lüneburg, in Thu- ringia, Coburg, and Weimar; in Mompelgard, in Magdeburg, Meissen, Verder, and Quedlinburg; in theearldoms of Henneberg, Ottingen, Castell, Mansfeld, Han- au, Hohenlohe, Barby, Gleichen, Oldenburg, Hoya, Eberstein, Limburg, Schön- burg, Löwenstein, Reinstein, Stolberg, Schwarzburg, Leiningen, and others; in the towns of Lübeck, Hamburg, Lüneburg, Regensburg, Augsburg, Ulm, Bi- berach, Ezlingen, Landau, Hagenau, Rothenburg, Goslar, Mühlhausen, Reutlingen Nördlingen, Halle, Memmingen, Hildesheim, Hanover, Göttingen, Erfurt, Einbeck, Schweinfurt, Brunswick, Münster, Heilbronn, Lindau, Donauwörth, Wimpfen, Gin- gen, Bopfingen, Aalen, Kaufbeuern, Kempten, Issny, Leutkirk, Hameln, and Nord- heim. Tothose countries which abopted the Form of Concord, have subsequent- ly been added Laucnburg, of Saxony since 1586; Sweden, at the Council of Upsal in 1593, and the diet of Stockholm in 1647 ; Holstein since 1647 ; Pome« rania, since 1685, and somewhat earlier Krain, Kärnthen, Steiermark, and Ung- arn, at the Convention of Eperies in 1593, and of Leutschau in 1597. Its intro- duction into Denmark was forbidden upon pain of death, by Frederick II ; indeed the king is said to have thrown the copy sent to him by his sister, the electress Anna, in- to the fire: still it obtained, at a later date, a high authority in this country also, and was in reality used as a symbol, though not publicly acknowledged. A portion of the theologians of Silesia were prevented from subscribing it through the power of the secret Calvinists, especially those in the dukedom of Liegnitz, Brieg, and Wohlau, likewise those in Hesse Cassel, Zweibrück, Nas- sau, Bentheim, Tecldenburg, and Solms, besides the officers of the churches and schools in the dukedoms of Cleve and Berg; in the earldom of Mark and Ra- vensberg ; in the princedom of Halberstadt, in Osnabrück, Ortenburg, Aus- INTRODUCTION. " IxXV tiia, and at first in Bohemia, while those in Silesia and Lausitz were prevented by their Roman Catholic liege-lords. Some Lutheran princes and estates did not adopt the Form of Concord, partly because they were devoted to the doctrines of Calvin, — as Hessia, (at first how- ever, only Lower Hessia, — Upper Hessia having declared in its favor ; the land- grave William was from the first entirely in favor with the work of Concord, and so likewise his brothers Lewis, and especially George,) Anhalt, Zweibrück, Dantzic, partly from an excessive attachment to Melanchthon and the Variata, from political reasons, or from the reflections of their neighbors, especially from an offence conceived in consequence of not being at first invited to participate in the work of Concord, as Nuremberg, Magdeburg, Strasburg, Frankfort, Spire, Worms, Bremen, most of whom, however, asserted that they coincided in doc- trine with the Form of Concord. Of the signers of this Form, Julius, duke of Brunswick, changed his resolution, when he saw himself censured because he had made his son church-warden and prebend in the Romen see; and he was par- ticularly hostile to the Form of Concord, when the controversies of the theolo- gians of Helmstadt occurred with those of Saxony ; while John Sigismund, elec- tor of Brandenburg, adopted the Reformed Confession, and at the same time de- clared himself released from the Form of Concord. But Casimir, as adminis- trator, had introduced the Reformed doctrine already in 1583, after the death of his brother, the elector, Lewis. From this exposition it is evident that the small number of Signatures, as well as the objections of adversaries can not impair, to any considerable extent, the symbolic authority of the Form of Concord ; and we can agree with Selnecker in his funeral sermon on the elector Augustus, where he says : " One thing is certain, that so long as we preserve, in our churches and schools, the Cofession and explanation, contained in the Book oi Concord, throughout this country and others, so long will the purity of the Word of God, or of doctrine, to- gether with other blessings of God, continue among us without controversy; but so soon as the pure confession be in the least transgressed or violated, will God, who still suffers us to enjoy this great prosperity, withdraw from us, and permit all kinds of difficulties and controversies to rush in upon us." VHL The Book of Concord. Ths Book of Concord is the collection of all the symbolic Cofessions, the Creeds, and the Doctrines of the Lutheran church. They are — 1. The three ecumenical Symbols ; 2. the unaltered Augsburg Confession ; 3. the Apolo- gy; 4. the Articles of Smalcald ; 5. the Small; 6. the Large Catechism of Lu- ther; and 7. the Form of Concord. The publication of the Book of Concord was commenced at the command of the elector of Saxony, in 1578, under the di- rection of Dr. Jacob Andrea, with whom Peter Glaser, the archdeacon, and Casper Fnger the deacon of Kreuzkirk at Dresden were associated as correctors of the press. The issue of this work took place on the same day of the month, June 2öth, in 1580, as the delivery of the Augsburg Confession had in 1530. This is to be understood of the German text, and it is to be remarked partic- ularly of this, that the copies of 1580, exhibit variations which prove that al- terations were made, not only during the operation of printing them, but that several editions were made in the same year. Feuerlein enumerates seven editions Ixxvi HISTORICAL of 1580. and it may now be questioned which is the original edition, and whether these seven editions may not be reduced to a smaller number, by observing that alterations were introduced, in consequence of corrections received during the passage of the first edition through the press, while it can still not be admit- ted, that a work so comprehensive, could have been so often reprinted in less than two years. Köilner, whom we and Franke follow, with great propriety gives much weight to the evidence of Chemnitz, who knows of two editions only; namely, of the fiist, in wnich is found an Errata, and of another edition published at Dresden, in which these errata are corrected. If there had been other inde- pendent editions, Chemnitz certainly would have mentioned them. So Hutter likewise names only two editions, assigning the want of the Saxon signatures, in the first as the distinctive difference between these two. All the variations which appear in the seven editions enumerated by Feuerlein, can easily be ex- plained as the alterations of a few pages of the two editions, — as nos. 27 and 28 belong to the first editon, nos. 20 up to 33 belong to the second. But the signs by which the erlitlo prlnceps can be distinguished are the following: 1. — It has an Errata appended. 2. — It mentions a period of 25 years, which in other edi- tions is said to be 30 years. 3. — The twentieth article of the Augsburg Con- fession stands according to the German editions of 1531. 4. — It contains the ar- ticles concerning the ceremonies of marriage and of baptism ; or where these are wanting, it has the paginal numbers, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, all prin- ted on the last page of the Smaller Catechism, in order to preserve a similar- ity in the designation of pages with the copies already published. 5. — The Lat- in text is printed in Italic letters. C. — The Catalogue of Testimonies is called Appendix. 7. — At the end of the book, after the signatures, is a particular pago- upon which above are the first and second verses of the ninth Psalm, and then a woodcut, upon which stand, in a circle, the names of the printers Mathes Stö- ckel and Gimel Bergen, with the date 1579 ; under this again they are repeat- ed in the following manner: "Printed at Dresden in the Court-residence of the elector of Saxony, by Mathes Stöekel and Gimel Bergen." Selnecker published the first Latin edition in the year 1580. As he adopted the title from the German Book of Concord, it contains an incorrect statement, — " Communi consilio et mandato eorundem Electorum, Principum,ac Ordinum Imperii". Because the text of the Augsburg Confession was published after the octavo edition of 1531, and also because the translations of the other Symbolic books are more or less disfigured with errors, as we have explained in the pres- ent Introduction, this first Latin publication was not acknowledged ; and Selneck- er is obliged to confess in his second edition, the only authentic one of 1584, that " the Book of Concord had previously been published in Latin, but in a pri- vate and hasty manner." A Latin edition was not published in 1581, as was formerly believed, from confounding it with Selnecker's edition of the Form of Concord in that year, IX. The Saxon Articles of Visitation. Just as the first system of Cryptocalvinism gave occasions to the Form of Con- cord, so the second system of Cryptocalvinism gave occasion to the Articles of Visitation. Soon after the death of the elector Augustus, the circulation of the Form of Concord in Saxony was less souaht after, the form of exorcism began to be rejected, the introduction of a new Ciyptocalvinistic catechism was encour- aged, compiled by David Steinbach and John Salmuth, — a false edition of the INXnODUCTION. IXXVÜ Bible \va3 published, and it was forbidden to oppose the doctrine of Calvin from th3 pulpit. This was effected through the agency of Nicolas Crell wl.cm the general sup:!rintend3nt Pierius, the count-prelate John Stiimuth, and the pastor Christopher Sunderman, supported. Christian I. g:u?ssed indeed some of these ef- fects, but ho could not cleaily perceive them, and all was left in the hands of the Chancellor. He died on the 25th of September 1591, and his son Christian II. was only in his ninth year; hence the government of Saxony had to be assumed by a regent, duke Frederick William, and he, in February of .the next year, summoned a diet at Torgau, the most important consequence of which was a .General Visitation of the churches and schools, ordered by the landgrave, for the suppression of Cryptocalvinism. With this view, the theologians appointed on the visitation. Dr. Martin Mirus, Dr. George Mylius, Dr. Aegidius Hunnius, Dr. Eurchard Hebardus, Dr. Joshua Lonerus. and M. Wolfgang Mamphrasiu?, were instructed to draw up an instru- ment of writing, which should contain the principal points in dispute. The Visi- tation commenced in 1592, on the eighth Sunday after Trinity, upon the princi- ples of the instrument, drawn up by the theologians above mentioned, which was printed in 1593, under the following title : "Articles of Visitation in the whole electorate of Saxony, containing also the negative arguments in opposition to the Calvinists, and the form of subscription, according to which both parties should continue to subscribe it." These articles of Visitation had to be subscribed by all the officiates of .churches and schools, according to an edict of the Regent on the Gth of March, 1594, and since that, in Saxony, they have had the force of a symbolic writing. They are four in number, the first of which treats of the Lord's Supper; the second, of the person of Christ ; the third, of holy Baptism; and the fourth, of the election and eternal foreknowledge of God, in such order that the pure doc- trine and then the opposite doctrine are advanced in short sentences, after the method pursued in the Epitome of the Form of Concord. In substance, these are the same articles which Dr. Jacob Andrea discussed with Theodore Beza, during their interview at Mömpelgard in 1586, except that, as the occasion required, every thing which was not doctrinal was omitted, es- pecially the paragraphs concerning images, churches, and other external things. I.MMELDORF, BaVAELV, December, 1847. JOHN T. Müller, Ev.\N3. LUTII. MiXISTEE. MANDATE üF CHRISTIAN 11. CHRISTIAN II, BY THE GRACE OF GoD, DuKE OF SaXONY, ChIEF MaRSHAL ANÜ Elector of the holy EMriRE of Rome, Landgrave of Tuueingia, Makquis of MiSNiA, AiND Burgomaster of Magdeburg, &c. To the church dignitaries collectively and individually, to the Counts, Barons j and the whole order of Knighthood suhject to our authority, and likewise to that ot the Bishops over the people of Misaia, Naumburg, and Merseburg, to the Admirals and subordinate officers, but most especially to the superintendents, the Pastora and Ministers of churches, our salutation and faVor. Right honorable, illustrious, active and noble sirs, and venerable too, faithful and devoted to us, — -we have been informed now for several years past, that the churches and schools of our provinces generally have been censured amon<^ distant states, as if some change of Confession took place among them almost every sev- en years. This intelligence was indeed the more grievous to us, the more closely we examined, and the more easily we were able to render it plain, that our most devout and worthy ancestors, of pious and hallowed memory,, had never changed their Confession, from the very origin of the reformed doctrine, after God in this twilight of a declining world, had graciously kindled the light of Gospel truth by the agency of his chosen instrument, Dr. Martin Luther, and had most kindly diffused it pure and uncorrupted from his indubitable word ; but all the electors m order have persisted in the Confession, with that invincible firmness which in the year 1530, was manifested to the emperor Charles the fifth, and at the same time to the whole Roman empire, — and they have spread it abroad with devout ardor ; some have even sustained many injuries, and incurred heavy expenses through their zeal in maintaining it ; so that indeed the praise of constancy in the true religion can be or ought to be by no means withdrawn from them. At the same time we have discovered this also, — that there have been certain false and deceitful men, who deport themselves towards their supreme govern- ment with words specious indeed, and even with oaths wickedly conceived de- clare, that they are devoted to the pure and unaltered Augsburg Confession, in opposition to all corruptions and visionary opinions of the Calvinistic sects as well as of others, who nevertheless have afterwards been detected as cherishing secret- ly false doctrines and erroneous opinions about the sacraments, and endeavoring by means of their adherents to introduce privately their treacherous schemes and machinations, to disseminate and spread them abroad with all their energies, without the knowledge of their own government regularly and divinely institu- ^od. This class of men have indeed excited riots sometimes and dissensions in the schools and churches of these territories, which always, however, through the grace of God, have been suppressed and quieted by the Christian magistrate, as soon as he was informed of the wicked movements of these night prowlers. Since then God himself seriously abhors this indefinite sort of men who are neither cold nor warm, and threatens them, that he will cast them out of his mouth, we applied ourselves to this duty, immediately on the commencement of our administration, that all our counsellors, our courtiers, our admirals, our sub- ordinates, and those exercising other functions, observe an oath administered un- der the sanction of religion, and pledge their faith, that they will, by the assis- tance of God, resolutelv persevere to the end of their lives with us in the first un- 1 2 ^lA^DATi: OF CilKISTIAN II. ;:ltered Augsburg Confession, as it was transcribed and declaiedin the year 1580, im tlie book of Christian Concord, and carefully secured against corruptions of every kind. Having matured our design and deliberated upon it in every aspect, we have undertaken this duty, assuredly for this object, that by this salutary meth- od, it may be succe'SBfully protected,. tl;rou;:;li the assistance of God, from the wicked attempts of those treacherous men, \v1;ü circulate through our provinces by their secret insinuations so foul a stigma among distant states. We know too (praise and glory be to God) that t-he illustrious noblemea and rulers Sir John George, and Sir Augustus, dukes of Saxony, our highly esteemed brothers, agree in all things with us in this cause ef religion, as in others also. In order therefore that this pious and truly Christian work may be preserved, even as under a shelter repaired, and may be perpetuated to coming posterity, nor that any one may have reason to pretend that occasion and opportunity for read- ing this symbolic writing were denied him, we have taken care that the Form of. Concord, agreeing in every respect with the authentic copy, be printed and pub- lished in each language, in Latin and also in German, but in a smaller form, in or- der that it may be purchased at a lower price as well as more conveniently circu- lated. And henceforth in our own name, and first in the guardian name of our most be- laved brethren, we devoutly enjoin it upon yon individually and collectively as abo\c mentioned, that as you agreed with us in this matter in the last provincial assem- bly, so let each one'still in his own capacity persist resolutely in that determina- tion, for the pledge of his honor once given to ns,- And especially we enjoin upon our counsellors delegated to the duties of scliools and churches, the doctors and professors of academies, the jiistices of ec- clesiastical courts, upon all superintendents and their subordinates, upon pastor.