YALE UNIVERSITY
LIBRARY

THE LIBRARY OF THE
DIVINITY SCHOOL

THE CONFESSIONAL PRINCIPLE
AND
THE CONFESSIONS

OF

THE LUTHERAN CHURCH
AS
EMBODYING
THE EVANGELICAL CONFESSION OE
THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH

BY
THEODORE E SCHMAUK
AND
C. THEODORE BENZE
"With Translations from the Introductions and Writings of
THBODOR KOLDS
Professor In Erlangen

PHILADELPHIA
GENERAL COUNCIL PUBLICATION BOARD
MCMXI

Copyright 1911 by the
Board of Publication of the General Council of the
Evangelical Lutheran Church in
North America .

All rights reserved.

INTRODUCTION.

This book is written in the belief that the one ultimate
authority among men is Truth; and that all derivative
authority — whether confessional, as in the Faith; or institu
tional, as in the joint exercise and application of the Faith
in the Church; or historical, as in tradition of Teaching or
Worship, which is to be respected highly in ordinary relations
for various reasons,1 — stands or falls as it harmonizes or fails
to harmonize with the Truth.
It, further, is written in the belief that the one great
, torch of the Truth is genuine -and original Witness — a
witness which arises not simply from the intellect, but which
grows out of the whole heart — mind, soul and spirit.
Witness, as distinct from tradition or acceptance by im
itation, as differing from argument and logical conclusion,
is the result of an original contact in experience with the
Truth; not perhaps with the mere bare principle, which
is often an elusive abstraction, but with the Truth as clothed
and revealed in historical fact.
This book is founded on the assurance that God Himself,
„ Who is the Truth, has not left Himself without Witness ;
^sthat this Witness is genuine, and has produced conviction
sNin times past by original contact; that God's Witness has
*¦ Been of Word and in Person ; and that we possess this Wit
ness in Christ and in the Scriptures; that therefore the
J Word of God, the Scriptures, is a self-legitimating authority,
"^tne testimony of a true and faithful Higher Life brought
I
—£ * The historical in teaching and worship claims our respect, because ln-
3 lividualism leads to anarchy ; because the test of time weeds out the unworthy ;
A uecause truth itself is a seed or leaven needing generations to unfold and
t L ievelop ; and, because God's Spirit is active in the historical unfolding and
p- growth of the Church (iii)

iv INTRODUCTION.
down and borne into our lower life; that this Testimony of
the Higher is to be accepted on faith, and is grasped by faith
(as is always the case also with our hold on the realities of
our common every-day life) even where its grounds, nature
and scope cannot be technically discerned, or where our
lower penetration is in contradiction to it; that the Church
of Christ on earth is not the Source of divine and author
itative Testimony, but that God alone, in His Prophets and
in Christ, is the Source; that the Church is the uninspired
Witness of those who have come into contact with th;e
Scripture in their experience; and that the genuine collec
tive witness of the Church, coming forth in the Confessions,
is Testimony of the highest value — of higher value pre
sumptively than any individual Witness; and that such
collective Witness is not to be set aside, unless it can be
shown from Scripture or from undoubted fact that God's
people together have made a mistake in their faith — that
their Confession is erroneous.
This work is written in the belief that the one native,
real, unassailable, as well as effective, attitude of the be
liever with reference to Christ, Christianity and the Church,
to-day, no less than in the Apostolic Age, is that of a Wit
ness. Not mere belief, still less legalized or traditional au
thority,2 on the one hand ; nor open-minded doubt or critical
investigation, on the other, will make us teachers in the
Church of Christ; but the power of its truth will shine and
testify only as we bear witness.3 If we cannot bear wit
ness to Christ and the Church, we cannot, in any other way.
teach His doctrine.
The weakness of Protestantism to-day is its failure to
2 Conformity to authority, which is unaccompanied by inner intellectua!
conviction and whole-souled sympathy, is as harmful as critical complaint and
constant exception to or wholesale defiance of authority. We agree with v.
C. P. Huizinga (.The Function of Authority in Life) that " if codified stand
ards become rules for individual life, appearances come to play a large part
in life. Legalism has a bad flavor, especially because of those consistent, law-
abiding moralists and religionists, the Pharisees." — Vid. Schiirer, Gesch. d.
Jiidischen Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu Christi ("Life under the Law").
' In this attitude, the breath of life, the voice of freedom, and the hand
of authority, are all conserved.

INTRODUCTION. v
recognize the necessity and the value of a common witness
by the connected from generation to generation Church, and,
consequently, also the necessity of using and maintaining a
common Testimonial- authority, or Confessional Doctrine.
Religion is thought, even by many ministers, to be a matter
of private and personal conviction, in its inner aspect (Pri-
vatsaclie) ; and the fact that it has been planted, watered, in
creased and ordered in a Church * which Christ Himself es
tablished, and in which the Holy Spirit works through the
Word, is overlooked and neglected. Wherever there are a
number of personal wills united in one organism or body, as
in the Church, there must be one fundamental Authority —
the Conviction — the Faith.
The underlying Conviction that animates, holds together
and directs the wills in their Communion with each other — •
the Faith, and its Confession, — must be a common one.
And this general principle of a common life of the many
members in one body is all the more true in the case of the
Church, because the union of persons in the Church is not
primarily a union of wills, as between each other; but it
is first a rooting of each will in Christ, and thus only a
realization of inner union with one another.
The fundamental attitude of much scholarship, to-day,
toward religion forgets that authority — whether external or
internal, or both — is always essential in human thought and
life. Goethe has declared that "every liberation of intellect
without a correlate growth in control, is fatal." Authority
is the co-ordinate, and the complement of liberty. Neither
are to be suppressed ; both are to be maintained — in balance.
Without authority — for direction, appeal, and decision, —
no step of intellectual, spiritual or social activity is possi
ble. The question is not really as to authority, but as to its
proper seat and location. The motto of the ancient pre-
4 " The right of the Church as an organized society to have a mind regarding
the great truths contained in the Scriptures, to express that mind and exhibit
that mind, can hardly be disputed. A statement so produced is a church creed.
It is one of the most legitimate and important functions to which the Church
can address itself. — Bauslin, Freedom of Teaching.

vi INTRO DU C T I O N .
Christian, of the mediaeval, and of modern Roman, civiliza
tion, 'is "Society above the individual." This ancient tyr
anny repeats itself to-day in scientific form in the motto,
" The race above the individual " ; in sociological form,
when the State assumes to encroach upon the rights of the
individual, and passes laws which propose to regulate the
personal life, health, education, acts, interests, and happiness
of the individual ; and in political form, when the axiom of
authority, "The majority rules", is pressed ruthlessly against
the minority. The same tyranny is found or imported
into nature as the seat of authority, when its laws are inter
preted as reducible to the axiom that "Might makes right",
or " The strongest survive."
The reaction against this tyranny over the individual,
so characteristic of the ancient world, and manifesting it
self in modern sociology and science, is the extreme Roman
tic, or revolutionary, position, well expressed in the motto of
Rousseau : "The individual above society." If the absolute
enforcement of authority upon the individual is Romanism,
this elevation of the individual to the supreme seat is Pro
testantism gone to seed. It was already inherent in the
humanism of the Reformation, and occasioned the contro
versies with Fanaticism in theology, and the Peasants' War
in sociology, in Luther's day.
Hence, while the tyranny, of Rome is the supreme au
thority of the Church over conscience, the tyranny of liberal
Protestantism is the supreme authority of every man's con
science over the Scripture and the Church. Both positions
are extreme and sceptical. That of Rome distrusts the
Truth in its power over the individual conscience, while that
of liberal Protestantism suspects the Truth of Scripture
and the Church, and does not believe that there is one ob
jective and stable centre of truth revealed from above in
which the consciences of all perfect men can believe and unite.
As against the scepticism of the isolated, thinking Protest
ant, Rome is almost sure to win in the end, for having tried

INTRODUCTION. vii
every position of solitary speculation, the mind, exhausted
and unwilling to abide all alone, will yield to the funda
mental craving for authority, and fall back helplessly into
the strong arms that seem to offer it certainty in a guaranteed
and absolute sense. The end of Protestantism without the
Word of God as the one common and absolute authority is
either skepticism or Romanism.
For the result of the elevation of the individual as a law
unto himself in defiance of any established order — whether
it be in theology, philosophy, ethics, politics, sociology, or
the state itself,^is always anarchy. "Anarchism", it has
been said, " is the acute outbreak of individualism." It
is "The permanent liberty of change," the elevation of
the right of individual change into law. It is self-destruc
tive in theology, as elsewhere. It does possess one value, in
an effete system, or society, or state, viz., it is a purgative.
It loosens up all the various elements and principles, tearing
them out of their old relations, and puts each to the test of
vindicating its own strength, and renders new combinations
of relation possible. But this property of violent revolution
may destroy the good with the evil — the wheat with the tares ;
and even when ultimate good is attained by it, it is at a
fearful expense — and only because ultimately a new order,
and a new authority is re-established. So that the very
highest value that can be assigned to supreme individualism
is a temporary one, which always issues in a new form of
authority. Since one of the essential elements of religion, as of all
truth, is unchangeableness ; and since in religion there must
be both unchangeableness and finality, even this Twentieth
Century should see that, if it is to keep any religion at all,
it must not be a religion of individualism, of poetic values,
of speculative outlook, of temperamental trust, but a religion
of authority. However, this authority must have the free
dom of an unrestrained and living faith and a voluntary
trust, as its corollary. Neither Romanism, nor the axiom,

viii INTRODUCTION.
"Religion ist Privatsache " (i. e., Religion is a private mat
ter), will meet the case.
Sabatier,6 in his great discussion, admits the necessity
of authority; but, after the manner of the positivist school,
he seeks to ground it in humanity. How feebly such an
authority gains the assent of reason, and how inadequately
it answers the requirements of the religious, the moral, and
the social life, would soon be concretely demonstrated, if the
Ritschlian doctrine of judgments of value were to actually
become the sole rule of faith and life, and modern prag
matism were to prevail.
Sabatier does not see that the life-roots of the immanent
everywhere penetrate into the transcendent; and that, if
you cut away the transcendent, the two paradisical trees of
Liberty and Authority will both die. Without faith in
Truth above the grasp of reason, it is impossible to ground
authority. While Sabatier is right in declaring that " an
established authority, however great its antiquity or its
power (the Church is such an aiithority), never carries its
justification in itself " ; yet the something outside of " the
established authority ", which does " carry its justification
in itself ", is not the Truth which the human reason is able
to discover and formulate; for that is relative, conditioned,
and lacks finality. The only Truth which carries its justi
fication in itself is the Truth which is stretched out after
and gratefully grasped by faith — the Truth of God, whose
apprehensibility or inapprehensibility by our reason, does
not condition its validity. Final authority comes from
God, through His Word; and not from humanity, through
its reason.
But such final authority does not bind or oppress the rea
son. It is actual and effectual, but not compulsory. The
reason is free to pass upon and reject it. And yet reason is
simply a subjective and private scales whose tests may help
or harm its owner, tests that are private and post-event u,
sRelic/ions of Authority.

INTRODUCTION. ix
experiments, which, whether successful or unsuccessful, in
no wise affect the order of God." The reason does not or
dain, establish, determine, or even accept, religious authority.
The final authority, if grasped at all, is grasped by faith.
Authority is a power of fact that, like a star, exists and
shines and rules, even though a blind world is unable to dis
cern its existence. For those who do discern that the seat
of all authority is above, in God, and in God's Word; and
that it is not mediated through reason, but taken hold of
by faith, as final, immutable, and adequate, — God's Word
carries its own justification in itself. It testifies to man's
faith and conscience in such way as to produce certainty, a
deep inner conviction, which then, in turn, rises into Witness
on behalf of such authority.
It is this Witness, the Witness of God to man, in the
Scripture (" Thy Word is Truth "), and the Witness of man
to the Truth of God, in the communion of Him Who is the
Personal Truth of God, of which this book treats. This
Witness of the Church of Christ is her Confession. Though
authority accepted 'by faith', and not 'by sight', is the
foundation of this book, and of its witness, we are confident
that the book cannot justly be termed reactionary. Change
in itself is not progress; and the right of every individual
to think as he pleases is not, in itself, the attainment of lib
erty — least of all, the glorious liberty of the children of
God, whose thought is qualified by the deep knowledge they
have gained by their fear, love and trust in their Heavenly
Father. The spirit of this work is that of progress, but progress
in a development whose line is already foreordained and
fixed in the eternal and unchangeable principle of Christ,
• Nature is not the whole of God's world, neither is history. Nature is not
a whole, nor is history, apart from God's greater world. " Nature and history
do not exist in isolation ; for they are caught up into a moral and spiritual
system with which they are throughout in vital relations. It is not for anyone
to say offhand what is or is not naturally or historically conceivable in such a
system. ... If anything is certain, it is that the world is not made to
the measure of any science or philosophy, but on a scale which perpetually
summons philosophy and. science to construct themselves anew." — Denney,
Jesus and the Gospel.

x INTRODUCTION.
given us in the Word. As new lights begin to glow, and
new thoughts and points of view begin to be occupied, and
the right of an age to its own developing thought and feeling
is maintained, there will be, we admit, a change in the estab
lished intellectual construction of the faith ; but this change
will not concern any particle of the Scriptural substance, only
the human form of its apprehension in the Confession. The
distinction cannot be drawn between soundness in faith and
soundness in doctrine,' except in so far as doctrine is not
clearly the unchangeable revelation of the unchangeable
Word of God.
When then the thought of a new age and the life of a new
movement in the Church seeks to come to its own, we say:
Yes, so long as the principle of the new age does not assume
to set aside, but finds its proper historical place in the one
principle of all the ages, let there be progress. As a believing
witness, we are ready to stand and to suffer for the Confes
sion that abides through all the ages, because it corresponds
to the Truth that forms, rules, and judges, all the ages.
We realize the cost of this position. The currents of
knowledge are flowing away from a fixed faith, and are beat
ing against a fixed Confession. The Church is told plainly
that she will be left high and dry — a mere fossilized sea-
shell on a desert beach, — if she does not come down from
her confessional rocks, and join the living forces battling in
the waves.
We realize to the full that the new order has revolutionized
historical, spiritual and social values, even for those whose
life and love are found within the Church. Modernism
does not stand without, and is not knocking as a suppliant
at the doors of the Church. It is rising in the hearts of the
children, whose fathers' blood has always been loyal to the
great Mother. The enemies of the Church's doctrine and
Confession are often her own most brilliant and thoughtful
sons. The Mother sees her own offspring repudiate their
' As Denney attempts to do. — Jesus and the Gospel, p. 340.

INTRODUCTION. xi
material birthright, even when — at times — they are proud
to bear her face and name.
The Church is, in part, but only in part, to blame. Her
own children disciplined in an atmosphere of experimental
science, rather than of mighty faith, know no final authority,
save in modernly established truth. Our poor organ of
reason has been exalted in their eyes. To them each new
achievement in knowledge is a new revelation of God.
" The doctrines of the Christian faith are not inflexible, but
are to be accommodated to every new measure of intellectual
truth." They have come to believe that the evangelical
Church is keeping herself preoccupied with the spiritual
teachings of a bygone age and is thus living apart from the
actual life of to-day.
They tell us plainly that " The Church cannot expect to
reproduce the conditions of thought of the long past period
out of which came the sacred symbols of its faith. The new
age is ready to break away from familiar channels of ex
pression. There is a change of intellectual attitude, and a
temper of investigation towards all authority, so deep and
far-reaching that even the most conservative observer is
startled." " Between a world which exalts intellectual in
tegrity, and an institution which demands of its disciples
limitation of thought, there can be no abiding union," they
declare. Accredited liberal theologians tell us that " the official
ministry of the Church grows less and less attractive to the
generous-minded youth of to-day." " No loving parent can
ever again accept the monstrous doctrine that the child of
their love is ' conceived and born in sin '. Against the au
thority of the Church (and of Scripture), human conscious
ness has raised up a higher authority, and dictates the voice
of a diviner truth to the souls of men." " The Church is
blindly bent on upholding obsolete doctrine, and remains
strangely detached from the vital interests of the rising
giant of industrial democracy, with its new social standards,

xii INTRODUCTION.
and its new estimate of the worth of the individual in this
world ; as well as from the controlling spirit of the moral and
intellectual world. The questions of historic, liturgical and
doctrinal phrase, and ecclesiastical propagation of missions
with which the Church is so largely occupied, imply a dif
ferent condition of life and thought. The Church lives
amid lingering memories of a world that has passed away.
The divisions of Protestantism have become temperamental
rather than doctrinal, and we look for the Protestant Chrys
alis soon to emerge from the cocoon (or carcass) of outworn
doctrine." Even when the Church tries to stoop and take
hold of the problems of life and social change, its way of
approach is grotesque to the modern mind. "The Church.
is concerned with its heritage of rights, and its protection of
past glories, with its traditions and forms, which it holds
to be essential elements of its life and authority. It has
something to preserve which is alien to to-day's thought, and
completely fails to meet modern conditions with a modern
mind." This is the situation with which Protestantism in general,
and the Lutheran Confession in particular, is confronted, in
the educational and sociological world of to-day. Men who
are filled with noble ardor and enthusiasm to do things, and
men who are not deeply rooted, or who live in the moment, or
who are time-servers, would yield up, some more, some less,
the Confession of the Evangelical Church, with its doctrines
of justification, faith, the Word, and the Sacraments. In their
view, the Church has no excuse for 'winding the garments of
Medisevalism around the neck, and limbs of generations yet
unborn.' The very mention of Confessional fidelity throws
a dark and gloomy shadow athwart the stream of Twentieth-
Century Life to such as these. If this Twentieth-Century
Spirit be a part of the Divine progress upward, Lutheran-
ism should immediately abandon her labors in the Faith.
But if the Truth — the Truth that will save the race —
has come down from above, and is not rising up from be
neath; if God did speak to men in the fulness of time; if

INTRODUCTION. xiii
there is a fixed and immutable principle amid the changing;
if this present age is not the only one to be considered, but
there is a sum of all the ages; if God has given us not only
the truth discovered to-day, but the Gospel revealed many
days ago, — then Lutheranism, which has cast off the clumsy
armor of Mediaeval Rome, and yet has retained the staff,
and the wallet, and the stone of the olden day, is here, —
unpretentious, unheralded, and uncostumed, but also unterri-
fied and strong in the fear and love of God, — to fight the
battle against the giant, whether he be the boaster of an
aggressive Pelagian social order, or the cultured humanistic
theologian. Lutheranism does not fight negatively by crit
icism ; by the raising of doubt ; by amalgamation with more
powerful forces; or by conciliation of the philosophies that
threaten her position. Nor does she attempt to uphold and
introduce her principle of truth into the world by law, by
legislation, by social influence, or by plausible reasoning.
The one weapon in her sling is quick and powerful, piercing
even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit; and is a
discerner of the thought and intents of the heart. She is the
Church who stakes all on bearing Witness. Her office is
one of Public Proclamation and Confession of the Truth as
it is in Christ Jesus. The Preaching of God's Word, pure
and as given in Scripture, is her central activity. She is
not here, primarily, to regulate, reconstruct or reform society.
She is not here as a visible and hierarchical embodiment of
the kingdom of God on earth; but she is here to proclaim
and apply God's Word, in Scripture, sermon and sacrament.
She is the Church of faithful, regular and continuous Wit
ness to the Truth. Hence the source oi her Witness, the
Word; and the standard of her Witness,, the Confessions,
are central; and she is willing, — as indeed she must be, if
she wishes to live, — to abide by and uphold her Confessional
Principle.

preface

CHRISTIANITY exerting itself for twenty centuries upon
the life and history of God's fallen world, has not crystal
lized into one universally accepted principle, or clad itself
in one all-embracing seamless garment. Neither its Faith, nor its
Church, have emerged and appear as a perfect reflection, in a flawless
human unity, of the heavenly entity. Its Faith has issued in a
four-branched Confession. The secret of this divergent effect
of the One Truth is to be sought in the relation which man has
accepted for his mind to the Word and institution of Christ.
Absolute dependence on the Church visualized has resulted in the
Graeco-Eoman Confession. Absolute dependence on the Word,
that is, on the Holy Spirit in the Word, in the Church, has resulted
in the Evangelical Lutheran Confession. Relative dependence on
the Book and on the Spirit in the heart, and relative independence
of the Word in the Church has resulted in modern Evangelical
Protestantism. Complete independence of Christ's Word and
Church, and some dependence on Christ's Spirit in the heart has
resulted in a rational Protestantism.
Thus we reach four fundamentally diverse answers as to the
nature, means and effect of Christianity. Does Christ come to
man at all? The Christian says, He does. Does Christ touch man
sola through the Church? The Romanist says, He does. Does
Christ touch man sola through His Word in the Church ? The Luth
eran says, He does. Does Christ touch man partly through the Book,
partly through the Holy Spirit direct? The modern Evangelical
Protestant says, He does. Does Christ touch the heart sola through
the natural influence of His words and life, without a supernatural
power in Word or institution? The rational Protestant says, He
does. The four divergent branchings of the Christian Principle,
thus acknowledged and held by men, may be summed up as follows :
absolute dependence on the Church, absolute dependence on the
Word, relative dependence on the Book, and mental in
dependence of Book, Word and Church.

xviii PREFACE
Are Christians, who regard themselves as saved2 by character, in
the unity of the Church of Christ? Or, if faith is the principle,
shall its minimum be taken as the normal condition of fellowship ?
Shall apprehension of some fundamentals be sufficient for the
Church, or shall the unity be determined by the full truth of God's
Word? Have God's representatives on earth the option to offer a
discount on the terms set by God, in order to meet a given situa
tion ? May we overlook the sola fide in order that our churches on
earth be filled with guests, and that Heaven itself be not too utterly
empty ?
The Church of the Lutheran Reformation has wrought in
America for well-nigh three centuries, and will in a few years be
adding one more century to its history. Her value in this land de
pends upon her fidelity to her Confession. If her Confession is
out of date, she herself is but an obsolete barrier in the pathway
to a common development, and deserves to disappear into the com
mon and indeterminate Protestantism of her American environment.
Few will realize that it has been almost forty years since The
Conservative Reformation, that mighty protagonist of confessional
English Lutheranism, lifting up its stature and spear, head and
ehoulders above all the host of Israel, establishing the Church in
her old faith, and defending her against all assault, made its pow
erful presence felt in the Church in this land. Since that day
there has not appeared in our language any complete work devoted
to Confessional Lutheranism,3 save only the small book on Distinc
tive Doctrines of the Lutheran Church.
But since that day a new generation has arisen whose eyes never
beheld the formative conflicts. Old issues have taken on new
forms. The substance of The Conservative Reformation has been
absorbed and become an element of strength in the leaders of
the Church now in their maturity. The important occasion of the old
polemic has disappeared. Progress has been made in sound Confes
sion. Ecclesiastical efforts have aimed to reach a position on which
the Lutheran Church as a whole could be planted. Now that this ac

quis is the practical teaching of many American Protestants.
30f Dogmatic Treatises there have been a rich array : Schmid, Doctrinal
Theology, Jacobs, Elements of Religion, KSstlin, Theology of Luther, Seeberg,
History of Doctrines, Valentine, Christian Theology, and Jacobs, Summary of
the Christian Faith. In addition there appeared in 1882 the monumental
Boole of Concord, edited and translated for the English reader by Jacobs.

PREFACE xix
tivity apparently has given way to the tendency to emphasize an ex
ternal Confessionalism, or, on the other hand, to over-estimate
the external fact of denominational fellowship, the time is here
for a more ample setting forth of the Church's full and inner Con
fessional Principle, in a just and adequate manner, with no par
tisan intent, but in the majestic light of the original Catholic and
the real Evangelical testimony, and in such form that the power
of the old Witness will appeal to the thought and the soul of the
generation of this day; and may bring to the service of Christ's
unchangeable Word, and to the preservation of the one Evangeli
cal Catholic Church, the will, the words, and the works of those
who are moved to abide in the Word and institution of Christ and
in its Confession.
After The Conservative Reformation had appeared, Philip
Schaff issued his great work describing The Creeds of Christendom,
and remarked that in a country like ours, where we daily meet
people of all possible beliefs, men should devote more attention to
the study of the Christian Confession, that they may give those
with whom they discuss the subject a convincing reason for the
faith that is in them. The intelligent study and appropriation of
the symbols of one's faith, from whose principles the varied medley
of religious teachings that cry aloud in our time, or come under
our observation, may be examined and tested, is as important, at
least, as the study of the underlying principles and causes of our
ethical or social structure and its problems.
A new, and strictly historical, examination of the Confessional
structure of the Lutheran Faith, from the solid view-point of the
introductions to the new German edition of the Book of Concord,
cannot be postponed without injury to the Church. The researches
of the last two decades in Germany, and alleged recent discoveries,
by such scholars as Brieger on the one hand, and Kolde on the
other, have rendered this examination necessary, as well to those
who confess the specific and vital, as to those who rest in the mere
generic, Faith of the Church.
The history of the Lutheran Confession has been written often.
The first print of the oldest narration of the Diet at Augsburg, in
1530, from the arrival of his Majesty to the delivery of the Confes-

xx PREFACE
sion, bears the title, Ain kurlze Anzaygung.4 The history of the
Augsburg Confession which the Roman Catholics printed in 1530
with imperial privilege bears the title, Pro Religione Christiana
res gestae.' This Roman Catholic history of the Augsburg Confes
sion was refuted by a Saxon minister shortly after the Diet, under
the title, Folgen verzeichent alie Stuck so im Druck dem Handel
miissen inferirt und eingeleibt werden. Though ready for print,
the work was left lie at Weimar. Miiller in his History of the
Protestation has taken many remarkable things from this manu
script, while Seckendorf, in his History of Lutheranism, p. 202,
believes that neither Colestin nor Chytraus knew of the work."
To these original rills must be added Bruck, Geschichte der Re-
ligionsverhandlungen auf dem Reichstag zu Augsburg im J. 1530?
and the always indispensable and abounding Corpus Reformalo-
rum; but the real historical stream gathered itself in the works of
Chytraus, Colestin, Miiller, Salig, Cyprian and Weber. All these
men used the Reformation documents stored in the German ar
chives, and tried to draw their material from the original acts.
Chytraus, in his Historia of the Augsburg Confession, in 1576,
took pains to obviate all doubt as to his translations and writings,
and placed at the end of his German edition a list of the most
prominent documents that he incorporated in his history, together
with a clear statement of the places from which they were taken.
He says that he gathered from the official acts and trustworthy tes
timonies of those who themselves were participants in the Confes
sional proceedings, and "took particular pains not to include any
uncertain or suspicious writings." He says, therefore, "I pray that
others will allow this work to remain unaltered and unimproved."
As to Colestin, Weber assails him bitterly, and tries to prove
that, despite his abundant access to historical materials, he was un
scrupulous in his use of them. He admits that Colestin journeyed
to the Archives of the holy Roman Empire at Maintz in 1556, and
that in 1576 he undertook a second journey. At all events, Colestin
has given the world a notable gathering of historical papers.
Cyprian rests entirely upon original documentary foundations.
He says, "If the necessary aptitude and health had been mine, this

•Printed in Cyprian, Beilagen, p. 60.
11 Io. p. 85.
"The beginning of the work is printed in Cyprian, Beilagen, p. 103.
'In Forstemann, Archiv, Vol. I.

PREFACE xxi
history of the Augsburg Confession would hardly have had its like.
But the lack of these qualities and a journey that could not be
postponed in the midst of all my labors, cause me to be able to as
sure only this, that my book has been composed honestly and dili
gently and without any attempt to twist matters in the works and
writings, and with an effort to preserve the mode of speech of the
original documents."
Salig is the most voluminous of these early writers on our Con
fessional history, and is full of details, some of more, and some of
less value; but he drew from reliable historical sources, and his
work is of permanent value.
Chytraus was of the manner and heart of Melanchthon, with the
doctrine of Luther. Colestin, Wigand, and Cyprian were men who
defended the full Lutheran Confession. Salig likewise did so, but
his sentiment and leanings were pietistic, and softened toward the
Melanchthonian_tendencies. Weber was a determined and bitter
Melanchthonian, thoroughly rationalistic. "If I have been so for
tunate," he says, "as to have made progress in research, it is not to
be ascribed to me, but to the spirit of the age. ... In thus far my
work can be regarded as a contribution to the history of the human
understanding (des menschlichen Yerstandes)."
Weber's works, therefore, on the Confessional principle, invalu
able as they are, relate to the periphery. The weakness of his gen
eral position and feeling are as evident as are the values of the
specific critical results of his documentary investigations. His con
clusions are based on the readings of texts, rather than on the
truth and teachings that well up within the texts.
It was the Confessional activity leading to the Formula of Con
cord that gave us Chytraus and Colestin. The second centennial
of the AugsbuTg Confession gave us Cyprian and Salig, and Weber
came half a century later.
The Nineteenth Century has again opened to us the investiga
tion of originals in the researches of Forstemann (Archiv, 1831;
Urkundenbuch, 1833) and Schirrmacher (Brief e und Akten, 1876).
in the gathering of Luther's Letters by De Wette, 1825, and Enders,
1884, and in the constructive efforts of Calinich, Bindseil, Knaake,
Kollner, Plitt, Zoekler, Brieger, Kolde, and Tschackert.

xxii PREFACE
The massive literature of the Lutheran Church on the Book cf
Concord and on various doctrinal aspects of the Lutheran Confes
sion is too extensive even to allude to, and will be found in part in
the bibliographical lists connected with the Table of Contents.
Krauth's work, as an examination and an active force in the
Confessional field, will never be superseded. To term it ecclesi
astical in origin is an injustice. It was a long struggle, against
earlier ecclesiastical limitations, for the truth. Though polemic
in form and occasional in origin, it is so thoroughly grounded on
the sources and so masterfully elaborated that it will remain the
great Confessional classic in English Lutheran theology. The crit
ical maze of historical facts had been threaded by Krauth years be
fore he spoke.8 Weber's conclusions and work had been digested in
detail by him as early as the Fifties (1854).
In 1858 he published his Select Analytical Bibliography of the
Augsburg Confession in twenty-two pages. In 1868 he published
The Augsburg Confession.' His presentation of the correspondence
of Luther and Melanchthon, and of the utterances of Luther on the
Confession are unsurpassed to this day, and, for brevity, his state
ment of the fate of the German text of the Augsburg Confession is

* r. Krauth's article in Ev. Rev., I. p. 234, Oct. 1849, on "The Relation of
Our Confessions to the Reformation, and the Importance of Their Study,
with an Outline of the Early History of the Augsburg Confession." This
article was written on the basis of Walch's Introduction to the Symbolical
Books, Carpzov's Isagoge to the Symbolical Books, Salig's Historic and
Cyprian's Historie together with several other works such as Seckendorf's
Historia. ' "Literal translation from the original Latin with the most important addi
tions of the German text incorporated : together with the general creeds ; and
an introduction, notes, and analytical index, Philadelphia Tract and Book
Society of St. John's Evangelical Lutheran Church, Lutheran Bookstore, 807
Vine Street, 1868." His introduction comprises questions on the nature and
necessity of creeds ; early creeds ; Romanism and its creed ; preliminaries and
the preparation of the Augsburg Confession ; Luther's works on the Augs
burg Confession ; absence of Luther from Augsburg ; correspondence with
Luther ; Luther's opinion of the Augsburg Confession ; object of the Augs
burg Confession ; the presentation of the Confession ; Latin and German
texts ; the Augsburg Confession altered ; the current editions of the Augsburg
Confession : Latin and German ; structure and divisions of the Augsburg Con
fession ; the literature of the Augsburg Confession ; what is involved in the
right reception of the Augsburg Confession ; the character and value of the
Augsburg Confession.

PREFACE xxiii
unequaled.10 The positions taken later in the Conservative Refor
mation with reference to the Augsburg Confession are already ad
vanced here and fully argued. He was thus early a complete master
of the facts in the case so far as then known. His strong and
solid argument for the position that the Confession was practically
complete, as the conjoint work of Luther and Melanchthon, by May
22nd, 1530, when it was sent to Luther for final ratification, is
found here. The argument would be unanswerable were it not for
the following difficulties :
(1) It does not explain the negotiations of Melanchthon with
Valdes. (2) It knows nothing of the recently discovered Nuremberg draft
of the Confession which seems to show the Confession's incomplete
ness at a very late date ; and which throws an entirely new light on
Melanchthon's Exordium.
(3) It does not take account of the genetic growth of the Con
fession and of the changes made as the situation developed; but
assumes that Luther and Melanchthon possessed a full a priori
knowledge of what exactly was to be confessed at Augsburg, where
as the letters of Luther seem to show a lack of such knowledge,
and an omission of the mention of a previously-made Confession.
The activities of Eck, the movements of Melanchthon, and our
critical knowledge of the Nuremberg and other manuscripts seem
to corroborate the conclusions of Kolde, without however
invalidating the strength of the general position of the Con
servative Reformation.
(4) The theory of the Conservative Reformation assumes a
trustworthiness and fidelity of Melanchthon toward Luther and a

10 The latter is to be found on pp. 563-565 of this book, and concludes
as follows :
"While therefore the ordinary edition of the Augsburg Confession, the
one found in the Book of Concord, and from which the current translations
of the Confession have been made, does not differ in meaning at all from
the original edition of Melanchthon, it is, nevertheless, not so perfect in
style, and where they differ, not so clear. The highest critical authority,
then, both German and Latin, is that of Melanchthon's own original editions.
"The current edition of the German, and the earliest edition of Melanch
thon, are verbally identical in the largest part of the articles, both of doc
trine and of abuses. The only difference is, that Melanchthon's edition is
occasionally somewhat fuller, especially on the abuses, is more perfectly par
allel with the Latin at a few points, and occasionally more finished in style.
When the question between them has a practical interest, it is simply because
Melanchthon's edition expresses in terms, or with greater clearness, what, is
simply implied, or less explicitly stated in the other."

xxiv PREFACE
stability in political temptation which it is somewhat difficult to
find corroborated in the subsequent life of Melanchthon.
(5) The position of the Conservative Reformation assumes a
centrality at the Diet of Augsburg from the start for the Confes
sion of the Evangelical doctrine, which Luther would indeed have
liked to have seen, but which probably did not fully exist in ad
vance, in either the mind of the Emperor, the Elector, or Melanch
thon ; but which the Providence of God forced upon the Diet.
Yet any modification in Ihe position taken by the Conservative
Reformation, it must be remembered, casts no further credit upon
Melanchthonianism and takes no further credit from the ways and
judgment of Luther. It upholds the Confession, not because it was
the product of either Luther or Melanchthon, but because the hand
of God clearly and actually made it what it was, and is, and will
ever remain hereafter.
The most elaborate chapter in the work now under the reader's
eye, on "The Hand of God in the Formation of the Augsburg Con
fession," was written and in type, before the author consulted, in
fact, at that time recalled, Krauth's elaborate and accurate "Chron
icle of the Augsburg Confession," 1878, which grew out of his
controversy with Dr. Brown following on a discussion at the First
Free Lutheran Diet. The annalistic or diary form in the chapter
of the present writer was not suggested by the work of Dr. Krauth.
The method and purpose of the two writings are different: Dr.
Krauth's paper is an argument to prove a single point, while the
chapter of the present work essays to be a general historical study
of the situation at Augsburg, from its background, and in its larger
range of activities as affairs developed from day to day.
The two studies are independent, and the agreement that they
manifest on many points is a striking testimony of fact. The
differences are to be explained first, by the fact that Dr. Krauth's
object was documentary rather than historical; and, secondly, by
the fact that he could not avail himself of discoveries which have
been made since his death. His approach on certain lines of indirect
evidence toward what is now known is remarkable. The only uses
made of Dr. Krauth's Chronicle are references or quotations in
several places for the reader's convenience, and the citation from
Melanchthon's Latin Preface of 1560.