> and deacons, likewise upon rectors and fellows of the high schools, and other principals of schools generally, together with our stipendiaries and alumni, that they hold this book very dear to them, that they handle it by night and by day, that they meditate with due assiduity, that they collect their proofs from it, and that they do not promote any one to office, who has not approved this book botJi. by his subscription and by his fidelity pledged .upon oath, and that they strive with all their energies, that nothing contrary throughout this famous electorate of ours in schools and in churches, be either taught publicly or introduced privately, as- the mercy of Almighty God, our favor, and the health and security of his own life- are dear to each. May ye act up to this agreement, which is consistent witli your duty, and commensurate with your serious and constant affection -towardÄ US', and on our part we shall be most kindly disposed towards you. Given at Dresden, August 2, 1602. PREFACE TO THE BOOK OF COXrOED. To all who shall read these writings, w^ who have suhscribml ournomes^o tlicm, the Electors, Princes, and Estates of the sacred Roman empire in Germany, at- tached to the Confession of Augsburg, according to the dignity and rank of each, proclaim and present, our good wishes, the friendship, and salutation connected with our office. It is a remarkable favor of God, the greatest nnd best of beings, that in these latter days, even in the old age of the world, he has been willing to cause, accord- ing to his unutterable kindness, love, and mercy, the light of the Gospel and of his word, to arise and shine forth upon the human race, puxe and serene over Germa- ny, our beloved country, after those dark hours of papal superstition. And for this reason especially, a brief and compendious Confession has been collected from Ihe word of God, and from the sacred writings of the Prophets and Apostles, which was also presented at the diet of Augsburg to the emperor Charles the fifth, of il- lustrious repute, in the year 1530, by our very pious predecessors, in the German and Latin languages, and submitted to the princes of the empire, and publicly in- deed to all men professing the Christian doctrine ; and having been disseminated in this manner throughout the world, it has become universally known and begin,s to be in the mouth and conversation of all. Besides, many churches and academies have embraced and.defended this Confes- sion, as a certain Symbol, of these times, in the chief articles of faith, especially in those arguments against the Romanists, and the various corru"ptions of divine doctrine ; and with constant uniformity they have appealed to it from every dis- pute and uncertainty. The doctrine also embraced in that Confession, which they knov/ to be support- ed by the solid evidences of Scripture, and approved by ancient and acknowledged symbols, they have uniformly considered the special and perpetual source of har- mony in the church justly appreciating it, formerly its defence against ruimerous heresies and errors, and now again restored. But indeed it can be a secret to no one, that immediately after Dr. ^Tartin Ltv- ther, a most excellent man and filled with the deepest piety, was removed from human cares, that Germany, our sweet country experienced the most dangerous ■times and agitations in her public concerns extremely violent. In these difficul- ties indeed, and in this deplorable confusion of our country, formerly so flourishing and regulated so well, the enemy of men labored ingeniously to scatter the seeds of false doctrine and divisions in the churches and schools, exj^ited dissensions in conjunction with offence, and by his artifices corrupted the purity cf divine don- trine, broke the chain and pious harmony of Christian charity, and to a greater ex- tent obstructed and impeded the progress of the holy Gospel. It is also known to all in what way those enemies of divine truth, afterwards seized an opportunity to betray our churches and schools, to find pretexts for their errors, to withdraw the timid and erring consciences of m.en from the purity of Gospel doctrine, and to employ those who w€re more subservient in bearing and ? enduring the yoke of papal servitude, and in embracing other corruptions also warring with the wcfrd of God. • Doubtless nothing could have happened either more agreeable to us. or which we could consider worthy tc^he sought with more exertion of mind and with •prayers from the Supreme Father of the universe, than that our churches and schools 4 PREFACE TO THE BOOK OF CONCOHD. might have persevered in the pure doctrine of God's Vi'ord, and in the same pious and desirahle unanimity of mind, and as it happened while Luther still survived, that they might have been established and consigned to posterity vv-ith piety and distinction according to the Rule of God's word. But we have observed that just as in the times of the Apostles, corruptions were introduced into those churches in which they themselves had planted the Gospel of Christ, so on account of our sins and the depravity of these times, a sim- ilar e 1 has been permitted by an angry God to befall our churches also. Wherefore, mindful of our duty which we feel to be enjoined upon us by hea- ven, we conceive ourselves bound diligently to attend this matter, to guard against the false doctrines in our provinces and dominions, which have been scattered there, and which insinuate themselves secretly more and more as it were into the practice and familiarity of men, and to cause the subjects in our empire to perse- vere in the right path of piety and in the truth of divine doctrine which is known, and which has hitherto been constantly preserved and defended, and not to suffer them to be withdrawn from it. For this purpose indeed, our most worthy predecessors in part and we our- selves,— as that opinion prevailed with unanimous consent in the year 1558, an opportunity presenting at the diet which at that time was held by the electors at Frankfort on the Maine, — mutually determined that a special and general conven- tion be held, in which it might be debated in a profound and yet in a friendly manner among ourselves, concerning those matters which have been maliciously in the way of abuse objected by our adversaries against our churches and acade- mies. And indeed after these deliberations, our predecessors of pious and excellent memory, and we ourselves in part, assembled at Naumburg in Thuringia in 1561. And at that time we took in hand the Confession of Augsburg, of which we have spoken several times, which had been presented to the emperor Charles the fifth, in a full diet of the empire in the year 1530 ; and we then again with one consent all subscribed to that pious Confession, which is founded upon the solid evidences of immutable truth expressed in the word of God, — in order that we might serve posterity in that way, and as far as lay in our power, become their authors and advisers for avoiding those false doctrines which war with the word of God. And •we did this with the design, that a perpetual testimony might be afforded to his majesty the Emperor, our most gracious master, as well as to all men every where, that we never had conceived an intention to defend or to disseminate any new or foreign doctrine, but that we desired constantly to protect and retain, by the assistance of God, that truth which we professed at Augsburg in the year 1530. We also conceived no slight hope, that in this way not only those who were a- verse to the purer Gospel doctrine, would desist from their false charges and accu- sations, but also that other good and benevolent men would be conciliated by this renewed and reiterated Confession of ours, and would examine and investigate with greater zeal and solicitude the truth of divine doctrine, which alone is our guide to salvation, and consulting the welfare of their souls and their own eternal happiness, that they would abide in that Confession, rejecting for the future all controversies and dissensions. *' But we have been informed, not without great distress of mind, that this decla- ration of ours and rescript of the Confession, has had but very little weight amon<^ our adversaries, nor that we and our churches were freed from the abuses of pre- judices which they had been scattering with the greatest malignity among the people. That in this design, those things which \v» have done with the besf pur- PREFACE TO THE BOOK OF CONCORD. O pose and Intention, have been represented by the eiieiaies ot'tiuo religion, as if we were so uncertain concerning our religion, and were transforming it so often into different and still different formulas, that it was not known either to lis or ti) our theologians, what was the Confession formerly delivered to the P2mperor at Augsburg. These representations of our adversaries have withheld and alienated many vir- tuous men from our churches, our schools, our Doctrine, our Faith, and Confession. To these adversities it was also added, that a doctrine conflicting with the in- stitution of the Holy Supper of the body and blood of Christ, and other corruptions also, were introduced extensively both into our churches and schools. When some pious men, fond of peace and harmony, besides even learned theo- logians, had observed these things, they believed they could not more effectually oppose those abuses and dissensions in religion w^hich were gradually increasing more and more, than by declaring and explaining the controverted Articles with force and accuracy from the word of God, by rejecting and condemning false doc- trines, and on the contrary by representing with learning and eloquence the Truth as delivered down from heaven ; — as they were persuaded that in this way they would be able to impose silence upon their adversaries, and to point out to the more simple and virtuous a certain way and method how they might conduct themselves in these dissensions now and in future, and assisted by divine grace, a- void the corruptions of doctrine. In the first place therefore, these theologians communicated among themselves certain writings sufficiently diffuse and extracted from the word of God, in which they showed with learning and ingenuity, how those controversies connected with the disorder of the churches, might be entirely quieted and suppressed apart from any disturbance of divine truth; for thus it would happen that the opportunities and pretences sought by the adversary for the purpose of abuse, would be cut off and removed. At last they investigated and proclaimed with religious accuracy the controvnr- ted articles which they had received, and in a special treatise they proposed the way and method by which those rising dissensions might be judiciously and pious- ly repressed. And having been informed of this pious resolution of the theologians, we do not only approve it, but in proportion to the extent of influence and office entrust- ed to us by heaven, we conceive ourselves bound to promote it. Accordingly in a council of some other electors and princes, agreeing with us in religious opinion, we, by the grace of God, Duke of Saxony, Elector, &c., summoned to Torga in the year l-^ve, some of the most distinguished and least suspected theologians, highly cultivated and endowed with eminent erudition. When these men had assembled, they religiously conferred among themselves concerning the controverted articles and the edict of pacification, of which we have spoken a little while ago. And first indeed having offered up pious prayers to the great and beneficent God and to his glory and praise, the Spirit of the Lord assisting us with his grace, all those matters which seemed to relate to this deliberation and which seemed to be required, were comprised with remarkable diligence and care, in a certain trea- tise. That book was afterwards transmitted to some eminent men, professing the Confession of Augsburg, the electors, the princes and estates ; and it was reques- ted that, having assembled the most eminent and learned theologians, they should read it with anxious care and pious zeal, should diligently examine it, and C> PHKr.