PREFACE xxv
The present work is a broad attempt to do justice to the Confes
sional Principle of the Evangelical Church, in the midst of a feel
ing or spirit of our time which does it injustice. The work has
been written unexpectedly and most reluctantly. It is devoted to the
true Church wherever and under whatever form she may be found.
It desires to set forth more fully this Church's comprehensive and
vitalizing grasp of the Confessional Principle of Christianity, in
the belief that our Confession comes direct from Christ in the
Word of Scripture, as the answer and testimony of Faith unto its
Lord, and unto all the world; and in the assurance that this Faith
will ever enlarge its circles of contact, and that it holds in its em
brace the strength of the past, the potency of the present, and the
hope of the future.
The practical aim is an effort to make clear to the judgment and
conscience of English Lutherans that the chief matter before the
Lutheran Church today, as a Church of the living Faith, is not its
relation to an outside Christianity, however timely or pressing — or
even embarrassing — that may seem to be; but that the great and
immediate duty of the Church is to learn to know, and to more
fully develop her own highest principle and character, as the bearer
of Word and Sacrament.
What she is in her own heart and to her own children — as a
mother of faith, strength, life and character, — is her first and chief
object of knowledge, and is not to be determined by any supposed
ideas of what she ought be to her neighbor. On the contrary, what
she is to the denominations around her, in her second command
ment of love, 'like unto the first," will follow from what she is in
her own heart; as does the love of God in the first commandment
determine the love to our neighbor in the second commandment.
The more true her children are to her own self, the less false will
they be to others round about her.
We shall one day see that our own faith's most secret conviction
is nobler than what the world proclaims from the housetops; that
"the most private is the most public energy"; that it is an inver
sion, as Thoreau says, to dig common silver ore in cartloads, while
we neglect to work our mines of gold, known only to ourselves, far
up in the Sierras, where we pulled up a bush in our mountain-walk
with God, and saw the rare and glittering treasure. "Let us return
thither. Let it be the price of our freedom to make that known."

xxvi PREFACE
The path traversed by this book, though it everywhere crosses
familiar regions, and frequently takes advantage of well-trodden
roads, has been difficult, and has required much pioneer work. It
will be easy to discover faults in plan and detail, to criticise the
compression of such a range of subject matter into one volume, or
to point out the undue and repeated elaboration of certain points.
It may be possible to say that the work contains nothing new. We
have feared lest it be too original. At all events, it will bear com
parison with its predecessors in the English field on this point.
The position taken is positive and the work is structural in pur
pose. It has nothing in common with any polemic press of the
hour, and its authors — so far as we recall— have not spoken one
word on current controversial issues discussed with much anima
tion in ecclesiastical papers during the last year or two, but have
been silent up to this moment. The volume does not deal with or
mention any contemporary synodical or ecclesiastical complications.
So far as we know, the name of any of the General Lutheran
Bodies in America does not occur, except in titles. Our chief con
cern is for the Lutheran Faith and for its Confession, rather than
for ecclesiastical situations arising out of the present moment, loyal
as we may be, and are, to that specific part of the Lutheran Church
to which our heart and energies have been devoted.
Inasmuch as the object of this work is constructive, we have en
deavored not to use the polemic form, though the handling of
materials liable at any moment to spontaneous combustion, renders
it possible that we have struck flame without so intending. Should
the Lord grant us the grace of silence under stricture, the sparks
on our side ought not enkindle into conflagration.
This book is the first presentation to the English public of the
ripe fruits of the studies of the great Luther scholar, Professor
Kolde, a descendant of Chancellor Briick, on the Confessions, as
found in his Introductions to the new German Book of Concord,
together with his particular discoveries as to the Augsburg Confes
sion. We also reproduce the first and only English translation of
the oldest known Form of the Augsburg Confession. This is the
document that has settled a great many things since Dr. Krauth
wrote the Conservative Reformation. The work before the reader,
further, contains a thorough and searching study of Melanchthon

PREFACE xxvii
and Melanchthonianism, showing in detail that the spirit of com
promise issues, in history, in disaster to the Lutheran Church.
The volume contains the following essays of Kolde, translated
for the first time into English : —
(1) The Introduction to the Augsburg Confession, from the new
Miiller edition of the Symbolical Books. Chapter XV.
(2) Melanchthon's Unsuccessful Attempts as a Diplomatist,
from "Die alteste Redaktion der Augsburger Konfession." Chapter XVI.
(3) Kolde's Discussion of the Oldest Known Redaction of the
Augsburg Confession, from the same work (Kolde's discussion of
detailed phrases is omitted) . Chapter XVII.
(4) The Oldest Known Redaction of the Augsburg Confession,
as given in Kolde's work. Chapter XVIII.
(5) The Editions and Manuscripts of the Augsburg Confession
(this is a continuation of Kolde's Introduction to the Augsburg
Confession), from the new Miiller edition of the Symbolical
Books. Chapter XXI.
(6) The Origin of the Formula of Concord. This chapter orig
inally was a translation of Kolde's Introduction to the Formula in
the new Miiller edition, but was subsequently enlarged and enriched
by us from other sources. Chapter XXVI.
(7) The Book of Concord. This chapter is a translation from
Kolde's Introduction in Miiller. Chapter XXXVI.
Several of these Introductions of Kolde were published originally
in The Lutheran Church Review. To them there was to have been
added an Introduction pointing out the relevance of the essays to
the American Confession situation. Then came the suggestion of
two Philadelphia laymen to interweave Prof. Kolde's writings in
a logical treatment of the complete subject, resulting in this
volume. In type for a year and a half, and, except a small portion, in
plate form for more than a year, this volume long lacked only the
reading of about a hundred pages of proof, and some processes of
verification, to bring it to the point of publication. The delay in
its issue has been due to several serious illnesses, dating from last
spring a year ago, and to the extraordinary pressure of official
duties and of affairs in the Seminary at Philadelphia.

xxviii PREFACE
Meantime, there has appeared an important work in the same;
field minutely discussing the Reformation Era from a historico-:
confessional point of view, and for a purpose almost the reverse i
of that of this work. The object of this work is to confirm the
strength of the Church in her Confessions: the effect of the other
work is to unsettle the Church in her Confessions and to free her
from the inference of an abiding historical confessional principle.
The new work on "The Confessional History of the Lutheran
Church" is a monument to the pains-taking research of its author,
and opens up a greater wealth of documentary detail, valuable for
present-day investigation, than is probably to be found at this mo
ment in any volume in the English language. And if the temper
of the author were as broad and undogmatic and tolerant as is the
position for which he is contending, and if his use of the documents
were as scholarly as his knowledge of them, the work would take
its place as a standard authority in the Church, to be respected,
even on the position which it occupies. But in this age it is im
possible to maintain uncritically the dogma of Biblical infallibility,
in the same breath with a loose, critical and destructive dogma of
confessional fallibility. The quill that bristles against the Confes
sions, cannot successfully spread its shelter over their Source.
We not only believe that the fundamental position held by this
book will prove to have been a concession of historical Christianity
to modernism, but we believe that the paradox manifest in its
spirit, namely, that of a dogmatic polemic against polemic dog
matics, is a house divided against itself. Since the work is looked
up to as bringing the new discoveries in historical research to bear
upon the disputed points in Lutheran confessional writings, we
should not be doing our duty to our readers if we failed to take
some notice of the positions assumed by this latest investigation,
inasmuch as the delay in our own work, which would normally
have preceded the other in its issue, has rendered a brief discussion
of this new material possible.
In our Church in America, it has, for the last three or four
decades, been customary to assume either one of two confessional
positions, namely, that the Book of Concord is the confessional
treasure of the Church, or, if not, that the Augsburg Confession
in itself is the Church's sufficient and generic confessional treasure.
The new book we are criticising not only combats the former posi-

PREFACE xxix
tion with all intensity, but in view of more recent discoveries con
cerning the Augsburg Confession, and in a sense, as their herald,
it assumes the startling attitude of combating the generic perfec
tion of the Augsburg instrument as a Lutheran Confession. It
goes so far as to term the Augsburg Confession inadequate, to
characterize it as defective, as misrepresenting the Lutheran party
at Augsburg, and as untruthful. This position, while it sacrifices
the Augsburg Confession as the final and adequate basis of a gen
eric Lutheranism, and adjudges it as Romanizing in outlook, never
theless is of immeasurable help to its author in several respects.
First of all, it provides a ground to stand upon in view of recent
historical discoveries. Secondly, if the original Confession was so
imperfect and untruthful, this fact surely frees Melanchthon from
blame in his numerous attempts to "improve" it in the variata.
It also establishes the presumption that a Confession framed in
any emergency in the past is no longer binding on a higher and
more Scripturally enlightened present. Hence it frees the Luth
eran Church of the present from any inner historical adherence to
the Confessions of the past. Lutheranism thus freed from the
burdensome forms and substance of its own historical development,
except in the one main doctrine of justification by faith, can con
nect directly with the real and infallible rule of Faith, the Scrip
ture ; and thus the Lutheran center, directly grounded in Scripture,
can be co-ordinated with a modern apprehension of Christianity.
Unfortunately for the author, in this position, his very doctrine of
justification by faith, on which, in rejecting so much, he grounds
himself, is vitiated by a synergism so obvious that a generation or
two of progressive thinking along his lines will perhaps suffice to
play the whole position into the hands of a radical Protestantism.
We hope to have placed before the English reader, especially in
Chapter XIX, a more natural arrangement of historical materials,
— the documentary and epistolary background of the Augs
burg Confession, — for the first time appearing in the English lan
guage, than is to be found in any English work, for a study,
at first hand, of the sources of the Reformation History. This re
fers especially to the translations of documents and of the Lnther-
Melanchthon correspondence, difficult to reproduce in its organic
relationship.

xxx PREFACE
Letters, written as they are on the inspiration of the moment,
and without premeditation, reveal the mind and heart. It is on
these records of the moment, as interpretative of the more formal
documents, that we lay some stress in attempting to give an in
sight into the Confession made at Augsburg.
The value of Luther's letters was recognized early. A collection
of four of them was printed in 1530. In 1546, the year of Luther's
death, Crueiger issued eight letters, and this number was increased
later. Then came Aurifaber, Chytraeus, Colestin.
In the Eighteenth Century came the epochal labors of Walch,
Stroebel (1780), and of Schiitze (3 vols., 1784). In 1826 De Wette
issued his first five volumes of Luther's Letters, with the bibli
ography of each of them.
In 1884 Enders issued the first volume of Luther's Briefwechsel
running into the tenth volume in 1903. Kostlin and Kolde (1884),
published letters and extracts; and Buchwald issued 91 letters in
1898. 'While our volume was in preparation, or shortly before, Mar
garet Currie, of Glasgow, published an interesting volume, "The
Letters of Martin Luther, Selected and Translated." The volume
came too late, except in one or two instances, for use in this work.
It does not contain Replies written to Luther, and the translator,
in her history of the letters, has no proper conception of the inner
history on which the Reformation pivoted itself. But the thought
of Luther is reproduced in excellent and natural English. Currie"
gives perhaps a score of the letters we have translated in this
volume. On controverted points, as a rule, we have preferred to state
situations and arguments in the words of writers who might have
weight with readers that differ from us. This is the reason for
the frequent quotation of such a standard American Work as
Schaff, Creeds of Christendom, and for an apparent preference
given Melanchthonian rather than rigidly Lutheran authorities.
Their words will probably be conceded as unbiased, or at least not
biased in favor of the position of this book, in quarters where the
citation from strict Lutheran authors might not he welcome. We
"Miss Currie's work contains 500 letters from 1507-1546, about one-fifth
or the total number preserved.

PREFACE xxxi
believe it will be found that justice has been done to all authors,
and that no language or spirit has been attributed to them which
they themselves would not corroborate as genuine.
Chapter xxxvn is a slight sketch of the development of con
fessional thinking from the day of the Book of Concord to the
present time; written under reaction from the widely prevalent
unionistic view expressed by Schaff in his "Creeds of Christen
dom," and as a thread of connection between the Reformation and
the present day. If it were to be re-written today, we might possibly
be tempted to a full presentation of the confessional development
of the nineteenth century in the light of the Book of Concord, in
cluding the movements from Harms to (Hase, Meyer, Kollner),
Rudelbach, Guericke, Richter, Stahl, Harless, Sartorius, Twesten,
Hengstenberg, Caspari, Kliefoth, Philippi, (Kahnis, v. Hoffmann),
Lohe, to Luthard, Frank and Zockler, on the one side, and to
(Marheineke), Bretschneider, Johannsen, (Heppe), and Dorner
on the other. However, such a treatment would not only diverge
from the line of connection running through the present work ; but
would also have been an embarrassment to this book in the
voluminousness of its substance.
Much credit is due to the Rev. George M. Scheidy for a
general, vigilant and invaluable supervision of the details of
this work, especially during the time of the writer's illness, for
many suggested improvements in style, for translation of certain
documents, for careful reading of manuscript and proofs, and for
arduous and continued general assistance without which this work
could not have been issued. Acknowledgment is also due to the
Rev. J. D. M. Brown for the preparation of the Index, to the
Rev. J. J. Cressman and the Rev. F. P. Mayser, D.D., for the loan
of rare and valuable works, to the Rev. F. B. Clausen for work in
the libraries of New York City, and for verification of citations;
to the Rev. Luther D. Reed for the use of several important vol
umes from the Krauth Memorial Library; to the Rev. J. J. Cress-
man for verification ; and to the Rev. Dr. W. L. Hunton, and Mr.
C. B. Opp, for help afforded in many ways.
The book as a whole stands or falls as it agrees or disagrees with
the Word of God. If it is based on the Word, and is a witness
thereto, the Church cannot be dislodged from the position here

xxxii PREFACE
taken. The faith which believes, and therefore saves ; which believes,
and therefore confesses; which believes, and therefore examines,
which believes, and therefore testifies, and transmits and upholds
the testimony dear to it; which believes, and acts because it lives
in its belief: this faith in which heart and voice and work unite,
because one and the same Spirit fills them all, is irresistible in the
Church, and is the victory that overeometh the world.

Contents

PAGE
1500ft I— €he Mature of the Christian
Confessional principle  9-92
13006 II. — QL$t historical ftiSe and SDe^
toelopment, in Christianitp, of the Con^
feSSional principle  93-162
15006 III— €he Mature, Origin ana ^ijfc
torical Development of the Lutheran
Confessional principle  163-839
1. Jfrior ta life Auganurn (Eanftaaian.
2. t&ift Aunaburg (Eimfeaaimt.
3. ffinnwqm>ut Upon Hie Aunaburg QJotifraaimt.
4. SJj* iFnrmula of fflonrnrn.
15006 IV,— A partial application of the
Lutheran Confessional principle to
American Contritions in the €toentieth
Centurp  840-943
xxxiii
C

Contents Wv Chapters

CHAPTER I.
THE QUESTION OF A CONFESSIONAL FOUNDA
TION.
Pages 1-5.
CHAPTER II.
THE DISCUSSION.
Pages 5-9.
CHAPTER III.
THE NATURE OF CONFESSIONS.
Pages 9-18.
CHAPTER IV.
THE NEED OF CONFESSIONS.
Pages 18-27,
CHAPTER V.
DO CONFESSIONS CONSTRICT?
Pages 27-38.
CHAPTER VI.
SHOULD CONFESSIONS CONDEMN ?
Pages 38-54.

xvi CONTENTS
CHAPTER VII.
WHAT GIVES THE CONFESSION VALIDITY?
Pages 54-78.
CHAPTER VIII.
DO CONFESSIONS BIND?
Pages 78-93.

CHAPTER IX.
THE RISE OF THE CONFESSIONAL PRINCIPLE
IN THE CHURCH.
Pages 93-104.
CHAPTER X.
THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE CONFESSIONAL
PRINCIPLE IN THE CHURCH.
Pages 104-117.
CHAPTER XI.
THE CONFESSIONAL PRINCIPLE IN THE AUGS
BURG CONFESSION.
Pages 117-144.
CHAPTER XII.
THE HISTORY OF THE CONFESSIONAL PRIN
CIPLE IN THE CHURCH.
Pages 144-156.
CHAPTER XIII.
THE CONFESSIONAL USE OF THE WORD
"SYMBOL."
Pages 156-163.

CONTENTS xxxvii
CHAPTER XIV.
THE LUTHERAN CONFESSION.
v Pages 163-168.
CHAPTER XV.
THE ORIGIN OF THE AUGSBURG CONFESSION.
Pages 168-192.
CHAPTER XVI.
MELANCHTHON'S UNSUCCESSFUL ATTEMPTS
AS A DIPLOMATIST.
Pages 192-221.
CHAPTER XVII.
THE DISCOVERY OF THE FIRST KNOWN DRAFT
OF THE AUGSBURG CONFESSION.
Pages 221-251.

CHAPTER XVIII.
THE OLDEST KNOWN FORM OF THE AUGSBURG
CONFESSION.
Pages 251-283.
CHAPTER XIX.
THE HAND OF GOD IN THE FORMATION OF THE
AUGSBURG CONFESSION.
Pages 283-436.
CHAPTER XX.
THE AUGSBURG CONFESSION PRESERVED UN
ALTERED.
Pages 436-522.
CHAPTER XXI.
HISTORY OF THE EDITIONS AND MANUSCRIPTS
OF THE AUGSBURG CONFESSION.
Pages 522-570.

xxxviii CONTENTS
CHAPTER XXII.
PROTESTANTISM UNDER THE AUGSBURG CON
FESSION TO THE DEATH OF LUTHER.
Pages 570-587.
CHAPTER XXIII.
PROTESTANTISM FROM THE DEATH OF LUTHER
TO THE DEATH OF MELANCHTHON
AND TO THE DISINTEGRATION
OF LUTHERANISM.
Pages 587-609.
CHAPTER XXIV.
MELANCHTHON AND THE MELANCHTHONIAN
PRINCIPLE TO 1535.
Pages 609-637.
CHAPTER XXV.
THE NEED OF CONCORDIA REALIZED, AND ITS
FORMULATION ATTEMPTED.
Pages 637-641.

CHAPTER XXVI.
THE ORIGIN OF THE FORMULA OF CONCORD.
i 641-661.

CHAPTER XXVII.
HOW THE FORMULA OF CONCORD WAS IN
TRODUCED.
Pages 661-681.
CHAPTER XXVIII.
IS THE FORMULA OF CONCORD A CONFESSION?
THE NEGATIVE ANSWERS.
Pages 681-700.

CONTENTS xxxix
CHAPTER XXIX,
THE ANSWER OF A PROVIDENTIAL ORIGIN-
Pages 700-717.
CHAPTER XXX.
THE ANSWER TO THE CRITICISMS MADE ON
THE MOTIVES AND MEN.
Pages 717-729.
CHAPTER XXXI.
THE ANSWER OF THE OUTER FORM.
Pages 729-746.
CHAPTER XXXII.
THE ANSWER OF THE DOCTRINES AND SUB
JECT MATTER.
Pages 746-770.
CHAPTER XXXIII.
THE PERSON OF CHRIST.
Pages 770-817.
CHAPTER XXXIV.
THE CONCORDIA IS THE CHURCH'S GREAT CON
FESSION OF CHRIST.
Pages 817-821.
CHAPTER XXXV.
WHAT THE FORMULA ACCOMPLISHED AS A
LUTHERAN CONFESSION.
Pages 821-832.
CHAPTER XXXVI.
THE ORIGIN AND PUBLICATION OF THE BOOK
OF CONCORD.
Pages 832-840.

xl CONTENTS
CHAPTER XXXVII.
FROM THE BOOK OF CONCORD TO THE PRES
ENT DAY.
Pages 840-859.
CHAPTER XXXVIII.
THE BOOK OF CONCORD AND HISTORICAL
LUTHERANISM IN AMERICA.
Pages 859-874.
CHAPTER XXXIX.
THE CONFESSIONAL PRINCIPLE OF THE BOOK
OF CONCORD AND AMERICAN PROTEST
ANTISM.
Pages 874-891.
CHAPTER XL.
THE CONFESSIONAL PRINCIPLE OF THE BOOK
OF CONCORD AND CHRISTIAN CO
OPERATION.
Pages 891-910.
CHAPTER XLI.
THE CONFESSIONAL PRINCIPLE OF THE BOOK
OF CONCORD AND THE BROTHERHOOD
OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH.
Pages 910-923.
CHAPTER XLII.
THE CONFESSIONAL PRINCIPLE OF THE BOOK
OF CONCORD AND THE FUTURE OF THE
CHURCH IN AMERICA.
Pages 923-

Contents
Witi) Snalpsiss anti JStbltograpfjp
Chapter L
WHAT IS THE QUESTION!
the Confessions
and Union
in the Twentieth Century
Harms, Das slnd die 95 Thesen Oder Streltsatze Dr. Martin Luthers,
theuren Andenkens. Zum besonderen Abdruck besorgt u. mit andern 95 Sat-
zen, als mit elner Uebersetzung aus 1517 in 1817 begleltet. Claus Harms,
Kiel. 1817.  Rudelbach, Ref. Luth. u. Union. 1839.  Harnack, Die Luth.
Kirch* lm Llchte d. Geschicht. 1855.  Rudelbach, Die Zelchen d. Zelt. inn.
d. Et. Luth. Kirehe. 1857.  Stahl, Die Luth. Kirche u. d. Union. 2d ed.
1861.  Thomas, Union Luth. Kirch, u. Stahl. 1860.  Tlrst Free Luth
eran Diet In America. Philadelphia, Dec. 25-28, 1877. J. Fred. Smith. 1878.
 Second Free Lutheran Diet in America, Philadelphia, Nov. 5-7, 1878.
Luth. Pub. Society, Lutheran Bookstore, 1879.  The Pirst General Con
ference of Lutherans in America, Dec. 27-29, 1898. General Coun. Pub. Board,
Luth. Pub. Society, 1899.  T h e Second General Conference of Lutherans
In America, Philadelphia, Apr. 1-3, 1902, Newberry, S. C. Luth. Pub. Board,
1904.  T h e Third General Conference of Lutherans in America. Pitts
burg;, Apr. 5-7, 1904. Columbia, S. C. United Synod Pub. Co. 1905. 
Barrows, The Parliament of Religions.  Proceedings of the Religious Educa
tion Association. First Convention, Feb. 10-12, 1903. Chicago, 1903  Federal
Council of the Churches of Christ in America. First Meeting, Phil
adelphia, 1908. The Revell Press, New York. . . . p. 1
Chapter II.
HOW IS THE QUESTION TO BE DISCUSSED?
from the Centre, and
not touching subscription, name, party, or technical acceptance
but as to the church's will to stand on her complete Eaith
there is such a Faith, not merely documentary
KUefoth, Bine Elnleitung in die Dogmengesch. 1839.  Thomaslus, Das
Bekenntniss der ev.-luth. Kirche in der Konsequenz seines Princips. 1848. 
Plitt, Elnleitung In die Augustana. 1867-1868.  The Distinctive Doctrines
and Usages of the General Bodies of the Evangelical Lutheran Church In
the United States. 1893. . . . . . . . P. 5
Chapter III.
WHAT ARE CONFESSIONS?
Scripture Assimilated and Pulsating in the church

Scripture Condensed into public standards
the common Principles of the church's faith
xii

xiii CONTENTS
'the common Framework of the church's doctrine
the common Mark of the cnurch's truth
the common Flag of the church's loyalty
Schlatter, Der Glaube im N. T. 2 aufl. 1895.  Beyschlag, Neutest. Theol.
2 aufl. 1896.  Kunze, Glaubensregel, hell. Schrlft u. Taufbekenntnlss, 1899.
 Iliifling, De Symbolor. nature, necessitate, auctoritate atque usu. Erl. 1835.
 Sartorius, Ueber die Nothwendigkeit u. Verblndllohkelt d. Kirch-Glau-
bens-bekenntnisses. Stuttgart. 1845.  Philippi, Die Notwendlgkeit und Ver-
bindlichkeit des Kirchllchen Bekenntnisses. 1S80. . . . p. 9
Chapter IV.
DOES THE CHURCH NEED CONFESSIONS?
the Value of creeds
the great Eeality beneath the church confession
xhe Apostolic confession
the Use of confessions
they come in Historical form — this is not a Barrier
they Spring forth under Pressure
are Born, not made
do not Hem the church In
the More creeds the Better
do not Crush independent thought
are fitted to specific Needs
Carpzov, Isagoge. 1675, pp. 4, 5 and 7.  Honing, De Symbolor. natur. ne-
cessit. auctor. atque usu Erl. 1835.  Sartorius, Ueber die Nothwendigk. u.
Verbindlichk. d. Kirch. Glaubens-bekenntn. 1845.  Miiller, Die Symbolischen
Bttcher, 1848, 3d ed., 1869. Hist.-theol. Einl. I.  Guericke, Allgem. Christi.
Symbolik. 1839, 3. Aufl. 1861.  Schafl', The Creeds of Christendom, 4th ed.,
1890. ..... ... p. 18
Chapter V.
DO CONFESSIONS CONSTEICT, OE CONSERVE?
the confessional principle said to be Over-Emphasized
back to the Simplicity of Christ
back to the Bible as a creed
Why the Bible can Not be a creed
the_ creed is the Word of God Condensed and Pointed
a Summary and just Exhibition of God's Word
the Bible is the Rule of faith, the creed is its Confession
to Judge by creed is not to condemn, but to assign Values
a low Valuation of creeds follows a low valuation of Christ.
Eberhard, Ist die Augsb. Confess, eine Glaubensvorsohr., etc. 1795-97. 
Kollner, Die gute Sache d. Luth. Symbole. Gbttingen. 1847.  Krauth, The
Conservative Reformation. 1871.  Schmauk, The Right of Freedom of In
quiry in The Lutheran Church, Luth. Ch. Rev. XXII, 51-63.
In General: Newman, Grammar of Assent, 1870.  Martineau, The Seat of
Authority in Religion, 1891.  Balfour, Foundations of Belief, 1901. 
Oman, Vision and Authority, 1902.  Forrest, Authority of Christ, 1,906. 
Watson, The Philosophical Basis of Religion, 1907.  Kattenbuscfa, Confes-

CONTENTS xliii
aions-kunde.  Kirn, Glaube und Geschichte.  Sabatier, Religion of Author
ity and the Religion of the Spirit.  Coe, The Religion of a Mature Mind. 
Stanton, The Place of Authority in Matters of Religious Belief.  Ellicott,
Christus Comprobator.  Strong, Authority in the Church.  Fairbairn,
Catholicism, Roman and Anglican.  Orr, The Christian View of God and
the World.  Wace, The Foundations of Faith. . . p. 27
Chapter VI.
SHOULD CONFESSIONS CONDEMN AND EXCLUDE?
principles that militate against the Enforcement of confes
sional authority.
the church of the pure Word does not abrogate the use of
Discipline
Hofling, Grundsatze evangelisch-lutherlscher Kirchenverfassung, Erl. 1852.
 Harnack, Praktische Theologie, Erl. 1877, 1878, vol. II.  Galli, Die
Lutherischen und Calvinischen Kirchenstrafen, Breslau. 1879.  Walther,
Die rechte Gestalt einer vom Staate unabhangigen Evangelisch-Lutherlschen
Ortsgemeinde, St. Louis, Mo. 1864. . . . . . p. 88
Chapter VII.
WHAT GIVES THE CONFESSION VALIDITY?
a confession is Testimony
neither Agreement, nor Contract
its aim is Instruction, not Obligation (Verpflichtung)
the agreement is the pre-existing one of Doctrine
cannot he put together by Negotiation
the result (not the cause) of the substantial Unities in Christ
not a Platform; nor a delineation for comparative Distinction
the stress of Providence
its validity is that of Testimony
evidence of the Lutheran Confession
analysis of the Legal situation
not based on Social Pact
the Binding clauses of our confessions
Wernsdorf, Dlssertat. de auctorit. libror. symbol, (in tractatr. de lndiffer-
entismo rellgionum).  Fritzsche, tlber. d. unverand. Gelt, der Aug. Confess.
Lelpz. 1830.  Hofling, De Symbolor. natur. necessit. auctor. atque usu. Erl.
1835.  Miiller, Die Symbolischen Biicher, 1848, Hlst.-theol. Einl. I. p. 54
Chapter VIET.
DO CONFESSIONS BIND?
galling to Those who are Not At Home in them
joy and freedom to Those who Confide in their teaching
the Former should not remain in them
the Latter should accustom themselves to their restrictions

xliv CONTENTS
why we train Posterity in them
why we ask loyalty from our Teachers
why the church needs a settled Faith taught
how free Investigation is to be reconciled with confessional
principle and obligation; Protestantism, with the abiding
communion of saints
how and why the confessions must hold us Loyal
Eberhard, Ist die Augsb. Confess, sine Glaubensvorsohr., etc. 1795-97. 
(Negative) Johannsen, Untersuch. der Rechtmassigk. d. Verpfl. a S. B. Al-
tona. 1833.  Sartorius, Ueber die Nothwendigk. u. Verblndlichk. d. Kirch.
Glaubens-bekenntn. Stuttgart. 1845.  Miiller, Die Symbolischen Biicher, 1848,
Hlst.-theol. Einl. I.  Rietschel, G., Luther und die Ordination. 1883. 
Derselbe, ThStKr. 1895. Heft I "Luthers Ordinationsformular usw."  For
Luther and the Condemnation of Heretics, v.  Kohler, W., Reformation a.
Ketzerprozess. 1901. But KBhler's statement on p. 38 that Luther changed
his opinion concerning the heretics after 1528, and gave his consent to the
"Opinion of the Theologians at Wittenberg" that demanded their punish
ment, so that he also, if he had lived to see it, would have justified the
execution of Servetus, no less than Melanchthon, is combated by Tschackert,
Entstehung. .Kirchenlehre, p. 50. He, referring to the said opinion (C. R. 4,
737ff.), shows that it deals with Anabaptists who are to be punished as revo-
lutioners. Melanchthon wrote the opinion and Luther placed under it the
following: "Placet mini Martino Luthero. Although it seems to be cruel
to punish some with a sword, it is still more cruel that they condemn the
ministerium verbl, and have no certain teaching, and suppress the true
doctrine, and in addition want to destroy the Begna mundi." (C. R. 4, 740.)
p. 78
Chapter IX.
THE RISE OF THE CONFESSIONAL PRINCIPLE IN THE
CHURCH.
from Faith within to outer Witness
from Testimony to Confession
the first confessions in the New Testament
the Pentecostal and Baptismal confessions
the Fixed confessional Forms of the New Testament
the confessions of the Second Century
Casparl, Ungedruckte, Quellen *.. Gesch. d. Taufsymbols, Christlanla. 1866,
1869, 1875. Alte u. Neue Quellen is. Gesch. d. Taufsymbols, ib. 1879. 
Zezschwitz, v., Katechetik.  Hahn, Bibl. der Symbole u. Glaubensregeln,
1877.  Zahn, Glaubensregel u. Taufbek. in d. alt. K. in Ztschr. f. k. Wiss.
1881, p. 302ff.  Zahn, Das. ap. Symb. 1892.  Kattenbusch, Das. ap. Symb.
i.iiff. 1894.  Swete, the Apostles' Creed. 1894.  Kunze, Glaubensregel, hell.
Schrlft u. Taufbekenntniss.  Seeberg, Der Kateehismus der Urchristenheit.
1903.  Harnack, History of Dogma III. 209.  Hort, Dissertations II.
p. 93
Chapter X.
THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE CONFESSIONAL PRIN
CIPLE IN THE CHURCH.
the Apostles' Creed
the Nicene Creed

CONTENTS xiv
the Athanasian Creed
the Mediaeval interval "
the Ninety-Five Theses
the Marburg and Schwabach Articles
the Augsburg Confession as a confessional development
the confessional Connection of the Augsburg Confession
Athanasius, de decretis syn. Nic. and epistl. ad Afros.  Hefele, Concilien-
gesch. I. ed. 2, 282ff.  Braun, de synode Nic. (Kirchengeschichtl. Studlen
by Krbpfler, iv. 3).  Kollner, Symbolik i. 1837.  Swainson, The Nicene
and Apostles* Creeds, etc. 1875.  Ommanney, The Athan. Creed, 1875, and
Early History of the Athan. Creed, 1880.  Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom.
 Kattenbusch, Luthers Stellung zu den okumenischen Symbolen. Glessen,
1883. ......... p. 104
Chapter XI.
THE CONFESSIONAL PRINCIPLE IN THE AUGSBURG
CONFESSION.
the confessional Authorship of the Augsburg Confession
the confessional Content of the Augsburg Confession
the confessional Progress of the Augsburg Confession
the general confessional Characteristics of the same
the principle of stable Objectivity
the principle of catholic Continuity
the principle of personal salvation by personal Faith
the principle of respectful maintenance of Freedom
the principle of Simplicity
the principle of measured Protest against previous error
the Fate of the Augsburg Confession as Variata,
its Essence as Invariata
the wide Difference between the theology of the Augsburg Con
fession and pure American Protestantism
Kollner, Eduard, Symbolik der lutherischen Kirche. Hamburg, 1837. 
PUtt, G-, Einleitung In die Augustana, Erlangen 1867; Plitt, G., Die Apologle
der Augustana geschichtlich erklart. Erl. 1873.  Zockler, die augsb. Kon
fession als symbol. Lehrgrundlage d. deutschen Reformationskirche. Frankf.
1870.  Vilmar, die augsb. Konfession erklart. Gutersloh 1870.  Gobel,
Max., die religiBse Eigenthiimlichkeit der luther, und reformirten Kirche. Bonn,
1837.  Hundeshagen, C B., Die Conflicte des Zwinglianismus, Lutherthums,
und Calvinismus, in der Bernischen Landeskirche von 1522-1558. Berne. 1843.
 Schneckenburger, M., Vergleichende Darstellung des luther, und reform.
Lehrbegrifts. Stuttgart, 1855.  Schaff, Creeds of Christendom.  Tschack-
ert, Die Entstehung der lutherischen und der reformierten Kirchenlehre.
G6ttingen. 1910. . ..... p. 117
Chapter XII.
THE HISTORY AND TENDENCY OF THE CONFES
SIONAL PRINCIPLE IN THE CHURCH.
confession and faith Go Together
Faith reaches its most impressive power in Confession

xlvi CONTENTS
Preaching is the most active and regular form of confession
the church's confessions are Dynamic, and the term 'symbol'
is inadequate
Christ the High Priest of our confession
the church Developing her confession
after the first cooling of confessional ardor and the fresh out
burst of faith in the Reformation, the church rose to heroic
and complete confession
the two periods of the Dying Away of faith in the church
relaxing of confessional ardor led to the science of Symbolics.
Neander, Geschichte der Pflanzung und Leitung der christlichen Kirche
durch die Apostel. Hamburg, 1832.  Lambert, J. C, in Hasting's Dic
tionary of the Bible.  Heinrich, Versuch einer Geschichte der verschled-
enen Lehrarten der christlichen Glaubenswahrheiten und der merkwiirdigsten
Systeme und der Compendien derselben. Lpz. 1790.  Gasz, Geschichte der
protestant. Dogmatik in ihrem Zusammenhange mit der Theologie iiberhaupt.
 Heppe, Dogmatik des deutschen Protestantismus im 16. Jahrhundert. (cp.
the sections: Symbolik, Polemik.)  Tholuck, der Geist der lutherischen The-
ologen Wittenbergs. Hamburg, 1852.  Chemnitii, Examen concilii Tridentini.
Fref." 1588.  Rechtenbach, encyclopaedia symbolica, vel analysis Confes-
sionis August., Art. Smalc. etc. Lips. 1612.  Carpzovii, Isagoge in libros
ecclesiarum luth. symbolicos. Lips. 1665.  v. Sanden, Theologia symbolica
lutherana, etc. Fref. et Lips. 1688.  Walch, Introductio in libros eccl. luth.
symbol. Jen. 1732.  Baumgarten, Erlauterungen der im chr. Concordienbuch
enthaltenen symb. Schriften. Halle, 1747.  The historico-theolog. Intro
ductions to the Concordienbuch of Pipping (1703. 4.), Pfaff (1730),
Hase, Franke, and Miiller.  Semler, Apparat, ad Libros Symb. Eccles.
Luth. Halle. 1775.  Planck, Gesch. der Entstehung, der Verander-
ungen, und der Bildung des prot. Lehrbegriffs. Leips. 1781-1800. 
Planck, Abriss einer historischen und vergleichenden Darstellung der versch-
iedenen Dogmatischen Systeme. Gotting. 1796, 3 ed., 1822.  Marheineke,
Christliche Symbolik. Heidelberg, 1810-1813.  Marheineke, Inst. Symbolicae
Doctrinarum. Berlin, 1812.  Winer, Comparative Darstellung des Lehrbe
griffs der verschiedenen Christlichen Kirchenparteien. Leipsig, 1824. Later ed.
1866. Eng. trans, (not in full), Clarke, Edbg.  Kollner, Symbolik aller
Christlichen Confessionen. Hamburg, 1837. 1844, 2 vols. (Completed only for
the Lutheran and the Reformed Churches.)
Guericke, allgem. christi. Symbolik, eine verglelchende Darstellung. .vom
luther. -kirchl. Standpunkte. Leipz. 1839-46.  Schenkel, das Wesen des
Protestantismus aus den Quellen des Reformationszeitalters. Schaffh. 1846.
 Moehler, J. A., Symbolik. 1832. 7 Ed. 1864. Symbolism, or Exposition of
the Doctrinal Differences between Catholics and Protestants. Lon. 1847. 
Baur, der Gegensatz des Katholicism. und Protestantismus. 1834.  Nitzsch,
protest. Beantwortung der Symbolik Mohler's. Hamburg, 1835.— — Matthes,
Comparative , Symbolik, 1854.  Baier, Symbolik, 1854.  Hofmann, Sym
bolik, 1857.  Plitt, Grundrisz der Symbolik, 1875.  Reiff, Glaube der Kirch
en und Kirchenparteien, 1875.  Oehler, Lehrbuch der Symbolik, 1876. 
Scheele v., Teologisk Symbolik, 1877— translated into German, 1881. Also in
Zocklers Handbuch der theologischen. Wissensch., 1S83.  PhiUppi, Vor-
lesung, 1883.  Schaff, Creeds of Christendom. 1884. 3 vols.  Nosgen, Sym
bolik.  Kattenbusch, (Ritschlian.) Lehrbuch der vergleichenden Confessions-
kunde, i. Freiburg, 1892.  Walther, W. Luthers Glaubensgewissheit. Halle,
1892.  Walther, W., Das Erbe der Reformation. Leipzig, 1893 u. 1894.  .
Miiller, Karl. Symbolik, 1896. (Reformed.)  Orr, Progress of Dogma. Lon-

CONTENTS xlvii
don, 1901. IX. Post-Reformation Theology.  Miiller, Die Bekenntnisschrlften
der Reformierten Kirche, 1903.  Fischer, E., Fr. Autoritat und Erfahrung in
der Begriindung der Heilsgewissheit nach den Bekenntnisschrlften der ev.-
luth. Kirche. Leipzig, 1907. . . . . . . p. 144
Chapter XIII.
THE CONFESSIONAL USE OF THE WORD 'SYMBOL.'
the meaning of the Term
its use by the Church Fathers
its use in the Reformation and in the Book of Concord
Miiller, K., Die Symbole des Luthertums, Pr. Jahrb. Bd. 63, S. 121ff. 
Miiller, Die Symbolischen Biicher. Hist.-theol. Einleitung. I. Von Symbolen
und symbolischen Schriften iiberhaupt.  Jacobs, Book of Concord. Hist.
Int. Symbols, Symbolical Books. . . . . p. 156
Chapter XIV.
THE LUTHERAN CONFESSION.
was it born at Augsburg
the great Living confession of the church was Luther
the Reasons why he was the church's living confession
his relation to External confessional statements
the Weakness of a living witness
Kolde, Luthers Stellung zu Concil. und Kirche, 1876.  Kattenbusch,
Luthers Stellung zu den okumen. Symbolen, Giessen, 1883.  Preuss, Die
Entwicklung des Schriftprincips bei Luther bis zur leipziger Disput., 1901.
«  Scheel, Luthers Stellung zur heilige Schrift, 1902.  Thomasius, Dog-
mengesch. ii., 2d ed. — - — Loofs, Dogmengesch., 3d ed.  Krauth, The Con
servative Reformation. . . . . . . . p. 163
Chapter XV.
THE LUTHERAN CONFESSION.
THE ORIGIN OF THE AUGSBURG CONFESSION.
KOLDE'S INTRODUCTION.
the Emperor
the Torgau Articles
the Elector at Coburg
the Beginning of the confession
what Luther saw on May 11th
the Saxon Draft
the Other Estates admitted
the negotiations of Melanchthon
the Delivery of the confession
the confession and Luther
De Wette, M. Luthers Briefe etc. Berlin 1825-26.  Enders, H. L., M.
Luthers Briefwechsel. Frankfurt a. M. 1884ff.  Kolde, Th., Analecta Lu-
therana, Briefe und Aktenstuecke zur Geschichte Luthers. Gotha, 1883. 
Corpus Reformatorum (C R.) ed. Bretschneider. Halls Saxonum. 1839ff. 
Seckendorf, V. L. v., Commentarius historicus et apologeticus do Lutheran-
lsmo, etc. Francofurti et Lipsiae, 1692.  Brueck, Geschichte der Religions-

xlviii CONTENTS
verhandlungen auf dem Reichstage zu Augsburg im Jahre 1530 In K. B.
Foerstemanns Archiv fuer die Geschichte der kirchi. Reformation. I. Bd. 1
Heft. Halle, 1831.  Foerstemann, K. E., Urkundenbuch zu der Geschichte des
Reichstags zu Augsburg im Jahre 1830. Halle, 1833-35.  Schirrmachor, F.
W., Briefe und Akten zu der Geschichte des Religionsgespraeches zu Mar
burg und des Reichstages zu Augsburg 1530. Gotha, 1876.
Dav. Chytraeus, Hist. d. Augsb. Konfession. Rostock, 1576, and later. 
Coelestini, G., Historia Comitiorum A. M. D. XXX. Augustae celebr. Francof.
ad. V. 1597.  Mueller, J. J., Historie von der Evangelischen Staende
Protestation — and also: Dem zu Augsburg auf dem Reichstage 1530 ueber-
gebenen Glaubensbekenntnis, etc. Jena, 1705.  Cyprian, E. S., Historie d.
A. C. etc. Halle (1730) 1731.  Salig, Ch. A., Vollstaendige Historie d. A. C.
et.:. Halle, 1730.  Weber, G. G., Kritische Geschichte d. A. C. Frankfurt
1782.  Kollner, Ed., Symbolik der lutherischen Kirche. Hamburg, 1873. 
Calinich, R., Luther und die Augsburgische Konfession. Leipzig, 1861. 
Knaake, J. K. F., Luthers Anteil an d. A. C. Berlin, 1863.  Plitt, G. L.,
Elnleitung in die Augustana. Erlangen 1867f.  Zoeckler, C, Die A. K. als
Lehrgrundlage der deutschen Reformationskirche, etc. Frankfurt, 1870. 
Kolde, Th., Die Augsburgische Konfession lateinisch und deutsch kurz
erlaeutert. Gotha, 1896.  Tschackert, P., Die unveraenderte Augsburgische
Konfession deutsch und lateinisch nach den besten Handschriften aus dem
Besitze der Unterzeichner. Leipzig, 1901.  Kolde, Th., Die aelteste Red
aktion der Augsburger Konfession mit Melanchthons Einleitung zum ersten-
mal herausgegeben und geschichtlich gewuerdigt. Guetersloh, 1906.  The
same: Neue Augustanastudien. Neue Kirchi. Zeitschr. XVII. (1906), S. 729
seq.q.. ... ... p. 168
Chapter XVI.
THE LUTHERAN CONFESSION.
MELANCHTHON'S UNSUCCESSFUL ATTEMPTS AS A
DIPLOMATIST. KOLDE'S ESSAY.
the activity of Melanchthon at Augsburg
characterized by Kolde
the Defense of Melanchthon by Brieger
why Brieger is Wrong
the Documentary evidence
the lack of sympathy in Melanchthon with Zwinglians
was the Final Work on confession begun before June 21st
the affirmative of Brieger
the reply of Kolde
the negotiations by Melanchthon with Rome rejected
the Consequences of their rejection
the Four Points of Melanchthon as formulated by Valdes.
Kolde, M. Luther II. 1884.  Kolde, Die Augsburgische Konfession. 
Maurenbrecher, Geschichte der katholischen Reformation Nordlingen, 1880. 
Virck, Melanchthons politische Stellung auf dem Reichstage zu Augsburg.
8SS-  Bezold, Fr. v., Geschichte der deutschen Reformation. Berlin. 1890. 
Kawerau, Lehrbuch der Kirchengeschichte III. • (Reformation und Gegen-
reformation). 1899.  Miiller, Karl. Kirchengeschichte. Freiburg, 1902.  Ell-
inger, Georg, Philipp Melanchthon. Berlin, 1902.  Brieger, Zur Geschichte
des Augsburger Reichstages von 1530. Leipzig, 1903. . . p. 192

CONTENTS xlix
Chapter XVLT.
THE LUTHERAN CONFESSION.
KOLDE ON THE FIRST KNOWN DRAFT, OR OLDEST
REDACTION OF THE AUGSBURG CONFESSION,
AND ITS DISCOVERT.
the Discovery of the document
its Significance
a^ brief Analysis of its contents, including the introduction
the Fate of this first redaction
Original in Nurnberg Kreisarchiv. . . . . . p. 221
Chapter XVIII.
THE LUTHERAN CONFESSION.
THE OLDEST KNOWN FORM OF THE AUGSBURG CON
FESSION TRANSLATED INTO ENGLISH.
the Preface or introduction of Melanchthon
the Eighteen Articles of Faith
the Articles in Disptue
Original in Nurnberg Kreisarchiv. ..... p. 251
Chapter XIX.
THE LUTHERAN CONFESSION.
THE HAND OF GOD IN THE FORMATION OF THE AUGS
BURG CONFESSION, AS SHOWN BY THE COURSE
OF EVENTS IN 1529 AND 1530, AND IN THE LET
TERS OF LUTHER, AND OF MELANCHTHON.
the Real question as to the Augsburg Confession
the History of the Reformation up to Augsburg
the Elector takes the beginnings of his Apology to Augsburg
the Emperor delays and the Elector awaits his coming
the Saxon Apology becomes a confession
the question of Preaching a test
the submission of the confession to Luther
the Emperor's entry into Augsburg
the Opening of the diet
the first ten days of Suspense
the confession Completed and Delivered
the attitude of Melanchthon
confessional history Subsequent to delivery of Confession
the Hand of Providence
D

1 CONTENTS
FOR LUTHER AT THE DIET OF WORMS, etc.
"Acta D. Martini Lutheri in Comltiis Principum Wormatlae" (1521), H. A.
v. a. 6, 13 f.
Kostlin, Luthers Rede in Worms. Halle, 1874.
Kolde, Luthers Stellung, u. s. w. (1876).
Kolde, Luther auf dem Reichstag zu Worms. Halle, 1883.
Kostlin, Martin Luther I. Elberfeld, 1883.
Lammer, Hugo, Die vortridentinisch-katholische Theologie des Reforma-
tionszeitalters. Berlin, 1858.
Dieckhoff, Luthers Lehre in ihrer ersten Gestalt. Rostock, 1887.
Tschackert, Die Entstehung der lutherischen und der reformierten Kirchen-
lehre (The Theological Beginnings of Luther, 34) passim. 1910.
FOR THE RELATION OF THE REFORMERS TO THE STATE AND TO
THE PAPACY.
Brieger, Th., Die kirchi. Gewalt der Obrigkeit nach den Anschauungen
Luthers. ZThK. II, 513ff.
Jager, G., Die politischen Ideen Luthers und ihr Einfluss auf die innere
Entwicklung Deutschlands. Pr. Jahrb, 1903. Aug.-Heft, 210ff.
Schornbaum, K., Zur Politik des Markgrafeh Georg von Brandenburg.
Miinchen, 1906.
Kolde, A. "Philipp der Grossmutige" RE. 15, 296ff.
Stahelin, R., Huldreich Zwingli, sein Leben u. Wirken. 2 Bde. Basel, 1895
u 1897.
Bleidanus, De Statu Religionis et Reipublicae Carole V. Caesare, 1555.
Francfort, 1786.
Sepulveda, Historia Caroll V. Leipzig, 1841-46.
Armstrong, The Emp. Charles V. Lon., 1902.
For Crowning of Charles V., v. Baumgarten, Gesch. Karls V. II 704.
Gachard, Correspondence de Ch. V. et d'Adrlen vi., Brussels, 1862 (Eng.
trans., London, 1862).
Lammer, Analecta Vaticana, 1521-46. Freiburg, 1863. (The Elector John.)
Ranke, Deutsche Geschichte, Book 5, Chap. 9 (Vol. III. 211 sqq.). (The
Elector John.)
Anton, Apologia Mspta., fol. 62b. (The Elector's Appeal for the Public
Reading of the Confession.)
FOR THE PROTEST AT THE DIET OF SPIRES, etc.
For Protestation, v. Hauser, Die Protestation von Speier, 1904.
For the Protest, v. Sleidanus, De Statu Religionis, 1657, 98 sq. (a con
densation). For the Decree and the Protest, v. Colestin, Hist. II. 192 sqq.
For the Appellation, v. J. J. Miiller, Historie von der Evangelischen Stande
Protestation, etc. 51 sqq.
For the Federation, v. Kolde, Beitrage zur Reformationsgeschichte (1896),
96. For Confederations-Notel, v. J. J. Miiller, Historie, 236 sqq.
For Rotach Conference, v. Strassburg Politische Correspondenz, 269 sqq.
For the History of Embassy from Diet of Spires to the Emperor, v. Salig,
Hist. d. Augsp. Coh. II. 136-138.
Dolzig's Report in Fbrstemann's Urkundenbuch. I. 127 et seqq.
The Diet at Augsburg.
documentary.
Forstemann, K. E., Urkundenbuch zu der Geschichte des Reichstags za
Augsburg im Jahre, 1830. Halle, 1833-35.
Scbirrmacher, F. W., Briefe und Akten zu der Geschichte des Rellgions-
gespraches zu Marburg und des Reichstages zu Augsburg. 1630. Gotha, 1876.