\rr. to tuf, book of conco'R'd. piTibody in writing their opinion and rensures of it, and finally should freely .re- |)resent to us the judgment of all and of each of them, and the reasons for it. When therefore we had received these critical remarks, we found many pious and useful suggestions among them, how that declaration of the pure Christian '^ical restrictions. To this may be added what we know to be due from us in this way to our subjects, in consequence of the duty which God has enjoined upon us, that we carefully regard what may relate to purposes of this life and of that which is to come, and labor to provide with great zeal, as far indeed as it can be done, what may contribute to the extension of the name and glory of God, to the propagation of his word from which alone salvation may be expected, to the peace and tran- quility of churches and schools, and to the general composure and consolation of agitated minds, especially when it is well known to us that this salutary work of Christian Concord, has long been sought and expected with serious prayers and fervent ardor by many good and warm hearted men of the highest and lowest or- der; and not even from the commencement of this work of pacification were we in the belief nor indeed are we now, that this salutary and indispensable work of Concord should be removed and entirely concealed from the eyes of men, and that the light of divine truth should be placed under a bushel or a measure ; wherefore, we were bound not to hesitate any longer, in producing an edition of it. For we do not doubt that pious men who are fond of divine truth and of that harmony which is pleasing to God, will approve in conjunction with us, our salu- tary, useful, pious, and very necessary undertaking, and will not permit that any thing even to the utmost exertion shall be wanting in them to the extension of the glory of God, and to the public benefit which may result in eternal or temporal respects. To mention that again of which we have spoken so often already, we certainly by no means have desired to mingle new principles with this work of Concord, or in any manner to depart from the truth of the divine doctrine which our ancestors most venerable for their piety, as ourselves also, have acknowledged and profes- sed. But we know that this doctrine which is deduced from the writings of the Pro- phets and Apostles, is comprised in the three- ancient Symbols, — -the Confession of Angshnrg exhibited to the emperor Charles the fifth, then the Apology which has been connected wdth this, in the articles oj Smalcald, and lastly the two Catechisins of the exeellent Dr. Luther. Wherefore we have determined not to depart a finger's breadth cither from the subjects or the phrases employed in them, but assisted by the Spirit of God, tr> persist constantly with the greatest concord in this pious conformity, examining" all controversies by this true rule and declaration of the purer doctrine. And then we resolved to cultivate peace and harmiony with the other electors, princes, and estates of the sacred Roman empire, and with other kings, princes and nobles of a Christian commonwealth, according to the constitutions and rati- fied treaties of the Sacred empire, which exist between them and ourselves, and to tender and present our services with our good wishes to each one in proportion to the degree of his dignity and rank. Having communicated our designs, we shall moreover attend most industrious- ly to this also, that we may defend with great strictness and zeal this work ot' Concord in our dominions, by careful examinations of churches and of schools, ami inspection of printingtofFices, and finally by other judicious means, observing thu occasions and circamstances which may contribute to our use or that of others. If the controversies now (Quieted should revive, or new ones arise on the subject of religion, we shall labor, for a timely prevention of offences, to have them eni-- tirely dispelled or composed without long and dangerous agitations. J>11EFACE TO THE BOOK OF CONCORD. 11 In full evidence of all this, we have subscribed oiir names with great unanimity, and affixed our signatures. Lewis, Palatine of the Rhine, Elector. Augustus, Duke of Saxony, Elector. John George, Marquis of Brandenburg, Elector. Joakim Frederick, Marquis of Brandenburg, Administrator of the Archbishopric of Magdeburg. John, Bishop of Misnia. Edward, Bishop of Luben. Philip Lewis, Palatine of the Rhine. Tutor of Frederick William and John, Dukes of Saxony. The Tutors of John Casimir, and John Ernest, Dukes of Saxony. George Frederick, Marquis of Brandenburg. Julius, Duke of Brunswick and Lüneburg. Otho, Duke of Brunswick and Lüneburg. Henry the Younger, Duke of Brunswick and Lüneburg. William the Younger, Duke of Brunswick and Lüneburg. Wolfgang, Duke of Brunswick and Lüneburg. Ulric, Duke of Megalopurg. The Guardians of John and Sigismund Augustus, Dukes of Megalopurg. Lewis, Duke of Wirtemburg. The Guardians of Ernest and Jacob, Marquises of Baden. George Ernest, Count and Lord of Henneburg. Frederick, Count of Wirtemburg and Mumpelgarten. John Gunter, Count of Schwartzenburg. William, Count of Schwartzenburg. Albert, Count of Schwartzenburg. Emic, Count of feeiningen. Philip, Count of Hanawen, Godfrey, Count of Oetingen. George, Count and Lord in Castel. Henry, Count and Lord in Castel. Otto, Count of Hoien and Bruchusen. John, Count of Oldenburg and Delmenhorsten. John Hoier, Count of Manswelden. Bruno, Count of Manswelden. Hoier Christopher, Count of Manswelden. Peter Ernest (junior,) Count of Manswelden. Christopher, Count of Manswelden. Albert George, Count of Stolburg. Wolfgang Ernest, Count of Stolburg. Lewis, Count of Glichen. Charles, Count of Glichen. Ernest, Count of Reinstein. Boto, Count of Reinstein. Lewis, Count of Leonstein. Henry, Baron of Limburg. George, Baron of Schonburg. Anarc Frederick, Baron of Wildenfeld. The Mayor and Aldermen of Lubek. The Mayor and Aldermen of Lüneburg. Tie Mayor and Aldermen of Hamburg. 12 PREFACE TO THE COOK OP CONCORD. The Aldermen of Brunswick. The Mayor and Aklermen of Landau. The Mayor and Aldermen of the Province of the Monastery in the Valley of Gregory. The Aldermen of Goslar. The Mayor and Aldermen of Ulmen. The Mayor and Aldermen of Eslingen. The Aldermen of Ritlingen, The Mayor and Aldermen of Nordlingen. The Mayor and Aldermen of Rotenburg near Tuber. The Mayor and Aldermen of Seveor. The Mayor and Aldermen of Heilbron. The Mayor and Aldermen of Memmingen. The Mayor and Aldermen of Lindau. The Mayor and Aldermen of Schweinfurten. The Aldermen of Donawerden. The Financiers and Aldermen of Ratisbon. The Mayor and Aldermen of Wimpfen. The Mayor and Aldermen of Giengen. The Mayor and Aldermen of Bopfingen. The Mayor and Aldermen of Allen. The Mayor and Aldermen of Kaufbeucn, The Mayor and Aldermen of Isnen. The Mayor and Aldermen of Campiden. The Aldermen of Gottingen. The Mayor and Aldermen of Leutkirch. The Aldermen of Hildesheim. The Mayor and Aldermen of Hamolen. The Mayor and Aldermen of Hanover. • The Aldermen of Mulhiisin. The Aldermen of Erfurden. The Aldermen of Eimbek. The Aldermen of Northeim. THE THREE CHIEF SYMBOLS, " OR CONFESSIONS OF CHRISTIAN FAITH, UNANIMOUSLY TAUGHT IN THE CHURCH. I- THE APOSTOLICAL CONFESSION OR SYMBOL, CONTAINING THE BASIS OF THE CHRISTIAN FAITH, I BELIEVE in God the Father, Almighty Maker of heaven and earth. And in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord, who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered un- der Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died and was buried. He descended into hell ; on the third day he rose again from the dead ; he ascen- ded into heaven, and sits at the right hand of God the Father Al- mighty, from thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead. I believe in the Holy Ghost, in a holy Christian church, in the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and life everlasting. Amen. II. THE NICENE CONFESSION OR SYMBOL OF FAITH. I believe in one God only, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, be- gotten of his Father before all worlds ; God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father, by whom all things were made; who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary, and was made man, and was cru- cified also for us under Pontius Pilate. He suffered and was buried, and the third day he rose again, according to the Scriptures, as- cended into hcavcHj and sits at the right hand of the Father ; and he 14 THE THREE CHIEF SYMBOLS. shall come again, with glory, to judge both the living and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end. And I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son ; who with the Father and the Son, is worshipped and glorified, who spoke by the prophets. And I believe in one holy Christian Apostolic church. I acknowl- edge one baptism for the remission of sins ; and I look for the resur- rection of the dead, and Hfe in the world to come. Amen. III. THE ATHANASIAN CONFESSION, OR SYMBOL OF FAITH, DIRECTED AGAINST THE ARIANS. Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he liold the true Christian faith. Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiledj, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. But this is the true Christian faith : That we worship one God only, in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity. Neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the essence. For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is all one : the Glory equal, the Majesty co-eternal. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Ghost. The Father is uncreated, the Son uncreated, the Holy Ghost un- created. The Father is incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, an^i the Holy Ghost incomprehensible. The Father is eternal, the Son eternal, the Holy Ghost eternal. And yet there are not three eternals, but one eternal. As also there are not three uncreated Beings, nor three incompre- hensible Beings : but one uncreated, and one incomprehensible. So likewise the Father is Almighty, the Son Almighty, and the Holy Ghost Almighty. And yet there are not three Almighties, but one Almighty. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God. And yet there are not three Gods, but one God. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy GhosI; Lordo THE THREE CHIEF SYMBOIS* 15 And yet not three Lords, but one Lord. For as we, according to Christian truth, must acknowledge every Person by itself to be God and Lord ; So we are forbidden by the Christian rehgion to say, there are Idhree Gods, or three Lords. The Father is neither made of any one, nor created, nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone ; not made, nor created, but he- gotten. The Holy Ghost is of the Father and of the Son ; neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding. So there is one Father, not three Fathers ; one Son, not three Sons ; one Holy Ghost, not three Holy Ghosts. And in this Trinity none is afore, or after the other; none is greater, or less than another; But the whole three Persons are co-eternal together, and co-equal. So that in all things, as aforesaicf, the Unity in Trinity, and the Trinity in Unity is to be worehipped. He therefore that will be saved, must thus think of the Trinity. Furthermore, it is necessary to everlasting salvation, to believe rightly also in the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. For the right faith is, that we believe and confess thg.t our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and Man. God, of the essence of the Father, begotten before the worlds ; and Man, of the substance of his mother, born in the world. Perfect God, and perfect man of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting. Equal to the Father as touching his Godhead, and inferior to the Father as touching his humanity. Who, although he be God and man ; yet he is not two, but one Christ. One, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking of the humanity into God. One altogether ; not by confusion of substance but by Unity of Person. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so God and man is one Christ ; Who suffered for our salvation, descended into hell, and rose again the third day from the dead. He ascended into heaven, he sits at the right hand of the Father, God Almighty : whence he shall come to judge the living and the dead. IG THE THREE CHIEF SYMBOLS. At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies and shall give account for their works. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting, and they that have done evil into everlasting fire. This is the true Christian faith; which, except a man believe faithfully, he cannot be saved. THE UNALTEBED AUGSBURG CONFESSION; OR CONFESSION OF THE FAITH OF SEVERAL PRINCES AND ESTATES, DELIVERED TO HIS IMPERIAL MAJESTY CHARLES V. AT THE DIET OF AUGSBURG, A. D. 1530. y ADDRESS TO THE EMPEROR, CHARLES V. Most invincible Emperor, imperial Majesty, and gracious Sir : — • WntN your Majesty proclaimed a diet of the Empire at Augsburg, to consult about the best means of defence against the Turk, that an- cient, inveterate, and most bitter enemy of the Christian name and religion, — how it might be possible to resist the ambitious purposes of that enemy, by strong and inexhaustible munitions of war; — a!nd then to consult also about the dissensions in reference to our holy religion and Christian faith, — how the opinions and sentiments of contending parties on the subject of religion, might be mutually ex- pressed, explained, and considered among themselves in your pre- sence, with moderation, mildness, and affection ; that the errors which have been discussed or avowed by each party in their wri- tings, being abandoned or corrected, those opinions might be settled and reduced to one plain standard of truth and Christian harmony ; that one pure and true religion being cherished and preserved among us, we may be able to live in harmony and concord in one Christian church also, in the same manner as w'e subsist and serve under one Christ. And as we, the undersigned Elector and Princes, with others who have adhered to us, and other electors, princes, and es- tates besides, were summoned to the appointed diet, that we might obediently observe your Majesty's order, we have come with haste to Augsburg, and, we wish it said without boasting, have appeared here amonof th6 first- 18 ADDRESS TO CHARLES V. When therefore your imperial Majesty, among other things, caused it to be proposed to the electors, princes, and other estates of the empire, at the very commencement of the diet here at Augsburg, that the several estates, in conformity with your imperial edict, should prepare and submit their opinions and sentiments in the Ger- man and Latin languages, — having held a consultation on Wednes- day, we returned our answer, that we on our part would present the articles of our Confession to your imperial Majesty on the succeed- ing Friday. So in obedience to your Majesty's demand, we now of- fer in defence of our religion, the Confession of our adherents and ourselves, the doctrine of which, drawn from the Holy Scriptures and the pure word of God, we have hitherto continued to deliver in our provinces, dukedoms, principalities, and cities, and have discussed in our churches. For if the other electors, princes, and estates of the empire, by similar writings in Latin and German, according to the above-men- tioned proposition of your Majesty, shall produce their opinions on the subject of religion, we, here in the presence of your imperial Majesty, as our most gracious master,, shall present ourselves ready to consult on friendly terms with those princes and our adherents, about the possible methods and means by which we may come to an agreement, so far as it can be honorably done ; and having peaceably discussed the subjects of difference between ourselves and the oppo-- sition free from odious strife, the dissension may be suppressed, through the grace of God, and rendered subservient to one true, har- monious religion ; — that, as we all subsist and serve under one Christ, and ought to acknowledge one Christ, according to the tenor of your Majesty's edict, all opinions likewise may be conformed to the standard of divine truth, — an event which we implore from God - in our most fervent supplications. But relative to the other electors, princes, and' estates, as the op- posite party, if this conference on the subject of religion, conducted ' after the manner in which your Majesty wisely required it to be, — by a mutual exhibition and deliberate comparison of written opinions among ourselves, — shall not conduce to a reconciliation, nor be at-- tended with any other beneficiar result, v.