CONTENTS li
Ain kurtze Anzaygung. Cyprian, Beilagen. 1530. 60.
Pro Religione Christiana res gestae. Cyprian, Beilagen. 1630. 86.
Folgen verzeichent alie Stuck so im Druck dem Handel miissen inferlrt und
eingeleibt werden. 1530.
Briick, Geschichte der Religionsverhandlungen auf dem Reichstag zu Augs
burg im J. 1530.
(Nuremberg Delegates) Briefe: Strobels Miscellan. lit. inhalt. II. 3-48; III.
193-220. Osiandri, Phillppi Hassiae, Senat. Nuremberg. Literae in Camerarli Vit.
Melanchthonis, ed. Strobel. 407-414.
Spalatin, Berichte, in Luthers Werke. Lelpz. XX. 202-212.
Spalatin, Annates Reformationis, published by Cyprian. Leipz., 1718. 131-
289. C. R. AND WRITINGS OF LUTHER AND MELANCHTHON.
Corpus Reformatorum (C. R.) ed Bretschneider. Halls Saxonum, 1839ft.
Bindseil, H. E., Corpus Reformatorum. XXVI. Pars. Prior.
Melanchthon, Opera quae supersunt omnia. (Bretschneider). Halle, 1834-
1856. 28 vols.
Melanchthon, Epistolae. C. R., II.
Melanchthon, (His Own Account of the History of the Composition of the
Augsb. Conf.), C. R. 9. Trans. Krauth Chronicle 55. Jacob's Book of Con
cord. II. 30.
Camerarius, Vita Melanchthonis (1566) Strobel. Noesselt, Halae, 1777.
119, 134.
Luther, Werke (Walch.) Leipz. XVI. 734-2145. XX. 1-293.
Luther, Sammtliche Werke. Erlangen, 1826-1857. 65 vols, and 2 vols.
Register. Luther, Sammtliche Schriften (Hoppe). St. Louis. Reformations-Schriften
beginning with XV. 1899; XVI. 1900; XVII. 1901.
Ib. Dr. Luther's Briefe, Erste Abtheilung. XXI. a. 1903. Zweite Abtheilung.
XXI. b. 1904.
De Wette, M. Luther's Briefe. Berlin. 1825-8. (With a supplementary
volume by Seidemann, 1856.)
Enders, E. L., M. Luther's Briefwechsel. Frankfurt a. M. 18S4ff.
Currie, Margaret A., The Letters of Martin Luther. Selected and Trans
lated. Macmillan. London, 1908. HISTORIES.
Chytraens, Hist. d. Augsb. Konfession. Rostock, 1576, and later. Latin.
Fref. ad Moen., 1582.
Leodius, Andreas Fabricius, Harmonia Confessionis Augustanae. Colonae,
1573. Coelestini, Historia Comitiorum A. M. D. XXX. Augustae celebr. Francof.
ad. V. 1697.
Seckendorf, V. L. v., Commentarius historicus et apologeticus de Lutheran-
ismo, etc. Francofurti et Lipsiae, 1692.
Carpzov, Isagoge. 2d ed. 1675. 90-107.
Mueller, Historie von der Evangelischen Staende Protestation — and also
Dem zu Augsburg, auf dem Reichstage, 1530, ueberg oene.n Glaubensbekennt-
nis, etc. Jena., 1705.
Cyprian, Historia der Augsb. Conf. aus den Orlglnal-Acten — mit Beylagen.
Gotha, 1730, 4to.
Salig, Vollstaendige Historie d. A. C„ etc. Halle, 1730.
Walch, J. G., Introd. in L. S. Jena., 1732. 167-482
MODERN INVESTIGATION
Rudelbach, Histor. kritisch. Elnleitung in die Augsb. Conf. Dresden, 1841,
Galinich, Luther und die Augsburgische Confession. 1861.

Hi CONTENTS
Knaake, Luther's Anteil an d, A. C. Berlin, 1863.
Engelhardt in Niedner's Zeitschrift. 1865. 515-629.
Plitt, Einleitung in die Augustana. 1867-68.
Krauth, The Conservative Reformation. 1871.
Kolde, Der Kanzler Briick u. seine Bedeutung fiir die Entwlcklung der
Reformation. Halle, 1874.
Kolde, Analecta Lutherana, Briefe und Actenstticke. Gotha, 1883.
Brieger in Kirchengeschichtliche Studien. 1888. 268-320.
Brieger, Die Torgauer Artikel, in Kirchengeschichtliche Studien. Leipzig,
1888. (For an English Translation of the So-called Torgau Articles in Forste
mann, Urkundenbuch. I. 68 sqq. v. Jacobs, Book of Concord. II. 75-103.)
Kolde, Beitrage zur Reformationsgeschichte. 94 et seqq.
Kolde, Die Augsburgische Konfession lateinisch und deutsch kurz erlautert.
Gotha, 1896.
Tscfaackert, Die unveranderte Augsb. Konf. Leipzig, 1901.
Brieger, Zur Geschichte des Augsburger Reichstages von 1530. Leipzig, 1903.
Kolde, Die aelteste Redaktion der Augsburger Konfession. Guetersloh, 1906.
Kolde, Neue Augustanastudien. Neue kirchi. Zeitschr. XVII. 1906. 729 seqq.
Hoennicke, Melanchthon's Stellung auf dem Reichstage zu Augsburg. 1530.
Deutsch Ev. Blatter, Nov. 1908.
For the Literature of the more recent discussions and discoveries, see
Literature to chapters XV, XVI, XVII, XVIII. ... p. 283
Chapter XX.
THE LUTHERAN CONFESSION.
THE AUGSBUEG CONFESSION EEMAINED UNAL-
TEKED.
the tears of Melanchthon : their cause
the peace of Luther: its cause
ready to stand by the confession even to Martyrdom
was Melanchthon open-hearted to Luther
the correspondence from June 25th to July 1st
Luther's attempt to counteract Melanchthon's lack of faith
the course of Events from the diet to the confutation
the attempts at Compromise under Melanchthon
their Failure and the departure of the Elector
Corpus Reformatorum ed. Bretschneider. Halis Saxonum. 1839ff. II. 2.
372 sq.  Seckendorf, V. L. v., Commentarius historicus et apologeticus de
Lutheranismo, etc. Trancofurti et Lipsiae, 1692.  Salig, Vollstaendige His
torie d. A. C, etc. Halle, 1730. II. 334 sq.  Camerarlus, Vita Melanch
thonis (1566) Stroebel. Noesselt, Halae, 1777.  Meyers, J. F., Dissert, de
Lenitate Phil. Melanchthonis.  Kollner, Symbolik der Luth. Kirche. Ham
burg, 1837.  Plitt, Die. Apol. d. August, 1873.  CaUnich, Zeitschrift fiir
wissenschaftllche Theologie. 1873. 541 et seqq.  Jacobs, Book of Concord,
II. Philadelphia, 1883.  Ficker, Die Confut. d. Augsb. Bek. in Ihrer ersten
Gestalt. 1891.  Kolde, Die Augsb. Conf. 1896 (together with the Marburg,
Schwabach. and Torgau Articles, the Confutation, and the Augustana varl-
ata).  Sell, K., Melanchthon und die deutsche Reformation bis 1531. Halle;
1897.  Kawerau, G., Die Versuche Melanchthon zur katholischen Kirche
zuriickzuftihren. 1902.  v. also Literature of Chap. XIX and XXIV. P. 436

CONTENTS liii
Chapter XXI.
THE LUTHERAN CONFESSION.
THE AUGSBURG CONFESSION: THE FURTHER HIS
TORY OF ITS EDITIONS AND MANUSCRIPTS.
KOLDE'S ESSAY, WITH A SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT
AS IT BEARS ON THE CONFESSIONAL QUESTION,
BY T. E. S.
the first Prints of the Confession
the Editio Princeps
the Variata of 1540 and its influence
the Corpora doctrinae
the original Manuscripts of the Augsburg Confession
the lack of a perfect Copy of the Augsburg Confession
its Text in the situation of many historical documents
and of the Scriptures
the difference between a Variant and a Variata edition
the attitude of Luther and of the Elector toward the Variata
the attitude of Eck and of Rome
the difficulties of Colloquy of Worms and of Frankfurt Recess
the significance of the Convention at Naumburg
the texts of the Augustana as related to the Book of Concord
the relation of the manuscripts and prints to the Augustana as
a Confessional standard
For information on the First Prints, v. C R. XXVI, 477, sq. Weber, I,
394, sqq., Zockler, Die Augsburgische Konfession, 31.
For a clear summary as to whether the Editio Princeps may be termed
the Invariata, v. Neve, in Luth. Ch. Rev. XXX, "Are we Justified in Dis
tinguishing Between an Altered and an Unaltered Augustana?"
For an attempt to reconstruct the Original Text, from the 39 copies of it
taken especially before its delivery, v. Tschackert, Die unverandert Augsburg
ische Konfession, deutsch und lateinisch, nach den besten Handschriften aus
dem Besitze der Unterzeichner. Leipzig, 1901.
For a Bibliography of the Latin and German Manuscripts of the Augsburg
Confession in the Archives v. Krauth, The Conservative Reformation, 1871,
footnote on pp. 242, 243.
For the Variata of 1S10 and 1542, -u. translation In full in Jacobs' Book
of Concord, II. 103-158.
For the Texts and the Texts of the Variata of 1640 and 1542 v. Blndscli,
C. R., XXVI. 343; Weber, Kritische Geschichte d. A. C, 1782; Kolde, Die
Augsburg Konfession; in English, Jacobs, Book of Concord, II. 103 sq.

liv CONTENTS
Zockler, Die Augsburgische Konfession; Tschaekert, Die Entstehung der
luth. und der ref. Klrchenlehre. Gott., 1910.
Schraucker, B. M., English Translations of the Augsburg Confession. Luth.
Ch. Rev. VI. 5. . .... p. 522
Chapter XXII.
THE LUTHERAN CONFESSION.
PROTESTANTISM UNDER THE AUGSBURG CONFES
SION TO THE DEATH OF LUTHER.
the Apology and its confessional import
the Schmalkald League
the Princes and Estates
the faith taught in the Loci
the olive branch waved by Melanchthon to Bucer
the Wittenberg Concord
the Schmalkald Articles
the marriage of Philip of Hesse
the Variata
the Regensburg Interim
the Reformation of Cologne
the Death of Luther
Schmalkald League: Hortleder, Kaiser Karl V. wider die Schmal. Bundes-
verwandten, Francfort, 1617.  Bertram, Geschichte des symbolischen An-
hangs der schmalkaldischen Artikel, herausgegeben von J. B. RIederer, Alt-
dorf, 1770.  Meurer, Der Tag zu Schmalkalden und die schmalkaldischen
Artikel, Leipzig, 1837.  Hefele, Conciliensgeschichte, 1855, edited by Hergen-
rother, 1891; trans. Edinburgh, 1890.  Plitt, De auctoritate articulorum
Smalcaldicorum symbolica, 1862.  Kostlin, Martin Luther, 2. Aufl., Elber-
feld, 1883.  Winckelmann, Der Schmalkaldische Bund, Strassburg, 1892.
The Wittenberg Concord, with Bucer's Exhortation and Explanation. 1536.
Jacobs, Book of Concord, II. 253-260.
The Variata of 1540. Tr. in Jacobs, Book of Concord. II. 103-147.  The
Variata of 1542. Chief divergencies from that of 1540 given. Book of Con
cord. II. 147-158.  Corpus Reformatorum ed. Bretschneider. Halls Saxonum,
1839H.  Camerarius, Vita Melanchthonis (1566) Stroebel. Noesselt, Halae,
1777.  Chytraeus, Hist. d. Augsb. Konfession. Rostock, 1576, and later. 
Seckendorf, V. L. v. Commentarius historicus et apologeticus de Lutheranismo,
et3. Francofurti et Lipslae, 1692.  (Kirchner, Selnecker, Chemnitz), Solida
ac vera Confess. August. Historia, Lipsiae, 1685.  Weber, Kritische Ges
chichte d. A. C. Frankfurt, 1782.  Kollner, Symbolik der Luth. Kirche.
Hamburg, 1837.  Krauth, The Conservative Reformation. 1871.  Plitt,
Die. Apol. d. August., 1873.  Ficker, Die Confut. d. Augsb. Bek. in ihrer
ersten Gestalt. 1891.  Kolde, Die Augsb. Conf, 1896 (together with the
Marburg, Schwabach, and Torgau Articles, the Confutation, and the Augus
tana variata).  Book of Concord, II, Jacobs, Philadelphia, 1883.  Flotow,
De synergismo Melanchthonis. Vratisl. 1867.  Fischer, E. F., Melanchthons
Lehre von der Bekehrung. Tubingen, 1905.  Tschaekert, Die Entstehung
der luth. und der ref. Klrchenlehre. GStt, 1910. ... p. 670

CONTENTS lv
Chapter XXLIT.
THE LUTHERAN CONFESSION.
PROTESTANTISM FROM THE DEATH OF LUTHER TO
THE DEATH OF MELANCHTHON AND TO THE
DISINTEGRATION OF LUTHERANISM.
years of Reaction
the leadership of Melanchthon
political Events 1546-1555
the Augsburg and Leipzig Interims, Maurice
i the Papacy and the Empire in these events
the Controversies following Luther's death
^Adiaphoristic
I Osiandrian
j the Two great Parties
/ Majoristie
"S Antinomistic
| Crypto-Calvinism
I Eucharistic Synergistic
the synergism of Melanchthon
the Corpus Philippicum
partisan Warfare
dire Results
The Leipzig Interim. Jacobs, Book of Concord, II. 260-272.
Walch, Einleitung in d. Rels. Streltigktn. innerh. u. ausserh. der Luth.
Kirche. 1730 ff.
Planck, Gesch. des prot. Lehrbegriffes. 178.1 ft.
Wolf, Gesch. des deutsch. Protestanten. 1555-58, 1588.
Wolf, Ambrose, Historia von der Augsburgischen Confession.
Heppe, Gesch. des deutsch. Protestantism. 1555-81. 4 vols. 1852 ff.
Gieseler, Kirchengeschichte III, 2 1853. S. 115-351 mit sorgsam ausgewahl-
ten Excerpten aus Quellenschriften.
Frank, Theol. der Con. Form. 4 vols. 1858 ff.
Preger, W., Mathias Flacius Illyricus und seine Zelt. 2 vols. 1861.
Frank, G., Gesch. d. prot. Theologie I. 1862.
Moller, Andreas Oslander. Leben und Ausgewahlte Schriften.
Hergang, K. Th., Das Augsburger Interim.
Schmid, H., Der Kampf der luth. Kirche um Luthers Lehre vom Abend-
mahl im Reformationszeitalter. Leipzig, 1868.
Krauth, The Conservative Reformation. 1871.
Walther, Der Concordienformel Kern und Stern. 1877.
Vogt, O., Melanchthons u. Bugenhagens Stellung zum Interim. Jahrb. f.
prot. Th. 1887. 1 ff.
Thomasius-Seeberg, Dogmengeschichte II. 1889.
Haussleiter, Joh., Aus der Schule Melanchthons. Theologlsche Dlsputatlonen
und Prnmotionen zu Wittenberg in den Jahren, 1546-1560. Grelfswald, 18fl7
Seeberg, R., Lehrbuch der Dogmengeschichte. II. 1898. . . p. 587

Ivi CONTENTSChapter XXIV
THE LUTHERAN CONFESSION.
MELANCHTHON AND THE MELANCHTHONIAN PRIN
CIPLE.
Luther the Confessor, not the hero
Melanchthon's Gifts and gracious Nature
Luther's loyalty to Melanchthon
Melanchthon as a Teacher and Writer
his Philosophy and Theology
his Practical tendency
the 'Lumen Naturale'
the two Contradictory principles
the 'Loci Communes'
its Effect on Lutheran Seventeenth-Century theology
his clear Understanding of the principles of the reformation
his Lack of faith in crisis
his mild Rationalism
makes confession a problem of Adjustment
his willingness to enter Compromise
his Timidity
his desire for Union
his Diplomacy
his Anxiety
The Writings of Melanchthon: Corpus Doctrlnae Christiana e,
das ist, Gantze Summa der rechten Christlichen Lehre, etc. Leipzig, 1660 fol.
Opera Omnia, Peucer, Wittenb., 1562-64. 4 vols. fol. (Preceded by
the Basle edition of 1541.)
Opera quae super sunt omnia. Bretschneider and Btndseil. Halle,
1834-1860. 28 vols. 4to. In Corpus Reformatorum I-XXIV. (The
Letters of M. are found in I-IX, with a subsequent Vol. added 1879 by
Bindseil.) (The Classic edition.)
Bibliotheca Melancthoniana. Bindseil. Halle, 1868. (A 28-page
c-talogue of the editions of Melanchthon's writings.)
Loci. The Corpus Reformatorum, XXI. Contains three main
editions Latin and German, with introductions, Bretschneider and Bindseil.
Loci. Plitt-Kolde, 1890.  Loci... in ihrer Urgestalt — herausgegeb. und
erlautert. Kolde, 1900.
Annates Vitae. XXVIII. in C. R.
Camerarius, 1566; Strobel, 1777; Schmidt, 1861. (v. infra.)
Guile, Fr., Versuch einer Charakteristik Melanchthons als Theologen.
Halle, 1840.
Henke, Das Verhaltniss Luthers und Melanchthons zu einrnder. Marburg,
1860. Schmidt, K., Ph. Melanchthon, Leben und ausgewahlte Schriften. Elberf.,
1860-1861. (Still the best Biography for Scientific purposes.)
Herrlinger, Th., Die Theologie Melanchthons in ihrer geschlchtl. Entwlck-
lung, Gotha. F. A. Perthes, 1870.
Bindseil, Ph. Melanchthonis epistolae, etc. Halle, 1874.

CONTENTS lvii
Herrlinger, Th., Die Stellung Melanchthons zum Kirchlichen Bekenntniss.
Gotha. F. A. Perthes, 1879.
Hartfelder, Mel. als Pracep. Germaniae. Berlin, 1889.
Hartfelder, K. Melanchthoniana Paedagoglca. Leipzig, 1892.
Jacobs, Mel. 1894. (In M'Clintock and Strong.)
Troltsch, Vernunft u. Offenbarung, bei J. Gerhard und Mel., 1896.
Haussleiter, Aus der Schule Melanchthons, 1897.
Sell, Mel. u. die deutsche Reformation bis 1531 (Schriften des Vereins fiir
Reformations — Gesch., 56).
Seeberg, Die Stellung Mels. in der Gesch. der Kirche und der WIssenschaft,
2 ed. Erlangen, 1897.
Tschaekert, Melanchthons Bildungs-ideale. Gottingen, 1897.
Bornemann, W. Mel. als Schulmann. Magdeburg, 1897.
Koltzsch, Mels. Loci comm., Die erste prot.-evang. Ethik (in Festschrift
fur Fricke). Leipzig, 1897.
Hofstatter, Die Augsburgische Konfession in ihrer Bedeutung fiir das kirch-
liche Leben der Gegenwart. Leipzig, 1897.
Richard, J. W. Philip Mel., the Protestant Preceptor of Ger., 1898.
Romer, H., Die Entwicklung des Glaubensbegriffs bei Mel. nach dessen
dogmatischen Schriften. Diss. Bonn, 1902.
Ellinger, G., Ph. Mel. Ein Lebensbild. Berlin, 1902.
Clemen, O. Supplementa Melanchthoniana. Werke Ph. Melanchthons, die
im Corpus Reformatorum vermisst werden. Hrsg. v. d. Melanchthon-Kom-
mission des Vereins f. Reformationsgeschichte. 1. Abt. Dogmatische Schrif
ten, hrsg. v. 1 Heft L. 1909.
Kirn, O., Melanchthon, Herzog Real. Enc. XII. 513 ff. New Schaff-Her-
zog. VII. 1910. . . ..... p. 609
Chapter XXV.
THE LUTHERAN CONFESSION.
THE NEED OF A CONCORDIA REALIZED, AND ITS
ORIGIN ATTEMPTED.
four periods of Development
the Variata insufficient
the Situation, 1560-1576
the Statements of Andreae in 1569
the Six. Sermons sent to Chemnitz in 1573
the commission of Augustus
the Torgau Book
the Bergen Book
the Calvinistic Protests
For the official documents connected with the Lichtenberg Convention, V.
Hutter, Cap. JX., pp. 75 et seqq.
For historical details, v. Anton, pp. 156 et seqq.  Planck, VI., 437 et
seqq.  Walch, Introductio, pp. 715 et seqq.  Heppe, III., 84 et seqq. 
Pressel in Jahrbiicher fur Deutsche Theologie, 1877, pp. 10 et seqq. 
Mttller's Die Symbolischen Biicher, Einleitung, IX. edition, p. Ixxi.  Fritschel,
Quellen aus der Zelt der Cone. Formel. Dubuque. 1910.
v. also Thomasius, Dogmengeschichte.  Seeberg, Hist, of Doctrines. II.
347-390.  Schaff, Creeds of Christendom.  Krauth, Conservative Refor
mation.  v. Literature under Chap. XX. . . . . p. 637

Iviii CONTENTSChapter XXVI.
THE LUTHERAN CONFESSION.
THE FORMULA OF CONCORD: ITS ORIGIN, BASED ON
KOLDE'S INTRODUCTION, ETC.

" the six Controversies and the Points at issue
the pliant and scholastic nature of Melanchthon
the rise of Calvinism
the disruption of the Schmalkald League and
the helplessness of the Protestants
the Corpora doctrinae
the efforts of Andreae
the effort of Chemnitz and Duke Julius
the effort of Augustus
the Schwabian Concordia sent to Augustus by Julius, and
the Maulbronn Formula sent by the South Germans
""~"~- recast into the Torgian Formula and the Bergen Book
the Subscription to the Formula
Andreae, J., Fuenft predigen von dem wercke der concordien und endllcher
vergleichung der vorgefallenen streitigen religionsartickeln etc. Dressden 1580.
¦  Fuegers, Caspar, Kurtzer, wahrhafftiger und einfelt. bericht von dem
buch, Formula Concordiae. Dressden 1580.  Selnecceri, Nic, Recitationes
aliquot 1. de Consilio scripti libri Concordiae, et modo agendi, qui in sub-
scriptionibus servatus est. 2. de Persona Christi et Coena Dom. 3. de auctori
tate et sententia Conf. Aug. 4. de auctoritate Lutheri et Philippi. 5. de con-
troversis nonnullis articulis. Lips. 1581.  Nunc denuo editae cum notationibus
brevibus ad cuiusdam Calviniani, qui fingit sibi nomen Jo. Balaei, Neapoli
Nemetum publicatas calumnias. Lips. 1582. (1583.)  Aus der Christlichen
Concordia erklerung etlicher streitiger Artickel: Deutsch und Lateinisch.
gegeneinander ueber. Ex forma Christianae Concordiae Declaratio Articulorum
qui post D. Lutheri obitum in controuersiam in Ecclesiis et Academiis A. C.
addictis uenerunt. Opera et priuato studio Selnecceri, Nic. Lipsiae 1582.
Chemnitii, Chr., Collegium theol. super Form. Cone. Jen. 1659. vermehrt
mit Zusaetzen aus der Apologie und anderen Schriften. 1761.  Rangonis,
Conr. Tiburt, Haereticorum et Syncretistarum Obex Formula Concordiae, d. i.
Warhaffte Erzehlung des Ursprungs. Fortgangs und Ansehens der Concordien-
Formul. Hamburg u. Frankf. 1683. 12.  Musaei, Jo., Praelect. in epitomen
F. C. Jen. 1701.  -Acta F. C. in Bergensi Coenobio tempore Praesidis Ulneri
a. 1577. revisae ex Hutteri Cone, cone, Goebelil Progr. jubil., Arnold! Haeret.
hist, et Saccii concione funebri in Abb. Ulnerum, ace. Oratio Sim. Frid. Hahnii
de ortu et fatis Coen. Bergensis a.. 1706. habita. Franc, ad M. (s. a.) [1707.]
fol.  Ace. H. Meibomii Chronicon Bergense contin. a.. S. F. Hahnio, ibid.
1708 fol.  Loescher, Val., Historia motuum. Lipsiae 1723. (torn. III. lib.
VI, u. 5 and 9)  Balthasar, Jac. H., Historie des Torg. Buchs. als des
naehesten Entwurfs des Berg. Concordienbuchs — nebst andern zur Geschichte
des Concordienbuchs gehoerigen und bisher unbekannten Nachr, etc. Grelfs-
wald und Leipzig. St. 1-6. 1741-44. 4. St. 7. 1-4 & St. 5, 8. 1756.  Anton, Jo.

CONTENTS lix
Nik., Geschichte der Konkordienformel, etc. Leipzig 1779. 8.  Planck, G. J.,
Geschichte des protestantischen Lehrbegriffs. 2. Aufl. Leipzig 1791. 8. Bd. 
Thomasius, Gottfr., Das Bekenntnis der evangellsch-lutherlschen Kirche in
der Konsequenz seines Prinzips. Nuernberg 1848.  — Heppe, H., Geschichte des
deutschen Protestantismus. Marburg 1852 ff. 4 Bde.  Same, Der Text der
Bergischen Konkordienformel verglichen mit dem Text" der schwaeb. Konk.,
der schwaebisch-saechsischen Konk. und des Torg. Buches. Marburg 1857. 
Beck, K., Joh. Friedrich d. Mittlere. 2 Bde. Weimar 1858.  Frank, Fr. H.
R., Die Theologie der Konkordienformel historisch-dogmatisch entwickelt und
beleuchtet. Erlangen. 4 Bde. 1858-1865.  Goeschel, K. Fr., Die Konkordien
formel nach ihrer Geschichte. Lehre und kirchlichen Bedeutung. Altes und
Neues aus dem Schatze der Kirche. Leipzig 1858.  Preger, W., Matthias
Flacius Illyrikus. 2 Bde. Erlangen 1859 ff.  Pressel, Th., Kurfuerst Ludwig
von der Pfalz und die Konkordienformel. Zeitschr. f. histor. Theol. 37 Bd.
(1867.)  Mueller, Karl, Die Bckenntnisse des Lutherthums. Preuss. Jahrbb.
Bd. 63. (1889.) S. 121 ff.  Wolf, G., Zur Geschichte des deutschen Protest
antismus. 1555-59. Berlin 1888. — Seeberg, R., Konkordienformel. Prot. Real-
enzykl. 3. Bd. 10. 732 seqq. ... p. 641
Chapter XXVII.
THE LUTHERAN CONFESSION.
THE INTRODUCTION OF THE CONCORDIA, AND THE
AUGUSTANA PRESERVED.
not introduced by papal or imperial Mandate
but Sent Forth and Discussed throughout Germany
none other so fully Tested
the Quedlinburg Declaration
¦a good cause not accountable for the sins of Individuals
the Signatories not condemnable
the adverse judgment of Planck
more Unanimous than would be possible in America today
no creed really Oecumenical
no undue political Influence
the opinion of Kolde and of Miiller
the extent of the Adoption
rejected by Calvinistic States
the Lutherans who failed to subscribe
the opinion of Planck, Kollner and Thomasius
the real confessional Validity
Hatter, Concordia Concors. 1614. Libri Chrlstianae Concordiae ExpHcato.
1608.  Carpzov, Isagoge in Libros Symbolicos. 1666.  Schliisselberg, Cata-
logus Hereticorum. 1597-1599.  Anton, Geschichte der Concordienformel.
1779.  Loscher, Historia Motuum. III.  Walch, Einlt. in d. Rel. Strtgktn.
d. ev. L. Kirche, IV.  Kollner, Die Symbolik der Luth. Kirch. Hamburg,
1837.  Johannsen, Ueber die Unterschriften des Concordienbuches, in Nled-
ners Zeitschrift fur histor. Theologie, 1847.  Goschel, Die Concordlen—
Formel, Leipzig, 1858, 242-250.  Miiller, Symb. Biicher, Einleit. CVII. 
Krauth, The Conservative Reformation.  The Decree of TTpsala. Jacobs,
Book of Concord. II. 304-307.  v. Also Literature in Chapters XXXVI and
XXXVII. ......... P- 661

Ix CONTENTS
Chapter XXVIII.
THE LUTHERAN CONFESSION.
IS THE FORMULA OF CONCORD A CONFESSION?
who made the Negative reply _ >
Zwinglians, Calvinists, Roman Catholics, Philippista,
Church of England, and Eighteenth-Century
Rationalists
the Objections usually offered
the answer to our Own Times
the Formula does not throttle Freedom today
the answer of History
the formula is a confession Historically
the answer to the objection of Multiplicity, and
that the Augsburg Confession is Sufficient
the latter has not Sufficed
the former has not Multiplied the Confessions
v. Titles in the footnotes of XXVIII, 681 seqq. . . . P- 681
Chapter XXIX.
THE LUTHERAN CONFESSION.
THE ANSWER OF A PROVIDENTIAL ORIGIN TO THE
QUESTION, IS THE FORMULA A CONFESSION?
a crying Need
the Confusion of the Reformation age
the failure of the Melanchthonian Answer
a definite and sufficient Call
history of its Origin and Completion in the light of the call.
v. Literature in Preceding and Following chapters. . . p. 700
Chapter XXX.
THE LUTHERAN CONFESSION.
THE ANSWER TO THE CRITICISMS MADE ON THE
MOTIVES AND MEN, AS TOUCHING THE QUES
TION, IS THE FORMULA A CONFESSION?
the Motive of the Formula not a party one
the Testimony of the Formula itself
^-— the Men of the Formula
Andreae, Chemnitz, Selnecker.
Hutter, Concordia Concors.  Anton, Gesch. der C.-F.  Loscher, Hist.
motuum. — ¦ — Salig, Vollstandige Historie, 1730.  Planck, Gesch. des prot.

CONTENTS lxi
Lehrbegrlffs V.  Thomasius, Das Bekenntnis der evangellsch-lutherlschen
Kirche in der Consequenz seines Prinzips, 1848.  Gasz, Gesch. der prot.
Dogm. in ihrem Zuhammenh. mit der Theol. uberh. I, 1854.  Frank, Gesch.
der prot. Theol., 1862; v. also Calinich.
Rethmeyer, der berUhmten Stadt Braunschweig Klrchen-Historie, 1707, pars
III, 1710.  GStze, Septenarius dessert, memor. D. N. Selnecceri, 1723, 1724,.
1725.  Johannsen, Zeitschr. f. hist. Th., 1853.  Pressel, Martin Chemnitz,
1862.  Lentz, Dr. Martin Chemnitz, Gotha, 1866.  Hachfeld, Martin
Chemnitz, 1867.  Pressel, Jarbb. f. d. Theol. I, 1877.  Sehiitz, Vita Davidis
Chytraei.  Andrea, J. V., Fama Andreana reflorescens, Strassburg, 1630.
Adam] Vltae Theol. 636.  Fittbogen, Jacob Andrea, Leipsic, 1881. KL, I. 818-
821.  Kolde, Prot. Real Encyk. . . , , . p. 717

Chapter XXXI.
THE LUTHERAN CONFESSION.
THE ANSWER TO THE FORMULA'S OUTER FORM TO
THE QUESTION, IS THE FORMULA A CON
FESSION?
the Title of the Formula and its Language
no confessional claim for the Solida Declaratio
is the Formula a "Commentary"
in what sense it is a mere Repetition, and not a new confession
a comparison with the Form of the Augsburg Confession
why the Formula presents doctrine by Antagonism
in what sense the Formula is a Commentary
is the Formula a treatise on Dogmatics
does the Formula represent all types of Lutheranism
does sharpness of Logical Form condemn, with the Epitome
as a confession
Miiller, Die Symbolischen Biicher.  Krauth, The Conservative Reformation. p. 729
Chapter XXXn.
THE LUTHERAN CONFESSION.
THE ANSWER OF THE FORMULA'S SUBJECT MATTER
TOUCHING THE QUESTION, IS THE FORMULA
OF CONCORD A CONFESSION?
the Subjects Treated were subjects of the day
they were agitating the whole Christian World
the need of settling them was felt by the Melanchthonians
the Formula starts by planting itself firmly on Scripture
treats the vital doctrines of Christianity, centering all in Christ
the Formula treats of Christ — His Work, Presence, Person

lxii CONTENTS
it touches the greater Questions of Christian Faith
original sin
man's freedom
infused righteousness
law or gospel
the persrn of Christ in the sacrament
Frank, Die Theologie der Concordlenformel.  Thomasius, Dogmengesch
ichte.  Miiller, Symbolische Biicher, Einleit.  Kropatscheck, Das Schrlft-
prinzip der lutherischen Kirche. — —Romberg, Die Lehre Luthers v. d. hell.
Schrift. Wittbg. 1868. . . . . . . . p. 746
Chapter XXXIII.
THE LUTHERAN CONFESSION.
THE PERSON OF CHRIST AND THE FORMULA OF
CONCORD.
the Person of Christ the Centre
the Consequences in Lutheran theology
the 'Person of Christ' in the Formula
not a new doctrine to bolster up the Real Presence
the divergence here between the two Branches of Protestantism
the doctrine of Christ is rooted in Luther
Luther on the Person of Christ in detail
Whence Luther derived this doctrine
Luther's rescue of the Sacrament
the Communicatio Idiomatum vs. the Zwinglian Alloesis
the Misrepresentation of the Lutheran Faith
the Personal Omnipresence a fundamental fact in the Person
the most potent Objection to the Personal Omnipresence
the critique of Schaff
the inconsistency of critics of the 'Ubiquity'
the scriptural origin of the Communicatio Idiomatum
the testimony of the Ancient Creeds
the testimony of the Church Fathers
the Formula and the Living Christ
Brentius, De Personall Unlone. Tubing, 1561.  Chemnitz, De Duab, nat
in Christo. Jena., 1570.  Hunnius Aeg., De Persona Christi. Frankf.,
1597.  Thummins, Majestas Jesu Christi. Tubing, 1621.  Wolf, Eutychlan-
lsm. Lutheranor. Wittenb., 1680.  Loscher, C, Cons, orthod. de Christo.
Wittenb. 1699.  Sartorius, D. L. v. Christi Person u. Werk. 1845. 
Schneckenburger, Zur Kirchi. Christol, 1848.  Gess, Die L. v. d. Person
Christi. 1856.  Thomasius, Christi Person u. Werk. 1857.  Frank, The
ologie der Konkordlen Formel. 1858.  Plitt, Elnleitung In die Augustana.
1868.  Krauth, Conservative Reformation, Chap. X. 1871.  Kostlin, The
ology of Luther, English. 1897.  Seeberg, History of Doctrines, English
1905.

CONTENTS Ixiii
Dieckhoff, Die evang. Abendmahlslehre im Reformationszeitalter. Erster
Band. GSttingen, 1854.  Schultz, Luthers Ansicht v. d. Methode u. den
Grenzen der dogmatischen Aussagen iiber Gott, ZKG. 1880; Gottheit Christi
1881, 186 ff.  Brieger, Der. Glaube Luthers in s. Freiheit von menschlichen
Autoritaten. Leipzig, 1892.  Kostlin, The Theology of Luther In Its His
torical Development and Inner Harmony, 1897. Tr. by Hay.  Kropatscheck,
Occam und Luther. Giitersloh, 1900.  Jager, Luthers religioses Interesse an
seiner Lehre von der Realprasenz. Giessen, 1900.  Kugelgen, v. Luthers
Auffassung der Gottheit Christi. 2. A. Leipzig, 1901.  Keever, A Man Who
Set Luther Thinking (Peter D'Ailly), Lutheran Church Review XX, 49, 297;
XXI, 213.  Herrmann, Der Verkehr des Christen mit Gott lm Anschluss an
Luther dargestellt. Stuttgart, 1886, 6. A. 1908. . . p. 770
Chapter XXXIV.
THE LUTHERAN CONFESSION.
CONCORDIA THE CHURCH'S CONFESSION OF CHRIST
the Material of Concordia
its Field is salvation
its Subject is Christ
the Church should stand upon the Concordia
it treats some other doctrines, but
it is the great confession of the Person and Work of Christ
Frank, Die Theologie der Concordienformel.  Krauth, The Conservative
Reformation. . ....... p. 817
Chapter XXXV.
THE LUTHERAN CONFESSION.
WHAT THE FORMULA OF CONCORD ACCOMPLISHED
AS A CONFESSION OF THE CHURCH.
it is the substance of the Gospel
set together after Protestantism had been tested
it is the confession of Teachers and Congregations
it rescued the church from a petty doctrinal Territorialism
' it recovered the church from the weaknesses of its Friends
the estimate of Seeberg
it preserved the existence of the Church
it made possible a substantial Catholic Evangelical Church
it guarded the relation of the Divine and the Human in all the
great doctrines
it settled the question of Justification, of Synergism, and of
the Sacraments
it is the white-winged standard of Peace
it is the first permanent synthesis of Luther and Melanchthon
it deserves to be accepted by the Lutheran Church
Seeberg, Formula of Concord In Herzog-Hauck Real. Cyk.  CaUnich,
Kampf und Untergang des Melanchthonlsmus in Kursachsen In d. J. 1570 bis
1674 und die Schicksale seiner vornehmsten Haupter. 1866.

lxiv CONTENTS
Chapter XXXVI.
THE LUTHERAN CONFESSION.
THE BOOK OF CONCORD. THE FACTS OF ITS ORIGIN
AND PUBLICATION. KOLDE'S ESSAY.
its Publication began in 1578.
the adoption of the Three General Creeds
the Earliest editions of the Book of Concord
the Title of the Book of Concord
the Arrangement of the Book of Concord
the Later editions
The Earliest and the Most Important Editions of the Book of Concord.
(a) German.
Concordia. Christliche, Widerholete, einmiitige Bekenntnus nachbenanter
Churfiirsten, Fiirsten und Stende Augspurgischer Confession, und der-
selben zu ende des Buchs underschriebener Theologen Lere und Glaubens, Mit
angeheffter, in Gottes wort, als der einigen Richtschnur, wolgegriindter erk-
Iarung etlicher Artickel, bei welchen nach D. Martin Luthers seligen Abster-
ben disputation und streit vorgefallen. Aus einhelliger vergleichung und beuehl
obgedachter Churfiirsten, Fiirsten und Stende, derselben Landen, Kirchen,
Schulen und Nachkommen, zum underricht und warnung in Druck vorfertiget.
Mit Churf. G. zu Sachsen befreihung. Dressden. M. D. LXXX. fol.
[Concerning the variation in the first prints of this edition, v. the
treatment in the chapter.]
Concordia.  Magdeburgk 1580. 4.
TUbingen 1580. fol. (without the Tauf- und Traubiichlein, with variations In
the signatures).
Dressden 1581. 4. (without the Tauf- und Traubiichlein, with addition of the
signatures of the Saxon theologians following the first edition).
Frankfurt a. d. O. 1581. fol.
Magdeburgk 1581. 4. (with the Preface of the Administr. Joachim Friedrich
of Juli 10, 1580.)
Magdeburgk 1580. 4. (but later than the above.)
Heydelberg 1582. fol. (without Tauf- und Traubiichl. and Catalog, testimon.
On the other hand there here are found first, — and that ahead of the others —
the signatures of the Palatine theologians, then those of Steier, Krain and
Karnthen.) Heydelberg 1582. fol. (as the former.)
Dressden 1589. fol. (with Tauf- und Traubiichl.)
Tubingen 1599. 4. (with Tauf- und Traubiichl., without the signatures of
the Austrian theologians, but with those of the Palatinate.)
Leipzig 1603. 4. (with the German Preface of the Elector Christian II,
without signatures.)
Stuttgard 1611. 4. (with Preface of the Duke Joh. Friedrich.
Leipzig 1622. 4.
Stuttgarten 1660. 4. (with Preface of the Duke Eberhard.)
Stuttgart 1681. 4.
Concordia.  With Heinr. Plppings (Int. to) Symbol. Schriften der Evan-
gel.-Luther. Kirchen. Leipzig 1703. 4. (vid. Acta Erud. Lips. a. 1703, p. 238 f.
Here first the Saechsischen Visitenartikel). — 2. Ausgabe with Christian Weiss-
ens Conclusions. Leipzig 1739. 4.
Christliches Konkordienbuch together with different variants of previous
publications, published by Siegm. Jac. Baumgarten. Halle 1747. 2 Tille. S.

CONTENTS lxv
(vid. Kraffts Neue Theol. Bibl. Bd. XI. St.)  Christi. Konk.-Buch with the
Leipz. Theol. Faeultat introduction, etc. Wittenberg 1760. 8. — 1766. — 1789.
Cvid. J. Aug. Brnesti. Neue Theol. Bibl. Bd. 1. S. 752 ff.)  Die Symb. Biicher
der evang. -luth. Kirche. with hist. Einl., Anmerkungen, ErSrterungen, etc.,
published by J. W. Schopif. Dresden. 1. Teil, 1826. 2. Tell, 1827. 8.  Con
cordia, Die Symb. Biicher der evang. -luth. Kirche, with Elnleitung.
published by P. A. Kothe. Leipzig 1830. 8.  Evang. Konkordienbucb.
Oder saemt. in dem Konkordienbuche enthaltenen symbolisehe Glaubensschrif-
ten der evang. -luth. Kirche. With Erlauterungen und kurzen gesehichtlichen
Bemerkungen aufs Neue deutsch herausgegeben von Dr. J. A. Detzer. Nuern
berg 1830. 1842. 1847.  Kvangelisches Konkordienbuch Oder die symbol.
Biicher der evang. luth. Kirche: With geschichtl. Einleit. und Anmerk.
herausgeg. von Fr. Wilh. Bodemann. Hannover 1843. (The Apology is not
in the original German text but in an original translation from the Latin.)
Concordienbuch, das ist, die symbolischen Biicher der ev. luth. Kirche.
Neue, nach dem XJrtext vom Jahre 1580 revidirte Ausgabe. Festgabe fiir das
Jubeljahr 1880. St. Louis, Mo. 1880. (b) Latin.
Concordia. — Pia et Vnanimi consensu repetita Confessio Fidel et doctrinae
Electorum, Principum et Ordinum Imperii, atque eorundem Theologorum, qui
Augustanam Confessionem amplectuntur et nomina sua huic llbro subscrip-
serunt. Cui ex sacra scriptura, vnica ilia veritatis norma et regula, quorun-
dam Articulorum, qui post Doctoris Martini Luther, felicem ex hac vita ex-
Itum, in controuersiam vener-nt solida accessit Declaratio. Cummuni Con-
silio et Mandato eorundem Electorum, Principum ac Ordinum Imperii, et
erudiendis et monendis subditis, Ecclesiis et Scholis suis, ad memoriam pos-
teritatis Typis vulgata Lipsiae. Anno MDLXXX. Cum gratia et privilegio
Elect. Sax. 4.
[Concerning the peculiarities of this (private) edition of Selnecker,
not recognized by him, v. the text of the chapter.]
Concordia. Pia — — denuo typis vulgata. Lipsiae 1584. 4.
[The first authentic edition of the Latin Text, bearing the same title
as the edition above, yet as the signatures are wanting, the following
words are also lacking in the title: et nomina subscripserunt. ]
Concordia. — Lipsiae 1602. 8. (With the Praefatio Christian II., without the
Tauf- und Traubuechlein, without signatures.) — Lipsiae 1606. 1612. 1618. 1626.
8. — Stetini 1654. 8a. E. Jenae 1654. — Lipsiae 1664. 8. — Stregnesiae 1669. 8. —
Lipsiae 1669. 8. — 1677. — Cum Appendice tripartita Dr. Adaml Rechenbergil
1678. 8. — 1698. — 1712. — 1725. — 1742.
Concordia. — Cura et cum annotat. Phil. Muelleri. Jenae 1705. 4.
[The text of this edition is unusable because it follows the Selnecker
edition of 1580 with all the errors of that edition. Otherwise it con
tains very valuable historical additions.]
Ecclesiae Evangelicae libri symbolici, tria Symb. Oecum, Aug. Conf. in-
variatae eludem Apologia, Artie. Smalcald., uterque Catech. D. Lutheri.
Form. Cone. Ffamus, C. M., ex editionlb. prim, et praest. recensuit. varias
lectiones adiunxit, allegat. locorum penitiorem indicem supplevit, loca dif-
flcilia explanavit et vindicavit, introductionem histor. praemisit, atque in
Appendice Articulos XVII. Torgenses, Confutationem A. C. a Theologis Pon-
tiflciis in Comitiis Aug. fatam, A. C. variatam, primam Apologiae A. C. de-
lineationem etc. subiunxit. Tubingae 1730. 8. vld. Unschuld. Nachr. a. 1752.
p. 263. — Libri symbolici Eccles. evang. lutheranae accuratius editi variique
generis animadvers. ac disput. illustrati a. Mich. Webero. Viteb. 1809-11. 8.
[Copies of this edition, but containing only the oecumenical creeds,
both catechisms and the Augsburg Confession with the Confutation,
are rare, as almost the whole edition was destroyed in a conflagration.]
Libri Symbolici ecclesiae evangelicae. Ad fldem-optlm. exemplorum recens.
J. A. H. Tittimann. Lipsiae 1817. 8. — 1827. — Libri Symbolici ecclesiae evan
gelicae sive Concordia. Recens. C. A. Hase. Lipsiae 1827. 8. — 1837. — 1845.—
E

lxvi CONTENTS
Libri Symbolici ecclesiae luther. ad editt. princlpes. — rec. praecipuam lectlon-
um diversitatem notav., Christ. II. ordinumque evangelicor, praefationes, artlc.
Saxon, visitator et Confut. A. C. Pontine, adj. H. H. Guil. Meyer, Goettlng.
1S30. 8. — Libri Symbolici ecclesiae Lutheranae. Pars 1. Symb. oecum., Conf.
Aug. et Apol. Confess. Pars II. Art. Smalcald. et Cateeh. uterque. Pars III.
Form. Concordia. Ad editionem Lipsiensem A. 1584. Berolini. 1857.
(c) German-Latin.
Concordia. Germanico-Latina ad optima et antiquiss. exempla recognlta,
adjectis fldeliter allegator. dlctor. S. Scr. capitibus et vers, et testimonlor.
P. P. aliorumquqe Scriptorum locis— notisque aliis. nee non indicibus, c. ap-
prob. Facult. Theol. Lips. Witt, et Rostoch. Studio Ch. Reineceii. Lipsiae
1708. 4. — 1735.
Christliches Koncordienbuch. Deutsch und Lateinisch mit historischen Ein-
leitungen J. G. Walchs. Jena 1750. 8.
Die symbolischen Biicher der evangelisch-luthei-ischen Kirche, deutsch und
lateinisch. 'Neue sorgfaitig durch-gesehene Ausgabe, mit den sachsischen
Visitations-Artikeln, einem Verzeichnis abvveichender Lesarten, historischen
Einleitungen jmd ausfUhrlichen Registern. -Besorgt von J. T. Miiller. Stutt
gart, 1848. (d) Translations.
Dutch: Concordia of Lutherische Geloofs Belydenis in't llcht gegeven door
Zach. Dezius. Rotterdam, 1715, 8vo.  Swedish: Libri Concordiae Versio
Suecic, Christeliga, och Uprepade och Laras, etc. Norkoping, 1730, 4to. 
English: The Christian Book of Concord, or Symbolical Books of the Evan
gelical Lutheran Church, translated by Ambrose and Socrates Henkel, (two
Lutheran clergymen of Virginia), with the assistance of several other Luth
eran clergymen. Newmarket, Virginia, 1851; 2d ed. revised, 1854.  The
Book of Concord; or. The Symbolical Books of the Evangelical Lutheran
Church. Jacobs. Philadelphia, 1882.
THE CHIEF CONTROVERSIAL PUBLICATIONS.
Theologorum et Ministrorum Ecclesiarum in ditione Jo. Casimiri Palatini
Admonitio Christiana de libro Concordiae, queni vocant, a. quibusdam Theo-
logis, nomine quorundam Ordinum Aug. Confessionum. edita Neustadii In
Palatinatu. 1584. 4. — Warhaffte und christliche Verantwortung der Predi-
ger zu Bremen — von der Person Christi, h. Tauff, h. Abendmahl, Wahl, Cere-
monien. Bremen 1581. 4.  Chr. Irenaei, Examen des ersten Artickels und
des Wirbelgeistes. im neuen Concordienbuche. 1581.  Apologia Oder Verantw.
des Christi. Concordien-Buchs. Gestellt durch etl. hierzu verord. Theol., a.
1583. Heydelberg 1583. Wahrhaffte Christi. und gegruendte Widerlegung der
vermeynten Entschuld. der Prediger zu Bremen in den Art. von der Person
Christi und H. Abendtmal. Heydelberg 1583. fol. 1. and 2. part of the Erfurt
Apology of Tim. Kirchner. Nick. Selecker and Mart. Chemnitz, usually called
the Erfurt Book. Part 3 : Refutatio Irenaei, Gruendtl. Bericht auf das Ex
amen M. Chr. Irenaei. Heydelberg 1583. fol. — - — The same 1593. 4.  Apologia
oder Verantwort. des Christi. Concord.-Buchs etc. Dressden 1584. fol. (Edi
tions Magdeburg 15S4. Erfurt 15S4 etc. Lat. Heidelberg 1583. f.) Part 4 (vid.
Salig. Historie der Augsb. Konfession I, 744 f.): Gruendliche wahrhafftige His
torie von der Augspurgischen Confession etc. Leipzig 1584. Magdeburg 15S4,
also called Historie des Sakramentsstreits, directed against Ambrosius Wolf
(Christ. Herdesianus), Historie der Augsburgischen Confession, Wider die
Patres Bergenses und anderen Vbiquitisten ' verfuehrerischen Betrug. Neu-
stadt a. d. Hardt 1580. 4.  Aeg. Hunnii, Nothwend. Verantwort, des christi.
Concordibuchs wider Dan. Hoffmanni Beschuld. I. als sollt des H. Christi
nach s. Menschl. Natur. Gegenwaert. in Regierung aller Creat. im Buch der
Concord, nicht begriffen sein; II. dass das Concordibuch nach allgem. Un-
terschreibung gefehrlicher Weiss mutirt sey. Frankfurt am Mayn 1597. 
Also. Dess. Wlderleg. der ungegruendten Aufflagen, and Dan. Hoffmann  ¦

CONTENTS Ixvii
Hunnll Bekendnis  verdaechtig zu machen sich unterstanden beneben
verantwort. des Concordibuchs. Frankf. a. M. 1597. 4.  Lconh. Hutteri,
Explicatio libri chr. Concordiae. Witeb. 1608 u. oefter.  Rud. Hospinianus,
Concordia discors h. c. de origine et progressio Formulae Bergensis. Tig.
1607.  Genev. 1687.  Against this: Leonh. Hutteri, Concordia concors, de
orlg. et. progressu F. C. — liber unus. Witeb. 1614 fol. 1621. 4. Lips. 1690. 4.
OLDER PUBLICATIONS ON THE HISTORY.
Feuerlini, Bibliotheca symb. evang. -lutherana — aucta et locuplet. — ed. J. B.
RIederer. Norlmb. 1768. 2 Tom. 8. — Jo. Bened. Carpzov, Isagoge In libros
eccleBlarum lutheranarum symbolicos. Op. posthum. a. J. Oleario contin.
ed. J. B. Carpzov (filius), Lipsiae 1665. 4. — 1675. — 1691. — -1699. — 1725. 
Jo. Georg Walch, Introductio in libros Ecclesiae Lutheranae symbolicos, ob-
servatlonibus historicis et theologicis illustrata. Jenae 1732. 4.  Alb. Men-
onis Verpoortennii Analecta ad libros Symbolicos Ecclesarium invariat. Aug
ust. Confess, addictarum. Gedani 1743. 4. — Siegm. Jac. Baumgarten, Erleuter-
ungen der im christi. Concordlenbuche enthalt. symb. Schr. der ev.-luth.
Kirche, nebst einem Anhange von den uebrigen Bekenntnissen und feierllchen
Lehrbuchern in ged. Kirche. Halle 1747-1761. 8. . . . p. 832
Chapter XXXVII.
FROM THE BOOK OF CONCORD TO THE PRESENT DAY.
how Christian Union and the Formula have worked, according
summary of the early Lutheran Dogmatik [to Schaff
the Reaction in Calixtus
the drop into modern Individualism in Europe
the modern situation in America
the comparative importance of Dogmatic System
FROM THE BOOK OF CONCORD TO THE PRESENT DAT. SUMMARY OF
THE LUTHERAN DOGMATIK.
The treatises of Chemnitz, Hutter, Gerhard, Quenstedt, Calovius, Baler,
Hoilazius, Buddeus, already mentioned, also Schleiermacher, Harms, Honing,
Rudelbach, Schenkel, Guericke, Sartorius, Harless, Kliefoth, Lbhe, Vil-
mar, Hengstenberg, Kahnis, Thomasius, Philippi, Frank, Ziickler, Krauth,
Walther, Fritschel, Spaeth, Stellhorn and Jacobs, with the following: Her
mann, Gesch. der prot. Dogm. 1842.  Hase, Hutter. rediv. Oder Dogm. der
evangT luth. Kirche. 1 Aufl. 1828. 2 Aufl. 1833. 7 Aufl. 1848. 11 Aufl. 1868. 
Review of Schmid's Dogmatik of the Lutheran Church. Ev. Rev. 1, 119.
July, 1849.  Schmid, H., Die Dogm. der ev.-luth. Kirche, dargest. u. aus
den Quellen belegt. 5. Aufl. 1863.  Gasz, Gesch. der prot. Dogm. in ihrem
Zusammenh. mit der Theol. iiberh. I. 1854. Die Grundlegung u. der Dog-
mat.  Heppe, Dogm. des deutsch. Protestantism im 16. Jahrh. 3 Bde.
1857.  Gesch. der Dogm. des 16. Jahrh.  Kahnis, Luther. Dogm. I. 1861.
S. 15-128. Gesch. der luth. Dogmatik.  Frank, G., Gesch, der prot. Theol.
I. 1862.  Hundeshagen, Beitrage zur Kirchenverfassungsgeschichte und
Kirchenpolitik, insbesondere des Protestantismus, 1864, Abt. III. Die unter-
scheidende religiose Grundelgentiimllchkeit des luth. und des ref. Protestant
ismus.  Dorner, Gesch. der prot. Theol. 1867.  Stange, C, Das Dogma
und seine Beurteilung in der neueren Dogmengeschichte 1898.  Seeberg, Die
Kirche Deutschlands im neunzehnten Jahrhundert.— Tischhauser, Geschichte
der Evang. Kirche Deutschlands, Basel, 1900, pp. 343 et seqq.  Ritscbl, Otto,
Dogmengeschichte des Protestantismus I. Leipzig, 1908.  Hoenecke, A.,
Dogmatik. Milwaukee, 1909.
An English, translation of Harms Theses Is found in The Lutheran Cy
clopedia. New York, 1899. . . . • ¦ • p. 840

lxviii CONTENTS
Chapter XXXVITI.
THE BOOK OF CONCORD AND HISTORICAL LUTHER
ANISM IN AMERICA.
Luther and the Discovery of America Contemporary
was this Providential
the Lutheran Church Coming to America
it came on the basis of the Unaltered Augsburg Confession
and the Book of Concord,
the Lutheran Church in New York
the Swedes on the Delaware
Justus Falckner, the first minister to be ordained
the Palatine Immigration, with the Savoy Constitution
John Caspar Stoever and his churches in Pennsylvania
Henry Melchior Muhlenberg in Pennsylvania
the Book of Concord the foundation of all his churches
the Ministerium of Pennsylvania
the words of Melanchthon as applicable to the Book of Concord
I. WORKS
Hallesche Nachrichten von den vereinigten Deutschen Evangelisch-Luther-
ischen Gemeinen in Nord America. Mann-Sehmucker-Germann, Allentown,
1886.  Documentary History of the Evangelical Lutheran Mln-
isteriumofPennsylvania*ndAdja.centStates. 1748
to 1821. Board of Publication of the General Council of the Evangelical Lu
theran Church in North America. Philadelphia, 1898.  Nicum, Geschichte
des New York's Ministerium. Reading, Pa., 1888.  Schmauk, History of the
Lutheran Church in Pennsylvania. General Council Board of Publication.
Philadelphia. I, 1903.  Bernheim, History of the German Settlements
and of the Lutheran Church in North and South Carolina. Philadelphia, the
Lutheran Book Store, 1872.  Mann, Life and Times of Henry Melchior
Muhlenberg, Philadelphia, 1887.  Schmucker, B. M„ The Organization of
the Congregation in the Early Lutheran Churches in America. Luth. Ch.
Rev. 1887. VI. 188.  Wolf, The Lutherans in America. New York, 1889. 
Nicum, Die Lutheraner in America. New York, 1891.  Nicum, Confessional
History of the Lutheran Church in the United States in Pro. of Amer. Soc.
of Ch. Hist., Dec, 1891. New York, 1892.  Grubner, Geschichte der Luth
erischen Kirche in America. I. St. Louis, 1892.  Jacobs, History of the
Lutheran Church in the United States. Christian Literature Co., 1893. 
Loy-Valentine-Fritschel-Jacobs-Pieper-Horn, Distinctive Doctrines, 1893. 
Morris, Sources of Information on the History of the Lutheran Church In
America. 1895.  Fritschel, G. J., Geschichte der Lutherischen Kirche in
Amerika. Giitersloh. 1896.  Ochsenford, Krotel, Spaeth, Jacobs, In Com
memoration of the 150th Anniversary of the Ministerium of Pennsylvania, 1748-
1898. [Reprint from Lutheran Church Review, January and April, 1898.] 
Jacobs-Haas, The Lutheran Cyclopedia, New York, 1899.  Spaeth, in
Herzog-Hauck Realencyklopadie: Die lutherische Kirche, in article Nordamer-
ika, 1903. Also New Schaff-Herzog, 1910. VII.  Neve-Stump, Brief History
of the Lutheran Church in America. Burlington, 1904.  Spaeth, Charles
Porterfleld Krauth, 1S98-1909. I 330-413. II. 1-246.  Richard, J. W„ The
Confessional History of the Lutheran Church. Philadelphia, 1909.

CONTENTS lxix
II. ARTICLES IN PERIODICALS AND SPECIAL
WORKS
1833. ,
Kurtz The Lutheran Observer.

1842
Greenwald Loy 1864

The Lutheran Standard.

1843.
Walther Der Lutheraner.
" Lehre und "Wehre.
1847.
Brobst Der Jugend-Freund.
1849.
The Evangelical Review. I-XXI. Gettysburg, 1849-1870.
Krauth, C. P., Schmid's Dogmatik. I. 119.  Thomasius, trans, by C. P.
Krauth, Sr., The Principle of Protestantism. I. 199; II. 215-236.  Krauth,
C. P., The Relation of Our Confessions to the Ref., with An Outline of the
Early His. of the Augs. Confession. I. 234.
1834-1870.
Schmucker, S. S. Elements of Popular Theology, Andover, 1834, 9th ed.
1860; Fraternal Appeal to the American Churches on Christian Union, New
York, 1838; The American Lutheran Church, historically, doctrinally and
practically delineated, Phila., 1851; The Lutheran Manual on Scriptural Prin
ciples, or The Augsburg Confession illustrated and sustained by Scripture
and Lutheran Theologians, Phila., 1855; The Lutheran Symbols, or Vindica
tion of American Lutheranism, Baltimore, 1856; The Church of the Redeemer
as developed within the General Synod of the Evangelical Lutheran Church,
Baltimore, 1867; Tfue Unity of Christ's Church, New York, 1870.
1850.
May 27, 1850. The Pennsylvania Ministerium renews its adherence to the
Symbolical Books, v. Proceedings of Ministerium in Pottsville, p. 12: "The
Conference desired that the Synod should give an expression of opinion in
regard to the Symbolical Books, and especially with reference to the Un
altered Augsburg Confession. This opened a wide field for discussion. A
number of the brethren embraced this opportunity of expressing their opin
ions upon this subject. All spoke freely, and after the matter had been dis
cussed for some time in a kind and harmonious spirit, the following reso
lution was unanimously adopted:
"Resolved, That, like our fathers, we regard ourselves as a part of "the
one and only Evangelical Lutheran Church, that we too acknowledge the
Word of God as contained in the Holy Scriptures as the only ground of our
faith, and that we too have never renounced the Confessions of our Church,
but continue to regard them as a faithful exposition of the Divine Word."
Schaeffer, C. F., Symbolic Theology. Ev. Rev. I. 457-483.  Krauth, C. P.,
Sr., The Lutheran Church in the United States. II. 1-16.  Schaeffer, C. F.,
Symnolic Theology. II. 36-57.  Krauth, C. P., Translation of The Articles
of Torgau. II. 78-84.  Hoffman, J. N, The Ev. Lutheran Church. Her
Wrongs and Difficulties. Designed to Meet the Antagonistic Tendency of Our
Age and Country. II. 265-281.

lxx CONTENTS

1851.
Henkel, Book of Concord, New Market, Virginia.  Schaeffer, C. F., Tho
Atonement in the Symbolical Books. Ev. Rev. II. 301-320. — Hoffman, J. N.,
The Symbols. II. 402-409.  Planck, Effect of the Adoption of the Formula
of Concord, etc., translation. II. 412-421.  Schmucker, S. S., Vocation of
the American Lutheran Church. II. 489-512. — Lintner, G. A., Ecclesiastical
Standards. II. 512-523.  Schmucker, S. S., The Nature of the Saviour's
Presence in the Eucharist (an argument that Luther's interpretation is fig
urative, that there is no real presence, that the doctrine of the Ubiquity
will not hold. The article is summed up by the author as follows: "That
there is no real or actual presence of the glorified human nature of the Sav
iour either substantial or influential, nor anything mysterious or supernatural
in the eucharist; yet, that whilst the bread and wine are merely symbolic
representations of the Saviour's absent body, by which we are reminded of
his sufferings, there is also a peculiar and special spiritual blessing
bestowed by the divine Saviour on all worthy communicants, by which their
faith and Christian graces are confirmed"). III. 34-64.  Schaeffer, C. F.,
The Nature of Fundamental Doctrines. III. 65-87.  Schmid, H. I., Scrip
tural Character of the Lutheran Doctrine of the Lord's Supper (a reply to
Schmucker). III. 198-255.  Thomasius, trans, by C. P. Krauth, Sr., The
Protestant Principle (continued). III. 274, 320.
1852.
Hartmann, "On the Real Presence of Christ in the Lord's Supper." An
Answer to Schmucker. Kirchen-Freund.
Schaeffer, C. F., The Lutheran Doctrine of Election. Ev. Rev. III. 359-
389.  Krauth, C. P., Martin Luther. III. 451-491.  Loy, M., The Necessity
and Authority of Apostolic Tradition. III. 537-554.  Krauth, C. P., Works
of Melanchthon, a Review of Corpus Reformatorum. III. 575. — ¦ — Sartorius,
The Necessity and Obligations of Confessions of Faith, trans, by J. A. Seiss.
IV. 1-34. — Walther, F., trans., The Delegation of the Missouri Synod in Ger
many, 1851-1852. IV. 63-83, 544-578. 1853.
Schock, J. L., Symbolism Not Opposed to Evangelical Religion. IV. 293-
309.  Thomasius, The Christology of the Church. IV. 83, 385, 508; V. 35,
214.  The Church and Her Ministry. IV. 413-431.  Loy, M„ The Lutheran
Cultus. IV. 524-544.  Krauth, C. P., The Church As Set Forth in the Con
fessions of Christendom; trans. Guericke Symbolik. V. 17-34.  -Krauth, C.
P., The Services of the Reformation Church. V. 151-189.  Schaeffer, C. F.,
The Confession of the Ev. Lutheran Church. V. 189-213.
1854.
Henkel, Book of Concord, Revised. 1855.
"Definite Platform, Doctrinal and Disciplinarian." (Offered "as a more
specific expression of the General Synod's doctrinal basis, being surrounded
by German churches which possess the entire mass of former Symbols." It
charges the Augsburg Confession with five errors, two of which are, Baptis
mal Regeneration, and the Real Presence.)  Reynolds, W. M., The Lutheran
Church in the New Netherlands. Ev. Rev. VI. 303-329.  Kliefoth, Divine
Worship As Originally Held in the Churches of the Lutheran Confession,
trans, by B. M. Schmucker. VI. 576-594.  Loy, M., The Nature of the
Church. VII. 215-234. 1856.
Hoffmann, J. N., The Broken Platform.  Passavant, W. A., The Mission
ary, with extracts from Luther's Works, trans, by C. P. K., of Pittsburg.
Schmucker, S. S., The Lutheran Symbols, or Vindication of American
Lutheranism.

CONTENTS lxxi
1856.
The Lutheran.
Loy, M., The Unity of the Church. Ev. Rev. VIII. 1-33.
1857.
Mann, W. J., Lutheranism in America; an Essay on the Present Condi
tion of the Lutheran Church in the United States, with a very discriminative
Introduction on the Lutheran Church in that day. Philadelphia, 152.
Schaeffer, C. F., Baptismal Regeneration. Ev. Rev. VIII. 303-354.  Rey
nolds, On Dr. Schmucker's Lutheran Symbols. VIII. 452-485.  Brown, J. A.,
The New Theology (that of S. S. Schmucker). IX. 91-109.  Krauth, C. P.
History of Theological Encyclopedia, .in the Lutheran Church. IX. 278-292. 
Krauth, C. P., German Theology from January to June. IX. 292-297.
1858.
Brobst, Die Lutherische Zeitschrift.
Schaeffer, C. F., The Three Saxon Electors of the Era of the Reformation.
Ev. Rev. IX. 451-486; X. 36-74, 461-506.  Translation of Schmid's Dog
matik of the Lutheran Church. IX. 496-510; X. 214-231, 578-586; 1859. XI.
194-202; 1864. XV. 564-570; 1868. XIX. 16f£. 259ff.; 1870. XXI. 299-321. 
Krauth, C. P., Select Analytic Bibliography of the Augsburg Confession. X.
16-30.  Lasar, H. S., Liturgical Studies Translated from Hoefling. X. 105-
124, 232-296. 1859.
The Present Position of the Lutheran Church. XI. 1-43.  Justification by
Faith Alone. ("The foregoing article came to us without a name our
readers will take it for what it is worth . . the standpoint of the writer
is strictly symbolical, but that does not preclude him from a hearing in our
pages. Editors.") XI. 225-254. 1860.
Krauth, C. P., In Luth. and Miss. Liturgies. Oct. 19th.  Christian Liberty
in Relation to the Usages of the Evangelical Lutheran Church Maintained and
defended. Two Sermons at St. Mark's Church, Philadelphia, Mar. 25. Phila
delphia, H. B. Ashmead. 8vo. 72.  Melanchthon on the Divine Nature, trans.
from the Loci. Ev. Rev. XII. 1-46.  A. Commendation and Critique of C. P.
Krauth's Sermons on Christian Liberty. XII. 161-173.  Krauth, C. P., The
Evangelical Mass and the Romish Mass, a contribution to the Defence of the
Augsburg Confession, and the History of the Reformation. XII. 263-319.
1861.
Krauth, C. P., In Lutheran and Missionary. The Ministry and Church
Polity. March 1st and 15th, June 7th.  Hay, C. A., Ev. Rev. XII. 401-
429.  Reynolds, W. M., The Ministerium Question. XII. 463-488.  Reynolds,
W. M., German Emigration to North America. XIII. 1-27.  Harnack, T.,
H., trans, by F. A. Muhlenberg. Theses Upon the Church with Particular
Reference to the Determination of Them, by our Symbolical Books. XIII.
122-134; 267-292.  Loy, M., The Ministerial Oflice. XIII. 199-248.
1862.
Krauth, C. P., In Luth. and Miss. Liturgies, May 29th, June 5th, June 26th,
Aug. 14th, Sept. 4th and 25th, Dec. 4th and 11th.
1863.
Krauth, C. P., The Evangelical Lutheran Church; Her Difficulty, Perils,
Defense, Victory and Perpetuity. Philadelphia. 15.  Krauth, C. P.,
In Luth. and Miss., The Ministry and Church Polity. July 16th, 23d and
30th, Aug. 20th, Sept. 3d.  Schaeffer, C. F., M. Flacius Illyricus and His
Times. Ev. Rev. XIV. 481-522.  Sternberg, L., The Lord's Supper. (Against
the Lutheran Doctrine.) XIV. 558-578.

lxxii CONTENTS
1864.
Sartorius, trans, by G. A. Wenzel, The Lord's Supper. XV. 71ff. 311ft. 
Conrad, F. W., The Confessors and the Confession of Augsburg. XV. 246-273.
1865.
Brown, J. A., The Reformation the Work of God. XVI. 1-11. — Loy, M., The
Lutheran Doctrine of Ordination. XVI. 303-328.  Schmucker, B. M., and
Krauth, C. P., Installation Addresses at the Philadelphia Seminary. XVI.
426-448. 1866.
Krauth, C. P., Call for the Convention which formed the General Council,
August 10th.  Krauth, C. P., The Fundamental Principles of Faith and
Church Polity of the General Council, December 12-14.  Krauth, C. P., In
Luth. and Miss., Liturgies, Jan. 25th, Feb. 22d, Mar. Sth, Oct. 11th, Nov.
15th and 22d.  Seiss, J. A., Ecclesia Lutherana. Ev. Rev. XVII. 157-193. 
Krauth, C. P., Baptism. XVII. 309-372.  Schaeffer, C. W., The Lord's Supper.
XVII. 369-381.  Plitt, translated by J. D. Sevringhaus, The Scriptural Idea
of the Ministry. XVII. 381-390. 1867.
Krauth, C. P., Iri Luth. and Miss. Liturgies, Jan. 10th, Feb. 14th, Mar.
2!th, Apr. 25th, May 2d, Dec. 19th.— — Lochman-Hay-Valentine, Inauguration
Addresses. Ev. Rev. XVIII. 1-25.  Krauth, C. P., Shedd's History of Chris
tian Doctrine. XVIII. 56-82.  Brown, J. A., The General Synod and Its
Assailants. XVIII. 120-147.  Theses of the Missouri Synod. XVIII. 157-
161.  Stuckenberg, J. H., The Authorship of the Augsburg Confession.
XVIII. 279-290.  Conrad, F. W., Confessions of Faith. XVIII. 351-380. 
Krauth, C. P., The Person of Our Lord and I is Sacramental Presence. XVIII.
395-436.  Chemnitz, M-, Conversion. Translated by H. E. Jacobs. XVIII.
536-544.  Sprecher, S., Article Second of the Augsburg Confession. XVIII.
567-695. 1868.
Krauth, C. P., The Augsburg Confession, translated with Introduction,
Notes and Index. Philadelphia. 91.  Krauth, C. P., In Luth. and Miss.,
Lutheranism and Calvinism. Feb. (4th Art.).  Valentine, M., The Refor
mation. Ev. Rev. XI2:. 154-166.  Schmucker, S. S., The Church of the Re
deemer as developed within the General Synod of the Lutheran Church in
America, with an Historic Outline from the Apostolic Age. To which is ap
pended a Plan for restoring union between all orthodox denominations.
Noticed. XIX. 167.  Dorpat Theological Faculty, Opinion of, Confessional
et extra-Confessional. Trans, by Koons, E, J. XIX. 232-258.
1869.
Krauth, C. P., Fifty-six Theses on the Ministerial Office, prepared for the
Ministerium of Pennsylvania.  Krauth, C. P., In Luth. and Miss., Liturgical
Controversy in the German Reformed Church. Aug. (3d Art.)  Krauth, C.
P., The Reformation, Its Occasions and Cause. Ev. Rev. XX. 94-112.  Th»
Lutheran Church in the United States of America. XX. 113-125.  Beck, J.
T., The Christian Church, Trans, by E. J. Wolf. XX. 418-440.  Valentine,
M., Justification by Faith. XX. 481-524.  Stuckenberg, J. H., The Special
llission of The Lutheran Publication Society. XX. 462-474.
1870.
Krauth, C. P., The New Testament Doctrine of the Lord's Supper as Con
fessed by the Lutheran Church. Mercersburg Review. XVII. 165. 72. 
Krauth, C. P., Theses on Justification, for the General Council. 1870.  ¦
Harkey, S. L., The Question of Close Communion in the Lutheran Church
Ev. Rev. XXI. 111-127.  Jacobs, H. E. Martin Chemnitz and the Council
Of Trent. XXI. 398-415.

CONTENTS lxxiii
1871.
Krauth, C. P., The Conservative Reformation and Its Theology. Phila.
1875.
Krauth, In Luth. and Miss., Pulpit and Altar Fellowship. Dec. (14 Art.)
1876.
Krauth, In Luth. and Miss., Pulpit and Altar Fellowship. June. (14 Art.)
1877.
Krauth, C. P., Theses on Pulpit and Altar Fellowship, prepared by order
of the General Council. 32.  Krauth. C. P., Religion and Religionisms.
Sermon before the General Council.  Proceedings of First Lutheran Diet in
America. Philadelphia. 346. 1878.
Krauth, C. P., A Chronicle of the Augsburg Confession. Philadelphia.
92.  Proceedings of Second Lutheran Diet in America. Philadelphia. 282.
1882.
The Lutheran Church Review. I-XXIX. 1882-1910.
Schmucker, The First Pennsylvania Liturgy. I. 16-27, 161-172.  Schmuck
er, Early History of the Tulpehocken Churches. I. 292-302.
1883.
Schmucker, The Rite of Confirmation. II. 89-103, 230-253.  Schaeffer, C.
W., In Memoriam: Charles Porterfleld Krauth. II. 143-153.
1884.
Seiss-Jacobs, Inaugural Addresses. III. 1-16.  Martin, A., The Missouri
Doctrine of Election. III. 55-67.  Krauth, The Controversy on Predestina
tion.- III. 68-71.  Schmucker, The Lutheran Church in the City of New
York. III. 204-222, 276-295; IV. 127-151, 187-209.
1885.
Ochsenford, The Lutheran Church in America. IV. 12-28.  Jacobs, The
Strasburg Formula of 1563. IV. 49-54.— — Spaeth, The General Council of
the Evangelical Lutheran Church in North America. IV. 81-126.
1886.
Norelius, The Swedish Lutheran Church in America. V. 24-44.  Ochsen
ford, Luther on the Church Service. V. 59-63.  Ochsenford, Causes Lead
ing to the Organization of the General Council. V. 217-243.  Schaeffer, C. W.,
The Wittenberg Concord. V. 249-264.  Kunze, J. C, Appendix to "Hymn
and Prayer-Book" in the Lutheran Church. V. 292-301. [Reprint.]
1887.
Nicum, The Doctrinal Development of the New York Ministerium. VI. 68-
77, 140-152.  Mann, Lutherans in America before Muhlenberg. VI. 93-
114.  The Philadelphia Evangelical Movement. VI. 78-82.  Schmucker, The
Organization of the Congregation in the Early Lutheran Churches of America,
VI. 188-226.  Jacobs, Henry Melchior Muhlenberg. VI. 244-250.  Spaeth,
Luther's Doctrine of the Church. VI. 272-286.  Schmucker, English Trans
lations of the Augsburg Confession. VI. 5-38.
Holman Foundation, Lectures on the Augsburg Confession, In Gettysburg.
1866-1886. Philadelphia, 1888. 1888.
Spaeth, The German Lutheran Conference in Germany. VII. 5-17.  Mann,
The Conservatism of Henry Melchior Muhlenberg. VII. 18-46.  Krotel,
Washington Conference. VII. 79-95.  Mann, Von Scheele's Symbolik. VII.
96-107.-  Schaeffer, Luther's Doctrine In Its First Stage. VII. 108-118. 
Ochsenford, Lutheran History. VII. 119-136.  Schaeffer, C. F., The Present
Transition Stage of the Lutheran Church in America [1853]. VII. 185-210.

Ixxiv CONTENTS
1889.
Jacobs, Modern Calvinism. A Review of Shedd's Dogmatic Theology. VIII.
73-104.  Spaeth, Memorial of B. M. Schmucker. VIII. 105-127.  Jacobs,
German Theology of the Nineteenth Century. VIII. 173-189.  Jacobs, The
Theology of the General Synod. VIII. 210-225.  Jacobs, Some Considera
tions Involved In the Fellowship Question. VIII. 243-279.
1890.
Early, Constitution of the Ministerium of North America [1781]. IX.
254-269. 1891.
Horn, E. T., Luther on the Principles and Order of Christian Worship. X.
217-256.  Selss-Fry-Hilprecht, Charge and Inaugural Addresses. X. 267-287.
1892.
Early, The Ministerium of Pennsylvania and the Organization of the Gen
eral Synod. XI. 61-70, 172-186.  Plitt, G. L„ The Distinctive Doctrines of
the Lutheran Church. XI. 146-171.  Jacobs, Archbishop Hermann of
Cologne and His "Consultation." XI. 301-344.
1893.
The Lutheran World.
Horn, The Threefold Interim. Luth. Ch. Rev. XII. 75-119.  Nicum, Prof.
Graebner's History. XII. 178-1SS, 256-276.  Schaeffer, C. W., Muhlenberg's
Defense of Pietism. XII. 349-375. 1894.
Schaeffer, C. W., The Lutheran Church in the United States. XIII. 81-
88.  Spieker, G. F., The Influence of Rationalism in the Lutheran Church in
America. XIII. 226-233. 1895.
Frick, Lutheranism in the Great Northwest. XIV. 126-147.  Morris, J. G.,
Sources of Information of the Lutheran Church in America. XIV. 165-186.
1896.
Jacobs, The Mission of the Lutheran Confession in America. XV. 127-133. 
Haas, G. C. F., Why We Lutherans Cannot Unite With Other Bodies in
American Christianity. XV. 161-168.  Fritschel, The Lutheran Doctrine of
the Word. XV. 182-185.  Geissinger, The Lutheran Teaching of the Person
of Christ. XV. 192-194.  Jacobs, C. W. Schaeffer. XV. 369-3S1.  Remen-
enyder, The Early History of the Lutherans in New York City. XV. 382-386.
1897.
Krotel, The Beginnings of the Philadelphia Lutheran Theological Seminary.
XVI, Iff., 368ff., 658ff.  Sachse, J. F., The Genesis of the Lutheran Church
in Pennsylvania. XVI. 60, 283, 435, 521; 1899. XVIII. 118-121.  Jacobs,
Melanchthon as a Theologian and Reformer. XVI. 93-96.  Horn, The
Strength and Weakness of Melanchthon. XVI. 99-100.  Spieker, The In
fluence of Melanchthon on the History of the Lutheran Church. XVI. 100. 
Spaeth, Melanchthon in American Lutheran Theology. XVI. 104-106.
1898.
Haas, J. A. W., On the Genesis of the Augsburg Confession (A reply to
theories advocated by J. w. Richard). XVII. 15-29.  One Hundredth An
niversary of the Ministerium of Pennsylvania (for the various articles v.
supra).-  Krotel, Beginning of the Seminary. XVII. 294-311, 441-453.  ¦
Jacobs, The Confessional History of the Ministerium of Pennsylvania. XVII.
358-369.  Scbmauk, Life of Philip Schaff. XVII. 696-704.
1899.
Fritschel, G. J., Luther and Zwingli. XVIII. 194-206, 658-670; 1900. XIX.
63-73.  The General Conference in Philadelphia. Various articles. XVIII.
255-334.  Early, Kurtz's Account of the Ministerium in 1749. XVIII. 675-
677.