-e at least shall leave the- clearest evidence, that we have withheld no effort which might contribute to the restoration of Christian harmony, consistent with tiie will of God and the dictates of conscience, as your imperial Majesty, other electors, and estates of the empire, and all, whoever are influenced by a pure love and zeal for religion ; wdioever may -Lv-,' c- her.rd this di'^cussion with an iin))ai-lial s)iirit, will hold it lion- ADDRESS TO CHARLES V. 19 •arable to know, and graciously to acknowledge this Confession of our adherents and ourselves. Your imperial Majesty graciously intimated, not on a single occa- sion but frequently, to the 'electors, princes, and other estates of the empire, and caused it to be publicly read and recited from a copy of your Majesty's instructions, written and communicated to them at the diet of Speyer, held in the year 1526, that your imperial Majesty, for certain reasons then specified, was neither willing nor able to make any decision or determination as to this difficulty in re- ligion, but that your Majesty desired, as a matter of duty, to use your best exertions with the Roman Pontiff for convening a general council. The same likewise was more fully declared, a year ago, in the last public diet which was held at Speyer. At that time your imperial Majesty, through lord Ferdinand, king of Bohemia and Hungary, our friend and gracious master, and also through your Majesty's speaker and commissaries, caused this to be declared among other things, that your Majesty had considered the resolution of the deputy, counsellors, and officers of the imperial government, and of those delegated by other estates, who had assembled at Ra- tisbon, and that your Majesty deemed it expedient to convene a diet ; and because the subjects then under negotiation between your Majesty and the Roman Pontiff, were near an amicable adjustment, your Majesty did not doubt but that the Pope might be induced to convoke a general diet. So earnestly did your Majesty strive that the chief Pontiff above-mentioned might agree with your Majesty to assemble such a diet, proclaimed by letters issued on the earliest occasion. In the event, therefore, that the dissensions between us and the opposition, shall not be settled in a friendly and affectionate manner, we propose in all obedience, that we appear before your imperial Majesty, numerously attended, and plead our cause in such a gene- ral, free, and Christian council, the convocation of which has always been solicited with one consent, and voted for with unanimous voices, by the electors, princes, and other estates of the empire, in all the imperial diets which have been held during your Majesty's reign. Long ago in a becoming manner and in legal form, have we chal- lenged them to a general conference of this kind, and appealed at the same trnie to your imperial Majesty in this great and momentous -design. In this appeal to your Majesty for a general diet we con- tinue to persist ; nor do we intend nor are we able to abandon it, in this or any ^other address, unless the difficulty between us and the opposition, according to your Majesty's last proclamation, shall be 20 AUGSBURG CONFESSION settled, allayed, and subdued to Christian harmony. And here tO^ do we solemnly and publicly attest the truth of this declaration. ARTICLES OF FAITH AND DOCTRINE. AKTICLE I. OF GOD. First. — With unanimity it is held and taught, agreeably to the decree of the council of Nice, that there is one divine essence only, which is called, and truly is, God, but that there are three persons in this one divine essence, equally powerful, equally eternal, God the Fatlier, God the Son, God the Holy Ghost, who are one divine essence, eternal, incorporeal, indivisible, infinite in power, wisdom, and goodness, the Creator and preserver of all things visible and in- visible, And by the word -person, is not understood a part or quali- ty of another, but that w^hich subsists of itself, precisely as the Fa- thers have employed this terra on this subject. All heresies are, therefore, condenmed, which are in opposition to this Article : as those of the Manichseans who have adopted two gods, the one good, the other evil. Likewise those of the Valentinians, Arians, Eunomians, Mahomedans, and the like ; also those of the ancient and modern Samosatenians, who adopt but one person, and so- phistically explain these two, the Word and the Holy Spirit, and as- sert, that they must not be distinct persons, but that the Word signifies the oral word or voice, and that the Holy Ghost is the motion crea» feed in the creatures, AETICLE II. — OF ORIGINAL SIN. We teach, that since the fall of Adam all men who are naturally engendered, are conceived and born in sin ; that is, that they all are from their mother's womb, full of evil desires and propensities, and can have no true fear of God, no true faith in God, by nature ; and that this innate desease, or original sin, is truly sin, and condemns all those under the eternal wTath of God, who are not born again by baptism and the Holy Spirit. Hence, we condemn the Pelagians and others, who deny that origi- nal corruption is sin, by which, to the disparagement of the merits and sufferings of Christ, they assert, that the nature becomes pious through its natural powers^ ACGSBVRG CONFESSION. «|fe ^ ARTICLE III, — OF THE SON OF GOD. Likewise, it is taught, that God the Son, became man, was bom of the blessed Virgin Mary ; and that the two natures, human and divine, inseparably united in one person, are one Christ, who is true God and man, was really born, truly suffered, was crucified, died, and was buried, that he might be a sacrifice, not only for original sin, but also for all other sins, reconciling the wrath of God. Fur- ther, that this same Christ descended into hell, and truly arose from the dead on the third day, ascended to heaven, and sits at the right hand of God, that he may perpetually reign over all creatures, and govern them ; and through the Holy Spirit sanctify, purify, strength- en, and console all those who believe in him ; and may give unto them life, and various gifts and blessings, and protect and defend them against the devil and the power of sin. Also, that finally this same Christ will return visibly, to judge the living and the dead, &c., according to the Apostolic Creed. ARTICLE IV. — OF JUSTIFICATION. It is taught further, that we cannot obtain righteousness and the forgiveness of sin before God by our own merits, works, and atone- ment ; but that we obtain the remission of sins, and are justified be- fore God, by grace, for Christ's sake, through faith ; if we believe that Christ suffered for us, and that sins are remitted unto us for Christ's sake, and righteousness and eternal Ufe are bestowed on us. For, God accounts and imputes this faith to us as righteousness be- fore himself, as Paul says, (Rom. chap. iii. and iv.) ARTICLE V. OF THE MINISTRY. For the purpose of obtaining this faith, God has instituted the ministry, and given the Gospel and the sacraments, by which, as through means, he gives the Holy Spirit, who in his own time and place, works faith in those that hear the Gospel, which teaches, that through the merits of Christ, and not through our own merits, we have a merciful God, if we believe these things. By this are condemned the Anabaptists and others, who teach, that we receive the Holy Spirit through our own preparation, thoughts, and works, without the external word of the Gospel. ARTICLE VI. — OF NEW OBEDIENCE. It is also taught, that such faith must bring forth good fruits and 22 AUGSBURG CONFESSION« ■good works, and that we must do all manner of ^ood works, as GocI has commanded, for God's sake ; yet must not put any confidence in tiiose works, as if they merit favor in the sight of God ; for we receive forgiveness of sins and justification through faith in Christ, as Christ himself says, Luke, 17, 10. " When ye shall have done all those things, say, we are vmprofitable servants." Thus do also the Fathers teach. For Ambrose says. " Thus it has been or- dained by God, that whosoever believes in Christ shall be saved, and not through works, but without merit through faith alone, has he for- giveness of sins." ARTICLE VII. OF THE CHURCH. I It is taught likewise, that there ever shall be and continue one holy Christian church, which is the congregation of all behevers, among whom the Gospel is preached in purity, and the holy sacra- ments are administered according to the Gospel. For this is suffi- cient for the true unity of the Christian church, that the Gospel is preached therein, according to its pure intent and meaning, and that the sacraments are administered in conformity with the Word of God. And for the true imity of the Christian church it is not ne- cessary, that uniform ceremonies instituted by men, should be every where observed. As Paul says, Eph. 4, 4, 5. " There is one body, and one spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your call- ing ; one Lord, one faith, one baptism." ARTICLE VIII. WHAT THE CHURCH IS. Further : although the Christian church is properly nothing else than the congregation of all lielipvpns and saints, yet, as in this life there are many hypocrites and false Christians, — open sinners remain- ing even among the pious, the sacraments however, are effectual, even if the preachers, by whom they are admmistered, be not pious. As Christ himself says. Matt . 23, 2. " The Scribes and Pharisees eit in Moses' seat," &c. On this account are condemned the Donatists, and all such as teach contrary to this principle. ARTICLE IX. — OF BAPTISM. Respecting baptism it is taught, that it is necessary ; that grace is offered through it ; and that children also ought to be baptized, who through such baptism are presented to God, and become pleasing to him. AUGSBURG CONFESSION. Sil Therefore the Anabaptists are condemned, who teach that infant baptism is not proper. ARTICLE X. OF THE LORd's SUPPER. Concerning the holy Supper of the Lord it is thus taught, that the true body and blood of Christ are truly present under the form of bread and wine in the Lord's Supper, and there administered and re- ceived. The opposite doctrine therefore is rejected. ARTICLE XI. OF CONFESSION. In reference to confession it is thus taught, that private absolution ought to be retained in the church, and should not be discontinued ; it is, how^ever, not necessary to enumerate all transgressions and sins in confession, as this, indeed, is not possible. Psalm 19, 12. ^' Who can understand his errors?" ARTICLE XII. OF REPENTANCE. Concerning repentance it is taught, that those who have sinned after baptism, may at all times oblain the forgiveness of sins, if they repent ; and that the church should not refuse to grant absolution unto them. And genuine and true repentance properly consists in feeling contrition and regret, or dread on account of sin ; and be- sides, in having faith in the Gospel and absolution that the sins are forgiven, and that through Christ grace is obtained, — a faith which again consoles and pacifies the heart. Afterwards improvement of conduct also should follow, and absti- nence from sin ; for these should be the fruits of repentance, as John says, Matt. 3, 8, " Bring forth fruits meet for repentance." Here are condemned such as teach, that those who have once been justified, cannot fall again. On the other hand', the Novatians also are here condemned, who refused absolution to those who had sinned after baptism. In like manner are condemned those who teach, that forgiveness of sin is obttiined, not through faith, but through our own meritori- ous deeds. ARTICLE XIII. OF THE USE OF THE SACRAMENTS. Concerning the use of the sacraments, it is taught, that the sacra- ments have been instituted not only in order that they may be marks by which Christians may be known externally, but that they may be sioti^ ,-!i,id evidences of the divine Will towards us, for the 24 AUGSBURG CONFESSION. purpose of exciting and strengthening our faith ; therefore they also require faith, and then are they properly used, when they are re- ceived in faith, and when faith is strengthened by them. ARTICLE XIV. — OF CHURCH GOVERNMENT. Concerning church government it is taught, that no one should teach or preach publicly in the church, or administer the sacraments without a regular call. ARTICLE XV. OP CHURCH RITES AND ORDINANCES. Concerning ecclesiastical rites instituted by men, it is taught, that those should be observed which may be attended to without sin, and which contribute to the promotion of peace and good order in the fchurch : as, certain holy-days, festivals, and the like. Respecting these things, however, instruction is given, lest our consciences be encumbered with the idea that such observances are essential to sal- vation. It is taught, moreover, that all ordinances and traditions instituted by men, for the purpose of reconciling God and meriting grace, are contrary to the Gospel and the doctrine of faith in Christ ; wherefore, monastic vows, and traditions concerning the difference of meats, days, &c., intended for the purpose of meriting grace, and making satisfaction for sins, are impotent and contrary to the Gospel. ARTICLE XVI. OF POLITICAL AND CIVIL GOVERNMENT. Concerning polity and civil government, it is taught, that all au- thority in the world and established governments and laws, are good arrangements created and instituted of God ; and that Christians' may hold either legislative, judicial, or executive ojffices, without sin ; and may decide cases, pronounce judgments, and punish trans- gressors, agreeably to imperial or other customary laws ; may wage just wars, and serve in them ; make lawful contracts ; take oaths, when required ; may hold property ; marry and be married, &c. Here are condemned the Anabaptists, who teach, that none of these things just mentioned, are congruous with Christianity. Those likewise are condemned, who teach, that Christian perfec- tion consists in deserting house and property, wife and children, personally, and abstaining from them ; whereas in these alone consist true perfection, true fear in God, and true faith in God. For the Gospel does not teach an external, temporal, but an inter- nal ^ everlasting manner and righteousness of heart, nor does it in- validate civil government, polity and matrimony, but it requires Augsburg confession. 