CONTENTS Ixxv
1900.
Selss, The Story of the "Definite Platform." XIX. 623-632.
1901.
Spaeth, C. S. Fritschel. XX. 1-29.  Sachse, Pennsylvania a Lutheran
Colony. XX. 277-292. 1903.
Schmauk, The Right of Freedom of Inquiry and Discussion in the Luth
eran Church. XXII. 51-63.  Nicum, The General Lutheran Conference at
Watertown. Against an Indictment of the General Council. XXII. 353-364,
574. 1904.
Fritschel, G. J., What Is Necessary for Union Among Lutherans. XXIII.
J7-81.  Nicum, The General Conference in Milwaukee. XXIII. 121-135, 280-
306.  Stump, J., Why Missouri Refuses Fellowship with Iowa. XXIII. 345-
366.  Breckenridge, S. F., The Conservative Theology. XXIII. 525-537. 
Stellhorn, F. W., What Separates Ohio and Missouri. XXIII. 550-567. 
Deindoerfer, Why Missouri Refuses Fellowship with Iowa. XXIII. 568-572. 
Nicum, The Convention of German Lutherans at Detroit. XXIII. 573-590. 
Nicum, The Third General Conference of Lutherans, Held in Pittsburg,
Pa. XXIII. 597-625.  Fritschel, The Intersynodical Conferences and Their
Object. XXIII. 693-717.  Keyser, L. S., Christian Fellowship and Unity of
Doctrine. XXIII. 777-787.  Schmauk, Shall the General Council Change
Its Confessional Basis? XXIII. 796-798.  Schmauk, The Greater Unity of
Lutherans in America. XXIII. 362-384. 1905.
Spaeth, International Lutheranism. XXIV. 1-15.  Oehlkers, The Luth
eran Confessions in Practical Life, Translated by C. T. Benze. XXIV. 344-
352.  Spaeth, Concordia, Translated by C. T. Benze. XXIV. 631-643. 
Nicum, Intersynodical Conference in Fort Wayne. XXIV. 726-731.— — Schmauk,
The Confessional Soundness of Early Lutheranism in America. XXIV. 248-
262.  Schmauk, Th- International Lutheran Conference. XXIV. 593-603. 
Schmauk, The Doctrinal and Churchly Development of the General Coun
cil. XXIV. 749-754. 1906.
Stellhorn, The Scripture Doctrine of Article XI. of the Formula of Concord
Translated by Benze. XXV. 237-248.  Schmauk, The General Council and
the Federation of Protestant Churches. XXV. 167-207.
1907.
Nicum, The Significance of the Inter-Synodical Conferences, Including the
Fifth, at Fort Wayne. XXVI. 109-123.  Stellhorn, Missouri and Ohio in
Their Last Conflict at Fort Wayne. XXVI. 124-129.  Schmauk, The Charity
of a General Synod View of the General Council. XXVI. 130-136.  Bren
ner, W., Pulpit and Altar Fellowship. XXVI. 784-788.  Schmauk, The
Bearings of Dr. Loy's Life on the Lutheran Church in this Land. XXVI. 190.
1908.
Schmauk, Christ All and in All in Our Church. XVII. 1-32.  Jacobs, The
First Synod. XXVII. 108-114, 236-244.  Mathias, H. J., Close Communion.
XXVII. 271-281.  Schmauk, The General Council after Forty Years. XXVII.
176-185. 1909.
Offermann, H., The Lutheran Doctrine of Justification by Faith. XXVIII.
369-374, 565-578.  Schuh, H. J„ The Lutheran Pastor and Civic Problems.
XXVIII. 619-036.  Schmauk, The Federation of Churches. XXVIII. 131-
146.  Schmauk, The Confessional History of the Lutheran Church by J. W.
Richard. XXVIII. 488-498.

lxxvi CONTENTS
1910.
Schmauk, Dr. C. P. Krauth. XXIX. 420-456.  Diehl, T. H., Reminiscences
of Rev. S. K. Brobst and His Times. XXIX. 326-342, 478-499, 836-854. 
Jacobs, C. M., The Augsburg Confession. XXIX, 695-709. Continued in the
first two issues of Vol. XXX.  Schmauk, The Death of Dr. Spaeth. XXIX.
653-668.
III. OTHER PERIODICALS
1871.
The Lutheran Quarterly.
1878.
Fritschel, Kirchliche Zeitschrift. 1878-1910.
1881.
Loy-Schodde, Columbus Theological Magazine. 1881-1910.
1883.
Stellhorn, Theologlsche Zeitblatter. 1883-1910.
1901.
Forsander, Augustana Tidskrift. 1901-1911. p. 859
Chapter XXXIX.
THE CONFESSIONAL PRINCIPLE OF THE BOOK OF
CONCORD AND AMERICAN PROTESTANTISM.
the sources of spiritual Authority — Scripture, Reason, Church.
the relation of Spiritual Forces
the Confessional principle a Balance
the Confessional principle and Liherality
is the Confessional principle accepted in all parts of the Luth
eran Church
is the confessional principle of the Unaltered Augsburg Con
fession that of the Book of Concord
what an ex animo confession of the Unaltered Augsburg Con
fession Involves
v. Literature under Chapter V., I. .... p. 874
Chapter XL.
THE CONFESSIONAL PRINCIPLE OF THE BOOK OF
CONCORD AND CHRISTIAN CO-OPERATION.
co-operation in the view of the Lutheran Reformers
co-operation today
the Sphere of the Church in Civil Reform
the Dangers in co-operation
the True Confessional principle in co-operation
The confessional principle and Those Outside the Lutheran
Church
the confessional principle and Christian Fellowship
the confessional principle of Concordia and Christian Union

CONTENTS lxxvii
Dieckhoff, Luthers Lehre v. d. kirchi. Gewalt. Berlin, 1865.  t. Zezsch-
witz, fiber die wesentlichen Verfassungsziele der luth. Reformation. Leipzig,
1867.  Rietschei, Luthers Anschauung von der Unsichtbarkeit und Sicht-
barkelt der Kirche. ThStKr. 73, 404 ff.  Jacobs, Some Considerations In
volved, in the Fellowship Question. Luth. Ch. Rev. VIII. 243.  Schmauk,
The General Council and the Federation of Protestant Churches. Luth. Ch.
Rev. XXV. 167.  lb.. The Federation of Churches. Luth. Ch. Rev. XXVIII.
131.
i p. 891
Chapter XLI.
THE CONFESSIONAL PRINCIPLE OF THE BOOK OF
CONCORD AND THE BROTHERHOOD OF THE
CHRISTIAN CHURCH.
Conscience, Principle and Charity in the Church
tolerance in the Church
the question of the Majority in Protestantism
the question of a Visible Unity in Protestantism
confessional attitude of Lutherans revealed by Attitude toward
Denominational Protestantism
Luther, Eight Sermons (on Church Toleration, Preached at Witten
berg, 1523) Erl. XXVIII, 202 sqq.  Colle, Die genuine Lehre von der Kirche
nach den Symbolen der ev.-luth. Confession. Leipzig, 1894.
Stahl, Die Kirchenverfassung nach Lehre und Recht der Protestanten. 1840.
 Krauth, C. P., Religion and Religionisms, Luth. Ch. Rev. XXVI, 227.  ¦
Krauth, Theses on the Galesburg Declaration on Pulpit and Altar Fellow
ship, Prepared by Order of the General Council, Luth. Ch. Rev. XXVI,
740. p. 910
Chapter XLII.
THE CONFESSIONAL PRINCIPLE OF THE BOOK OF
CONCORD AND THE FUTURE OF THE CHURCH
IN AMERICA.
the Field of the Confessional Principle in America. Its sub
stance is to penetrate and control every department of life.
the three separate spheres of Faith, Love and Law; and the
three separate institutions of Church, Home, and State, not
properly distinguished by Radical and Reformed Protest
antism
the Lutheran solution of Religious Problems in America
some Reformed results
some Lutheran results
the confessional principle no hindrance to the Future Church
it will Broaden the Church
a Recapitulation of the Argument of this Book
the Conclusion

lxxviii CONTENTS
Stahl, Der Protestantismus als polltisches Princlp. 1856.  Hofstatter, Die
Augsburgische Konfession in ihrer Bedeutung fiir das kirchliche Leben der
Gegenwart. Leipzig, 1897.
Ritschl, A., ttber die beiden Prinzipien des Protestantismus. ZKG. 1 (1876),
397 ff. und Gesammelte Aufsatze, 1893, 234 ff.  Lenz, Luthers Lehre von
der Obrigkeit. Pr. Jahrb. 75 (1894), Marzheft.  Thomas, Die Anschauung
der Reformation vom geistlichen Amte. Lpz. Diss. 1901.  Brandenburg,
Luthers Anschauung vom Staate und von der Gesellschaft. Halle, 1901. 
Drews, Die Ordination, PrUfung und Lehrverpflichtung der Ordinanden in
Wittenberg, 1535. Giessen, 1904.  Drews, Entsprach das Staatskirchentum
dem Ideale Luthers? ZThK. 18. Jahrg. Tubingen, 1908. Ergftnzungsheft.
 Loehe, Three Books Concerning the Church. Tr. by Horn, Reading, 1908.
p. 923

Historical Sfatrotmctton
Witl) g>ome ftefetence to g>eberal &er.ent Wotte
i^l^HE Augsburg Confession is the Answer, at the
til. dawn of modern history, of the Church's Faith to
^"^ the world's Might. In form it is a secular instru
ment written by laymen, in consultation with the clergy,
and offered by Princes, to the highest court of the realm.
In essence it is the carrier and conservator of the convic
tions and conscience, under the direct touch of God's Word,
of the unwillingly Protestant Church as to the True Faith
and the True Ecclesiastical Practice of Christianity.
In response to the demand of the sovereign of Germany,
the Netherlands, Austria, Italy, Spain, and the new world
of America, at the moment when this sovereign,1 in league
with and under the direction of the head of the Church of
Rome, was attempting to crush liberty of conscience and of
worship, the Augsburg Confession became, by reason of
its presentation in a due and legal manner at a specially
called Diet of the Empire, the great historic appeal, decla
ration, and confession of the Evangelical Church, on be
half of conscience, truth, and religious liberty.
This answer, though occasional in origin, became a fixed
point in history and permanently definitive of principle. It
belongs to the family of charter-documents which, when
they once receive the stamp of authority, as representing

1 The Augsburg Confession begins as follows : "Most Invincible Emperor,
Caesar Augustus, most Clement Lord : Inasmuch as Your Imperial Majesty
has summoned a Diet of the Empire here at Augsburg. . . And inasmuch
as we, the undersigned Electors and Princes, with others joined with us,
have been called to the aforesaid Diet, the same as the other Electors, Princes
and Estates, in obedient compliance with the Imperial mandate we have come
to Augsburg." . .
Weber had the original Call of Charles V„ written at Bologna, Jan. !26th,
1530, in his hands, when writing his book in 1783.
lxxix

Ixxx INTRODUCTION
the activities of a movement, definitely define, and form
the basis of the principles of that movement. It pertains
to the essence of their validity that they are unalterable,
except at rare intervals and upon occasions at least as rep
resentative and formal as those which gave birth to the in
strument. In becoming an unalterable basal instrument,
their character is not always immediately perceived by
those who originated them. This was the case with the
Scriptures themselves, and it has been so with many other
historical documents. So long as the Living Witness to
the principles is present, so long the written testimony may
appear to be secondary, and its all-time value may not be
discernible. But after the Living Voice has disappeared,
and new generations arise, it becomes the one authorita
tive and unalterable basis of future interpretation. This
is a fundamental fact, and it is particularly important in
the case of the Augsburg Confession in view of many
statements to the contrary by a recent writer on the con
fessional history of the Lutheran Church, e. g. :
g>ome decent Utterances;
"Melanchthon changed the Augsburg Confession. Luther approved the
changes." — The Confessional History of the Lutheran Church, p. 306.
"This formula . . was not meant to make the impression on the
subscriber that he must regard the Confession as an unchangeable norm
of doctrine." — li. p. 284.
"Even the Princes who had subscribed the Augsburg Confession . . .
gave their theologians instruction to examine the Confession again in the
light of the Scriptures, and to change it. . . . The occasional obligation
of men to the Confession and to the Apology arose from diverse considera
tions and from accident — not from a deliberate and united purpose to bind
men to those documents as symbols of the Lutheran faith." — lb. p. 289.
"In all these Church Orders, which appeared before the Religious
Peace (of Augsburg, 1555), there is nowhere an unconditioned binding
to the Augsburg Confession or to any other symbolical book, but only the
requirement that the preachers shall preach the pure Gospel of Christ
according to its pure intent, and free from human opinions." — Ib. p. 287.
"They hold that it is defective." — lb. p. 97.
"There is misrepresentation [in the Confession] if. we take into con
sideration the compass of the teaching." — 76. p. 98.
"We cannot hold that the statement made at tie close of Article XXI,

INTRODUCTION lxxxi
viz., that the doctrinal articles constitute about the sum of the doctrine
taught . . is correct." — 76. p. 98.
"Melanchthon did not regard the Confession as the Protestant ulti
matum" (p. 199).
Taken in connection with the following on Luther :
"The evidence is conclusive that he did not regard it as a law for the
conscience, and that he did not think that it had spoken the last word on
any article of the Christian faith, and that he did not think of binding
h?'mself to the letter or to the form of the Confession. Otherwise he would
not have accepted Melanchthon's printed editions of the Confession — all
of them variatae — and would not have counselled the revision of 1540 and
would not have approved it and called it 'the dear Confession.' " —
76. p. 207.2
"There is no such document in use, nor even known to exist, as the
original and unaltered Augsburg Confession." — 76. p. 210.
"Any application of them [the words 'original' and 'unaltered']
to any printed edition of the Confession, is a falsification of fact and of
history, since every known printed edition of the Augsburg Confession is
known to be, and can be shown to be, materially different from the Augs
burg Confession as it was officially read and delivered, June 25, 1530."
[The italics, etc., are those of the author of '"The Confessional History of
the Lutheran Church."} — 76. p. 210.
"There is no such document in ecclesiastical use today, and never has
been as 'that first and unaltered Augsburg Confession,' . . . hence it is
not only invidious, but it is untrue, as a matter of fact, when any ecclesi
astical body says: 'We accept the Unaltered Augsburg Confession.'" —
75. p. 211.3
In many of these statements there is a truth. They may
state a fact, but err in the inference which they desire the
reader to draw from it. Or they may state a fact without
regard to the real significance of its inner bearing. Or they
confuse the relations of letter and spirit, form and sub
stance, external legal pledge and hearty voluntary attes
tation.

2 But comp. Luther, 1533 in his letter of warning to the Frankfurters :
"Es ist nun fiir alie Welt kommen die herrliche Confession und Apologia, so
fiir Kays. Majt. zu Augspurg von vielen der hohesten Stande des E. Reichs
frey bekant und erhalten, darinn auch die Papisten, ob sie uns wol fiber alie
massen gefahrlicbe Siinden, dennoch keinen Schwermer-Articul uns konnen
Sehuldgeben. Wir haben nicht Mum Mum gesagt, und unter den Hiitlein
gespielet, sondern da stehet unser helle, diirr, frey Wort ohn alles tunckeln
und mausen." — Luther in Warnungs-Schrift an die zu Franckfurt am Mayn,
1533. Tom VI. Jen. Germ. p. 113. Carpzov. Isag. p. 99.
3 Cp. Statement in The Lutheran, March 12, 1908, p. 419, "The specification
of the word 'Unaltered' or 'Invariata' is a mere quibble."
1

lxxxii INTRODUCTION
The believer wLo is neither a literalist on the one hand, nor open to
constant changes in the supposed interests of progress on the other, finds
little consideration in this volume. The test applied to confessions, con
fessors, and synodical bodies, is in accord with the spirit of the Melanch-
thonian doctrine, and after the manner of Weber. It respects the precise
external obligation, rather than the living spirit and fountain of faith
within, which confesses voluntarily and heartily, and not under compul
sion. The charge of deficiency, incompleteness, and misrepresentation,
urged against the Augsburg Confession as a whole might perhaps not be
inapplicable, in such aspect, to this book itself, in its total outcome.
Confessions Unalterable
"Each symbol," says Philip Schaff,4 "bears the impress
of its age, and the historical situation out of which it
arose." In truly reflecting that situation, it cannot always
also fully explicate the absolute and unrelated force of its
principles. It is true absolutely in its own situation, just
as its principle is true absolutely in every other situation
to which it is legitimately applied. Every true Confession,
like every genuine book of Scripture, rises in its principle
beyond the local situation in which it took its first origin,
though it also reflects the particular horizon of its own
time period. It responds in the form of its immediate en
vironment to the inquirings that have compelled it to speak,
and its response is a true note struck, no less on the relative
scale of time, than on the timeless scale of unchangeable
value. Every true Confession is an answer. It is neither a
manifesto nor an ordinance. It is the public and common
answer of the flock of Christ to the inquiries which have
been put to it and pressed upon it by the spirit of a particu
lar age. The answer is the truth of Scripture living in
the witness, and applied, not under a Divine Inspiration,
but under the ordinary laws of Providence to the particu
lar questions it is intended to meet. The framework of the
answer is that of the age which has asked the question,
and of the history in which the witness lives, and some of
it will pass away; but the truth of the answer, in all its
clear-cut sharpness, and without one iota of deviation or

* Creeds of Christendom, p. 4.

INTRODUCTION lxxxiii
compromise, will abide forever. For the framework in the
answer is under the ordinary laws of Providence, but the
truth in the answer, that is the Confessional Principle it
self, is none other than the inspired word of God.
To claim that the earthly framework, which fits it in as
the answer of an earthly query put by a passing age of
history to the Church, is inspired, or is binding, is con
trary to Scripture, and to the laws of Providence. But to
claim that the declaratory doctrine, or truth, or teaching of
the Confession, which is a hearty and well-established re
flection in the confessor, of the pure truth of God's Word,
is open to interpretation or to individual judgment, or to
ambiguous explanation, or is only substantially correct, or
is a quatenus rather than a quia declaration of the confes
sor, is to render the Confession valueless for the purpose
for which it exists.5
The sound Confessional Principle, like every other prin
ciple, is a golden and substantial mean, which has to con
tend with two extravagant extremes. The one extreme is
the evaluation of its confessional content by the use of pri
vate judgment and mental reservation. The other extreme
is the externalization of the Confession into a mechanical
literalism which then becomes chiefly a law and a pledge
for subscription. Each of the two extremes is destructive
of the true intent of a Confession. Where a Confession
ceases to be a conviction chiefly, and becomes a law chiefly,
it is a failure. The principle of the Confession is always
the principle of the 'Gospel, namely Testimony, and the
object of Testimony is neither Enforcement nor Evasion,
but is Teaching and Conviction. To these the external Law
of Testimony, where it is necessary, is subsidiary.
This presupposition as to the true nature of the Confessional Principle
is fundamental, and lies back of any proper interpretation of the Scrip
ture and the Confessions. It commits the confessor to the whole Confes-

s "It is an astonishing phenomenon in a Church calling itself Evangelical
Lutheran, that there should be so much liberty allowed where the New Testa
ment allows none, — we mean in Articles of Faith, and so little where the New
Testament allows all liberty, we mean in things indifferent."— C. V. Krauth,
Spaeth's Life of Krauth, II, p. 19.

lxxxiv INTRODUCTION
sion, words, history, and truth, and to the acceptation of every statement,"
whether of doctrine or fact, "in its own true, native, original and only
sense, so that those who confess must not only agree to use the same
words, but use and understand those words in one and the same sense" ;
but it places that which is local, earthly, and historical, and pertains to
the generation from which the Confession emanated, under the ordinary
laws of Providence, Who is always guiding the afEairs of the Church and
world, and who permits men and churches to remain fallible ; and not un
der the extraordinary laws of Inspiration of the Holy Ghost, Who spake
His Word in times long past unto the fathers by the prophets and the
apostles.7

* Ci>. "The Confessional Subscription," The Lutheran, March 5, 1908, p.
403 ; and Feb. 20, 1908, p. 391, and "Confessional Subscription," Lutheran
World, March 24, 1908.
7 The distinction between "Articles of Faith" and ordinary statements of
fact, in a Confession, is historical in our Church, and was elaborated in
America, in an article on "Symbolic Theology" by C. V. Schaeffer (Evangelical
Review, April, 1850, pp. 457-483). Among other things Prof. Schaeffer says:
"If our symbolical books were set forth in the form of the three ancient
symbols, presenting barely a rigid doctrinal text, and nothing else, we would,
on assuming the whole as our creed, assume also all the details. But they
present a. wide range of subjects, communicate doctrinal truth, interpret
Scripture passages, quote ancient authors, introduce controversial discussions,
relate historical events, refer largely to persons and things whose importance
diminishes in the course of time, until it fades entirely away, and are as
miscellaneous in their character as various books of the Bible. The latter,
Paul's Epistles for instance, by no means intend to be simply creeds, in the
technical sense of the word, but also design to notice passing events as well
as to teach eternal truth, and we interpret the symb. books precisely as we
interpret the Bible itself. It is a canon universally recognized by all sound
interpreters, that the principles of interpretation are common to the Scrip
tures and to uninspired compositions, and hence the same general rules are
applicable to the symb. books which guide the expounder of the Bible. We
regard the Scriptures as our sole rule of faith and practice, but not as a text
book for scientific lectures, nor as a volume of the 'Universal History.' Thus,
too, we regard the symb. books as the expression of our faith, but not as our
Commentary on the Scriptures. If Paul quotes a harsh but well-deserved de
scription of the Cretians by the poet Epimenides, whom he calls a 'prophet,'
(Titus 1:12), and if Peter (2 Peter 2:22) is equally plain in his strictures
on the unfaithful, the force of their language does not detract from its truth.
The 'cloak, books and parchments' of St. Paul, and 'Alexander the coppersmith,'
(2 Tim. 4:13, 14) may be mentioned in an apostolic letter as really existing,
without assuming the rank of articles of faith. The oration of Tertullus is
introduced into a canonical book (Acts ch. 241 without securing our appro
bation of its denunciations of St. Paul ; the discourse even of Gamaliel, a
'doctor of the law had in reputation,' (Acts, ch. 5) is characterized only by
good sense but not by inspiration ; and, in this manner, large portions of the
contents of the Scriptures are separated from the creed of every sincere
Christian, as they were not intended by the sacred writers to constitute
articles of faith, but were necessarily introduced in writings, which, besides
conveying doctrinal truth, and precepts of morality, were designed to refer
to persons and things of a local and temporary character.
"The interpretation of the Scriptures is materially influenced by the inter
preter's theory of inspiration; the strictest views and most orthodox senti-

INTRODUCTION lxxxv
Sofjerence to Confessions
The day for party adherence to a Church's Confessional
Answer is gone ; but the day for precise expression of intel
ligent and common conviction of faith, and for loyal ad
herence to it, will never go. The Church must be prepared
to answer as to her Faith. Like the Word of God, her An
swer may contain that on which the believer is not compe
tent to use his judgment, but what he does apprehend will
enable him not to stumble at historical, or critical difficul
ties in which the spiritual treasures of all ages may have
been enveloped by past generations. And the victories of
a historical Answer, whose fruits are being enjoyed today,
will awaken in us the love and the loyalty which the An
swer deserves.
If Christianity is to make a fixed and steady Answer to
God's Word, and if the Christian Church is to teach the
unchanging truth of that Word, Creeds are a necessity.
Creeds are the Faith in fixed form, and go back as far as
the Scripture.
"In fact," says Prof. Schodde, "there was a creed before there were New
Testament writings, in the Baptismal Formula of Christ Himself (Matt.
28:19), which formed the historical and doctrinal basis of the Apostles'
and later formulas of faith. That the existence of such faith is presup-

ments, however, on this subject, are perfectly consistent with the following
passage : 'In I Cor. 7 :6, 10, 12, 25, 40,' says Olshausen on I Corinth. 7. p.
563, 'we find that the apostle distinguishes between his oivn and the Lord's
declarations, between a positive command of Christ, and his own subjective
opinion or judgment. . . . Although it is clear from verse 40, that this is not
designed to be placed in opposition to inspiration, since it truly proceeded
from the Holy Ghost, . . . still it is plain that Paul makes this distinc
tion for the purpose of intimating, that Christ's command indeed, but not
his own judgment, must be unconditionally fulfilled ; even when bis counsels
are not followed, (according to verse 36) sin is not necessarily thereby com
mitted . . . Where doctrines or positive commands are concerned, Paul
insists on his apostolic authority, his judgment is precisely on this account
decisive, because it is enlightened by the Divine Spirit. But in adiaphora
or things indifferent, it is true wisdom to refrain from positive commands,'
etc. This view of the orthodox commentator is established on the principle,
that, while the declarations of the apostles are to be regarded as obligatory
in matters of faith and practice, their private opinions, however worthy of
respect, possess no absolute authority. In truth, this principle is practically
adopted by all classes of Christians, for they have long ceased to observe
several usages described in the Acts as established or sanctioned by the
apostles, ('they had all things common,' Acts 2 :44 ; 4 :32 : 'look ye out among
you seven men,' etc. 6:3) and yet subsequently abandoned without sin."

lxxxvi INTRODUCTION
posed by such writings, is apparent from II Tim. 13 : 14 ; II Tim. 6 : 20 ;
Heb. 6 : 1 sq."
A Confession is an acknowledgment by the Church of what the Scrip
ture has brought to her. A fixed Confessional Principle, drawn from Scrip
ture, as the essence of the Church's Testimony, whether it proceed8 from
the general life of the Church, without an individual authorship, as the
Apostles' Creed, or be promulgated by the Councils of the Church such as
the Nioene Creed, or be the work of one or several writers acting under
the sanction of the Church, as were the Lutheran Confessions, is a ne
cessity. The Confession of Christianity, the Confession of the
Christian Faith, the Confession of the Evangelical Luth
eran Faith, is not an idea in the mind of man. It is a fixed
fact. It is a recognition of God's reality as revealed in His
Word. Its principle never varies, no matter in how many
different confessional writings it may be embodied. It
continues as the steady line of truth through all genera
tions. The Lutheran Confession is unchangeable. "The
Church may add a fuller expression of its doctrines, but
she cannot change them."0
Our Confession is our well-known and long-published
conviction of the entire Teaching of the Word of God. It
is not an assemblage of doctrines, but an unchanging en
tity. Hence we cannot adjust it in order to unite with
other Christians. Nor can we assume a common religious
experience for all evangelical Christians, from which we
are merely differentiated by peculiarities.
"We cannot begin where other denominations leave off. We have to
grow our experience from the beginning, and the root of all progress . . .
is the sense of necessity."10 An anonymous writer in a remarkable article
on Justification by Faith, in the Evangelical Review in the year 1859,"
explains this point as follows :
"The Reformed theology ... not only diverges from the Lutheran in
single points, which are commonly termed the distinctive doctrines of the
Lutheran Church, but it is an essentially different system from beginning
to end. Doctrines which are apparently identical with our own, if viewed
simply by themselves, are found to assume quite another shape, when
looked upon from the Reformed standpoint. . . In the Calvinistic, as
'Prof. Schodde.
9 Spaeth, Life of Krauth, p. 101.
10 lb. p. 43.
n pp. 225.256. Extract on pp. 231-237.

INTRODUCTION lxxxvii
well as all Calvinizing theologians, the doctrine of justification by faith
is stripped of its practical, paramount import. It is a mere accessory. . . .
"Redemption is made to be a plan or device over which God presides
precisely as the mind of man may be said to rule a machine, and Christ
comes in simply in the way of outward instrumental help to carry out
the scheme. . . .
"Throughout the Protestant world, we have only two radically different
theories — the Lutheran, which places itself on Divine grace in the form
of Christian life ; and the Reformed, which is also based confessedly on
grace, but in the form of thought. . . .
"The sacramental doctrines and christology of Luther were no outward
fungus upon his system. They lie imbedded in its inmost life. To part
with them is to surrender the cause of the Reformation itself, as Luther
had it in his mind, and to rob his. creed of its original physiognomy, life
and heart."
As to the inner constraint which a confession of the
Confessions may exercise upon the thinking mind, it is
sufficient to quote the words of W. J. Mann :
"No one should receive the Lutheran confession on the
authority of another, but find it again and again, as a re
sult of his own investigations, in the sacred Scriptures.
He will then not be in danger of lifeless orthodoxy, but
heartily rejoice at the enlightened understanding with
which his Church has been favored, and gladly proclaim
her doctrines."13 Subscription to Confession
As to the binding subscription of a minister or Church,
this is not a matter of Confession, but of Church Order.
The first Verpflichtungsformel was drawn up before the
Lutheran Church possessed its Confession.
In December, 1529, by Henry Winckel, a quiet and faithful minister,
who expressed the feelings of all north Germany in desiring to protect the
Church against the teachings of Zwingli. It contained a vow of ordina
tion pledging those ordained to the Bible and Luther's writings. The
Wittenberg Verpflichtung of Melanchthon of 1533 came into general use.
Osiander combated it vigorously in 1552 in language similar to what is
heard today: "Not a word is said of the Holy Scripture, given by God.
. . . What other result can such an oath have than to tear away from
the Holy Scripture those who swear to it, and bind them to the Symbols
and the doctrine of Philip !" A graduate of Wittenberg is represented

12 Mann, Lutheranism in America, 1857. p. 76.

lxxxviii INTRODUCTION
by Osiander as "a poor fellow tied np with obligations to an oath that
strangles and confuses his conscience, for he has sworn away God's
Word, and sworn himself to Philip's doctrine."13
In defense, Melanchthon speaks of fanatics then arising and who in
all ages will be spreading false doctrine. The obligation is honorable in
purpose, and not at all a "tyranny" ; for the promise is of no further im
port than a repeating of the Augsburg Confession. This is necessary in
order that the true Church may be distinguished. The Symbols are the
boundary-line markers, beyond which one dare not go without danger, to
which Tschaekert remarks that this is "a theological judgment, worthy
of being respected for all ages." The obligation of a candidate not to go
ahead in theological controversy on his own accord, but first to consult
some of the older teachers, Melanchthon explains as follows : "Unus vir
non videt omnia" ; and "Nolumus audacia et authadeia juniorum deleri
ecclesiae judicia." Tschaekert remarks, "That was reason enough. The
whole address is a standing proof of Melanchthon's genuine churchly
though If ulness." (p. 380.)"
But the real substance of the Church's objection to indi
vidual freedom of teaching goes deeper. The Lutheran
Church has the Word and the Sacrament, and the Office for
their administration. The thing taught is not truths and
opinions of scholars, but the well-established and univer
sally confessed Word. The person teaching is not of im
portance in himself, but his personal mind and view are
submerged in the Office. The person holds the Office only
as he proclaims and applies that which the Church con
fesses as the Word. He is bound to this, not chiefly by
a subscription, but in the nature of the case. To maintain
the doctrine of personal freedom of teaching in Church
and school, really denies the Lutheran doctrine of the
Office, the Word, and the Church.
Luther himself speaks strongly against concession to individual opin
ions, e. g. . "He who holds his teaching, faith and confession to be true,
cannot stand in the same stall with those who teach false doctrine or are
inclined thereto. A teacher who is silent against error and still professes
lo be a true teacher, is worse than an open fanatic, doing more harm.

11 r. Tschaclcert, pp. 378, 379.
"Compare G. Eietschel, Luther mid die Ordination. 2 Aufl. 1889  W.
Kohler, Reformation und Ketzerprozess 1901. — P. Drew's, Die Ordination,
PrUfung und Lehrverpflichtung der Ordinanden in Willenherg 1535. Giessen
1904.

INTRODUCTION lxxxix
. . . He would not offend anybody — not proclaim the Word for Christ,
nor pain the devil and the world."15
"It is an awful thing to me to hear that both parties approach and re
ceive the sacrament in one and the same church and at one and the same
altar, and that the one party is to believe that it receives nothing but
bread and wine, and the other is to believe that it receives the true body
and blood of Christ. I often doubt if it is to be believed that a pastor
could be so hardened and malicious as to keep silent and permit both
parties to go, each according to its opinion that they all receive the same
sacrament, but each party according to its faith."16
(Ebolution of tfje Sugsburg Confession
In the Augsburg Confession, the Renewed Church of
Christ in the German Reformation confessed the real Gos
pel, when formally called to account by the old world-order.
The old world-order was the supreme authority in Church
and State.
Luther as an individual had made bold answer to this authority as
early as 1521. For one decade the question in Europe was whether and
how the liberty-answer of Luther should become the answer of an Evan
gelical Church, or whether and how the old world-order could throttle
the new spirit in the Church. In 1526 the Evangelical or Luther-confes
sion of Christianity in the Churches gained legal standing. At the Diet
in 1529 the Emperor and the Roman Church succeeded by a majority
vote in removing that legal standing, and in ordering all churches to re
turn to the faith and practices of Rome.
On April 17th, 19th, 25th, 1529, the Evangelical minor
ity protested, in legal form, against the decision at Spires,
and appealed to the Emperor, to the next free General
Council of Christendom, or to an Assembly of the German
Nation. The Diet at Augsburg was the result of that ap
peal, and the Augsburg Confession proved to be the final
and historical answer of Lutheranism, as to its own exist
ence, and in contrast with a more radical Protestantism,
and with heresies with which it was unwilling to be con
fused, to the Emperor and Rome.
The Evangelical Princes left the Diet of Spires with the threat of ex
termination hanging over their heads. No one knew what would happen

"Walch, XVH, p. 1477.
"76. p. 2446.

xc INTRODUCTION
after the Emperor had received, read, and determined his action on the
protest and appeal of the Protestants.
The Protestants were united among themselves only as to protest. It
is true that the Elector of Saxony and the Landgrave of Hesse had made
an alliance on the basis of Torgau 1526, and Magdeburg, at the Diet of
Spires, together with the cities of Nuremberg, Ulm, and Strasburg, for
defense against attack, or against interference in the spiritual super
vision of the Churches ; but this alliance was made hurriedly, and the
Elector and Melanchthon returned from the Diet greatly worried con
cerning it. No details had been considered, but delegates were to meet
al Rotach in June and adopt terms of agreement. Yet how could a Pro
testantism agree in action, when its only ultimate source of unity was the
negative one of protest?
From the fountainhead, Protestantism was divided.
There was an irresponsible revolutionary wing, which al
ready had grasped the sword, and which the Elector and
Luther had disclaimed. There was a radical wing, with
Zwingli at its head, which was rationalistic and looked to
reason as much as to the Gospel for authority, and was
eager to carry the religious difficulty into politics. And
there was the conservative or Lutheran wing which desired
to remain obedient in all things, (but with freedom and a
good conscience as to the Gospel,) to the existing civil
constitution. It was the life aim of one lay Lutheran leader of magni
ficent executive ability, but of defective fundamental prin
ciple, Philip of Hesse, to unite these wings and make them
parties in a common cause which he foresaw would soon
come to a clash with the Pope and the Emperor. He
therefore, already in the spring of 1529, attempted to get
the spiritual leaders of the Protestant cause to his castle
at Marburg in order that they might settle their religious
differences and enter into a Protestant Federation against
the forces of the Pope and Emperor; but by this time the
Elector's leaders had discovered that the Protestant agree
ment entered into hurriedly at Spires also contemplated a
political alliance against the Emperor.
Melanchthon, who had borne the brunt of the protest at Spires, was
very much opposed to such a colloquy at Marburg, and during the month

INTRODUCTION «i
of May both he (11th) and Luther (22d) warned the Elector against it.
The Elector, in his anxiety did not go to Rotach, but sent Hans von
Minkwitz with instructions to agree only to an alliance in defence of
Articles of Faith to be decided on at a future meeting. Nuremberg, and
the Margrave, took the same position. On June 28th Luther again ex
pressed himself against the Federation.
One day later, on the 29th of June, the peace of Barcelona was con
cluded between the Emperor and the Pope, who hitherto had not been at
one for political reasons, and among the items of agreement was one in
which the Emperor promised to root out the Lutheran doctrine.
During the month of July (12th), Charles accordingly sent out a
warning to the Estates, and on the 9th of August he landed at Genoa
from Spain, for the purpose of being crowned by the Pope, of entering
into a further understanding with him, of stamping differences out of the
Church, and of firmly uniting both the Empire and the Church.
Meantime the convention met at Rotach and issued such an unsatis
factory Confederation-Notel, that Philip of Hesse came all the way to
Wittenberg on July 1st to arrange for the colloquy at Marburg. On July
8th a meeting of the representatives of the Elector, the Margrave, and
Philip, was held at Saalfeld, but as neither the Elector nor the Margrave
were willing to include the radical Protestants of Strasburg and the
Swiss cities in the alliance, no result was attained.
It recently has been supposed that from the middle of
July to the middle of September articles for the alliance
of the Princes were being gradually formulated in order
to be ready for the coming convention at Schleiz, and that
these articles, completed before the Marburg Colloquy, are
the articles carried to Schwabach and presented there on
the 18th of October (von Schubert in Zeitschrift fiir
Kirchengeschichte, XXIX. Band, 3. Heft, p. 377. See
also J. J. Miiller, Historie, pp. 280 et seqq.;)17 but we have

"The Confessional History says (p. 22), -The Schwabach Articles are ut
terly incompatible with the frame of mind which both Luther and Melanch
thon brought with them from Marburg, unless we are willing to conclude that
both are doublefaced." Yet on October 4th Luther wrote to his wife, "We
do not want the 'brethren and members' business ;' " and on October 12th he
wrote to Agricola, "They requested that we should at least regard them as
brethren ; but it was not possible to consent to it. Nevertheless we did extend
to them the hand of peace and love, that now bitter writings and words
may cease, and every one may hold his faith without hostile assaults, yet not
without defence and confutation. Thus we parted." Melanchthon in a
postscript to the same letter calls the whole matter a farce.
There was nothing in the psychological temper of these men in those Octo
ber days to prevent them from honestly composing the Schwabach Articles-

xcii INTRODUCTION
not found the reasons urged for this transfer of the com
position of the Schwabach Articles to the early date conclu
sive.18 During the month of September the deputies, sent earlier by those pro
testing at the Diet of Spires, found the Emperor, and were received un
graciously, and on the 12th of October the Emperor replied to them that
the minority must submit to the Decree of Spires, and that means would
be found to compel the Elector of Saxony and the others to bow to the
inevitable. Hence, on October 14th, came the appeal of the Protestant
Estates to a Christian Council.
Meantime Philip had succeeded in getting the two wings
of Protestantism together at Marburg on the first four
days of October, but without an agreement, and the Mar
burg Articles had been drawn up (4th). Luther went
from Marburg to Schleiz, whither the Elector had sum
moned him as well as Melanchthon and Jonas, in order to
deliberate on the organizing of an alliance embracing those
Protestants alone who were in the full unity of the Luth
eran faith. On October 16th the Estates met again, and
the Elector proposed to them the Schwabach Articles that
probably had been written by Luther,19 at the request of the
Elector, perhaps at Schleiz; and the imperial cities
Strasburg and Ulm declined to sign them.

18 T. T. E. Schmauk in Lutheran Church Review. XXVIII, p. 278, Is There
Any New Light Concerning the Schwabach Articles?
19 The "Articles of the Elector of Saxony touching the faith," prepared by
Luther at the Elector's request, and laid before the Assembly of the States at
Schwabach." — Krauth, Chronicle of the Augsburg Confession, p. 12. "The
Confessional History," p. 29, quotes Luther's Preface written against the
Hans Bern edition, as follows : "It is true that I helped to compose such
articles, for they were not composed by me alone." "The Confessional His
tory" quotes from the declaration at Schmalkald, Dec. 1529, that "the articles
of faith were very carefully considered, and were composed with the wise
counsel of learned and unlearned counsellors," and concludes from this,
"Hence there can be no doubt that the hand of Melanchthon was quite as
active in composing those articles as was the hand of Luther." Vid. also
"The Confessional History," pp. 9, 21, 61-62, 68 ; but "The Confessional His
tory's" conclusions as to these Articles are overdrawn. The Elector himself
had part in them. Vid. also Kolde, Augsburg Konfession, p. 119 ff.. and v.
Schubert, Beitrage zur Geschichte der erang. Bekenntnis- u. Biindnisbildung,
1529-30: Zeit. Kirch. Gesch. XXIX, 3 (1908), and f . ; Tschaekert, Die Ent
stehung der luth. u. d. reformierten Kirchenlehre, 1910. p. 281, simply says,
"The 17 Schwabach Articles contain the chief articles of Lutheran doctrine
cut clear and sharp."
For Luther's copy of the Schwabach Articles r. Erl. 24. 334 sq. For Ulm
Ms. v. Weber I, Appendix. For Strasburg copy v. Kolde, Augsb. Konf. II.
Beilage.

INTRODUCTION xciii
On the 5th of November the Emperor entered Bologna
and met the Pope. The Pope insisted on his stamping out
the Protestants, but the imperial chancellor Mercurinus
pled for a Christian Council. The Emperor was thus in
clined, but the Pope would not hear to it.
By the end of November, word reached Germany that the Spires' depu
ties had been arrested and imprisoned. A convention of the Protestants
was held at Schmalkald, and the three deputies, escaped from the
Emperor, were present. The Lutherans still held to their two great prin
ciples, that there could be no agreement between contrary faiths, and no
alliance between politics and religion ; and decided that only those who
signed the Schwabach Articles should meet at Nuremberg on the 6th of
January. On the 21st of January, the Emperor issued a Call,
which summoned all the Estates to Augsburg, in words
that seemed full of hope.
He desired to put an end to discord, to hear both sides of the case, and
to decide according to that which was right. However, his entrance to
Germany, where, during the early spring he held court at Innsbruck, gave
the Catholic south German Estates, especially through the appearance
of the theses of John Eck, an opportunity, eagerly fostered by the papal
representatives, to prejudice the Emperor's mind against the Protestants,
and to attempt to abort the holding of the Diet of Augsburg.
In March (11th), the Elector received the Emperor's
Call.20 He consulted with his Chancellor, Briick who sug
gested that a Confession be drawn, and that it be presented
at the Diet.21 The Elector determined to bring forward his

20 "At the court of the Elector much was expected of this Diet, for it was
considered to be a substitute for the Council hitherto wished for in vain.
Therefore the Elector ordered the Wittenberg theologians to consult regarding
all articles of controversy. ... At the close of the Torgau Articles, it is
referred to the Elector, that if any one still desires to know what is taught
in his landr there are also articles of doctrine which he could deliver. As
such articles of doctrine the Schwabach articles were extant. So the Elector
already had two valuable prefatory labors that could be wrought out further
according to need." — Tschaekert, Die Entstehung der lutherischen und
der reformierten Kirchenlehre, p. 282.
21 V. Brilck's Letter to the Elector, on this important subject. Briick said,
"Inasmuch as the Imperial Rescript provides that the opinion and view ol
each one is to be heard, it would be a good thing for us to bring together
systematically, in writing, the views maintained by our party, and to fortify
them out of Holy Writ, so as to present them in writing, in case the preachers
should not be admitted to participation in the transactions. This will facili
tate business, and it will serve to remove misunderstanding to have such
views and opinions presented." — Fdrstemann, I. p. 39.

xciv INTRODUCTION
side of the case at the Diet without alliance with any of the
other Protestants.22
On March 14th he commanded his four theologians to prepare a paper
on the Articles of Faith in dispute. On March 26, "The articles 'not to
be yielded' are determined on." — Krauth, Chronicle, p. 13.
In the beginning of April (3d), his theologians left Wittenberg for the
Electoral court at Torgau.23 A fortnight later (15th), the Elector and hia
procession arrived at Coburg, after some days' stay at Weimar.
Easter (17th) was spent there, and a few days later (23d), in as
much as the Elector could not secure a safe-conduct for Luther from the
city of Augsburg, and not even from Nuremberg, Luther was taken to the
castle at Coburg.2* On the 30lh the Elector received his safe-conduct into
Augsburg.2" Early in May (2d), the Elector reached Augsburg,28 and
hearing of the great change of sentiment at the imperial
court, due to the publication of Eck's theses, he sent27 a

22 "The Confessional History" is not correct in emphasizing, above all, the
fact that "the Saxon Court at Torgau was fully possessed by the thought,
desire and purpose of reconciliation with the Church," and that this "explains
the conduct and the concessions of the entire electoral party in the negotia
tions subsequently made at Augsburg for the complete restoration of concord
and unity." All this was only true of the period before the month of June,
and true only upon the basal condition laid down by the Emperor himself that
both sides would be fairly heard, and a right and just result would be arrived
at. The theory of "The Confessional History" is disproved by the Elector's
sturdy and continued refusal, at the very start, to give up preaching in
Augsburg, and by all his action prior to the opening of and during the Diet.
23 April 3. "Melanchthon begins to write the heads of doctrine to be pre
sented at the Diet." — Krauth. Chronicle of the Augsburg Confession, p. 14.
24 For reasons why Luther was left at Coburg, cp. "The Confessional His
tory" pp. 37-39, in which the facts are well given, although the conclusion
may not be entirely justifiable.
25 The Safe-conduct says, "But we make an exception, if His Electoral
Grace should have with him and bring hither any one who has broken the
peace of His Imperial Majesty and of the Holy Empire, and become liable to
penalty and punishment t to such an onp we have no power to grant a safe-
conduct." Miiller, p. 454. Forstemann, I, pp. 160, 161, Xo. 61.
20 "Here it was immediately learned that the Bavarian Dukes had com
missioned the theological faculty at Ingolstadt to gather together all the
heresies of Luther and to show how they might be refuted most effectively.
Then came Eck's theses dedicated to the Emperor and the realm."— Tschaek
ert, p. 283.
2r On May 12th already. Campegglus sent a Despatch from Innsbruck to
Rome, still preserved, which is translated by the author of "The Confessional
Histor,/" as follows: "The Elector of Saxony has sent to the Emperor at
Innsbruck a Declaration of his Faith, which, so far as I can learn, is entirely
catholic at the beginning, but full of poison at the end." v. Brieger, Kirchen
geschichtliche Studien fiir Reuler, 1887. p. 312. For an English' translation
of the Confession Sent to the Emperor, made from a copy secured by the
author of "The Confessional History." in 1900. from the secret archives of
the Pope, and the copy itself, v. Lutheran Quarterly, July, 1901. .

INTRODUCTION xcv
translation of the Schwabach Articles to the Emperor as
his confession of faith, while Hans Bern created a sensa
tion by printing these Articles as the coming Augsburg
Confession. A few days later (May 4th), Melanchthon informed
Luther that he had made the Exordium28 of the electoral
Apology more elaborate, and, a few days later still, because
of the slanders of Eck, he transformed the Apology into a
Confession embracing nearly all the Articles of Faith. On
the 11th this Confession was sent to Luther.29 On the 12th
Philip of Hesse arrived at Augsburg, soon to agitate for a
Common Confession to include also the Zwinglians.
On the 15th the Nuremberg delegates came,™ having a
confession written by their preachers, with which Melanch
thon was pleased. The next day they learned from the
Elector that his Confession was ready, and had been sent
to Luther.31

28 Forstemann, Urkundenbuch, I, 68-84. Krauth, writing long prior to the
discovery of the earliest known draft of the Confession by Kolde. maintains
strenuously, in the interest of a completed confession sent to Luther on May
11th, that the exordium was not a mere preface, but probably a summary of
doctrine. Chronology of the Augsburg Confession, pp. 17-19, 21. The Con
servative Reformation, pp. 222, 223. See also the 'Preface' itself in this vol
ume, pp. 251-259. See "The Confessional History," pp. 50-53. The Confes
sional History, p. 73, says : "The discovery of the 'long and rhetorical Pre
face' has put to flight forever the figment that the 'Articles of Faith' consti
tute the Preface of which Melanchthon writes to Luther on the fourth of
May," to which we may add that the discovery has also 'put to flight for
ever the figment' that the chief credit for the success of the Augsburg Con
fession as a statesmanlike document inheres in Melanchthon. It has shown
why Melanchthon's long and elaborate effort had to be altogether discarded.
29 Tschaekert expresses his views as follows : "Melanchthon would indeed
have wished that Luther had t made a more thorough examination of the
articles of faith (Vellem percurrisses, Tschaekert, p. 283). What Luther sent
to Melanchthon was doubtless the whole Augsburg Confession, as far as it
was then complete, and probably both texts, the German and the Latin."
'¦" Strobel Miscellan., II. p. 22.
01 On the following day, May 17th, Kress was told by Briick that the Elector
"though he had been first of all ready with his Counsel concerning this
Article" (of the faith), "and that consequently the same (Counsel) had been
put into writing in German and Latin, yet that it had not yet been finally
closed, and had been sent to Doctor Luther to examine, and that it was ex
pected that it would be back from him tomorrow or the day after (May 17
or 18), and he (the Chancellor! did not doubt that when the aforesaid propo
sition (the Counsel) came, a copy of it would be given to us if we requested
it." Corp. Ref., II, No. 690.
The same day the Nuremberg delegates wrote again to Nuremberg, "His
Electoral Grace would abide by the answer of the Chancellor of the previous

xcvi INTRODUCTION
On the 22d Melanchthon was ready to send Luther the
Confession a second time, with the changes.32 On the 24th
the Margrave George arrived, while Briick was working
"vornen und hinten" on the Confession, which, it was then

evening, to wit: that as soon as the Counsel (Eathschlag) came back from
Luther it should be furnished to us." In the same letter they mention that
at the mandate of the Elector they then entered in the Counsel of the Nurem
berg preachers.
By May 20th Melanchthon had examined it, and told the Nurembergers
that it was almost the same in meaning as the electoral confession, but that
the latter was milder.
32 The position taken by Krauth, viz., that there were three separate send-
ings of the Augsburg Confession by Melanchthon to Luther, the first on May
11th, the second on May 22nd, and the third before it was delivered (between
June 8th and 25th), has become historic in America. (Conservative Refor
mation, pp. 227-241). This position was taken in 1871. Unfortunately in
"The Conservative Reformation," on p. 234, Luther's letter of July 3rd to
Melanchthon in which he says, "I yesterday re-read your Apology entire, with
care, and it pleases me exceedingly," is printed as being of date of June 3rd,
through a slip of the pen or a typographical error.
In 1877, Dr. Conrad ("First Diet," p. 209) in an essay at the First Free
Lutheran Diet in America, said that the Confession was sent to Luther "be
tween the 22d of May and the 2d of June". This statement was based on
the typographical error in the Conservative Reformation, and its correctness
was called into question on the floor of the Diet. Dr. J. A. Brown ("First
Diet," p. 237) challenged proof of the fact. Dr. Krauth, in a note, added in
answer to Dr. Brown's challenge, in the printed discussions of the Diet,
defends the essential statement of the Conservative Reformation, namely,
that the Augsburg Confession "was sent as nearly as possible in its complete
shape to Luther for a third time, before it was delivered, and was approved
by him in what may probably be called its final form." ("First Diet," pp.
238-242). The next year (August 1878), Dr. Krauth published "A Chronicle of the
Augsburg Confession" (Philadelphia, J. Frederick Smith, Publisher, 1878),
which he designed to be "supplementary, in some sense, to the 'Conservative
Reformation', and to the Essays and Debates of the 'First Lutheran Diet',
Philadelphia, 1877." Both in the Conservative Reformation, and in this
Chronicle (pp. 26-31, 73-76), Dr. Krauth presents an exhaustive argument to
show that Luther received Melanchthon's letter of May 22d, and that all con
temporary and later historians regard this fact as proof that Luther received
the Confession a second time on May 22d.
In support of Melanchthon's third sending of the Confession to Luther,
prior to its delivery, Dr. Krauth quotes and analyzes Melanchthon's own
description of the writing of the Augsburg Confession, made just prior to
Melanchthon's death (Chronicle of the Augsburg Confession, pp. 54-61, 83-
92) ; while Dr. Jacobs, in a separate essay entitled "A Question of Latinity",
analyzes the meaning of the disputed phrases in Melanchthon's letter. This
work reveals the intimate and minute acquaintance of Dr. Krauth with the
formative stages of the Augsburg Confession. He thoroughly appreciated
the fact that up to the second week in June, the Confession was a Saxon
document, and ho has examined every scrap of available evidence, in a mas
terly manner. But he never saw the draft of the Confession discovered by
Kolde, which throws so much light on the nature of the "exordium" and on
other important points.

INTRODUCTION xcvii
said, was to be issued in German, Latin and French. On
the same day the Emperor sent an embassy commanding
the Elector to silence the preaching, but the Elector (31st)
replied that he cannot do without the Gospel. On the 28th
Briick and his lay counsellors were making changes in the
Confession so as to put it in such a form as would conform
with the Emperor's Call and other legal conditions so that
the Emperor and the Diet would not be able to ignore it.33
On the 29th the Landgrave made efforts to participate in
the Confession. On the 31st the Estates request the Em
peror to hasten to Augsburg; and the Confession is com
municated without Preface or Conclusion to the delegates
of Nuremberg.34
Early in June (3d), Duke George and Cochlaus make
overtures to Melanchthon. On the next day (4th),
Melanchthon writes to the Archbishop of Maintz to see to
it that war does not arise. On tne same day the imperial
chancellor dies, and two days later (6th), the Emperor
leaves Innsbruck for Augsburg.35 On the next day (7th) .
Luther's admonition to the clergy reaches Augsburg. A
day later Vogler points out that the Saxon Apology is only
in the name of the Elector,36 and three days later the Land
grave opposes submitting the religious question to the
Diet, and again tries to secure confederation with the
Zwinglians. Three days later still (13th), Melanchthon
opposes the Landgrave's views and is willing to harmonize

33 The Nuremberg Legates write, "The Chancellor of the Elector of Saxony
told us that the Counsellors and the learned men were holding daily sittings
on their Counsel in matters of faith, to make changes in it, and improve it,
to the intent that they might put it and present it in such form, that it could
not well be passed by ; so that a hearing of the matter must be accorded,
when they shall be ready with the Counsel. We shall apply again, that we
may send it to you."
34 On June 3d the Nuremberg delegates received the Preface and sent the
Confession home with the remark, "An article or two are lacking at the end,
together with the Conclusion, at which the Saxon theologians are still
working." 35 About this time Luther had received Intelligence from Nuremberg "that
the Emperor is not coming to the Diet at all, and that the whole thing will
prove a failure." On the 5th he wrote to Linke, "I am sorry to hear that
there are doubts about the Diet," and gives as the reason why he does not
want so many visitors at Coburg that "it would offend the Prince."
30 See also letter of the Nuremberg delegates to the Nuremberg Senate.
C. R. II, p. 715.
2

xcviii INTRODUCTION
with Rome if five practical points are conceded. He writes
to Luther that the Emperor would make peace with the
Elector if the Elector kept free from alliances.
On the 15th the Emperor arrives in Augsburg, and in
terviews the Protestants together at night, after the cere
monies. On the same day the Elector admits the other
Lutheran Estates to the Confession. Next morning the
Protestants fail to participate in the procession of Corpus
Christi, while Melanchthon comes into touch with Schep-
per, the Emperor's Secretary. On the next day (17th) the
Elector and Princes give reasons to the Emperor why they
cannot stop the Protestant preaching. This creates a tur
moil among the Princes, but on the 18th the Protestants
agree to stop preaching temporarily, if the Romanists do
likewise. On the 17th Valdes, the Spanish Secretary, who
has been interviewed by Melanchthon, brings Melanch
thon's proposal to the Emperor, and on the next day Val
des, authorized by the Emperor and Campeggius, asked
Melanchthon to present the points of controversy in brief
est form for private settlement.
On Sunday (19jth) , there is no preaching. The Nurem-
bergers write that Melanchthon reports that the contro
versy may be narrowed down to a few points. On the 20th,
the Diet opens with the Elector bearing the sword before
the Emperor, and the Landgrave standing in the gallery.
On the 21st, Melanchthon's plan for settlement37 is
broached to the Elector and is rejected, and the work of
revising and completing the Confession is hurriedly begun.
The next day (22d), the Emperor orders the Elector to
have his Confession ready by Friday. On the day follow
ing (23d) , the Confession is finally read, the text fixed, and

37 Krauth knew of the interview between Melanchthon and Valdes, but
clearly regards the initiative as having been taken by the Roman Secretary,
and obviously does not regard the proposition as a substitute for the Confes
sion. After quoting what the Nuremberg legates wrote home on June 21st,
he says, "It is evident that the point involved in the conference between
Valdssius and Melanchthon was that of the abuses to be corrected, and not
the question of doctrine." Chronicle of the Augsburg Confession, pp. 44, 45.
Krauth's high estimate of Melanchthon and his loyalty to Philip are shown
here. But comp. Kolde, Tschaekert and other recent writers. "The Confes
sional History" leaves this point an open question.

INTRODUCTION xcix
it is signed. On Friday (24th), the Protestants are
put off, and the Emperor attempts to suppress the Confes
sion. On Saturday (25th), the Confession is presented
and read.
after tfje Beliberp of tiie Confession
It is quite true that the Reformers at Augsburg strongly
desired peace, and not war, and that all the theologians
from Luther down considered it necessary to use every ef
fort to avoid a breach with the Emperor. But a breach
with the Papacy or with the Church, for conscience' sake,
is not the same thing in their mind as a breach with the
Emperor. The desire of the reformers was to continue
in the old ecclesiastical order if possible, so long as the
pure preaching of the Word of God was permitted in their
dominions, and so long as their conscience was not injured
as to ecclesiastical abuses. It was a very difficult matter to
find and locate this exact point practically as a modus
vivendi, but, we believe that, if Melanchthon be an ex
ception, at no time were there any of the leading reform
ers who were willing to give up the Word of God or to
wound their consciences in order that they might remain
within the pale of the Roman Church.
We cannot therefore help regarding, as a serious misrepresentation,
the statement that is made in "The Confessional History of the Lutheran
Church" (p. 140) in describing "the efforts at reconciliation" at Augs
burg after the delivery of the Confession, as follows : "The Protestants
could not brook the idea of leaving the Catholic Church, nor the thought
of being thrust out of it. The Catholics knew full well what it meant to
the Catholic Church to have the Protestant Princes and their people
separated from that Church. There is no doubt that both parties felt
the awful power of the old dogma 'that there is no salvation out of the
Church.' "
We cannot believe that the Elector, so well grounded in the Word, was
troubled by the dogma, "There is no salvation outside of the Church."
The facts do not at all show that Melanchthon received instruction from
the Elector to make new advances to Oampeggius and to beg for harmony.
Yet from this point of view, of a yielding Electoral party, the whole issue
at Augsburg is treated by the author in question.
On the contrary, the Elector was standing, now, as before, on the
original terms of the Call, which proposed reconciliation, but after a fair
hearing of both sides of the case, that the truth might prevail. This is

c INTRODUCTION
a different position from any willingness on his part to give up the truth.
The letters written by Melanchthon to Cardinal Campeggius simply show
how far Melanchthon was willing to go in his diplomatic statements and
representations of the Protestant position. It was Melanchthon who was
trying to force the Protestant party into compromise. And when, on
the 6th of July, he wrote a letter under instruction from the Protestant
Princes to Campeggius, we may be sure that he placed the position of the
Protestant Princes in as favorable and conciliatory a light toward Rome
as possible. The letter is characteristically Melanchthonian, but even in
it the Protestant Princes promise to "accept such conditions as will pro
mote peace and concord, and as will tend to retain the ecclesiastical or
der" only "in so far as it can be done without wounding their con
sciences." And they declare "that they by no means wish the ecclesias
tical order and the lawful authority of the bishops to collapse."38 If
this letter be interpreted in the light of Melanchthon's other letter to the
Cardinal,39 in which he declares that he will show fidelity to the Roman
Church "to the last breath," it is clear how such evidence confirms the
unreliability of such a. delineation of the Protestant powers, not the
confessional collapse of the powers themselves.
There is no doubt that the Elector stood throughout for
the Word of God, and not, as we are told by, a recent writer,
for the Church.
The fundamental theory of The Confessional History, namely that the
entire Electoral party's chief concern at Augsburg was to be permitted
to remain in the bosom of the Roman Church, at almost any sacrifice, is
wholly untenable. The author of The Confessional History seems to
have overlooked, from first to last, the heroic acts and utterances of the
Elector and of the Margrave. Consider the Elector's reply of May 31st
to the Emperor ; the Elector's letter to Luther on June 4th ; the Elector's
refusal to kneel on June 15th, at the bridge of the Lech, or in the Cathe
dral that evening; the Elector's and Margrave's persistent refusal that
night to celebrate Corpus Christi next day ; the Margrave's exclamation,
"Before I would deny my God and His Gospel, I would have my head
struck off" ; the answer of the Elector on June 17th ; the Elector's in
sistence on signing the Confession, instead of Melanchthon and the theo
logians ; Melanchthon's letter to Luther on July 27th in which he de
clares that "Those who are here help me little," and his letter to Luther
of August 6th, in which he severely blames the Princes for their apathy
toward his proposed peace negotiations.
As to Luther's position on this point, we may cite his unwillingness to
accept the Emperor as judge in his letter of July 1st and 6th ; his letter
to the Archbishop of Mentz, July 6th, "They would rather endure hell

1 C. R. II, p. 171.
• lb. II, p. 168.

INTRODUCTION ci
itself than yield to us" ; his letter to Melanchthon of July 9th, "They
have a sad finale to look to, we a joyous one. Not indeed that unison in
doctrine will ever be restored, for how can any one hope that Belial will
come into concord with Christ." We cite also the strong later letters of
Luther. In this connection additional facts should be taken into account,
viz. : the Explanation of the Protesting Estates that no More Articles
will be Handed in, of July 10th, in which they demand that the Emperor
live up to his Call; the refusal of the Protestants to accept the Em
peror's decision that they do not confute the Confutation ; also Melanch
thon's letter to Luther of July 27th, and the one of August 6th."
At this particular time the Elector was looking, by rea
son of the great change and the kindly conduct in the
Emperor, for a fair treatment of the Protestant case on the
basis of the Call. This would naturally dispose him and
his side toward conciliation, and if they already had on
any point temporarily gone further, in yielding the evan
gelical principle, than they were conscious of, the yielding
was temporary, and when they became conscious of the is
sues involved, the reaction was all the sharper. And this, in
spite of the fact that Melanchthon already had done all in
his power, both in handling the case with the Emperor and
the Cardinal and, also in his attitude toward the Elec
tor and the Protestant party to bring about a return to
Rome even at a sacrifice of the essential principle of the
Reformation. We point, further, to the reply of the Elector to the Emperor on July
21st, in which he personally recognized the difference between the teach
ing in God's Word and that of Rome, and re-confessed, here and now,
all the articles of the Confession. We also point to the scene prior to
the selection of the so-called "Committee of Sixteen," which scene is not
brought out properly in "The Confessional History." The Protestants'
side of what took place on the afternoon of August 7th is not sketched
in real proportion,41 although the Catholic reply is given in large outline.
"The Confessional History" lays much stress on the "Explanation,"
under the lead of Melanchthon, of August 18th, and raises the question
whether this was the true and intended meaning of the Augsburg Con
fession. It says, "There is the Declaration. It speaks for itself. It
shows conclusively that the Protestant seven were willing to make peace
on terms that must prove humiliating to themselves and disastrous to their
cause." It devotes about seven pages to this "Explanation," and says at

w v. The Confessional Principle, footnote on p. 488.
« C. R. II, p. 266.

cii INTRODUCTION
the close, "The fact is, the Protestants, as we shall hereafter learn, had
almost completely lost their courage, and seemed willing — that is the
Saxons and Margravians — to purchase peace at almost any price." But
it fails to speak of the storm of dissent which arose outside the committee
against Melanchthon's program of concession.
One cannot but feel surprise at the inclusion of the Elector and the
whole Saxon party, as the responsible movers, in Melanchthon's treach
erous compromise, when, in The Confessional History, on p. 167, a
vital admission as to the Elector's position, as over against Melanchthon,
is made respecting the authorship of the report of Melanchthon of Au
gust 21st, as follows, "There can scarcely be a doubt that this Opinion
was written by command of the Elector."
In conclusion, as throwing light on the idea, plan and course of Me
lanchthon, we point back to his "Rhetorical Preface" framed as far back
as April and found in "The First Draft." As differing from Briick and
the Elector, and also the Landgrave, Melanchthon then already proposed
to make, and declared the Emperor to be, the sole arbiter in religion.
This Preface (according to "The Confessional History") evaded the
question of doctrine and laid all stress on Church Uniformity. This is
the hand of Melanchthon at that early day, rather than that of the Elec
tor or Briick. "The Confessional History" would involve even Luther in
the plan of the "Rhetorical Preface," but Luther himself is our witness
in his emphatic testimony that he had no heart for such a Confession.
The Confessional History explains Melanchthon's yield
ing in various statements, among others, as follows :
"He hated the democratic principles of the Swiss with a perfect
hatred. . . .
"Success on the part of Philip, and of the Swiss, would utterly defeat
the purpose and the desire of his party to obtain and to enjoy their rights
within the Church. . . .
"He stood almost with the devotion of a martyr, by the Empire and
by the Church. . .
"Hence Melanchthon's concessions at Augsburg — in the Confession, in
his correspondence with Campeggius, in the peace negotiations — did not
proceed from personal weakness, but from an honest desire to serve his
party, to carry out their determination to remain in the Church, to vindi
cate the Lutherans from identification with the Zwinglians and the
Anabaptists, and to maintain the integrity of the Holy Roman Empire
of the German Nation."
The author of "The Confessional History" does not seem
to see that he has here set down the case against Melanch
thon in a nutshell. The motives which he attributes to
Melanchthon are partly personal, largely political, in part

INTRODUCTION ciii
ecclesiastical, and in every instance partisan. To maintain,
to uphold, to vindicate, to confess, the pure Word of God,
though the heavens fall, was not part of his plan.
The author's quotation from Baumgarten's Geschichte Earls V., 3,
p. 28, is a condemnation of the main position of The Confessional History
respecting Melanchthon : "War die Konfession, welche der Kurfurst von
Sachsen in seinem und seiner lutherischen Glaubensgenossen Namen am
25. Juni vor Kaiser und Reich verlesen liess, im Sinne ausserster An-
nahrung an die alte Kirche und schroffster Absonderung von den Zwing-
lisehen gehalten, so ging Melanchthon in den spater gefiihrten Verhand-
lungen noch sehr weit fiber diese Linie hinaus."
acscfjatfeert's Hatestt Wovk
In the most recent work treating the subject, Tschaekert
upholds the distinction we draw between the method and
views of Melanchthon and the position of the Electoral
party. Tschaekert says :"
"Today it is almost a part of that which is incomprehensible in Melanch
thon's character, that he regarded the Confession, which his judgment,
at best, miist have looked at as an official state document of the Evan
gelical Estates, which had been read and delivered in solemn session,
which was an important part of German civil and church history, as
his private writing.43
"It was thus regarded by him immediately after the Diet and during his
long life, and changed it as often as he issued it in print. Attempts are
made to excuse this : it is said that Melanchthon acted in the interest of
a scientific teaching, in order to render the expressions more clear or
more exact. Further it is said that the Evangelical Estates and the
theologians took no offense at Melanchthon's changes, for decades.
"Both of these facts may be coi'rect, but they do not alter the fact, that
the editor-in-chief of the Confession had no understanding of the histori
cal importance of this official state document of the Evangelical Estates.
That, on the other hand, the Elector John Frederick regarded the Con
fession as his and that of the other signatories, is shown by his remon
strance to Briick of May 5th, 1537."
Cfje ©lb dSuesrtton of giutfjorfifjtp
As to the much-discussed question, treated in several
different places in this volume also, of the authorship of the
Augsburg Confession, we have no exception to take to the
main estimate of "The Confessional History."

12 Die Entstehung der luth. u. der Ref. Klrchenlehre, 1910, p. 288.
!3 Kolde, v. Footnote 21. p. 529, of the present volume, takes a less strict
view — T. E. S.

civ INTRODUCTION
It affirms that Melanchthon's "confessional restatement of the chief
doctrines of Christianity was something . . . distinctly new in the life
and history of the German people. ... It cannot be denied that the
Augsburg Confession, taken as a whole, and as a conception, is vastly
different from the Schwabach Articles, vastly different from any creed
or confession of faith that had previously existed or that has since come
into existence, vastly different from anything that had been written by
Luther, or previously by Melanchthon."" "As Luther's classic monument
ib the Small Catechism, so Melanchthon's classic monument is the Augs
burg Confession. In the erection of that monument he was not an editor,
a translator, a compiler, but an author." (P- 69. )«
After endorsing The Confessional History on this point,
it however is still pertinent to inquire in how far the sub
stance of the Testimony in the Augsburg Confession, and
especially all that which has made the Confession the bul
wark of our Faith today, emanates from Melanchthon. Can
we say, from what we know of Melanchthon's ideas in
the First Draft of the Confession, and at Augsburg during
the months of June, July and August, and in later years,
that what Luther testified to in private form in the nailing
of the Theses, at the Diet of Worms, and what the Electors
stood for in later Diets, including the one at Spires, and
what came to final expression at Augsburg, was the work
of Melanchthon?
Tschaekert, writing later than The Confessional History,

"p. 69.
15 But there is abundant room for varying opinions, on such a subject, de
pending on the point of view from which a writer approaches the problem,
and we do not believe that the cause of objective historical truth is furthered
by allusions to "some dogmaticians, or those who have reflected the dogmatic
temper, or those who have borrowed the Flacianist calumniations, or those
who have superficially examined the facts" ; nor by the endorsement ot
Weber's sarcastic disparagement of "the illustrious man of God, Herr Luther,"
and of "the Bergic Form of Concord" ; nor by the endorsement of Planck's
"independence of judgment" and authoritativeness in opinion ; nor by the
one-sided rhetoric of The Confessional History's own summation : "It became
the fashion in places to disparage Melanchthon in the Church which he had
helped to create, and to name Luther the author of the matter and the doc
trine of the Augsburg Confession, and to call Melanchthon the author of its
form, of its rhetoric, of its style. That is, the profound scholar, the accom
plished writer, the learned theologian, the trusted counsellor of Princes did
the work of an amanuensis at Augsburg! The Pr8t6n Pseudos once started,
it suited the taste and temper of a dogmatic age to keep it moving, though
there have always been those who had the manly courage to protest against
the great injustice." — The Confessional History, pp. 69-73.

INTRODUCTION cv
and citing it in his work, has given the right estimate, as
follows :
"The day after the delivery of the Confession a copy of it was sent by
Melanchthon to Luther, who only now learned to know its final form.
But in content it was built out of his thought material, so that he on
occasion could even describe it as his confession. Luther testified to
Melanchthon his agreement to the confession, but was of the opinion
that one dare not yield any further to the opponent. On the 6th of July
he expressed his joy that he has lived to this hour. It is true that when
new negotiations for reconciliation were entered into with the opposite
side in Augsburg, he, on the 25th of July, said of the soft-stepping
Apology that it had kept silent concerning certain articles, concerning
purgatory, worship of the saints, and most of all 'the antichrist, the
pope.' But at the close of the Diet he nevertheless gave Melanchthon and
his co-workers, on the 16th of September, the praise : 'Christum confessi
estis, pacem obtulistis, Caesari oboedistis, injurias tolerastis, blasphemiis
saturati estis nee malum pro malo reddidistis ; summa, opus sanctum Dei,
ut sanetos decet, digne tractastis.' "M
In another place, Tschaekert, declaring that the circum
stance that the Augsburg Confession and its Apology were
composed by Melanchthon, does not interfere with the fact
that the development of the Confession of our Church was
Lutheran, gives as the reason for this that "in both writ
ings Melanchthon works with Luther's thought-material.""
This is a fundamental conclusion with Tschaekert.
He speaks of it again on p. 275, and once again on p. 304. He says :
"The Augsburg Confession arose out of Luther's thoughts. Freely speak
ing, the real period of the formation of the Symbols of Lutheran
Protestantism lies between 1529 and 1537; for in this time the
original Luther confessional writings arose, both catechisms out of Luth
er's pen, the Augsburg Confession out of Luther's thoughts, but com
posed by Melanchthon, to which Melanchthon in his Apology to the same
added a theological treatise (Lehrschrift) ; at last the Schmalkald Articles,
also composed by Luther."48
"An investigation of the doctrinal content of the Lutheran confes
sions furnishes the result that as to the main matter it has flowed forth
from the fundamental thought of Luther. . . . The Lutheran Church
doctrine has flowed from the spirit of Luther, as he indeed has also com
posed both catechisms and the Schmalkald Articles, but likewise has
termed the Augustana 'his,' while Melanchthon furnished the theological

*• Die Entstehung der lutherischen und der reformierten Klrchenlehre. p. 286.
"p. 274.
«p. 275.

cvi INTRODUCTION
defense of the same in the Apology with Luther's thought-material. In
content therefore the Lutheran Church doctrine remains Luther's cre
ation."49 The estimate well combines and covers Melanchthon's
own statements as given partially at different times.
On June 27th, Melanchthon wrote to Luther, "Res sunt antea deliber-
atae ut scis, sed semper aliter in acie se dant quam antae sunt deliber-
atae."50 On August 27th, he wrote to Camerarius, "Nihil adhuc concessimus
adversariis praeter ea, quae Lutherus eensuit esse reddenda, re bene ae
diligenter deliberata. ante conventum."51 And his final statement as to his
work is as follows : "Nil sumpsi mihi ; praesentibus principibus et aliis
gubernatoribus et concionatoribus disputatum est ordine de singulis sen-
tentiis." GTfje Bebelopment of tfje Hutfjeran Confession
Technically, the Apology was a controversion of the
Confutation of the Augustana. Substantially, it was the
Augustana's confirmation. Made known to the laity in the
devotional German of Jonas, it was set alongside the
Augsburg Confession by the Evangelical Estates at
Schweinfurt in 1532, as "a Protection and Explanation of
the Confession.""2 Thenceforward, these two works were
counted as the official confessions of the Evangelical
Church and their recognition was made a condition for
membership in the Schmalkald League. Both were con
fessed in the Wittenberg Concord of 1536 and at Schmal
kald in 1537.53
Melanchthon worked continuously at the improvement of
the text of the Augustana. His enlargements of 1533,
especially in Articles IV, V, VI, XII, XV, and XX, in
which he adopted explanatory thoughts out of the Apology
in parenetic interests, and even the changes in Article
XVIII on Free Will, which is not to be interpreted syner-
gistically so much in itself as*in its comparison with the
48 p. 304.
50 C. R. II. p. 146.
« Ib. II. p. 334.
12 Cp. 0. Winkelmann, Der Schmalkaldische Bund, etc., Strassburg, 1892,
p. 197, p. 304 ff.
03 The changes in the later editions of the Apology are not of the character
of <> change in the teaching to the same extent as they are in the Augustana,
Cp. Tschaekert, p. 2!)0.

INTRODUCTION cvii
changed mode of treatment in the Latin editions of the
Loci (1535 and later), do not deflect the Confession so
seriously, as the change in the tenth Article on the Lord's
Supper. The omission of the vere et substantialiter adesse
and the reprobatio, just at the time when Melanchthon was
drawing closer to Bucer, and in conjunction with the Wit
tenberg Concord of 1536, and the censures of the Elector
John Frederick of 1537, justify us, as Kolde says, in com
ing to the conclusion that in view of his gradually differing
interpretation of the Lord's Supper, Melanchthon made the
change in the Confession in order to leave the way open for
union with the Highlanders.
Luther's peculiar situation was such that he could not
bring himself to a public disagreement with Melanchthon,
and it was only after Luther's death, under the influence of
the doctrinal controversies, when, under the attacks of the
Gnesio-Lutherans, the edition of 1540 became a" fortunate
symbol for the Melanchthonians, and later became such
even to the Crypto-Calvinists, that the Variata fell into
disrepute in the eyes of good Lutherans. It was this dis
repute that awakened in the confessors of the Book of Con
cord the intense desire to go back to the original text.
The question has been raised by Kolde and others as to whether the in
structions given to the theologians at Schmalkald in 1537, with respect to
revising the Augustana, may not have been a precedent which Melanch
thon followed three years later in his publishing the Variata. We doubt
whether it is possible to give an affirmative answer to this view. In the
first place the question arises as to how far Melanchthon himself may
not have been the source of the idea to revise, at Schmalkald already in
1535, and, later, in 1537. In the second place the question presents itself
as to whether such a revision would have been made by actual change
in the text of the document itself, and not by way of appendix or addi
tional confession. The difficulty in the way of fairly revising such an his
torical and official document may have been itself the strongest reason
why it was not actually undertaken. In the third place, if such a re
vision had occurred, on order of the estates, and in this public way, it
would, by express command, not have touched the substance of the Con
fession, and it would have been made publicly and officially by the rep
resentative of the powers who originally signed the Confession. In both
these respects, it would have differed from Melanchthon's revision of
1540, and probably would have constituted no precedent for the appear
ance of the Variata.

cviii INTRODUCTION
That the Elector of Saxony was opposed at this very time to the
changes, can be seen from the instructions that he gave to Briick in ask
ing that Luther's Articles should be discussed by the other Wittenberg
theologians, and that they should state their view frankly, and not merely
seem to agree, without opening their heart fully at this time, and then
afterwards at another time, teach something different, "as had already
happened on the part of several of them in several instances before this."
On this Kostlin remarks54 that it produces the impression that the Elec
tor had already had his attention drawn to the peculiar attitude of
Melanchthon in the question of the Lord's Supper. Tschackert's account
of the affair is as follows :
"At the convention at Schmalkald in February, 1537, the proceedings
ran counter to the intentions of the Saxon Elector. The Evangelical
Princes and Estates accompanied by numerous theologians had arrived.
But before they had reached a conclusion concerning the question as to
the preparation for the Council, the theologians received the commission
to reach an understanding concerning the doctrine, so that in case of a
possible attendance of the Council they would know what they had to
stand for. ©f a conclusive acceptance of the articles of Luther there was
no thought on the part of the Estates; Melanchthon who had been ad
vised™ on this point by the Landgrave Philip of Hesse, prevented it, be
cause the article concerning the Lord's Supper did not suit him. Hence the
theologians now received the commission, 'die Augsb. Konfession zu iiber-
sehen, nichts wider deren Inhalt und Substanz, auch der Konkordie (der
Wittenberger von 1536) zu andern, allein das Papsttum herauszustreichen,
das vormals auf dem Reichstage der Kais. Maj. zu untertanigem Gefallen
und aus Ursachen unterlassen,' etc.60 (Kolde, Analecta Lutherana 1883,
p. 297.) Accordingly the theologians were first of all to go through the
Augustana, second, to furnish an additional article, lacking there, on the
papacy. The Augustana and the Apology again met approval and were
signed by them. Luther did not participate because he was ill in bed."5'
Luther was not thus ill from the start, at Schmalkald. On February
Oth he wrote to Justus Jonas that the princes were in secret deliberations,
and that he had nothing to do. He could neither know nor guess what
was being transacted nor what would happen. On the 14th he wrote
to Justus Jonas, "It is now the eighth day on which we are being de-

54 II, p. 387.
55 However Cp. Footnote 17, p. 527, and Footnote ZO, p. 528, for Kolde's
opinion on this point. (The italics in the text are ours.)
56 "Nichts wider deren Inhalt und substanz auch der concordy endern, allein
das babstum heruss zu strichen, des vormals uff dem richsdog der key.
Mt. zu underthenigem gefallen und uss ursachen underlossen."  Report of tha
Strassburg Theologians, Analecta Lutherana, p. 293.
07 Tschaekert, p. 300.