25 the observance of all of these, as true ordinances of God. And in such stations each one according to his vocation should man- ifest Christian love, and genuine good works. Christians are, for that reason, under obligation to submit to government and to obey its commands in all things that may be performed without sin ; but if govermnent should conamand something that cannot be obeyed without sin, " We ought to obey God rather than men," Acts 4, 19, and 5, 29. ARTICLE XVII. OF CHRISt's RETURN TO JUDGMENT. It is also taught, that on the last day our Lord Jesus Christ will come to raise and to judge all the dead, to give unto the elect and faithful eternal life and endless joys, but to condemn impious men and devils to hell and everlasting punishment. The Anabaptists are therefore condemned, who teach that devils and condeimied men shall not suffer everlasting pain and torment. Here are condemned in like manner certain Jewish doctrines, which are circulated even now, that prior to the resurrection of the dead, the holy and pious alone ^vill occupy a temporal kingdom, and that all the wicked wül be exterminated. ARTICLE XVIII. — OF FREE WILL. Concerning free will it is taught, that to some extent man has freedom of will to live apparently honest, and to choose between things which reason comprehends; but without grace, assistance, and the operation of the Holy Spirit, he is unable to become pleas- ing to God, or to fear God in heart, or to believe in him, or to cast out of his heart the innate evil propensity ; but these things are ef- fected through the Holy Spirit, which is given through the word of God ; for Paul says, 1 Cor. 2, 14. " The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God." And in order that it may be known, that nothing novel is taught in this Article, the expressive words of Augustine, concerning free will, are introduced here, as now transcribed from the third book Hypognosticon : — " We acknowledge, that in all men there is a free will; for they all, indeed, have natural innate understanding and reason ; not that they are able to act in something pertaining to God,- as to love and fear God from the heart, but only in external works of this life have they freedom to choose good or evil. By good I mean, that which nature is able to perform, as to labor in the field, or not, to eat, to drink, to visit a friend, or not, to clothe or unclothe, 4 26 AUGSBURG CONFESSION, to biiikl, to take a wife, to carry on a trade, and to do any similar act that is useful and good* all of which, however, neither take place nor subsist without God, but all take place of him and through him. On the contrary, from his Qwn choice man may also take evil in hand, as to bow down before an idol, to commit mur* der," &c. ARTICLE XIX. — OF THE CAUSE OF SIN. Concerning the cause of sin it is taught among us, that, although God, the Almighty, has created and preserves all nature, yet the per- verted will, however, works sin in all evildoers and despisers of God, even as the will of the devil and of all wicked men, which, as soon as God withdraws his aid, turns itself from God unto evil, as Christ says, John 8, 44. " When he speaketli a lie, he speaketh of his own." ARTICLE XX. — OF FAITH AND GOOD WORKS. Our party are falsely accused of having prohibited good works; but their writings on the ten commandments and other subjects, show that they have given good and useful instructions and admo- nitions upon true Christian duties and works, concerning which prior to this time little had been taught, but almost in every sermon was urged continually the necessity of puerile and needless works, as rosaries, worship of saints, monastic vows, pilgrimages, stated fasts, holy-days, brotherhoods, &c. Works so needless, even our ad- versary do not extol so highly now any more as formerly, besides they have also learned to treat of faith now, concerning which in former times they had preached nothing at all ; they teach now how- ever, that we are not justified before God by works alone, but add faith in Christ, saying faith and works justify us before God, — a doc- trine which may afford more consolation than a doctrine teaching, confidence in works alone. Now since the doctrine concerning faith, which is the principal arti- cle in the Christian creed, has not been inculcated for so long a time, as all nmst confess, but the doctrine concerning works alone- having been preached everywhere, the following instructions are of- fered by our divines on this subject : — First, that cur works cannot reconcile us to God, and merit favor,, but these things are effected through faith alone, if it is believed,, that our sins are forgiven us for Christ's sake, who alone is the Me-' diator reconciling the Father. lie, therefore, that expects to cffeefc AUGSBURG CONFESSION. ^ fhese things by works, and to merit grace, contemns Christ, and seeks a way of his own to God, contrary to the Gospel. This doctrine concerning faith, is clearly and explicitly inculcated by Paul in many places, especially in Ephes. 2, 8, 9. " By grace ye are saved, through faith ; and that not of yourselves : it is the gift of God ; not of works, lest any man should boast," &c. And that no new signification is introduced here, may be shown from Au- gustine, who has treated this subject profoundly, and in like manner teaches, that we obtain grace and are justified before God through faith in Christ, and not by works ; as his whole book " Be Spiritu et Liter a" clearly shows. Although this doctrine is despised very much among the inexperienced, yet it will be found, that it is very consoling and salutary to timid and alarmed consciences ; for our consciences cannot attain tranquihty and peace by works, but through faith alone, when they feel in themselves an assurance that for Christ's sake they have a merciful God, as Paul says, Rom. 5, 1. •' Being justified by faith, we have peace with God." Heretofore this consolation was not administered in sermons, but our poor con- sciences were driven upon works of their own, and various works were taken in hand ; for conscience drove some into monasteries, with the hope of acquiring grace there by a monastic life, others devised works of another kind for the purpose of meriting grace, and of making sat- isfaction for sins. Many of these have experienced, that peace could not be attained by these things. It was, for this reason, necessary to preach and enforce with diligence this doctrine concerning faith in Christ, that it might be known that through faith alone, without merit, the grace of God is secured. It is also inculcated, that such faith is not here spoken of, as even devils and the ungodly possess, who likewise believe the history, that Christ has suflfered and arisen from the dead ; but true faith is spoken of, — that which believes that we obtain grace and the for-' giveness of sins through Christ. And he, then, who knows that he has a merciful God through Christ, thus knows God, calls upon him, and is not without God, as the Gentiles. For the devil and the un- godly do not beheve this article concerning the remission of sins ; for that reason they are enemies to God, are unable to call upon him, or to hope for any thing good from him ; and thus, as just now sho\TO, the Scripture speaks of faith, and does not style faith such a knowl- edge as devils and wicked men possess ; for thus it is taught con- cerning faith in Hebrews 11, 1. It is not faith to have merely a knowledge of the histories, but to have confidence in God, to receive Ms promises. And Augustine also reminds us, that we should un- 28 AUGSBURG CONFESSION. dei'stand the word faith in Scripture, to be a confidence in God, that he is merciful to us, and not a mere knowledge of such history, — a knowledge which devils also possess. It is taught further, that good works should and must be per- formed ; not that we should place confidence in them, in order to merit grace, but to the glory of God and in accordance with his will. Faith alone ever secures grace and forgiveness of sins. And because the Holy Spirit is given through faith, the heart becomes qualified to perform good works. For before this, while it is without the Holy Spirit, it is too weak ; besides it is in the power of Satan, who urges frail human nature to many sins. As we see among the philosophers, who undertaking to live honorably and unblameably, did not effect it however, but fell into many great and open sins ; so it happens, with man, if he is without true faith and without the Holy Spirit, and governs himself alone by his own human powers. Wherefore, the doctrine concerning foith is not deserving of censure for the prohibition of good works, but should much rather be applauded for teaching the performance of good works, and for offering assistance by which good works may be performed. For without faith and out of Christ, human nature and ability are much too weak to do good works, to call upon God, to have patience in sufferings, to love our neighbor, to execute with assiduity commanded offices, to be obedient, to avoid evil lusts. Such exalted and righteous works cannot be performed without the assistance of Christ, as he himself says, John 15, 5. " Without me, ye can do nothing." ARTICLE XXI. OF THE WORSHIP OF SAINTS. Concerning the worship of saints, it is taught by our party that we should remember the saints, so that we may strengthen our • faith, when we see how favors were conferred on them, and how as- sistance was afforded them through faith. Besides, that exajuples may be had from their good works for each one according to his vo- cation ; even as your imperial Majesty in waging war against the Turks, may follow^ successfully and devoutly the example of David ; for both are royal offices, whose shelter and protection subjects require. But by Scripture it cannot be shown, that we should invoke the saints, or seek help from them. For there is but one Re^ conciler and Mediator appointed between God and man, Jesus Christ, 1 Tim, 2, 5, who is the only Savior, High Priest, Propitia- tor, and Intercessor before God, Rom. 3, 25 and S, 34. And he alone has promised that he will hear our prayers. And this is the highest worship according to the Scripture, that from the heart we AUGSBURG CONFESSION. 2^ seek 2«cl call on this Jesus Christ, in every necessity and affliction, 1 John 2, 1. " If any man sin, we have an advocate with the Fa- ther, Jesus Christ the righteous." This is about the substance of the doctrine which is preached and taught in our churches, for the rightful Christian instruction and comfort of conscience, and for the improvement of believers. For, as we did not feel willing to place in the highest and greatest danger before God our own souls and consciences, by the abuse of the Divine name and word, or to entail and transmit upon our chil- dren and descendants any other doctrine than that commensurate with the pure divine word and Christian truth ; and as these doc^ trmes are clearly grounded in the Holy Scripture, and besides, are also neither contrary nor in opposition to the universal Christian, or to the Roman church, so far as may be observed from the writings of the Fathers, we think that our adversaries cannot disagree with us in the foregoing articles. Those therefore act altogether un- friendly, hastily, and contrary to all Christian unity and love, w^ho resolve in themselves, without any invariable grounds of di^^ne com- mand or writing, to exclude, reject, and avoid all of our party as heretics, because their errors and contentions are principally about certain traditions and misuses. If, then, there is no real error or deficiency in the principal articles, and if this our Confession is divine and Christian, with reason the bishops should demean themselves more mildly, even if there might be a deficiency among us on account of traditions ; and yet we hope to assign indisputable grounds and reasons, why some traditions and abuses have been corrected among us. ARTICLES, CONCERNING WHICH THERE IS DISSENSION, AND IN WHICH ARE RELATED THE ABUSES WHICH HAVE BEEN CORRECTED. Since, then, with respect to these Articles of faith, there is nothing taught in our churches contrary to the Holy Scripture, or the univer- sal church, but merely some abuses have been corrected, some of which in the course of time, have crept in of themselves, others have been established by force, necessity requires of us to relate these, and to allege reasons why alteration was permitted in them, in or- der that your imperial Majesty might know, that in this matter we have not acted in a manner unchristian or malicious, but that we were urged to permit such alteration by the command of God, which should justly be esteemed higher than all customs. 50 AUGSBURG CONPESSIOTrf- ARTICLE XXII. OF BOTH F.LF.MF.NTS IN THK SACHAMKNT^ Among us both elements in the sacrament, are administered to tht laity, because this is a clear command and precept of Christ, Matt. 26, 27. " Drink y^ all of it." Here Christ commands with clear words concerning the cup, that they all should drink out of it. And in order that no one shall be able to cavil at these wordSj and explam them, as if they pertained to the priests alone, Paul in- forms us, 1 Cor. 11, 25, that the whole congregation of the Corin- thian church, used both elements. And this custom continued in the church for a long time, as can be shown by history and the writings of the Fathers. Cyprian mentions in many places, that in his time the cup was administered to the laity. Thus says St. Jerome, the priests who athmnister the sacrament, distribute the blood of Christ to the people. And pope Gelasius himself commands, that the sa- crament should not be divided. Distinct. 2, de Consecrat. cap. Compe^ rimus. Neither can any canon be found, which commands that one element alone should be received. Nor can it be ascertained by any one, when or by w^hom the custom of receiving one element was intro- duced, although cardinal Cusanus mentions the time when this meth-, od was approved. Now it is evident that such custom, introduced contrary to the command of God, and in opposition to the ancient canons, is w^'ong. Wherefore, it was unproper to oppress the con- sciences of those who wished to use the holy sacrament according to the institution of Christ, by compelhng them to act contrary to the order of Christ our Lord. And since the dividing of the sacrament is contrary to the institu- tion of Christ, the usual processions* with the sacrament are discon- tinued among us. ARTICLE XXIII. OF THE MARRIAGE OF PRIESTS. There have been very great complaints in the world, among indi- viduals both of high and low rank, concerning the excessive lascivi- ousness, the dissolute conduct, and life of the priests, who were una- ble to observe continence, and who had also arrived at the highest excess wdth such abominable vices. For the purpose of avoiding such gross and detestable offences, adultery, and other acts of sensu- ality, several priests among us have entered the matrimonial state.. These allege that, in takii g this step, they have been urged and ac- *These processions have refuveuce to the processions with the laost, on the fes- iival of the Holy Body-.— Tß.'iKS. AUGSBURG CONFESSION. 