INTRODUCTION cix
tained here, or are being kept in suspense. We are nothing but an idle
gathering. The princes and estates are deliberating concerning other
matters than we thought of, and without us. Christ give their delibera
tions and their undertakings success." So that, at Schmalkald, Melanch
thon was active, but Luther was inactive. He always remained in ignor
ance of the fact that his articles were not officially adopted by the con
vention. The amplification he made later on in these articles constitutes
the strongest formal justification for similar amplification on the part
of Melanchthon. But there is a great difference, as to revision, between
these Schmalkald Articles and the Augsburg Confession. Luther did not
change the substance of them; and, in the second place, the Articles
themselves were never actually brought before a Diet or General Council
for adoption.58
Up to this point at least, the testimony of Tschaekert is
confirmatory of the position maintained in this book.
Tschaekert goes so far as to declare, "One may say a hun
dred times, in scientific circles, that the Symbols must be
understood in a purely historical sense — and this we also
are trying to do here — nevertheless the fact remains, that
the Symbols in Lutheran Protestantism have gained an
entirely unique significance: they represent the genuine
Lutheran Church doctrine. . . . We therefore treat the
fixation of the Lutheran fundamental thoughts in the genu
ine Lutheran confessional writings."59
But Tschaekert differs from us in this, that he confines
the genuine Confessions of the Lutheran Church to the
writings accepted in the life-time of Luther. There is
something to be said for this position, yet on the whole it is
not well grounded. As a matter of historical fact one
cannot circumscribe the crystallization of the principle of
a new movement to the life-time of its founder. Time is
needed to settle the process. As a matter of precedent, not
one of the oecumenical creeds could abide such a test.
Christ was raised from the grave and ascended into heaven

58 "He has prefixed a long preface to the manuscript and has enlarged the
text itself at various places, but without altering the real content and tenor
of-the whole. He did the same in the edition of 1543." — Tschaekert, p. 302.
"The Book of Concord, when it took the Schmalkald Articles into the line
of Lutheran confessional writings, only witnessed to a situation of fact that
was already existing."— Ib. p. 302.
Bsp. 275.

ex INTRODUCTION
long before the Apostles' Creed oame into being. Finally, as
a matter of principle, the right of the Christian Church,
not to alter the old, but to confirm the old by the addition
of new Confessional testimony, at any time in the future
when this might become necessary, though the right be
rarely exercised, must be kept open. Neither the Formula
of Concord, nor a Twentieth Century Confession could
legitimately be shut out from a genuine Confessional stand
ing in the Church on the ground advanced by Tschaekert.
This is the point, says Seeberg, whether there is a con
tinuity in the teachings of all our Confessions ; and whether
we become conscious of an inner connection of the religious
tendencies of the Formula with our own faith. "If this is
the case, the verdict of the abiding value of the Bekennt-
nisnorm will be apparent even for our day. The Lutheran
. . must not conceal his positive attitude toward the
last Confession of his Church."60
tEfje Variations of tfje gugefturg Confession
There remains, in connection with the Augsburg Confes
sion, one further topic to be touched. We cannot, without
danger of being misunderstood, pass over the confessional
bearing of the changes introduced by Melanchthon into the
various editions of the Augsburg Confession. The state
ments of "The Confessional History," with their lack of the
historic sense, and their subtlety in dogmatic statement,
would, if they were correct, undermine the stability of the
Augsburg, and every other Christian Confession. Against
these statements are Kolde, Tschaekert, and even Weber,
so far as the Latin Editio Princeps is concerned.
Among the statements made by "The Confessional His-
tory," we select the following :
"The editio princeps ... is the private work of Melanchthon."—
The Confessional History of the Lutheran Church, p. 214.
"If one compares the editio princeps with Prof. Tschackert's Critical
Edition, he cannot resist the conclusion that he has here an altered
Augsburg Confession." — Ib. p. 216.

50 Herzog-Hanck Real Encyclopaedie

INTRODUCTION cxi
"Melanchthon's German editio princeps is very much varied '' 
Ib. p. 217.
"In all the qualities named above, it cannot be denied that these Ger
man Variatae greatly surpass the editio princeps." — Ib. p. 224.
" 'That first and unaltered Augsburg Confession' is not known to exist
anywhere in the world." — Ib. p. 230.
"The Lutheran doctrine has not been corrupted in the Variatae, but it
has been clarified, amplified in statement, fortified by argument, rendered
more decidedly Protestant, and more distinctively Lutheran." — Ib. p. 231.
"Such a confession [the editio princeps] could not have formed the
fundamentmn of a Protestant Church, but rather a convenient bridge for
crossing to the right bank of the Tiber. Thanks to Melanchthon ! The
deficiencies and ambiguities that every theologian encounters in the
editio princeps, to say nothing of the 'Invariata,' are removed by the later
Variatae, which, for almost fifty years, supplanted the editio princeps,
and helped to determine the meaning of the Augsburg Confession, and to
distinguish the Lutheran doctrine." — Ib. p. 231.
"The thanks of the entire Church are due to Melanchthon for his
Variatae. He represents progress and adaptation in the Lutheran
Church ; and in the fact that Luther and his co-reformers approved and
endorsed his changes and adaptations, and made them their own, we
have the positive proof that the authority of the Confession in their
estimation, was not to be sought in the letter, or in any particular form
of words, but in the content and in the conception of the doctrine.
"In this form [editio princeps] the Augsburg Confession has had its
widest recognition, but in this form it is not the Confessio Augustana In
variata, and no intelligent theologian, not blinded by prejudice, would
claim for it any such distinction, . . ." — Ib. p. 232.
"He [Luther] knew of and approved the changes made by Melanch
thon in the Augsburg Confession." [The italics are ours.] — Ib. p. 312.
As against the theory of a Melanchthonian private
authorship, it will be sufficient to quote Kolde's remark :01
"The fact that Melanchthon does not style himself the au
thor, as he does in the case of the Apology, shows that he
regarded the Augustana as an official document."02

01 Kolde, p. 524 in this volume.
62 Even Weber upholds the priority of the Latin quarto of 1530, and calls
it the "Melanchthonische Haupt-Ausgabe." His investigation maintains its
authenticity, and he declares that it remains 'the most precious treasure of
the Evangelical Church'. Weber says, further (II. p. 5) : "If the editions are
to be distinguished from one another without falling into confusion, it is
necessary to single out the first one, which, according to Melanchthon's ad
missions, was printed critically and after a good and trustworthy copy from
the others, which contain his further elaborations and elucidations." Weber
in II, p. 230 says, "In my opinion, it is not an easy thing to exhibit Melanch-

cxii INTRODUCTION
Weber rightly emphasizes the point that Melanchthon
was filled with the desire to present the truths of the Evan
gelical doctrine in an ever more clear and determinate
way and to preserve them from all misunderstandings ; but
he fails to perceive two facts in this connection : first, that
Melanchthon was not doing this but the opposite, when he
introduced such variations as approximate to the Ro
man doctrine (Synergism), and to the Reformed doctrine
(Sacramentarianism) . Here Melanchthon was repudiat
ing his own position taken at Augsburg, and thus was
contributing to confusion instead of to clearness in the
Evangelical doctrine. In the second place, the constant
varying of the terms of Evangelical doctrine, as pursued
continuously by Melanchthon, thwarted the very object he
had in mind according to Weber, viz., "To present the
truths of the Evangelical doctrine more and more deutlich
and bestimmt."
Weber admits that it is a question whether it would perhaps not have
been better if Melanchthon had allowed the Confession to stand simply
according to the letter and had incorporated his additions in the Apology.
Weber I p. 59 rightly says that the question of the original manuscript
of the Augsburg Confession was never raised in earlier Reformation days,
partly because it was believed, and could also rightly be believed, that Me
lanchthon in his quarto edition of the years 1530-31 had seen to a good
and correct copy of the Latin and German Confession ; and in part be
cause the Confession was not at that time looked' upon as an obligating
symbol for the Protestant Church.
For the critical value of the first Quarto Latin edition of
Melanchthon Weber gives the reasons : (1) That Melanch
thon himself should be believed. (2) That we would not
know what archive copies to trust, without the first edition
of Melanchthon. . . (3) Lindan had the Latin original in his
•hands and collated with the Quarto of 1531 and does not
speak of any variations, which as a bitter enemy of the
Protestants he would surely have done if he had found
them. (4) It is highly probable that the variations which

thon's changes and improvements. I do not mean the variations in respect
to the different editions, but I mean the history of the variations as to the
mode of origin and content, — further, whether Melanchthon can be excused
on this account by thoughtful people."

INTRODUCTION cxiii
the Melanchthon edition manifests as over against the other
two were also found in the original writing.
Weber says further that Melanchthon's improved editions of the Augs
burg Confession are nothing more than paraphrases, or, if one will,
commentaries on the first Print.
In addition to the judgment expressed more fully in the
body of our book, we quote the two most recent writers on
the variations, viz., Tschaekert and Neve. Tschaekert03 says :
"The attempt is made to excuse this : Melanchthon is said
to have acted in the interests of a better teaching, in order
to make clearer or more exactly to explain the expressions.
Again it is said that the Evangelical Estates and the theolo
gians took no offense at Melanchthon's changes for a whole
decade. Both of these statements may be correct, but that
does not change the fact that the editor in chief of the Con
fession had no comprehension of the world-historical im
portance of these public documents of the Evangelical Es
tates. That on the other hand the Elector John Frederick
regarded the Confession as his and as belonging to the
other subscribers of the Confession, is proved by his ad
monition to Briick of May 5, 1537."
To this may be added the judgment of Neve :"*
"We can, strictly speaking, not call the Editio Princeps
an Invariata, because the edition also contains changes
from the original. Yet inasmuch as these changes are of no
doctrinal importance, we will be justified in using that term
in contrast to an edition which does contain very significant
changes. And this distinction will never disappear from
the terminology of the historians on this subject, nor will
the Lutheran Church ever cease to make that distinction."
And again : "In the Variata we have the unconscious, embryonic be
ginnings of a theology which in the soon following Crypto-Calvinistic
troubles became the fermenting element, and which in a following age
received a temporary expression in Syncretism, and finally became per
manently embodied in the Prussian Union established in 1817. And

"sDie Entstehung der luth. und der reformierten Klrchenlehre, p. 286.
64 "Are we Justified in Distinguishing Between an Altered and an Unaltered
Augustana as the Conf. of the Luth. Ch.?" — Luth. Ch. Rev., Jan., 1911.
3

cxiv INTRODUCTION
insignificant as the changes may have appeared at first, in connection
with the soon following aggressive advances of Crypto-Calvinism, with
the Variata as its shibboleth, this altered edition of Melanchthon was
bound to become discredited in the Lutheran Church."
It is a peculiarity of any generation not to observe the
gradual development, in its midst, of the seeds of evil from
day to day, until the evil has come to full bloom, and thus
it was with the theologians of the early Evangelical church
and Melanchthon's Variata.
"The Confessional History," with dramatic effect, sets a
Critical Text put together in 1901 by Tschaekert from the
best official manuscripts in the hands of the original sign
ers, against the Editio Princeps, as the real Invariata, but
in this seems to have overlooked the verdict of Kolde
against the certitude of Tschackert's text.
"The Confessional History" exalts this "unveraenderte Augsburgische
Konfession . . . Kritische Ausgabe (1901), constructed by Professor
Tschaekert, and accepted by all Augsburg Confession scholars as repro
ducing 'the original and unaltered Augsburg Confession' with a high
degree of accuracy ; and consequently as discrediting utterly the Textus
Receptus, German and Latin, of the Book of Concord, and all the Me
lanchthon, and all other printed editions. . . It shows, if not verbally
and literally, yet certainly, to a high degree of accuracy, the Augsburg
Confession as it was read and delivered, June 25, 1530 ; and it enables
us to settle forever, in its essential aspects, the hitherto hazy and uncer
tain contention over the Confessio Invariata. It shows, further, that no
edition of the Augsburg Confession in official use in the Lutheran Church
today can be claimed by its subscribers as 'that first and unaltered Augs
burg Confession,' not even in a technical sense as over against the Latin
Variata of 1540," etc.— (pp. 210-211).
As against this we set Kolde's statement :05 "We do not
really know the text actually presented, notwithstanding all -
the valuable attempts to determine it, by means of critical
methods, from the extant oldest copies."
On the principles of the work to which we have taken
exception, it is difficult to discover great harm in Variata
texts of the Confession.
If the text is variant as to form, we are not bound by the form ; if it
is variant as to substance, the substance may be an improvement. Yet
the work, (perhaps recalling Weber), terms, (p. 212), a German text

05 p. 524 in this volume.

INTRODUCTION cxv
taken by mistake into the Book of Concord, a text with many minor
changes of no textual value, but also of no injury to the substance, "a
vicious copy of a German manuscript" ; and Tschackert's judgment of
1901, "without authentic value," "through and through inaccurate" is sev
eral times (p. 224, 233) repeated; whereas Tschackert's own statement,
in 1910, as to this text, is :
"The Saxon theologians acted in good faith, and the Mainz copy is even
better indeed than Melanchthon's German Original Druck; but compared
with the complete and trustworthy, that is with the original that was
delivered over with the contemporary signatures of the signers, the Mainz
text nevertheless shows itself faulty in many places." (p. 621) . . .
"Since the greatest emphasis was laid on taking the Unaltered Augsburg
Confession into the Book of Concord, they would surely have been as glad
to use a copy of the 'Original' for the Latin text, as they were to secure
one for the German text out of the archives at Mainz ; but the imperial
archives contained no Latin manuscript of the Confession, and Latin
original copies in the possession of those who signed were not known at
that time. Therefore there was nothing else to do but to take Melanch
thon's Editio princeps, the quarto edition, which had been printed in 1530
and had been issued in 1531 at the same time that the Latin Apology
was. This text, then, was accepted since no better one was known." M
As to the Latin text, we have not found, in the work we
are discussing, any statement of the real reason why the
Octavo edition of 1531 was used by Selnecker.
On the contrary its use is expressly attributed to ignorance, "Proof
this," says the author, "that the theologians of that period knew very
little about the different editions of the Confession and Apology.""
Wot Culmination of tfje Hutfjeran Confession
The Augsburg Confession was but a beginning. Though
in it all other Protestants had been excluded from partici
pation, and the Evangelical Church of Luther had given its
final answer to the old world-order and to Rome, the
Church of the Augsburg 'Confession had not yet given any
answer to the antithesis in Protestantism itself.
The spirit of protest in and for itself, to be exercised as
the rule, and not as the great exception ; the desire to cast
away the authority of the fixed and the old, even where this
authority was not abnormal ; the introduction of a rational

6»p. 624.
«p 526.

cxvi INTRODUCTION
spirit, as the arbiter of faith, into religion ; and of restless
reform into society, was farther away, if possible, from the
aim of the Lutherans, than was Rome herself. What to do
as to the remaining parts of Protestantism — the Swiss and
Strasburgers, the humanists, the sectarians, the English —
now became the Confessional problem, from 1530 on. Un
less conservative Protestantism, midway between two ex
tremes, could give a sufficient and final answer to its own
extreme in its own wing, even as it had given answer to
the Roman extreme in the other wing, it would be ground
to powder between the two, and disappear.
It was here that Melanchthon, unable to satisfy his
humanistic mind in the deeper mysteries of the faith, and
turned by the success of Protestantism, and by Bucer,
farther away from Rome, sought to bridge the chasm be
tween Luther's religion of faith alone, and the Highland
er's religion of faith and reason. Tschaekert, in his recent
work,08 presents a fine picture of the inner thought of Me
lanchthon, in which he says :
"Melanchthon was a born Greek and came as such to Wittenberg ; but
carried away by the fascinating power of the mighty preacher of the
Word bf God, he became interested along theological lines. From Luther
he absorbed the Pauline understanding of the Gospel and in his Loci he
brought the anti-Roman propositions of Luther into teachable form . . .
But more and more clearly, as time went on, did Melanchthon's own
peculiar nature separate itself alongside of and in distinction from
Luther. "Luther's fundamental religious trait was that of the boldest religious
supranaturalism; he had experienced faith as a deed of God's grace done
to him, and in his religious heroism he did not concern himself with any
reflections as to how this fact was possible or by what means it had been
accomplished. But Melanchthon needed an ethical mediation of the life of
faith, and he did not perceive this fully until after Luther's conflict with
Erasmus. . . . The Classics of the Greeks had represented the highest
pure human wisdom of life in a knowledge of nature and in the culture
of morals to Melanchthon.
. But after the conflict of Luther with Erasmus, Melanchthon
would have been most glad to withdraw himself from theological lec
tures. Through the instrumentality of Luther he was nevertheless en
trusted wilh the theological professorate by the Elector John of Saxony

«s Die Entstehung der lutherischen und reformierten Kirchenlehre, Gottingen,
1910, pp. 502-504.

INTRODUCTION cxvii
in the year 1526, although he was neither a licentiate nor a doctor of
theology. After that he also belonged to the Theological Faculty and
labored untiringly in this his position for theology and the Church, and
particularly after the death of Luther he accomplished wonderful things
for the theological development of the students at Wittenberg by means
of his touching fidelity to the duty of a teacher.
"But despite his holding fast to Luther, he went his own way in
scientific theology after the second half of the second decade. First of all
he retired the doctrine of predestination because it appeared to him as an
'unentwirrbares Labyrinth der Gewissen.' . . . Further he was ruled
by a strongly ethical method of viewing thought. . . . This funda
mental view led him to synergism in the doctrine of conversion . . .
it also led him to the emphasis of the necessity of good works in the
Christian life. Then finally he desired a simplification of the doctrine
in matters of the Lord's Supper, and a reduction of the same to that
which was necessary for personal faith in salvation with the exclusion of
metaphysical propositions. If these peculiarities of teaching were to be
emphasized in a one-sided way, they could easily become the foundation
of theological differences. To this was added the fact that Melanchthon
himself after the death of Luther, in the confusions subsequent to the
Schmalkald War, had more and more to assume the role of a public leader,
not only in theology, but much more in affairs of the Church.
. . . "In spite of all the personal weaknesses of Melanchthon, it re
mains his merit that he led the stream of humanism into the bed of
Protestantism, and united science and faith in salvation in innermost
unity. . . . He proved in his own person that religious faith could
exist alongside of the most brilliant culture, while in Italy humanism
deteriorated into skepticism and atheism.
"Nevertheless Melanchthon dare not be set up as a parallel alongside of
Luther. ... So long as Luther lived, Melanchthon strengthened the
Protestant backbone ; but after Luther's death Melanchthon lost all hold
en the public guidance of the Church. In an unfortunate private letter
of the 28th of April, 1548, to Carlowitz, the counsel of the Elector Maurice
of Saxony, the intimidated man confessed that under Luther he had
suffered an 'almost ignominious captivity' and gives to understand that
he was obliged to 'conceal' his own views. 'Tuli etiam antea servitutem
paene deformem, cum saepe Lutherus magis suae naturae, in qua
fiXovstxia erat non exigua, quam vel personae suae vel utilitati communi
serviret. Et scio, omnibus aetatibus, ut tempestatum incommoda, ita ali-
qua in gubernatione vitia modestis arte ferenda et dissimulanda esse.. . .
Fortassis natura sum ingenio servili.' " From that time on the cunning
receiver of the letter knew that Melanchthon was wax in his hands."™

«• O. R. 9, 879ff.
"pp. 502-504.

cxviii INTRODUCTION
Thus it was that the concealed antithesis between Luther
and Melanchthon, on doctrine now often regarded as not
fundamental, led to violent and extreme disruption in the
Church after the death of the principals, and that the con
flict should concentrate in the central and typical mystery
of the Christian Faith, the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper.
"There is not a day nor a night for the last ten years,"
declares Melanchthon, "that I did not meditate upon the
doctrine of the Lord's Supper." But the meditation of
Melanchthon was upon a truth that might be held in
reason,71 while the meditation of Luther was upon a real
ity ™ embraced by faith. To Luther the Sacrament is God's
unchangeable fact.
"Can you think," he says, "that God is so concerned abont what we do
and believe, as on that account to change his institutions?"73 "The
chief point," says he, "is the Word and institution of God." Hence he
presents the Sacrament (Small Catechism, Part V) not as a mode of
truth, nor as a result gained by argument, but as the great fact of Chris
tianity, to be used as such. It is this dependence on the fact, which was
the strength of Luther and Lutheranism. "The doctrines of the Luth
eran Church cannot be changed," says Krauth." Is it any wonder that
Melanchthon's changes could not voice these doctrines?
Tender, conciliatory, peace-loving, hoping to the last,
even after the Convention of Worms in 1557, for a recon
ciliation of the various branches of the Christian Church,
Melanchthon's principle centred in the human side of
Christianity, the unity of the Church, while Luther's prin
ciple centred in the divine side of Christianity, the reality,
even into all mystery, of Christ.
"The Confessional History of the Lutheran Church"
treats the years and the movements between the death of
Luther and the adoption of the Formula of Concord, with
fulness. Of the period between the Augsburg and the Leip-
71 Cp. The admission in The Confessional History, p. 113, "With Luther,
sacrament was res sacra, with Melanchthon it was ritus. See Apology, De
Numero et Usu Sanramentorum."
72 Cp. Large Cat. : "The entire Gospel is by the Word embodied in this
Sacrament." — B. of C. Jacobs, p. 479.
73 Large Catechism, Ib. pp. 476-477.
74 C. P. Krauth by Spaeth, p. 101.

INTRODUCTION cxix
zig Interims, the author writes of Melanchthon, "His con
duct was all that could be reasonably expected of him in
these perilous times'"^
He quotes v. Ranke with approval as follows : "And so much is cer
tain, that though they yielded and followed, still they did not violate the
Evangelical system in its essence" (p. 321). The endorsement of the
Augsburg interim was unfortunate chiefly, in the eyes of "The Confes
sional History" because it introduced the spirit of schism into the Luth
eran Church, which has haunted it ta this day" (p. 323). Flacius "out-
Luthered Luther" (p. 324), and appears as the author of the strife
with Major and Osiander (p. 325). In the Crypto-Calvinistic controversy
"neither side maintained the Luther-M.elanchthon doctrine of the Lord's
Supper" (p. 329).
Nearly forty pages are devoted by the author to the doc
trine of Predestination and Free Will.
Luther's position in the De Servo Arbitrio is characterized as fatalistic
or necessitarian (p. 366), and it is declared (p. 370) that "The Philip-
pists maintained the true Lutheran doctrine of sin, both original and
actual ; maintained the Lutheran doctrine of the universality of the Call,
and taught that when the Will (Voluntas) is excited and assisted by the
Holy Spirit through the Word, it is not absolutely inactive, but assents
to or rejects the divine promise and offer of salvation."
In discussing the later Christological controversy,
Luther's position is properly presented —
"And yet Luther . . . shows a preference, or at least a great fond
ness for the human nature of Christ" (p. 373). Melanchthon (p. 374)
"regarded the communicatio idiomatum as a figure of speech" 70 Melanch
thon's teaching "does not differ in its Christological aspects from the
doctrine of Luther, except that it has no speculative element, such as
Luther introduced in connection with his doctrine of the Lord's Supper,
and no mystical element, such as Luther often introduced in his The
Freedom of a Christian Man, and in his House Postils, though as Luther
grew older his sense of the Christ for us more and more took precedence
of his sense of the Christ in us." (p. 376.)
In coming to a comparison between the teaching of the
two recent works on the Formula of Concord, which
have appeared since our own volume was written, we
find that Tschaekert defends the Formula, as the crystal
lization of a certain consensus, which had gradually formed

75 p. 321. (The italics are ours.)
mC. R. XXI, p. 363.

cxx INTRODUCTION
itself during and after the doctrinal conflicts, and which
expressed the genuine Lutheran doctrine, in the way of the
day, it is true, but in a manner that clarified and gave a
decisive directive to Lutheran theology."
The other volume before us finds, after careful and pro
longed examination, that the Formula of Concord is a parti
san writing which was forced upon the churches, whose
"unreconciled antitheses and spirit of controversy" has
done no good to the Church, but has been productive of a
great amount of injury.
Tschaekert does not regard the Formula as a Symbol of
the Church, because it arose after the death of Luther, and
because it is of a theological rather than of a popular reli
gious character. The other author does not regard it as a
Symbol since it was born in a bad way, was acknowledged
chiefly by coercion, and has been the cause of pretty nearly
all the trouble and harm that has come to the Lutheran
Church in Germany and in America since its own day.
Tschaekert concludes that the content and scope of the
Formula was determined entirely by the circumstances of
the times. Each article is an independent little monograph,
corresponding to its own independent doctrinal contro
versy. "Yet they are not altogether neutral toward each
other; they all arise out of a common soil, the Lutheran
scriptural doctrine of justification with its presuppositions
and consequences; on this their inner connection rests."
"Thus the Formula of Concord wrought in clarifying and
further developing the relation of human freedom to divine
grace, in conversion, in justification, in good works, in the
Lord's Supper, in Christology and Predestination."
The other author finds in the Formula a useless reviving
of controversies that already had died down of their own
accord, an internal weakening and external dividing of the
Church, and the introduction of doctrinal confusion, rather
than the "reestablishment of continuity with genuine Luth
eran doctrine."
As to the dialectic method of the Formula, Tschaekert

"pp. 571, 572.

INTRODUCTION cx*'
explains it as that of "dogmatic loci, to whose form every
one was accustomed through the school of Melanchthon."
In this, namely that the hardening of form was not due to
an extreme Lutheranism, he is in agreement with Seeberg,
and takes issue with Kawerau and Loofs. Tschaekert
says, "The criticism that the Formula of Concord has changed Luther's doc
trine of the faith is not applicable. Doubtless it has emphasized the in
tellectual element in Luther's conception of faith in a one-sided way, and
also has, on occasion, called the Gospel a 'doctrine, which teaches what
man shall believe.' But at the same time and in the same connection
the Formula of Concord has expressly declared that faith consists 'only
in trust in the Lord Jesus.' (This is in answer to Moeller-Kawerau,
Kirchengeschichte III, 268: 'This sentence shows most clearly the
change that had come over Luther's doctrine of faith.' Loofs goes still
further, Dogmengeschichte 927 : that through the Formula of Concord
and the Book of Concord the 'doctrinal torpidness [Erstarrung] of the
Reformation thought had come to its climax.') Neither is the ethical
motive in Luther's conception of faith at all wanting in the Formula of
Concord. We can surely point to the fact that the Augsburg Confession
itself in its seventh article says that the unity of the Church is condi
tioned by the 'doctrina evangelii' together with the scriptural administra
tion of the sacraments."
As to the doctrinal effect of the Formula, Tschaekert
says, 'The Formula of Concord restored a unity of doctrine in the majority of
Lutheran countries ; it pushed Philippism to a side and distinguished itself
from Calvinism. The extremes of the Gnesio-Lutherans were decidedly
• rejected, but on the whole none of the opponents was mentioned by name
in order that no personalities might creep into the work of union. That
the composers over-valued the importance of their work and gave to it
the significance of a rule of doctrine for the future is to be regretted :
but this view of their own work exercised no influence upon the formation
of the Formula of Concord. Therefore this judgment as to itself, which
at any rate comes to light only incidentally, can be left out of considera
tion when we are dealing with a valuation of the content. Thus the
whole presents itself as a carefully thought out and sharply distinct
thought-structure which has given decisive directives to the Lutheran
theology." n
As to the ecclesiastical effect Tschaekert says :
"The authoritative character of the Book of Concord brought it about
that the churches of those countries that governed themselves by it, felt
78 pp. 571-572.

cxxii INTRODUCTION
themselves as the 'Lutheran Church' ... In the Formula of Concord the
churches of the Augsburg Confession are still called 'ecclesiae reformatae.'
But since in foreign lands, in France, Holland and England the evan
gelicals there called themselves 'Reformed,' and since the Philippists, who
in Germany annexed themselves to Calvinism after the introduction of the
Book of Concord, took the characterization 'Refurmiert' for their Parti
cular Church, the adherents of the Book of Concord at the same time
distinguished themselves from these as the 'Lutheran Church.' " 79
The manner of introducing the Formula, Tschaekert ex
plains as follows :
"The introduction of the Book of Concord as the rule of doctrine, was
on act of the ecclesiastical authority in each of the estates which since
Luther's appeal 'to the Christian Nobility' had gradually developed itself
of its own accord in the realm of Protestantism." M
As to the range of the acceptance of the Formula,
Tschaekert says,
"All the Corpora doctrinae mentioned up to this point possessed a sig
nificance only for the local state churches, but almost all of them lost
even this of themselves, when a confessional book of almost universal
acceptance came into being in the sphere of Lutheranism (in Bereich
des Luthertums ein nahezu allgemein giltiges Bekenntnisbuch), the Book
of Concord of the year 1580. After the Formula of Concord had been
completed and recognized by numerous evangelical estates, the plan is
resolved on in Electoral Saxony now to set up a unifying Corpus doc
trinae for all adherents to the same." sl
As to the Churches that failed to sign the Formula,
Tschaekert expresses the following judgment:
"Those who did not sign the Formula by no means refused for dogmatic
reasons. On the other hand their reasons were chiefly political or local or
personal, and if King Frederick by his decree of July 24th, 1580 forbade
tbe publication of the Formula of Concord in the Lutheran churches of
Sweden and Denmark on penalty of death, this was purely for political
reasons. Although later still some dissenting state churches accepted the
Formula of Concord, it has nevertheless never formally been the con
fession of the whole of Lutheranism (-Kolde, Introduction, LXXIII." w
There are two points in which Tschaekert does not agree
with us in his estimate of the Formula of Concord. In the
first place he sets it down as "only an Order of Doctrine"

79 p.

625.

80 p.

625.

81 p.

620.

82 p.

569.

INTRODUCTION cxxiii
but admits, in this connection, that according to the think
ing of the second half of the sixteenth century, it was the
"pure doctrine" which conditioned "the existence of the
churches themselves."
He says, "It is this pure doctrine which establishes the whole and
stable existence of the religion, worship, and thought of the Church ;
faith, worship, good works, the relation to the state, everything receives
its direction through the pure doctrine." But for our modern day he
accepts the canon, "The more theology a. confession contains, the less
proper is it for a' confession of the congregation,'' and cites the Apostles'
Creed as an incomparable confession for the congregation because it con
tains no theology at all, but only faith in the divine plan of salvation.
He admits that his modern canon "was not yet needed for the second
generation of the Reformation theologians and their Christian state
authorities."83 The second point of difference in Tschaekert is his view
that the Formula of Concord develops the doctrine of the
two natures of Christ on the teaching of the Council of
Chalcedon, and that the Formula of Concord has based its
teaching on the philosophical doctrine of the ubiquity of
the Person of Christ. Thus he says,84 "Luther's theory of
the Ubiquitas corporis Christi has not been carried over
into our Symbols ; it was only taken up later by the Formu
la of Concord under the stimulus of the renewed controver
sies concerning the Lord's Supper."
Yet in making these two criticisms of the Formula,
Tschaekert at the same time offers most substantial con
cessions to the strength of the teaching of the Formula.
As differentiating the teaching of the Formula from the
doctrine of the two natures of the Council of Chalcedon,

83 We do not believe that Tschackert's modern confessional canon has any
sound basis in the necessities of this age. If it had, and if a confession is
to be limited to that which can readily be used by the congregation in its
worship, not only the Formula of Concord, but the Augsburg Confession, the
Apology and the Schmalkald Articles, all of which Tschaekert numbers among
the confessions of the Church, would likewise be ruled out. The fact is that
an "unreflective lay Christianity" as over against a "theologico-scientiflc"
apprehension of the Gospel is less characteristic of our condition today than
ever, for this is a day when theology, with all its doctrines, is being discussed
by clergy and laymen in nearly all the papers and popular magazines of the
\and. There never has been a time when the educated layman has been so
"reflective" on the matter of the substantial content of creeds, notwithstand
ing his aversion to their fixed form.
84 p. 323.

cxxiv INTRODUCTION
Tschaekert declares that the Formula "continues to develop
it to a definite doctrine of the Unio personalis and the real
and total Communicatio idiomatum." He says definitely,
"The unity of both natures dare not be thought of in the
manner of the Nestorian and the Antiochian theologians as
purely external  On the other hand both natures
enter into such a unity with each other that they constitute
a single and unique person. Thus both natures enter into
the innermost conceivable communion with each other."85
Again he says, "The Formula of Concord describes the
transfer of the divine attributes, to the human nature of the
Godman in incomparable terms."86
The true fact is that Luther drew his doctrine of the
Person of Christ directly from the Scripture. It was the
reality in Scripture which became the reality in his teach
ing. It was Christ Himself in His Word, Whom the re
formers knew thoroughly. Out of their experience of
Christ, they taught the doctrine of the Person of Christ.
Tschaekert himself tells us that it is wrong to suppose that
the Lutheran Christology was developed for the purpose
of supporting the Lutheran theory of the Lord's Supper.
From the beginning, the doctrine of the Person of Christ,
according to Tschaekert, was purely religious87 and not
theological. It was a religious experience, effected by God's
Word. The theological explanation of the doctrine came
after the experience of the reality, and did not precede it.
Whatever was used from the old church doctrine was not
creative of the nature and personality of Christ as an idea,
but was the building out of an already well known fact of
experience, and whatever was added from the still wider
periphery of philosophy, was regarded as illustrative and
not as the foundation of the reality.
It is for this reason, among others, that we object so
strenuously to characterizing the teaching of Luther and
the Formula on the Person of Christ in the doctrine of the
Lord's Supper as a philosophical doctrine, rather than as

85 p. 553.
80 p. 555.
87 p. 320.

INTRODUCTION cxxv
a revealed fact in the Word of God. And for this reason
too the philosophic term "ubiquity" does not describe the
real content and essence of the Formula's teaching.83
Tschaekert himself feels this, and therefore says (p. 557) ,
"In the ultimate analysis we find it to be a religious interest
which causes the theory of ubiquity to be set up ; this is true
of the Formula of Concord the same as of Luther." And
then, by way of apology and defense he goes on to say that
"a formula free from objections has not been found either
for this theory or for the whole communicatio idiomata."
It is therefore so true that the doctrine of Christ, drawn
directly from the Scripture, is the fundamental teaching in
the Formula. The Godman is the Mediator of salvation
according to His whole person, not only in the history of
salvation, so far as it pertains to the past, but also for the
present and for the whole future.
Although Luther knew Biel and Peter D'Ailly almost by heart and the
nominalistic point of view made it easy for him to regard Christianity as
a historical fact rather than a philosophical system, and although
D'Ailly's doubt as to the doctrine of transubstantiation was the starting
point of Luther's own doubt, yet it cannot be said that philosophy or any
thing else than Scripture controlled Luther's thinking. Melanchthon had
studied the Nominalists just as thoroughly as Luther, yet Luther's devel
opment, in spite of the similarity of the Nominalist influence upon both,
is different from Melanchthon's.89
Turning to "The Confessional History,'"' we find the
following formal statement on the Book of 'Concord :
"After careful and prolonged examination of by far. the larger part of
the official and other trustworthy literature in connection with the
composition, subscription and introduction of the Formula of Concord"

88 MSller-Kawerau (The Confessional History, p. 485) has admitted that
"undoubtedly, ubiquity was not expressed [in the Formula of Concord] in
the absolute sense of the Wiirtembergers."
88 The passage in which Luther refers to this matter is found in the Baby
lonian Captivity. Erl., op. lat. var. arg. V., 29, and as quoted by Tschaekert
runs as follows : "Dedit mihi quondam, quum theologiam scholasticam haur/-
rem, occasionem cogitandi D. Cardinalis Camerarensis li. v., Aillil, libro Sen-
tentiarum IV acutissime disputans, multo probabilius esse et minus super-
fluorum miraculorum poni, si In altari verus panis verumque vinum, non
autem sola accidentia esse astruerentur, nisi ecclesia determinasset eontra-
rium. Postea videns, quae esset ecclesia, quae hoe determinasset, nempe
Thomistica, hoc est Aristotelica, audacior factus sum."
»pp. 515, 516.

cxxvi INTRODUCTION
the author of "The Confessional History" holds "the following proposi
tions to be historically incontrovertible :
"1. The Formula of Concord was forced upon the churches," 91 etc.
"2. The chief objections raised against the Formula of Concord were
the hypothesis of ubiquity, and the uses made of that hypothesis as a
basis of the doctrine of the real bodily presence,"02 etc.
"3. The great majority of the Lutheran churches which rejected the
Formula of Concord vindicated their Lutheran character by appealing
to the older Lutheran confessions." os
"4. The Formula of Concord was the cause of the most bitter con
troversies, dissensions and alienations." M
"And now, in the presence of these propositions, which can be estab
lished, and must be established, by every historian who searches and
writes in the interest of historical science, and not for the purpose of
supporting a prepossession, the question naturally arises, Did the Formu
la of Concord do more harm than good? . . . The question is one for
historical solution by the use of all the facts involved. . . . The history
itself05 must constitute the basis of judgment. ..." (PP- 515, 516.)
"Taking all those things into account, we believe that the impartial
verdict of history will be that the Formula of Concord has done more
harm than it has done good. . . . At no time has it been an instrument
of concord for the entire Lutheran Church. Its unreconciled antitheses
. . . and the spirit of controversy and condemnation which it breathes
. . . and which it has communicated to so many of its adherents, has
helped to make the Lutheran Church the most controversial of all the
Protestant communions.''

91 "It was not some theological party that had forced its views upon the
Lutheran Church, but a germ of a consensus which had been at hand, had
attained to its unfolding in the Formula of Concord. It represented a
Melanchthonian Lutheranism." — Seeberg in Herzog-Hauck Realencyclopedia.
92 Against this see our argument in chapter XXXIII.
B3Their objections were not, as a rule, of a confessional character.
04 Against this see the argument in chapter XXXV.
It was able to pacify the Lutheran Church  Seeberg in Herzog-Hauck
Realencyclopedia. 95 A new confession was a historical necessity. — Seeberg in Herzog-Hauck
Realencyclopedia. The Melanchthonian conception of the Church itself demanded such a de
cisive Judgment of doctrinal differences. — 76.
The Formula of Concord arose from n necessity of history, and within its
sphere it solved the problem in a prudent and far-sighted way. — 76.
Nothing is better fitted to show the historical necessity of a final Lutheran
confession than the temporary dominion of Philippism in Electral-Saxony
which broke to pieces the moment that the dishonorable guise in which it
had hitherto maintained itself, was torn away. — 76.

INTRODUCTION cxxvii
Since "The Confessional History" rises far above the
field of polemics into an atmosphere of equanimity and
concord, and is purified from all tinge of the controversial
temper, and since its aim is the grand work of pacification
in the Church, we must give it the credit of this attainment
without having been influenced thereunto by the Book of
Concord. It cannot be accused of devotioji either to the
positiva or the negativa in the Formula. It sacrifices no
section of its space to the praises of the Formula, although
there is a chapter on its censures (The Censures of the
Torgau Book) ; and the Sources for these censures are,
among others 9e such admirers of our Church as Hospinian
and Heppe.
"The Confessional History" opens its discussion of mod
ern confessional issues with a eulogy of Schleiermacher,
and of Claus Harms; with a defence of the Prussian
Union ; with a brief description of the confessional move
ment in Germany.
Under Rudelbach, Guericke, Kollner, Sartorius, Richter and Harless.
The description is good except that the contention of the anti-symbolists
that "the Symbolical Books go beyond the doctrine of the Scripture and in
many points pass it by," is quoted, and unquestioned.97 "It does not appear
that any one wished to abolish the Symbolical Books entirely, for even a
Paulus of Jena had subscribed the Symbolical Books," etc.88 The activity
of Stahl, Kliefoth, Philippi, Thomasius, Kahnis, von Hofmann, Schmid,
Luthard, Frank and Zockler is suggested as being the Romanticising of
Lutheranism. In the discussion of the modern German formulae of sub
scription, it quotes approvingly the essay of Braun (1875), in which the
following occurs : "The Formula of Concord is scarcely any longer to
be named a Confession, yea, it itself expressly declares that it is not in
tended to be a Confession" ; and the following : "The narrow-hearted
letter-slaves of the Symbols think that they advance the interest of the
Church by their conduct. They do not see that in that way they only
split the Church into fragments. . . . But there will be symbol-slaves
so long as there is a Church and a Confession, for the tendency in that
direction lies deep in human nature. Hence we must bear this evil as wa
have to bear a thousand others," etc.
In describing the confessional subscription of Denmark, the act of

88 p.

452.

87 p.

579.

88 p.

579.

cxxviii INTRODUCTION
Frederick II is quoted with apparent approval, but hardly the formula of
subscription of 1870 which speaks of "the Symbolical Books of our
Danish Evangelical Lutheran Church." As to present-day Norway, the
author seems to commend the clergymen who in 1908 "advocated the
shelving of the Nicene and Athanasian Symbols," and says, "A country
where such an advocation is respectfully listened to, will of course hold
its own against any possible, but improbable, attempt to foist the Book of
Concord upon it." ™
As for the attitude of Sweden to the Book of Concord we refer to
Prof. Forsander's discussion of the adoption of the Book of Concord
in Sweden.1011We are nonplussed by the chapter in The Confessional
History on the Confessions in America. Many facts are
given, intermingled with statements that are true, in a
sense as statements, but not true in the impression which
they convey. We wonder whether the author understood,
or whether he consciously minimized the significance of the
"Amsterdam Church Order" ? Muhlenberg is declared not
to be a "confessionalist," a charge which the Patriarch re
futed in his own life time. The Ministerium of Pennsyl-

09 p. 598.
100 The Adoption of the Augsburg Confession and the Book of Concord in
Sweden. [N. Forsander, The Council of Upsala, pp. 8, 9.1
"During both sessions of the following day the remaining part of our glori
ous Lutheran confession was earnestly discussed and unanimously adopted-
At the discussion of the tenth article, that of the Lord's Supper, the president
severely admonished the clergy carefully to guard themselves against Calvln-
istic errors, whereupon bishop Petrus Jonae arose and freed himself from sus
picions for such views. When the reading and discussion of the whole con
fession was finished, bishop Petrus Jonae stepped forth and solemnly asked
the senators and all members present : 'Do ye sanction this confession, as it
is now read and approved?' All standing up unanimously declared, that they
would never forsake it, but willingly sacrifice life and blood for the same.
The president then exclaimed loudly : 'Now Sweden has become one man, and
we all have one Lord and one God !'
"Sach a question as this might be raised by some of us : 'Why did the men
of the Council in 1593 then not adopt the whole Book of Concord, which was
published already in 1580?' Nicolaus Olavi and several of the leading men
at TJpsala in 1593 had studied theology at Rostock under Dr. David Chy-
traeus, one of the chief editors of the Formula of Concord, and by their
actions and writings these members present at 'the Council have clearly shown
that they were in full and hearty accord with their esteemed teacher and
with all the Symbolical books contained in the Book of Concord. But these
Symbolical books were at that time not known enough in Sweden to be all
treated and adopted intelligently in some few days allotted to the Council.
It was also pedagogical wisdom to delay the adoption of the whole Book ot
Concord by the Swedish Church until the appropriate time would come. This
adoption was nsked for by the clergy in 1647, and was authorized oy the
government in 1663."