31 tuated by the dictates of conscience, as the Scripture clearly enjoins^ that marriage was instituted of the Lord God to prevent fornication, as Paul says, 1 Cor. 7, 2. " To avoid fornication, "let every man have his own wife." Again, " It is better to marry than to burn," Cor. 7, 9, and according to the declaration of Christ, that not " all men can receive this word," Matt. 19, 11. In this passage Christ himself, who well knew what was in man, declares that few persons have the gift to Hve continent ; " for God created them male and fe- male," Gen. 1, 27. Now experience has abundantly shown, wheth- er it is within human power or ability, without a special gift or grace of God, to alter or modify the creatures of God the high Majesty, by human purposes or vows. For it is clear, what good, what decent, chaste lives, what Christian, honest, or blameless conduct, have followed from this in many individuals, — what abominable, hideous disquietudes and torment of their consciences, many have experienced in the close of their lives ; and many of them have confessed it them- selves. Since, then, the word and law of God cannot be altered by any human vows or fnartments, from these and other reasons and authorities, the priests and other ecclesiastics have entered into the conjugal state. So it may be shown likewise from history and the writings of the Fathers, that formerly in the Christian churches, it was customary for priests and deacons to have wives ;• wherefore Paul says, 1 Tim, 3, 2. " A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife." It is but four hundred years since the priests in Germany were driv- en by force from a state of matrhnony to vows of continence, and they opposed that measure so generally, so very earnestly and rigor- ously, that the archbishop at Mayence, who published this new pa- pal edict, was well nigh being murdered m a throng in an insurrec- tion of the whole priesthood. And directly in the beginning, in a manner so precipitately and arbitrarily was that decree taken in hand, that the pope at that tune did not only forbid unto the priests future marriage, but also dissolved the marriage of those who had already been in that state for a long time, — an action which was not only contrary to all divine, natural, and civil rights, but in opposi- tion also to the canons which the popes themselves made, and to the most celebrated councils. In like manner among individuals of high standing, piety, and in- telligence, have similar opinions and sentiments been heard frequent- ly,— that this compulsory celibacy and prohibition of matrimony, (which God himself instituted and left optional,) has never been pro- ductive of any good, but has been the source of many great and per- 32 Augsburg confession. nicious vices, and of many provocations. And even one of the pope^^ Pius II., himself, as his history shows, often mentioned these words, and permitted them to be written : " There may be some reasons, indeed, why marriage should be forbidden the ecclesiastics ; but there are much higher, greater, and weightier, reasons why marriage should be left optional with them." And doubtless, pope Pius, as an intelligent and wise man, spoke these words from mature con- sideration. Wherefore we would in submission to your unperial Majesty, com- fort ourselves with the hope, that your Majesty, as a Christian and highly esteemed Emperor, will reflect that now in these latter days, of which the Scripture makes mention, the world becomes still more degenerate, and mankind weaker and more defective. For these reasons it is highly necessary indeed, useful, and Chris- tian, to be mindful lest by the prohibition of marriage, lasciviousness and vices more wicked and shameful be promoted in the German states. For no one is able to remedy or ameliorate these matters better or more wisely than God hunself, who has instituted marriage for the purpose of assisting human weakness, and of restraining li- centiousness. Thus say the ancient canons too, that severity and rigor must on some occasions be mitigated and relaxed, on account of human weakness, and for the purpose of guarding against, and of avoiding greater evils. Now such a course would in this case be Christian and very neces- sary. For what injury could result to the Christian church in gen- eral, especially to the ministers and others, who are to serve in the church, from the marriage of priests and ecclesiastics? There will indeed, be a want of priests and ministers hereafter, should this rigorous prohibition of marriage be continued longer. Now, since it is founded upon the divine word and commandment for priests and ecclesiastics to enter into a state of matrimony, be- sides since history shows that the priests did live in a state of matrimony ; since also the vows of continence have produced a very great number of offences so detestable and unchristian, adultery so excessive, licentiousness so terrible and unheard of, and vices so abom» inabie, that even some of the courtesans among the dignitaries at Rome, have often confessed these things, and admitted with sorrow that as these vices in the clergy were so abominable and predomi- nant, the wrath of God would be excited ; — it is indeed lamentable, not only that the Christian state of matrimony has been forbidden, but even in some places subjected to the most severe punishment, as if it were a heinous crime. AUGSBURG CONFESSION, 33 Matrimony is moreover commended highly, in the laws of your imperial Majesty, and in every empire in which justice and law pre- vail. But in the present time innocent people are beginning to be tortured on account of their marriage alone, priests likewise who should be spared in preference to others, — a thing which is not only contrary to divine laws, but also to the canons. The apostle Paul denominates that a doctrine of devils, which forbids marriage, 1 Tim. 4, 1, 3. And Christ himself says, John 8, 44. *' The devil is a murderer from the begirming." All these things concur well to prove that to be a doctrine of devils, which forbids marriage, and at- tempts to enforce the prohibition by the sheddmg of blood. But as no human law is able to abrogate or change a command of God, so also no vow is able to change his command. Wherefore Cyprian advises, that those women who do not keep their vowed chastity, should marry, and he says, L. I. Epist. II. thus : " But if they wdll not preserve their chastity, or if they are unable, it is better to marry, than to fall into the fire through their lusts ; and they should conduct themselves well, that they may not occasion of- fence to the brothers and sisters." In addition, all the canons extend more lenity and justice to those who have taken vows m youth, the priests and monks for the most part having entered into such state in their youth, through igno- rance. ARTICLE XXIV. OF THE MASS. It is alleged unjustly against our party, that they have abolished the mass. For it is evident that the mass (not to boast) is celebra- ted with greater devotion and seriousness among us, than among the adversaries. So the people also are repeatedly instructed with dili- gence concerning the holy sacrament, with regard to the purpose for which it was instituted, and the manner in which it is to be used, viz. to comfort alarmed consciences, by which means the people are drawn to communion and mass. Besides, instruction is also giv- en against wrong doctrines concerning the sacrament. Nor has any perceptible change taken place in the pubhc ceremonies of the mass, except that at several places German hymns (for the instruction and exercise of the people) are sung besides the Latin songs ; as all cer- emonies should especially serve the purpose of teaching the people what is necessary for them to know concerning Christ. But as the mass prior to this time, was abused in various ways f as it is clear, that a fair was made out of it, that it was bought and sold, and that it has been celebrated for the most part in all churches 5 34 AUGSBURG CONFESSION. for the sake of money, — such abuse, even before this time, has been repeatedly censured by individuals of learning and piety. Now aa the ministers among us have preached concerning this thing, and the priests have been reminded of the terrible mönaces^^ which should justly move every Christian, that, whoever partakes of the sacrament un- worthily, is guilty of the body and blood of Christ, 1 Cor. 11, 27, thereupon these mercantile and solitary masses, which hitherto have been celebrated out of coinpulsion for the sake of money and the prebends, have ceased in our churches. Besides, the abominable erroneous doctrine that Christ our Lord by his death has atoned for original sin only, is also repressed, and that he has instituted the massa^ a propitiation for other sins. And thus the mass has been converted into an oblation for the living and the dead, in order to>take av;ay sins and reconcile God. From this it further followed, that it was called in question, whether a mass held for ma- ny merits as much as if a particular one is held for each individual. Thence originated the numberless multitudes of masses, as men wished by that work to obtain fi'om God all that they needed, and thereupon the faith in Christ and the true divine service were neglec- ted,. Wherefore instruction is given on this subject, as necessity un-r doubtedly required, in order that it may be known, how the sacrament would be rightly made use of. And first, the Scripture testifies in m.any places that there is no sacrifice for original sin or for other sins, but only the death of IShrist alone. For thus it is written. Heb. 9„ 26-28, and ch. 10, 10-14. " For by one offering Christ hath per- fected forever them that are sanctified." It is an unheard of innova- tion, to teach in the church, that the death of Christ atoned only for original sin, and not also for other sins ; h/)pe is therefore entertain- ed, that it wijl be generally perceived that such error was not un- justly censured. Secondly, St. Paul teaches, Rom. 8, 25, that we obtain grace be- fore God, through faith, and not by works. This abuse of the mass, is evidently opposed to this doctrine, . if by that work we expect to oMain grace; as it is well known that the mass has been used for the purpose of removing sins, and of obtaining grace and favor be- fore God, not only in behalf of the priest' for himself, but also for the whole world, for the living and the deadi. Thirdly, this holy sacrament was instituted, not for the purpose of making a sacrifice for sins, (for the sacrifice has already been made,)^ but for the purpose of exciting our faith, and of consoling the con- sciences, which are admonished through the sacrament, that grace Augsburg coNFESsioijf. 35 and the forgiveness of sins are promised to them by Christ. Where- fore this sacrament requires faith, and without faith it is used in vain. Since, then, the mass is not a sacrifice for others hving or dead, to take away their sins, but since it should be a communion, in which the priest and others receive the sacrament for themselves, this custom is observed among us, that on holy-days (and also at other seasons when communicants are present) mass is celebrated, and unto tliose who desire it the sacrament is administered. Thus the mass contin- ues among us in its proper application, as it was observed originally in the church, as may be shown from St. Paul, 1 Cor. 11, 33, and likewise from many writings of the Fathers. For Chrysostom men- tions how the priest stands daily, requesting some to come to communi- on, and forbidding others to approach. The ancient canons also show, that one officiated, and the other priests and deacons communed. For thus read the words of the canon of Nice : " The deacons in order after the priests, should receive the sacrament from the bishop or the priest." Now since no innovation has been introduced, inconsistent with the custom of the primitive church, and no perceptible change has taken place in the public ceremonies of the mass, except that the unnecessary masses celebrated perhaps through abuse, — the parish masses too, have discontinued, this manner of holding masses should not in justice be condemned as unchristian and heretical. For in for- mer times mass was not celebrated daily in large churches in which a great number of people had assembled, on the days the people con- gregated ; as Tripartita kistoria lib. 9, testifies, that in Alexandria, on Wednesdays and Fridays]the Scriptures w^ere read and explained, ;and all other divine services were held, without the mass. ARTICLE XXV. Of CONFESSION. Confession is not abolished by the ministers of our party. For the custom is retained among us, not to administer the sacrament unto those who have not been previously examined and absolved. The people moreover are diligently instructed with regard to the comfort afforded by the words of absolution, and the high and dear esti- mation in which it is to be held ; for it is not the voice or word of the individual present, but it is the word of God, he who forgives sins ; for it is spoken in God's stead, and from his command. Concerning this command and power of the keys, how comfortable, how useful they are to alarmed consciences, is taught with the greatest assiduity, besides how God requires confidence in this abso- 36 AUGSBIIRR CONFF.SSIOK. lutlon, no less than if the voice of God resounded from heaven, to comfort us and to assure us, that through such faith we obtain the remission of sins. Concerning these useful points, the priests, who taught respecting confession, have not uttered a single word hereto- fore, but merely tormented our consciences with long enumerations of sins, with expiations, with indulgences, with pilgrimages, and the like. And many of our adversaries have acknowledged themselves, that this party write and discourse concerning true Christian repentance, with greater propriety than had been done before for many years. And thus it is taught respecting confession, that no one should be forced to enumerate sins by name ; for that would be impossible, as the Psalmist says : " Who can understand his errors ?" Psalm 19, 13. And Jeremiah says : Jer. 17, 9. " The heart is deceitful above all things : who can know it?" Poor, frail human nature is rooted so deeply in sin, that it is unable to perceive or to acknowl- edge all of them ; and should we be absolved of those only, which we are able to enumerate, it would avail us but little. It is, therefore, unnecessary to urge people to enumerate their sins by name. Thus the Fathers also maintained, as may be shown from Distinct. 1, de Pcznitentia, where the words of Chrysostom are quoted : — " I say not that thou shouldest betray thyself publicly, or accuse thyself be- fore another one, or present thyself as culpable, but obey the pro- phet, who says : ' Commit thy way unto the Lord,' Ps. 37, 5. Therefore confess unto God the Lord, the righteous judge, in thy prayer, do not relate thy sins with the tongue, but in thy conscience." Here it may be seen clearly, that Chrysostom does not urge sins to be enumerated by name. The Glossa in Decretis de Pcenitentia^ Distinct. 4, also teaches that confession is not commanded in the Scriptures, but iY was instituted by the church. Yet by the ministers of our party it is taught with diligence, that confession because of absolution, which is the chief part in it., should be retained for the purpose of consoling alarmed consciences, and for some other reasons, ARTICLE XXVI. OF DIVERSITY OF MEATS. Formerly it was held, preached, and written, that the diversity of meats and the like ceremonies instituted by men, were useful, in or- 4er to merit grace and to make satisfaction for sin. Hence new fasts, new ceremonies, new orders, and the like, were daily devised and strenuously insisted upon, as if they were necessary services to God, through which grace might be merited if they were observed, but that the neglect of them was attended with great sin. From this many scaiidalpus errors originated in the .church. ATTfiRPTTPC rOTJurcQlON, 37 In tlip first place, by this lüeaiis, the grace of Christ anrl the rloc- trine concerning faith were obscured, which doctrine with great so- lemnity the Gospel inculcates, and urges with earnestness that the merit of Christ should be highly and dearly esteemed, and that it should be known that faith in Christ is to be placed far above aU works. St. Paul, for that reason, inveighs bitterly against the Mo- saic law and human traditions, in order that we might learn, that we are not justified before God by our works, but alone through faith in Christ, and that we obtain grace for Christ's sake. This doctrine was almost entirely suppressed, by teaching that grace must be mer- ited by laws, fasts, diversities of meats, habits, &c. Secondly, such traditions even obscured the command of God. For these traditions were elevated far above his command. Those alone were believed to live as Christians, who observed these holy-days, and prayed, and fasted, and dressed in this peculiar manner, which was styled a spiritual. Christian life. Moreover, other useful good works were regarded as worldly and sensual, viz. those which each one according to his vocation, is under obligation to do : as, the father laboring to support his wife and children, and to bring them up in the fear of God, the mother bear- ing children and attending to them, the prince and other author- ities ruling the country and the people, &c. Such works commanded of God, had to be considered a mere worldly and imperfect matter, but these traditions had to be styled by the magnificent name, of be- ing holy and perfect works only. For these reasons there was nei- ther limit nor end to the making of such traditions. Thirdly, these traditions became exceedingly cumbrous to the con- sciences of men. For it is not possible to observe all traditions, and yet the people were of opinion, that they are necessary services to God. And Gerson asserts in his writings that by this many were driven to despair, and some put an end to their own existence ; because they heard no consolation from the grace of Christ. For, how the consciences of men were entangled is seen from the Summists and theologians, who attempted to sum up the traditions, and sought tftttvxiiai* in order to assist those consciences. So complicated an undertaking did they find it, that in the meantime the salutary Chris- tian doctrines of subjects more important, of faith, of consolation in affliction, and the like, were totally neglected. Accordingly ma- *The word Epieikeia properly signifies : equity, moderation, forbearance, rea- sonable condescension. This word was employed by the monks, to express the aiitigation of the rigor of the precepts or traditions. — Traks. 38 AUGSJBiJKU COJNFESSIOW. fiy pious men of those times complained tliat these traditions excite^ mucli contention in the church, and by that means prevented pious men from attaining the true knowledge of Christ. Gerson and sev- eral others have uttered bitter complaints on this subject. And it also met the displeasure of Augustine, that men encumbered their con- sciences with so many traditions ; for that reason he advises on this subject, that they should not be regarded as necessary things. Wherefore we did not treat on these matters, through malice or in contempt of ecclesiastical power, but necessity required instruction concerning the errors aforementioned, which had grown out of the misapprehension of these trachtions. For the Gospel enforces, that the doctrine concerning faith should and must be inculcated in churches, which cannot, however, be understood where the opinion prevails that men merit grace by works of their own appointment. Arid with respect to this subject, it is taught that no one is able by the observance of devised human traditions, to merit grace or to re- concile God, or to atone for sins ; and for that reason no necessary service of God should be made out of them. Reasons in addition, are alleged from the Scripture. Christ excuses the apostles for not observing the usual traditions, saying : Matt. 15, 3-9. " In vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men." Now as he calls this a vain service, it cannot be necessary. And immediately afterwards he says : verse 11. " Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man." Again Paul says, Rom. 14, 17, " The kingdom of God is not meat and drink." Col. 2, 16- 20. " Let no man, therefore, judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of a holy-day," &c. Acts 15, 10, 11. Peter says: "Why tempt ye God to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear ? But we beheve that through the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved." Here Peter forbids that the consciences of men should be burdened any further with external ceremonies, either those of Moses or of others. And 1 Tim. 4, 1, 3. Those prohibitions which forbid meats and matrimony are called, " doctrines of devils." For it is diametrically contrary to the Gospel, either to institute or perform such works for the purpose of meriting the remission of sins, or un- der the impression that no one can be a Christian without these ser- vices. The charge, however, alleged against our party, that they forbid discipline and mortification of the flesh, as Jovian did, will be disproved by their writings. For they have ever given instruc- tion concerning the lioly cross, which Chiistians are under obliga- AlIfiSBURG CONFESSION. 30 tlon to bear ; and this is true, sincere, and not fictitious mortification. Moreover it is taught in like manner, that each Christian is under obligation to restrain himself by bodily exercise ; as fasting and other exercises, so that he give no occasion to sin, not meriting grace however by these works. This bodily exercise should be urged not only on certain fixed days, but continually. On this subject Christ says: Luke 21, 34. " Take heed to yourselves, lest at any time your hearts be overcharged with surfeiting." Again, Matt. 17, 21. " The devils are not cast out but by fasting and prayer." And Paul says : 1 Cor. 9, 27. " I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection." By this he shows, that mortification is designed, not for the purpose of meriting grace, but for the purpose of keeping the body in a suitable condition, that it might not impede what each one according to his calling is commanded to perform, and thus fasting is not rejected, but the making of a necessary service out of it, upon fixed days and particular meatSj to the confusion of the con- sciences of men. Many ceremonies and traditions are likewise observed by our par- ty ; as, the order of the mass, and other hymns, festivals, &c., which are calculated to promote order in the church. But relative to this subject the people are instructed, that such external service does not make them pious before God, and that it should be observed without encumbering the consciences, so, that if any one omit it without giv- ing offence, he does not sin in that case. This freedom in external ceremonies the ancient Fathers have likewise retained. For in the East, the Easter-feast was held at a different time from that at Rome ; and when some were disposed to consider this want of uni- formity as a division in the church, they were reminded by others, that it was not necessary to observe uniformity in such customs. And thus says Irenseus : " Want of uniformity in fasts does not di- vide the unity of faith." So also in Distinct. 12, it is written con- cerning the want of uniformity in human ordinances, that it is not contrary to the unity of Christendom. And Tripartita Hist. lib. 9, sums up many dissimilar church customs, and forms a useful Chris- tian saying : " It was not the intention of the Apostles to institute holy-days, but to teach faith and charity. ^^ ARTICLE XXVII. — OF MONASTIC VOWS. In order to speak of monastical profession, it is necessary, in the first place, to consider how it has been viewed hitherto ; what regu- lation they had in monasteries, and that very many things are daily done in them not only contrary to the word of God, but also in op- I&i AUGSBURG CONFESSIOK". position to the papal directions. In the time of St. Augustine mona^- tic life was optional ; subsequently, when the right discipline and doctrine -vVere corrupted, monastic vows were devised, and by these as by a devised incarceration, they wished to re-establish disci- pline. In addition to these monastic vows, many other things were in- troduced, and with these burdens and fetters many persons were op- pressed, even before they had arrived at years of maturity. So, many persons likewise entered into such monastic life through ignorance, who, although they were not of years too immature, did not sufficiently consider and weigh their abilities. All these, thus involved and ensnared, are urged and forced to remain in such bonds, although even the papal regulations would hberate many of them. And it was more oppressive in nunneries than in monasteries, yet it would seem fit that females, as the weaker, should have been spared. This severity likewise met the displeasure of many pious persons in former times ; for they well knew^ that both boys and girls were of- ten thrust into these monasteries merely for the purpose of being supported. They saw also how evil this course of procedure proved, what offiences, what burdens of conscience it produced, and ma- ny people complained, that in a matter so perilous the canons were not regarded at all. Besides this, an opinion obtained concerning monastic vows, w^hich was very prevalent, and which was displeas- ing even to many monks, who w^ere possessed of some little reason. For they allege, that monastic vows are equal to baptism, and that by monastic life remission of sins and justification may be merit- ed before God, yea, they add still farther, that by monastic life not only righteousness and holiness are merited, but also that by it the commands and counsels comprehended in the Gospel, are kept ; and thus monastic vows were commended more highly than baptism. Again, that men merit more by monastic life than by all other offices which God has ordered ; as that of parson and minister, government, prince and lord, and the like, all of whom according to the command, word, and precept of God, serve in their vocations without fictitious sanctimoniousness. None of these things can be denied, for they are extant in their own books. Moreover, he that is thus ensnared and enters into convent, learns but little concerning Christ. Schools were kept once in monasteries, for the purpose of teach- ing the holy Scriptures and other arts which are useful to the Chris- tian church, so that ministers and bishops could be selected from them. But now there is a different custom. For formerly they assembled in monastic life with a view to learn the Scripture, but AUtiSBURG CONfESSION. 41 how they falsely pretend that monastic life is of such a nature, that men merit the grace of God and holiness before God by it, yea, that it is a state of perfection, and they exalt it far above other states which God has instituted. We cite all these things, free from all calumni- ation, in order that it may be the better understood and comprehen- ds how, and what our party preach and teach. First, among us they teach concerning those who contract in mar- riage, that all those who are not constituted for a single state, have power and legal authority to marry. For vows cannot annul the order and command of God. Thus reads the command of God, 1 Cor. 7, 2. " To avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her owti husband." And not only the command of God, but also his creation and order, urge and enforce all those to a state of matrimony, who are not endowed with the gift of continence, by a pecuKar work of God, agreeably to this declaration of God himself: Gen. 2, 18. " It is not good for man to be alone, I will make him an help meet for him." Now, what can be alleged against this? They may applaud vows and duty as highly as they please, and adorn them as much as possible, yet it cannot be maintained that God's command Can thus be annulled. The doctors say, that vows, even in opposition to the authority of the pope, are not binding, how much less, then, should they bind, and have power and effect against the commands of God ? If the obligation of vows had no other reason for their being an- nulled, the popes would not have granted dispensations against them ; for it is not proper for any man to annul obligations which grow out of divine rights. Wherefore the popes have considered well, that in these obligations equity should be employed, and have often granted dispensations; as with the king of Arragon, and many others. Now, if for the preservation of temporal things, dispensations have been granted, more justly should they be granted on account of the necessity of souls. Secondly, why do the opposite party urge so strenuously that vows must be kept, and do not first consider whether the vow is of a proper nature ? For vows should in possible cases be free and un- constrained. But how far perpetual chastity exists in human power and ability, is well known. Nor are there many, either of males or of females, that have taken monastic vow^s of themselves, freely and with due consideration. Before they arrive at a proper understand- ing, they are persuaded to monastic vows. Sometimes they are also urged and forced to them. For that reason it is not just, to insist so obstinately and strenuously about the obligation of vows, seeing that 6 42 AUGSBURG CONFESSION. all must confess, that it is contrary to the nature and essential char- acter of a vow, to vow it unwillingly and without due counsel and consideration. Some canons and papal regulations rescind the vows which were made previous to the fifteenth year. For they maintain, that be- fore that age no one has knowledge sufficient to enable him to cte- termine upon the order and regulation of a whole life. Another canon allows still more years for human weakness. It forbids the taking of monastic vows under the eighteenth year. From this the greater part would have excuse and reason to withdraw from monasteries ; for the greater part in their childhood entered them before that age. Finally, if even the breaking of monastic vows might be censured, yet it could, however, not follow from this, that their marriages should be dissolved. For St. Augustine says, 27 QtLcest., 1 Cap., JSuptiarum, " that such marriages should not be dissolved." Now, St. Augustine stands in high repute in the Christian church, although some have since maintained otherwise. Although the command of God concerning marriage, absolves very many from their monastic vows, yet our writers allege many other reasons, why monastic vows are ineffectual and frangi- ble. For every species of worship, chosen and instituted by men, without the precept and command of God, in order to obtain righte- ousness and divine grace, is contrary to him, and in opposition to his command and to the Gospel, As Christ himself says: Matt. 15, 9. " But in vain do they worship me, teaching for doc- trines the commandments of men." So St. Paul also teaches every- where, that men should not seek righteousness from services of God, devised by men, but that righteousness and holiness in the sight of God come from the faith and trust in which we believe, that God accepts us graciously for the sake of Christ his own Son. Now, it is clear, that the monks have taught and preached that their fictitious sanctimoniousness atones for sin, and obtains righteousness and the grace of God. What else is this, but diminishing the glory and honor of the grace of Christ, and denying the righteousness of faith ? Wherefore it follows that such customary vows are unjust and false seiTices of Go gifts we call, the fear of God, the knowledge of and confidence in him. From all this it appears sufficiently clear, that in defining wha t original sin is, the ancients coincide with us precisely ; and that i t was their opinion, that through it we are not only disqualified for a pure or good work, but that we are also born in the melancholy stai te of being destitute of a good heart, a heart inclined to God and trul y loving him. Precisely the same, is the opinion of August! ne, where he states in like manner, what original sin is, and which he: is accustomed to de- nominate an evil desire ; for he designed showing that since the fall of Adam, instead of righteousness, evil desires are imii ite in us. For since OF ORIGINAL SIN. • 61 the fall, as by nature we are born in sin, not fearing, or loving God, or trusting in hiin, we do nothing else, but that we trust in ourselves, despise God, or become obstructed and flee from him. And the words of Augustine embrace and contain the meaning of those who say, that original depravity is a want of the original righte- ousness ; that it is the evil desires which, instead of this righteousness, attach to us. And these evil desires are not merely a corruption or disorganization of the original perfect physical health of Adam in Paradise, but also an evil desire and inclination through which, ac- cording to the very best and highest powers and light of reason, we are nevertheless carnally minded and alienated from God. Nor do those know what they say, who teach that man is able by his own strength to love God above all things, and who must at the same time acknowledge, that so long as this life continues, evil desires still re- main, so far as they are hot entirely mortified by the Holy Ghost. We have, therefore, in our description of original sin, been thus particular in describing and expressing, both the evil desire and the want of original righteousness in Paradise ; and we add that this want is in consequence of the descendants of Adam not trusting sin- cerely in God, not fearing and loving him : and that the evil desire results from our being by nature opposed to God with our whole heart, mind, and strength ; in consequence of which we do not only seek after all kinds of sensual enjoyments of the body, and trust to our own wisdom and righteousness, but entirely forget God, and feel for him but httle, indeed, no reverence at all. And not only the ancient Fathers, as Augustine and others, but the latest teachers, and scholastics, maintain that these two conditions together consti- tute original sin, viz. evil desire and the want of righteousness. For thus says St. Thomas, that " Original sin is not only a want of ori- ginal righteousness, but an inordinate desire or lust in the soul. Therefore it is," continues he, " not only a mere want, but also aliquid ■positivum.''' And Boneventura also says plainly : " If it is asked, what original sin is, this is the right answer, that it is an unrestrained evil desire. The right answer also is, that it is a want of righteous- ness,"— the one including the other. Hugo also intends the very same thing, where he says, that " Ori- ginal sin is blindness in the mind, and evil desire in the flesh." For he wishes to show, that we descendants of Adam are all born in such a manner that we do not know God — that we despise him and do not trust in him — yea, that we flee from, and hate him. For Hugo desired to comprise this briefly in the words, " ignoraniia in mente,^^ blindness m ignorance in the mind. And these passages of the latest teachers 62 APOLOCY. harmonize with the holy Scriptures. For Paul often speaks clearly of original sin, as a want of divine light, &c., — as in 1 Cor. 2, 14: " But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God ;" and in other places he calls it evil desire, as in Rom. 7, 5, 23, where he says : " But I see another law in my members," &c. Which evil desire brings forth all kinds of evil fruit. Here I could adduce many more passages from the Scriptures, upon these two points, but on a truth so evident I deem it unneces- sary. Every intelligent individual will readily perceive, that, to be without the fear of God, and confidence in him in our hearts, is not only actus, or actual sin, but an innate want or destitution of divine light and of every thing good — a want or destitution which contin- ues, so long as we are not born anew through the Holy Ghost and enlightened by him. The manner, then, in which we have hitherto written and treated of original sin, is not new, or adverse to what the holy Scriptures and the universal Christian church teach ; but we are bringing to light again, the good, clear, necessary passages of the holy Scriptures and of the Fathers, which were suppressed by the imprudent cavils of the sophists ; and we earnestly desire to restore the Christian doc- trines to their purity. For it is evident that the sophists and scho- lastics did not understand what the Fathers meant by the words, "want or destitution of the first righteousness." It is, however, very necessary to treat properly and correctly of this subject, and to define what original sin is ; and no one can sin- cerely long for or desire Christ, and the inestimable treasures of di- vine grace and favor of which the Gospel speaks, who does not know and acknowledge his wretchedness and his disease ; as Christ says, Matt. 9, 12,— Mark 2, 17. " They that be whole need not a physician." All holy, honorable life or conduct, all the good works that ever can be performed by man upon earth, are mere hypocrisy and abomination before God, if we do not first perceive and acknowl- edge that we are miserable sinners by nature, in the displeasure of God, neither fearing nor loving him. Thus says the prophet Jere- miah 31, 19. " After that I was instructed, I smote upon 7ny thigh ;" and Psalm 116, 11, " AlII men are liars ;" that is, they are not rightly disposed towards God. Here our adversary decry Dr. Luther with vehemence, because he has written, that original sin remains also after baptism ; and they say besides, that this article was justly condemned by Leo X. But your imperial Majesty will perceive clearly here, that they treat us with the greatest injustice. Because our adversaries imder- OF ORIGINAL ÄJIN. 63 stand perfectly, in what sense Dr. Luther desires this tobe understood, where he says : original sin remains after baptism. For he has ever taught clearly, that holy baptism extirpates and removes the entire guilt and hereditary debt (Erbpflicht) of original sin ; although, the material (as they call it) of the sin, namely the evil desire and lust, remains. Besides, in all his writings respecting this same material, he adds, that the Holy Ghost, which is given through baptism, begins inter- nally to mortify and to blot out the remaining evil desires daily, and brings into the heart a new light, a new mind, and spirit. In the same sense Augustine also writes, where he says : " Original sin is forgiven in baptism, not that it becomes extinct, but that it is not imputed." Here Augustine openly acknowledges, that the sin remains in us, although it is not imputed unto us. And this passage of Augustine met the approbation of the teachers afterwards so well, that it was cited in the Decree. And in opposition to Julian, Augustine says: " The law, which is in our own members, is put away through spirit- ual regeneration ; and yet remains in the flesh, which is mortal. It is put away, for the guilt is entirely reiiitted through the sacrament, through which the believers are born anew ; and yet it remains — for it produces evil desires, against which the believer strives." That Dr. Luther thus believes and teaches, our adversaries know full well ; and as they cannot assail the doctrine itself, but must ac- knowledge its truth, they maliciously pervert his words, and interpret his meaning falsely, in order to suppress the truth and to condemn it without a cause. But the adversaries, moreover, deny that evil desires are a burden imposed, and a penalty inflicted upon us, and contend that they are not a sin which merits death and condemnation. On the contrary, Dr. Luther says, that they are a sin thus condemnable, I have stated above that Augustine also speaks to the same intent, that or- iginal sin is innate evil desire. If this is spoken erroneously, they may settle the point with Augustine. Upon this subject Paul says, Rom. 7, 7, 8. " I had not known sin but by the law : for I had not known lust, except the law had said. Thou shalt not covet." Here Paul plainly says, that he did not know that lust or evil desire is sin, &c.. Again, Rom. 7, 23. " I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bririging me into captivity to the law of sin, which is in my members." These are the pure and clear declarations of Paul, against which 64 APOLOGY. no g-loss, no artful contrivance can avail — and which all devils, all men cannot overturn. Here he clearly calls evil desires, sin ; never- theless, he says that this sin is not imputed unto those who believe in Christ. — Yet of itself, it really is a sin, deserving death and eternal condemnation. And there is no doubt, but that this was the opinion of the ancient Fathers also. For Augustine disputed with, and contended earnestly against, those who maintained that evil de- sires and inclinations in man were not sin, and were neither good nor bad ; as, having a black or white body, is also neither good nor bad. And if the adversaries contend that the fomes, or evil inclinations are neither good nor bad, they do it in opposition not only to many passages in the Scriptures, but also to the doctrines of the whole church and all the Fathers. For every experienced Christian heart knows and feels alas, that these evils, namely, — that we esteem gold, property, and all other things more highly than God, and pro- ceed and live on in imagined security in them, — are innate with us and exist in our bodies. And they know and feel, further, that ac- cording to the nature of our sensual security, we are always inclined to think that God's wrath and severity regarding sin are not so great, as they really are ; again, that we do not sincerely esteem the noble, inestimable treasures of the Gospel and the reconciliation of Christ so dear and so excellent as they are; again, that we murmur against the will and dispensation of God, when he does not immediately help us in af- flictions, and comply with our desires — and finally, that we experience daily a feeling of dissatisfaction at the prosperity of the ungodly in this world, — a feeling which David also, and all the saints lamented in themselves. Besides, all men know how easily their hearts are inflamed — now with ambition,— now with anger and hatred, — and again, with impu- rity and un chastity. Now if our adversaries themselves must acknowledge that there is such infidelity, such disobedience to God in the human heart, even although there is not entire consent, (as they speak of it,) but only an inclination and a desire, who ^^all haA^e the boldness to assert, that these gross propensities are neither good nor bad ? For the psalmist and prophets, in the clearest terms, confess that they expe- rienced these feelings. But the sophists of the schools, having treated this subject con- trary to the clear evident meaning of the Scriptures, and devised out of the writings of the philosophers their own dreams and sayings^ declare that we are neither good nor bad — blameworthy or praisewor- thy on account of these evil desires. Again, that the evil desires and OF ORIGINAL SIX. Od thoughts In our hearts are not sins, if we do not fully consent to them. These doctrines and words in the books of the philosophers must be understood relative to external honesty before the world, and also to external punishment before the world. For there it is true, as the jurists say, L. Cogitationis, thoughts are free, and exempt from punishment. But God searches into the heart ; his judgments and his sentence are different. In the same manner, they have also connected with this subject other absurd sayings, namely, that God's creatures, and nature it- self, cannot be intrinsically bad. To this assertion I do not object, when used where it is applicable. But it must not be employed to underrate the sin of original depravity. And these same sayings of the sophists have done unspeakable injury, by mingling with the Gospel, that philosophy and those doctrines which relate to our ex- ternal conduct before the world ; and they have not only taught these things in their schools, but without shame have preached them publicly before the people. And these ungodly, false, dangerous, and injurious doctrines had prevailed throughout the world : nothing was preached, but our own merit every where, through which the knowledge of Christ and the Gospel were entirely suppressed. Wherefore, Dr. Luther desired to teach and to explain from the Scriptures, how deadly a crime original sin is before God, and how great is the calamity to which we are born ; and that the part of ori- ginal sin remaining after baptism is, of itself, not indifferent, but needs the mediator Christ, in order that God may not impute it un- to us, and also, without intermission, the light and operation of the Holy Spirit, through whom it is mortified and removed. Now, although the sophists and scholastics teach differently, and teach contrary to the Scriptures, both concerning origmal sin and its penalty, when they say, that by his own powers man is able to keep the commandments of God ; yet the penalty imposed upon the chil- dren of Adam by God, on account of original depravity, is described in a very different aspect in Genesis. For there hmnan nature is not only doomed to death and other physical evils, but is also subjected to the dominion of the devil. For there the dreadful sentence is passed ; " I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and be- tween thy seed and her seed :" &c. Gen. 3, 15. The want of original righteousness and evil lusts themselves, are sins and punishments. But death and other physical ills, the tyranny and dominion of the devil, are properly, the punishments {pancE) of original sin. For through original sin human nature is given into the power of the devil, and is consequen.tly brought captive under 66 APOLOGY- his dominion ; who confoimrls and misleads with horrible errors, her- esies and other blindness, many great and wise men in this world, and in other respects impels mankind into all manner of vices. But as it is impossible, then, to overcome this subtle and power- ful spirit, Satan, without the aid of Christ ; so, by our own strength, we cannot exempt ourselves from this imprisonment. It is manifest, and may be seen in all history from the begiiming o( the world, how unspeakably great a power the kingdom of the devil is. We see, that from the highest to the lowest, the world is full of blasphemy, full of gross errors, and of impious doctrines against God and his word. In these strong chains and fetters the devil holds miserably captive many wise people, many hypocrites who appear holy before the world. He leads others into other gross vices, ava- rice, pride, &c. Now, since Christ has been given unto us, in order that he might take away these sins and the punishments of sins, and for our bsnefit overcome sin, death, and the kingdom of the devil, no one can sincerely rejoice in this great treasure, no one can conceive and estimate the abundant riches of grace ; except he first feel this burden, our great inborn misery and calamity. Wherefore, our preachers have taught with the gi'eatest diligence this necessary article, and have taught nothing new, but the plain words of the holy Scriptures, and the un- deniable sayings of the Fathers, — Augustine and others. This, we think, ought to suffice to your imperial Majesly, against the loose, puerile, and unfounded assertions of our adversaries ; by which they assail our article unjustly and without cause. But let them continue caviling as much and as long as they please,, this we know to be true and certain, that we teach correctly and in a Christian manner, that we precisely agree and coincide with the universal Christian church. Should they introduce further wan-- ton contentions, they shall find, that there shall not be wanting here,; if it be the will of God, men who will reply to them and maintains the truth. Our adversaries, for the most part, do not know v/hat they main- tain. How often do they s])eak and write contradictory to' themselves? They understand not even their own dialecticsv (^dialedica,) concerning the formal of original sin ; that is, what origin nal sin properly is ^n its essence, and also what the want of original righteousness is. We do not, however, propose at this time, tO' speak more in detail of their quarrelsome disputations ; but merely to recite in clear, common, and intelligible language, the sayings an