INTRODUCTION cxxix
vania is termed "a Philadelphia organization," and it is
said of it "neither did it formally declare its relations to
the confessions of the Lutheran Church." But the most
glaring misrepresentation is to be found101 in this
text-book's interpretation of the Fundamental Princi
ples of the general body of which the Ministerium is
a part. The author says that this body is bound
"to the very words of the Symbols, and makes no distinction between
their form and their substance, and virtually it places them on a level
of authority with the Holy Scriptures, since it declares 'that the Unal
tered Augsburg Confession, in its original sense, is throughout in con
formity with the pure truth of which God's Word is the only rule' ; for if
it be throughout in conformity with the pure truth of God's Word, then
it must have the same authority as God's Word, for things that are
throughout in conformity with each other must have the same value
and authority."
This is a rigid enforcement of the letter of scholastic
logic, the like of which we do not recall in the Formula of
Concord, or even in the decrees of the Council of Trent.
Its fallacy is as apparent as its rigidity. That which conforms to an
original, by this very fact is secondary, and not primary. It does not
usually possess either the creative vitality or the authority of the original,
to which it conforms. If the original were not of a higher type than it is,
there would be no virtue in its conforming to the original as a standard.
If we suppose that the will of a spiritual man conforms itself throughout
to the will of the Lord, we do not therefore say, that the human will,
which conforms, "must have the same value and authority," as the
Divine will, to which it conforms.
Moreover, the premises quoted are falsified. They are correctly quoted
a little earlier102 thus, "We accept and acknowledge the doctrines of the
Unaltered Augsburg Confession in its original sense as throughout in
conformity with the pure truth." But this author, after stating that
these words point to the very letter of the Symbol and make no distinction
between form and substance, in his proof of his assertion, omits the
vital word doctrines, and conveys the impression that not only the doc
trines but 'the very words,' and the outer historical form of the Augsburg
Confession, are binding on this general body to the full extent to which
those who hold to the doctrine of the verbal inspiration of Scripture find
the latter binding upon themselves.

181 pp. 610, 611.
losp. 610.
4

cxxx INTRODUCTION
Are not students to be pitied who must form their conception of the
conservative Lutheran Church on the basis of a history which omits or
alters the crucial word in a symbolical statement of an adversary? Can
U be that young men are being seriously taught that a large body of
Lutherans in this land is pledged and bound down, not only to the infal
libility of the confessions, — that it is impossible for them to err; but also
to their verbal inspiration?
Perhaps, on the whole, the most remarkable fact in The
Confessional History is its laying the responsibility of doc
trinal controversy, dissension and difference in the Luth
eran Church of America at the door of the Formula of
Concord. This statement is found in the chapter on Subscription to the Formula
of Concord on p. 507. It runs as follows : "Certain it is that the doctrinal
controversies that have distracted and separated the Lutherans in America
have sprung out of the Formula of Concord. ..." So that the Augs
burg Confession, the Definite Platform, the influence of Presbyterianism,
Methodism, and of the Reformed Church, the writings of Dr. S. S.
Schmucker, the doctrine of Predestination, the doctrine of the Ministry
as held by Walther, Grabau, and Lohe, and other theological questions
outside the Formula, have had nothing to do with the controversies in
American Lutheranism ; but rather all differences have sprung out of the
Formula of Concord.
The conclusion of "The Confessional History," without
any general outlook, or any suggestion of hope, or any
proposal for the future, is dispiriting. We are not told
whether "the Augsburg Confession (Altered)," or any
document substituted for it in the days of the nineteenth
century, has been "an instrument of concord in the Luth
eran Church in America," but we are informed that the
Book of Concord has not been such an instrument,103 al
though one of the general bodies that accepts it "has been
very pacific, and tries to act as a peacemaker between other
Lutheran Synods that have not yet come to see eye to eye"
(p. 623). Beyond the critical picture of harm and ruin,
and this single synodical attempt to stay the same, no con
structive ideal has been set up toward which the Church of
the future may hopefully look forward.
103 p. 617.

INTRODUCTION cxxxi
And how can there ever be any hope for Lutheranism,
with its doctrine of the Word, if its Confessions are but a
clog about its neck? He is not a Lutheran who regards
the innermost mystery of God's Word as a clog. We sub
ordinate the light of reason and the law of science to God's
Word. God's Word is the only law of Christian truth.101
He who abides completely within God's Word, "shall know
the truth, and the truth shall make him free."103 Confes
sions of Faith and Love are a clog only to him who doubts,
or who does not heartily love. Men are incapable of joy
ous Confession who do not unreservedly love and believe.
There is hope for the Lutheran Church in the future in
this land, not because of any present outlook, or because
the Lutheran Church seems to have a peculiar mission in
this country, or because other denominations have much to
learn from her, but because the principle within and be
neath her, is the principle of the Person and Redemption
of Christ her Lord, revealed in the Scripture and witnessed
unto in her Confession, before all the world, in contrast to
errors ancient and modern, in every age.

1MJohn 17:17.
losjohn 8 ; 31-32.

THE CONFESSIONAL PEINOIPLE
AND
THE CONFESSIONS OF
THE LUTHERAN CHURCH •

CHAPTER I.
WHAT IS THE QUESTION?
The Question Concerning Confessions — The Union Question — The Lutheran
Question — The Twentieth Century Atmosphere — Incidental Questions.
SHOULD the Evangelical Lutheran Church be loyal to
her Confessional Principle and abide by her Confes
sions? This is not a new question, but the grave and
eventful problem of three and a quarter centuries ago which
has sprung up in this new land and in this new century,
destined by Providence as the seat of the greatest unfolding
of the true Evangelical Faith of the living Gospel, in the
midst of the impressive external strength of a false Catholi
cism and the mighty moral emphasis of a federation of Re
formed protestantism, on the one hand; and, on the other,
the looseness of a fitful evangelism and the broadness of a
sheer rationalism.
Though the Confessional question now upon us is the old
one, it is also always new. It was raised, but not settled,
in the Sixteenth Century. It was accentuated to a formal
and logical close in the Seventeenth Century. It decayed,
1

2 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
by way of reaction, in the Eighteenth Century. It sprang
up again under a new synthesis in the Nineteenth Century.
And it is here once more as a reaction of the old faith against
the spirit of unionism, which has taken on a wider form than
ever, in the Twentieth Century. Whatever this book may or
may not establish, its material will probably convince its
readers that the question of unionism and confederation
to-day, is the question that arose in the fountain-head of
Protestantism, the question of Marburg, — hidden partially
in Augsburg,— the question of the Wittenberg Concord, of the
Leipzig Interim, and of the acceptance or rejection of the
Formula of Concord.
The widest form of unionism, which may be defined as a
desire for amalgamation into one earthly communion, or for
alliance or federation, of religious organizations of different
faiths, at the compromise1 of custom, government or prin
ciple, in order to secure solidarity of life and action, has
been seriously proposed by Friedrich Delitzsch, who origi
nally was set into the foreground of favor by the German
Emperor. Delitzsch's proposal is the uniting, on the basis
of the Scriptures, of the three great occidental faiths, viz.,
Judaism, Christianity and Mohammedanism. The only
thing that need be sacrificed, according to Delitzsch, in this
scheme of union is the divinity of Christ, * and the advantage
to be gained is an equality or a preponderance of our western
racial faith as over against all oriental religions. The Par
liament of Religions, held some years ago at Chicago, was
suggestive of the possibility of a similar, but wider-principled
union, which included even oriental faiths.
Several other proposals of union, almost equally chimer
ical, but emanating from responsible ecclesiastical sources,
such as the Lambeth Conference, or the Pope at Reme, or
the now defunct Evangelical Alliance, and the far more prac-

1 This is often not admitted, but it occurs practically at every union service,
in every union religious effort, and in a majority of union moral movements.
2 Compare Luther : " Und steur des Papsts und Tiirken Mord, Pie Jesum
Christum, deinen Sohn, Wollen sturtzen von deinem Thron,"

THE QUESTION. 3
tical and often quite evangelical Federation of Protestant
Churches, have limited themselves to a reunion of parts of
Christendom alone.
Within the Protestant world itself, the questions of con-
fessionalism and union, which are co-respondents in this
aspect, have come up ceaselessly within the life of the last
generation. Not only have Presbyterians, and Presby-
terianism and Congregationalism, and Congregationalism in
connection with various other smaller denominations, and
the several branches of the Reformed Church, been agitated
by it; but a growing sentiment and great organizations for
interdenominational confession and work, and for common
work on undenominational ground, in such fields as the
Young Men's Christian Association, Foreign Missionary
enterprises, and the work of spiritual salvation and physical
rescue among the fallen, the foreigner, and other elements
that form the material of " settlement work," have made
tremendous progress.
Within the Lutheran Church the same — quite laudable and
noble — spirit and desire to hold, cherish, maintain and ex
press a common faith and a common worship, to live within
common forms of communion and congregational fellowship,
and to progress in a common spirit by means of a common ac
tivity, have manifested themselves in many ways.
The most universal of these movements in our communion
is the International Lutheran Conference, which originated
in the land of the Reformation, and which in the midst of
many difficulties has maintained at least a precarious exist
ence. The attempts to furnish the American Church a com
mon Lutheran service, a common translation of the Catechism,
to recognize common limitations in Home and Foreign Mis
sion work, and to be helpful rather than harmful to each
other in these fields; the calling into being of a common
organization, national in scope, of the young people of the
Church; the attempt to provide common courses of instruc
tion in the schools of the Church, and to unite and combine

4 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
publications within the Church ; the holding of General Con
ferences between the three older general bodies of the Church ;
and of Inter-synod ical Conferences between the three
younger and more Germanic bodies of the Church, all indi
cate how deeply the spirit of union and the desire for uni
fication dwell within the heart.
Union and unification are desirable things, to be sought
ceaselessly, and, like peace, are Scripturally enjoined, so
far as they are possible ; and they become the antithesis and
antagonist of confessionalism only when the means through
which they intend to attain their object lie in the compro
mise of a principle of faith. Any union or unification
which can be harmoniously accomplished without sacrifice
of the faith, in any of its principles, should be commended
and carried out.
In this general atmosphere of our land and century, and
during the attempt of Church bodies to approach each
other, the question of The Confessions of the Lutheran
Church, and of their relation to a true Lutheranism, has
arisen. It is a question which will never be settled until it is set
tled right, on the basis of the real character of the original
foundation, and in recognition of the light thrown upon it
by four centuries of history, — unless it be settled, as Schaff
intimates,3 by the absorption of the Lutherans of this land
in and under the Reformed principle.

8 Creeds of Christendom, I, p. 213.

'•-¦?

CHAPTER II.
HOW IS THE QUESTION TO BE DISCUSSED?
From Centre or simply from Periphery ? — Not a Question of Subscription, Name,
Party, or Technical Acceptance — A Question of Loyal Maintenance of the Com
plete Principle of the Faith — There is such a Faith, not merely Documentary,
but Actual.
THE discussion of the relation of true Lutheranism to
the Symbolical Books will drift into externals, and
go down in confusion, unless it be begun and maintained
from the right point of view. To us the fundamental, and
not any incidental point of view, is the right one. There
fore it is necessary for us to keep clear in mind what the
question in point is and what it is not.
The controversy is not at bottom a controversy covering
the quality or duty of confessional subscription, nor con
cerning adherence to certain historical documents, nor an
investigation as to compatibility of temperament between Me
lanchthon and Luther, nor a strife as to who legitimately
may lay claim to the name Lutheran, or as to who may
honorably term themselves the followers of Luther; nor a
question as to how best to deal with those Christians that are
non-Lutherans. But at bottom this controversy is one as to the nature and
constitution of the Church's true religion and Faith, and as
to her willingness to stand for this, where need be, in its
complete expression. The controversy is not one of narrow
ness or broadness; of parts or parties or partizanship; of
5

6 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
the correct ascription of names or the proper weight of
numbers; but it is a controversy as to the principle itself.1
The other questions which seem to be connected with the
fundamental question of principle, viz. : Who is entitled to
bear the name ? What kinds of Lutherans are in the majority ?
How many, if any, Confessions must be subscribed by a
good Lutheran ? Should the minimum or the maximum his
torical Confessional position be required ? Is it possible for
the Church to demand a subscription to some one of the
Confessions as a public and official necessity, and to en
courage or permit subscription to others privately? Is any
one Confession sufficient as the basis of the Church ? Should
this one Confession be the first or the last, the shortest or the
longest, the most generic or the most specific? Which
edition of which Confession should be the one to be insisted
on, or may various editions be disregarded ? — these questions,
though they be important, and may indeed be decisive in
their time and place, are really incidental to the great issue
which is now before the Church; and, by being placed in
the foreground as the leading matter, often tend to ob
scure it.
The real question before the Church to-day, as in the
days of Christ, as in the days of Augsburg and a half cen
tury later, and every .century since, is as to our thorough
adherence, our open acceptance, and our loyal defence of
the great Principle in all its integrity, and against all coun-

1 The great error of Schaff in his Creeds of Christendom, and of many
liberal Lutherans, is the assumption that Lutheranism is a form of Protes
tantism colored by the personal opinions of two reformers, Luther and
Melanchthon. Lutheranism is the old faith of the Church, catholic and
evangelical, protestant only as to Roman errors, founded on the teaching of
Scripture, without the admixture of human reason. Luther and Melanchthon
as the authors of " personal opinions," have no more to do with Lutheranism
than the crack of the Liberty Bell has to do with our national liberty itself.
Compare Jacobs : " The unity of the Church does not consist in sub
scription to the same Confessions, but in the acceptance and teaching of the
same doctrines. Where the doctrines of the Confessions are not believed, it is
the solemn duty of the person who questions them to testify on all occasions
against them, instead of seeking to hide his dissent under an ambiguous or
indefinite formula." Also, " It is not subscription to Confessions of faith
that is desired so much as to the faith of the Confessions." — Distinctive Doc
trines of the Lutheran Church in the United States, p. 94.

HOW TO BE ANSWERED. 7
terfeits, resemblances and approximations coming up from
a temporary or divergent basis.
The question is this: "Are we ready to accept, adhere to,
defend and carry out completely the teaching, on the Word
and Sacraments, of our Church as found in any or all of her
Confessions?" If so, any one Confession will be sufficient
for us (that is, in our informal relations to each other, and
not considering questions that come to us from a legal in
sistence without) ; if not, even a quasi or a complete formal
acceptance of all the Confessions will not suffice.
In the latter case, discussion, instead of bringing forth,
promulgating and defending inner conviction, will degen
erate into skirmishes for position and advantage, and into
quibbling over points, technical, historical and practical,
which do not touch the heart of the issue.
Ecclesiastically, the great question at the present moment
in the English Lutheran Church in America is as to the
need, the legitimacy and the authority of the Symbolical
Books of our Church. But underlying this is the great
question of all ages as to the willingness of the Church, or
of any parts of it in question, to accept, to proclaim and
maintain, and to loyally defend the complete Principle of
which the Symbolical Books, any one of them singly, or all
together, are but a documentary exposition.
It is a question as to the living faith itself, and not as to
any circumstantialities of its external record, or of any of
the various modes in which it became crystallized into his
tory. There is a real, living, whole and full-orbed Lutheran
Faith — the reflex of the living divine Word, — which appears
in the visible Church only in historical, and therefore tem
poral, and incomplete forms, and which is more than and
above the forms, but of which the forms are the only orig
inal expression; and the question is concerning our posses
sion of this full Faith. As in the Lord's Supper it is not
a question of this or that as to bread or wine, but it is the ques-

8 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
tion of what we receive in, with and under the bread and
the wine; so is the Confessional question fundamentally a
question of the real Faith; i. e., it is a germinal question,
and not one of the outer historical investiture in which it has
been handed down to us.
As the main question concerning the Scripture is always
and in every age a question of the living Word of God, and
not any of the subordinate matters of criticism or history in
which it has manifested itself in the successive layers of re
corded revelation, but of the complete Word itself, and our
full acceptance and defence of it by faith, so is the Confes
sional question one of our real Faith itself, and not of at
tendant documents or of selection of single historical mo
ments, or men, or phraseologies, to which our adherence is to
be pinned as to a mere external touchstone in place of a
spiritual fact.

CHAPTER III.
WHAT ARE CONFESSIONS?
Scripture Assimilated and Pulsating in the Church — Scripture Condensed Into
Public Standards — The Common Principle of the Church's Faith — The Common
Framework of the Church's Doctrine — The Common Mark of the Church's
Truth — The Common Flag of the Church's Loyalty.
CONFESSIONS are Scripture digested, assimilated, and
beating in the life pulses of the Church.
Pulse-beats of Scripture are they, come up out of the be
lieving Church's heart into free, public, courageous, joyous
and solemn utterance. As thus born out of the heart of a
believing Chureh, they incarnate the faith of man in visible
form, even as God incarnated His own Son in the visible
form of our own flesh, and His own Word in the visible form
of written Scripture.
They differ from Scripture in origin — they are human ; '
in native strength — they are not original, but reflex; in
order — they are not historical, but doctrinal; and in com
pass — they are comparatively brief, as a summary. They
agree with Scripture in substance and in intent; and spread
its truth by echo, by reflection, refraction and transmis
sion. Confessions are " a witness and a declaration of the
Faith as to how at any time the Holy Scriptures have been
understood and explained in the Church of God." '
Confessions are the answer of earth to the revelation from

1 Like all things in the Church, except Word and Sacrament, very human.
2 Formula of Concord, Intro., 8. Cp. also Walch, Int. in Libros Sym
bolicos, p. 16, section 4. Cp. Luther, 1533 : " Wir haben nicht Mum Mum
gesagt, und unter den Hiitlein gespielet, sondern da stehet unser helle, diirr,
frei Wort ohn alles tunckeln und mausen." 9

10 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
Heaven. They are the response of faith to the testing ques
tions of the Lord, Who is still present as of old, not visibly,
but in Word and Sacrament ; and is still guiding the word and
deed of His Church through a multitude of dangers. They
are not the word of the populace or the cry of the moment;
but in form, matter and purpose they are weighty, thoughtful
and representative or common declarations, embodying the
faith of multitudes and generations, and bearing forward the
best and greatest witness of an age come to climax into
the teachings and faith of all following ages.
They are " Witnesses, in what manner and at what places
the purer doctrine of the apostles and prophets was pre
served." 3 They thus constitute the public standards of
the Church's faith ; or, as the Formula of Concord declares,
they are best defined as " brief, plain confessions, regarded
as the unanimous, universal Christian Faith and Confession
of the orthodox and true Church." 4
They are not the source of light — the sun is Scripture
itself; but they are great and public lamps of life, lit from
the sun, that illumine our pathway through the intricate
forestland of faith and life.
Confessions are the one common and abiding inner unity
left to the Protestant Church. " For thorough, permanent
unity in the Church it is before all things necessary that we
have a comprehensive, unanimously approved summary and
form, wherein are brought together from God's Word the
common doctrines, reduced to a brief compass, which the
Churches that are of the true Christian religion acknowledge
as confessional."5
They spring from conscience, not from custom ; yet they
come from the past, and reach into the future. Though only
a fixed declaration of a common faith, they are neverthe-

3 Formula of Concord^ 2.
' lb., 3. ( " Sunt Confessiones publicae Ecclesise . . . , non ut principium
fidei generanda sint, sed ut ex Scriptura explicent credenda."  Carpzov, Isag.
in Lib. Eccl. Luth. Symb. Lip. 1675, p. 2.)
6 lb., Sol. Decl., 1.

DEFINITION. 11
less the one common embodiment and sum of the principle
which holds together the Church and the men in it. " We
have a unanimously received, common form of doctrine,
which our Evangelical Churches together and in common
confess; from and according to which, because it has been
derived from God's Word, all other writings should be
judged." '
This unanimous and common confessional form of the
Lutheran Church is not composed of the Augsburg Confes
sion alone,' but " we have embodied the Augsburg Confes
sion, Apology, Smalcald Articles, Luther's Large and Small
Catechisms, as the sum of our Christian doctrine, for the
reason that these have been always and everywhere regarded
as containing the common, unanimously received understand
ing of the Churches." * The Formula of Concord further
says : " Since the chief and most enlightened theologians of
that time subscribed them, and all evangelical Churches and
schools have cordially received them. As they also, as be
fore mentioned, were all written and sent forth before the
divisions among the theologians of the Augsburg Confession
arose, and then because they were held as impartial, and
neither can nor should be rejected by any part of those who
have entered into controversy, and no one who is true to the
Augsburg Confession will complain of these writings, but
will cheerfully accept and tolerate them as witnesses." 8
Confessions are, therefore, the sum of Scripture, its very
pulse-beat or accent, in time, as the true Church, in her
Witness, divinely commanded, best knows how to utter it.
Confessions are the Scripture itself worked up by the be
lieving Church's convictions amid the tests of human life
and experience, and under the same guidance of the Holy
Spirit that inheres in the office of the preacher in bearing
witness to Christ in the pulpit, — into Common Principles

6 Formula of Concord, 10. 7 Book of Concord, p. 537.
8 Formula of Concord, Sol. Decl., 11.

12 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
of Faith, on which the Churches can rest, and in which the
Church of the future can find anchorage.
Confessions are the under-framework of the Church —
the spars and the ribs of the ship, resting upon and extend
ing from a centre of strength, the Word, to give protec
tion to any point in the circumference, the Church, where
there may be weakness and consequent possibility of wreck.
Confessions are the rails; and, le+, us understand well, not
the roadbed or the solid rock, on which the ecclesiastical
trains run. The bed is Scripture and the rock is Christ,
and they determine the direction ; but the rails are of human
workmanship, condensing the roadbed to an effective point,
and giving guidance, protection and impetus to the moving
trains above.
Common Principles of Faith in a Church, within and
beneath, correspond to and are the presupposition of a com
mon expression in a common worship and in common work,
or in a common name, above and without. The Common
Faith and the Common Service * are both elaborated in the
Church on the basis of Scripture: the one is for the estab
lishment and strengthening of the mind and soul within;
the other, for the expression of the lips without. Scripture
itself will not serve either as a form of public Confession
or as a form of public worship, for the simple reason that
Scripture has been given to us in historical and not in doc
trinal or liturgical form.
This, among other things, means that the Word of God
in Scripture is so connected with local incident and detail,
and extends over so many lifetimes, that its very bulk would
prevent it from being used, without selection, either to con
fess or to worship. But the selective use of Scripture in
Confession or in worship brings about a systematic form of
both, a form that has been moulded into a unity in passing
through the Christian mind and consciousness.

9 The Common Faith is an essential ; the Common Service is a. common
result of Christian liberty.

DEFINITION. 13
It is true that there are some Christians, such as the old-
line Presbyterians, who try to exclude the selective process
in worship, and who will sing, for instance, only the Psalms
of David, and not the hymns in which Christian truth has
been remoulded by passing through hearts that have been
inspired by the Gospel ; but these people are few in our day,
and we do not believe that there are many who will insist
that either a common Confession or a common Worship may
not pass through Christian experience in receiving its final
form, but that it must be plucked crudely and mechanically
from the external phraseology of Scripture. !No; under
the guidance of the Holy Spirit in the Word it is not only
our right, but it becomes our duty, in developing the Church
of Christ, to bring system and order into both our faith and
worship, and not to leave these lie simply in the foundation
as they are given to us in Scripture.
Both the Confession and the Order of Service are, there
fore, historically and genetically a stage higher in the build
ing of the Church than the Scripture itself. They are not
more valuable than Scripture, and their construction, unlike
the Scripture, is human in its combining elements; but so
far as they are Scriptural, the power of the Scripture in them
gives them a more pointed and useful form for the purpose
for which they are intended, than that of the Scripture
itself, which, like nature, is a great undistributed mine or
quarry from which the materials are to be taken for the
construction of all forms of truth through all ages. Sys
tematically, though not intrinsically, the Confessions rise —
like the house described by the Apostle as being built hu
manly of silver and gold, with some hay and straw and
stubble — above the foundation itself. The foundation of the
Confession, i. e., Scripture, determines every line and meas
urement and angle in the house. But the house is an elabo
ration, not useless, but necessary, of the foundation.
The Common Principles which brace, uphold and protect
the Church, and the Common Worship and activities in which

14 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
the Principles are manifested, consequently rise in proper
order, and in God's own intended historical development,
upon the foundation. The religion of our age is not a sud
den and independent result effected by an abrupt break with
the past; but it is connected stone by stone with all that has
gone before, from the first day of God's revelation, and
especially from the fulness of time in Christ, up to the pres
ent moment. Both the Faith and the Worship have a his
torical aspect. Genetically they must both spring out of
the history of the past. If we would be true to ourselves
and true to the future, we must be real and vital links " con
necting the past with the future. We can no more turn Qur
backs upon the one than upon the other ; and the best of what
the past furnishes us both in faith and in worship is to be
apprehended by us and passed on, if it have reached its
more final form, for the help of the future.
Thus we see how Common Principles of Faith and a com
mon expression of Faith in a common Order of Worship are
the finished product and express the reaction of the preceding
Christian generations of the Church at any particular stage
in its work upon the present and successive generations.11
The reactions of Scripture upon men, in the course of
history, constantly bring about four results. The first and,
from a personal view, the most important of these results is
the reaction on the individual, viz., the salvation of souls.
The second result is the expressing of this individual sal
vation within a common social organization, itself divine
in origin, which is the Church. The third result is the ex
pression of this salvation in a common organization of
worship; and the fourth of these results of the reaction of

™ The tendency is to consider the single link that glows with the Are and
vitality of the present moment as of more import and value than all that
has gone before and all that will follow.
"After writing the foregoing, we find the following confirmation of this
view from Plitt : " It is as impossible for the Church to be without a
Confession as without preaching and divine service, and sooner or later the
summons must come to the entire Church or an individual part of it to give to
its confession not only a clear, but also an established and definite expression."
— Trans, in Jacobs Book of Concord, p. 312.

DEFINITION. 15
Scripture upon the hearts and minds of men is the expres
sion of the salvation in an articulate organism of Principles.
This organization of common principles is our Confession;
and our Confession, as coming forth in the providential de
velopment of history, is found in the form of our Con
fessions. The Confessional principle springs forth in variety to
meet the historical, just as the principle of worship springs
forth in variety to meet the liturgical occasion (Matins,
Vespers, Orders for Baptism, the Holy Communion, etc.).
This variety of Common Services and common Confessions
is not a complication. Our various Confessions are useful
treasures of priceless value, and not impediments to us in
our ecclesiastical life. The more powerful a railway be
comes the larger is likely to be the number of rails and
tracks, and the more numerous are the switchboards to meet
local conditions. Though the more extensive equipment
seems more complicated, yet it does not complicate; but it
greatly simplifies and facilitates the general traffic. Thus,
also, the more amply a Church is furnished with Confes
sions, the more fully will it be able to advance and protect
itself, from every doctrinal point of view, and the more sim
ple and progressive will be its future course through the
many intricate labyrinths of theory and falsehood and truth.
We must always remember that the truth in God's world
does not ordinarily lie upon the surface of things, but deep
beneath it. Many experiences of investigators and great
efforts at combination on the part of human art and science
are necessary before natural truth can be freed from the many
counterfeits and clinging shades of error and stated purely;
and still further effort is needed before it can be reduced
to an actual working principle.
Very commonly, indeed, isolated principles and rules of
practice are easily picked up, and are used for many ages;
but the proper combination into God's own intended system
of principle and practice is not found until the ultimate prin-

1G THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
ciples of the science itself are discovered. Mere dislocated
truth itself, then, before it is worked out into principles,
and before these principles are differentiated from error,
and are properly related to each other in a unity, does not
correspond to the Divine reality, and is not satisfactory to the
mind; nor does it afford a practicable basis for effective
action. The saving truth in religion has been revealed by God in
Scripture, and it is the only active and efficient potency
which the Church possesses. It gives the Church life, light
and power. But, as given, it deals with concretes. It is
not organized nor connected. It is the province of the
Confession to arrange, to organize " the whole counsel of God,
the whole Word of God, as found in the Scripture, into such
relationships as will enable us to apply it effectively against
the errors of any or every age. The Confession, then, is
not the truth revealed by God, but God's Word apprehended
and comprehended by us, which we have assimilated and
know how to utilize, and which we have tagged and stamped
as being in our possession and our own property.
The Confession is not the truth unstamped, but bears the
mark of the truth, by which we can recognize the truth amid a
thousand other things, at once.
The Confession is not itself the great cause of God around
which we rally, but it is the signal, the standard, the flag,
the symbol, which condenses and gathers into itself the vari
ous elements of the cause, and gives us a clear and distinc
tive token by which, incidentally, we know ourselves from
others and others know us from themselves.
The Confession thus is not the source " of God's cause,
which is God's gracious Will expressed in God's Word, nor
the essence of the cause, which is the fact of salvation work-

12 Some later Lutheran theologians in America deny this.
18 Libros Symb. non esse principium sed principiatum, et fldem non exinde
generari, sed praesupponi. Quod enim quia profitetur ac testatur, id jam jam
in cprde sup habet. — Carp, Isag., p. 3.

DEFINITION. 17
ing itself out in the complications of history, but it is the
sign of the cause.
The merchant's trade-mark" is not his business nor its
creative source; but if the trade-mark is a good one, he will
stand by it as standing for his business, as symbolizing that
which is most valuable and precious to him in his public
activities, as making known and giving character and defi-
niteness to the nature and quality of his business.
The more, then, we prize and love the truth, the more we
will repair to and stand by and show honor to its sign, not
for the sign's sake, but for the sake of that for which it
stands, and which could not be so clearly understood, iden
tified, prized, defended and propagated without it.
It is only the extreme individualist who objects to asso
ciate action under a sign, or who finds the defining limitations
of the sign too restrictive. Those who really believe in the
cause and principle of the associative action with all their
heart, hail the appearance and prominence of the sign with
greatest joy. To them it is the banner of the Lord, which
they bravely follow to the top of the hill.

** The Confession is a less personal, wider and truer sign-mark of the
Church than the signet-emblem of Luther, Its greatest modern Confessor.

CHAPTER IV.
DOES THE CHURCH NEED CONFESSIONS?
Value and Use of Creeds— The Great Reality for which the Church Confession
Stands — Apostolic Confession — Use of Confessions — They come in Historical
Form — This is not a Barrier — Spring Forth Under Pressure — Are Born, not
Made— Do not Hem the Church In— The More Creeds the Better— Do not
Crush Independent Thought — Are Fitted to Specific Needs.
THEEE are some Christians,1 and among them there may
be some Lutherans, who maintain that the Church
needs no creed, and that the mind and heart of her members
should be bound by no Confession of Faith.'
But these Lutherans are very few. A personal creed is
the mature and settled expression of a man's most serious
thought and the response of his deepest conviction on any
subject of grave importance which comes before him for
action, and in which he has had real experience. It is the
reaction of his personality on special problems of life, worked
out into permanency; as a flag, to easily show the world on
what ground he stands, as a common rallying point for all
who live under the same power of his own convictions, as a
sure guide for him in critical moments of hesitation and
uncertainty, and in the more ordinary walks of his life;
as a testimony willingly given to the value of the truths

1 Many of the sects of Protestantism reject all creeds. Some of them
have condemned symbolical books as a yoke of human authority and a
new kind of popery. Others go so far as to reject the authority of Scripture
itself, and to subordinate it to reason or to the inner light.
2 " But the creeds, as such, are no more responsible for abuses than the
Scriptures themselves, of which they profess to be merely a summary or an
exposition. Experience teaches that those sects which reject all creeds are as
much under the authority of a traditional system or of certain favorite writers,
and as much exposed to controversy, division, and change, as churches with
formal creeds." — Schaff Creeds of Christendom, I, p. 9.
18

A NECESSITY. 19
under and for which he has lived, and as the most precious
legacy of his thought and heart which he would like to see
transmitted and used by his children even to the remotest
generation. The more he is convinced of the value of any
particular article, truth, or principle in his creed, the more
important will it become to him, the less easily can he brook
its slight or neglect in his presence, and the more intense are
his activities on its behalf.
There is not a business house whose experience has not
crystallized into more or less of a creed or principle of faith
and rule of action on the more grave , problems that recur
in its activities. It may be nothing but a series of sen
tentious mottoes, or the unwritten habits of mind, deeply
graven by experience, that are at once the test and the guide
for all new propositions that are submitted to it; or there
may be a more formal charter and rules of action laid down.
Such a creed may be a pure statement of our apprehen
sion of truth, by way of making things clear and decisive
in time of danger, as was the Declaration of Independence ;
or it may take the shape of a more or less complete plan of
action for the future, as was the Constitution of the United
States. In all cases it is rooted more or less deeply in the historical
experience of the past; it is marked with the issues of the
present ; and it bears a fruitage more or less enduring in the
proportion of its vitality, largeness and intrinsic summing
up of valuable truth, for the future.
We have to do with a greater reality than the largest
business or greatest government on earth. " I believe that
there is upon earth a holy assembly and congregation of pure
saints, under one head, even Christ, collected together by
the Holy Ghost in one faith, one mind and understanding,
with manifold gifts, yet one in love, without sects or schisms.
And I also am part and member of the same, a participant
and joint owner of all the good it possesses, brought to it
and incorporated into it by the Holy Ghost, in that I have

20 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
heard and continue to hear the Word of God, which is the
means of entrance."3
This holy Christian Church in which the Gospel is rightly
taught is to continue forever,4 and "is principally a fellow
ship of faith and the Holy Ghost in hearts; which fellow
ship has outward marks, the pure doctrine of the Gospel
and the administration of the sacraments. And this Church
alone is called the body of Christ. The Church signifies the
congregation of saints which have with each other the fel
lowship of the same Gospel or doctrine.
" We see the infinite dangers which threaten the destruc
tion of the Church. And this Church is properly the pillar
of the truth. For it retains the pure Gospel, and, as Paul
says (1 Cor. 3: 11), the 'foundation,' i. e., the true knowl
edge of Christ and faith. And the writings of the holy
Fathers testify that sometimes even they ' built stubble '
upon the foundation. Most of those errors which our adver
saries defend overthrow faith. Although wicked teachers
go about in the Church, yet they are not properly the king
dom of Christ.
"As Lyra testifies, 'The Church consists of those persons
in whom there is a true knowledge and confession of faith
and truth.' " "
This " true knowledge and confession " is crystallized in
our creeds. The creeds of the Church of Christ are the ma
ture reactions of her heart and thought on Scripture in
reference to questions of faith arising in the course of her
conflict and growth, in fighting for the conquest of every
soul for Christ, and thus, also, for the consequent realization
of the kingdom of God.
The whole spirit of the Word of Christ, one chief work of
the Holy Ghost, and the gravest responsibility and deepest
joy of those who confess Christ, is to bear witness to the
truth as it is in Christ Jesus.

'Large Catechism, II, 51. 4 Aug. Conf., VII. ' Apol., 4: 5.

A NECESSITY. 21
In the primitive Apostolic Church this expression of con
viction was more spontaneous, more off-hand and occasional
in its character, as befitted a new-born and youthful Church ;
but as the personal experiences and memories of fellowship
with Jesus waned, and time flowed on; as the truths appre
hended, won, defended and preserved in one age needed to
be passed on as a precious heritage to the next generation;
as the Church passed forever out of the provincial and en
tered the continental and cosmopolitan sphere; as it was
obliged to compete for supremacy with the large problems of
barbarism and civilization, with the errors and half-truths
of other religions, with the insidious treachery within its own
self (where pride is always raising the flag of rationalism,
and sin the flag of rebellion and anarchy), it became more
than ever necessary to fix and fasten the measures of truth
on which it had already maturely reacted, and which it re
joiced to confess, as a standard for present use " and as a
guide for future faith and action.
The use of Confessions, then, is clear: first, They sum
marize Scripture for us ; secondly, They interpret it for the
Church; thirdly, They bring us into agreement in the one
true interpretation, and thus set up a public standard, which
becomes a guard against false doctrine and practice ; fourthly,
and this is their most important use, They become the me
dium of instruction, or education, of one generation to the
next, in their preservation, transmission and communication
through all future ages of the one true faith of the Church.
We have now reached, a general idea of the growth of
Confessions in answer to a need. Their specific nature is
conditioned by several points in their use and growth.
In the first place, Confessions do not come to us in
ideal form, but they clearly reflect the particular angle
and view-point of the period within which they originated

8 " That a symbol originates is no matter of chance or option, but of
necessity. It is owing to the nature of the Church as a communion, which
has also a historical visible side to its existence, and unfolds its being and
fulfills its office in historical life," — Plitt.

22 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
and developed. The clumsy and out-of-date historical en
vironment in which they are clothed, and which seems to us
like an archaic and unnecessary residuum, is what the an
cient towns and cities in ruins are to the life of our Lord ;
namely, the most weighty testimony to their genuineness,
enabling us to guage more precisely the extent and value of
their intention. This local setting is the brand showing that
they have actually passed through the fiery flame of history
and have survived it.
We should also bear in mind, secondly, that the his
torical element7 in creeds, according to one of the great meth
ods of God in unfolding law and life, is not any more of a
barrier to their acceptance than is the historical element in
the Scriptures. God chose that both the Scripture and our
Church Confession of it should come into being at various
times and in various places, and that they should appear
subject to the historical order under which the human race
is obliged to develop, mature and fulfill His will.
A third fact to be noted of Confessions is that those which
abide spring forth in periods of most intense and searching
spiritual life ; and those which disappear are the product of
a calmer, and more rationalistic, era.
The Apostles' Creed, the Athanasian Creed, the Nicene
Creed, and the Sixteenth Century Confessions of our Church
are each and every one of them the product of the greatest
upheavals and the most intense crises in the Church of
Christ. Creeds are born, not made. They are wrung in
the agony and anxiety of a confession at an epoch fraught
with the possibility of perilous consequences to the con
fessors. Such creeds, the mighty foundations of our Fathers, do
not bind us, but they plant us on solid ground. They do not
throttle, but they protect us. They specialize, differentiate
and qualify our Church's activity, render it more effective,

7 Including the unworthy motives of formulators, and the unseemly ele
ments of conflict in assemblies in which they were discussed,

A NECESSITY. 23
and save much experimental waste. They no more hem us
in and bind us down than noble old trees, planted by our
fathers, hem in, destroy and narrow down the landscape.
It is true that the landmarks are set for us, and we have
not the liberty of an endless prairie or a barren plain; but
we are advanced far beyond this low order of liberty, merely
formal, to the possession of a richly furnished park, in which
various generations are called to do their share in its preser
vation and perfection, that those who come after us will
have greater abundance of living values, though they find less
loose and unorganized material about them than their fathers.
The succeeding generation builds upon the foundation con
structed and left as a legacy by its predecessor.
From this point of view a whole clump, a copse of stately
tree-growths, is more valuable than only a single trunk. Of
genuine Creeds, confessing the whole truth in Christ, we
say, not the less, but the more, the better.
He who regards them negatively as an impediment to his
own personal liberties, either cherishes a very lofty estimate
of his own powers of mind and soul, else he would not stand
up against the accumulated wisdom of the Church for many
centuries; or he fails perhaps to realize the greatness and
momentousness of the problems before him, else he were
willing to bow in the reverence of faith, and work out the
great things of God according to the scale and plan provided.
Even Luther clung desperately, and so long as he could,
to the scale historically provided; and for every theological
fledgling to-day to go forth into the Church and the world,
and demand, on the plea of personal liberty, that he may
work things out on the scale and plan he approves for the
moment — perhaps he may reject his present scale and take a
totally different one a year or two hence (again on the plea
of personal liberty) — is simply a fearful waste to the
Church, is the one great extravagance of Protestantism, and
would not be tolerated, no, not for a moment, in any sound
and established business plant in the country.

24 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
As a rule, the more radical and unrestricted and liberty-
loving the theologian, the more highly he is exalting the im
portance of his own opinions and personality as an in
dividual, and the less seriously does he take himself as the
servant of the Lord in the work of the Church. Lutherans
should never forget that it was not an intellectual issue in
the Professor's chair, but the deadly working of common
gross falsehood in the congregation, under his pastoral care,
that made Luther a Protestant. Luther was to the end of
his days the true servant of the Church, and the mere pos
session of an unfettered liberty to think what he pleased, as
a private personal right, had little attraction for him.
"Wherefore the Church can never be governed and pre
served better than if we all live under one head, Christ, and
all the bishops, equal in office, be diligently joined in unity
of doctrine, faith, sacraments, prayer and works of love." *
Some claim against creeds that they deprive of intel
lectual liberty and crush out independent thought. Others,
on the contrary, claim that they are too conducive to a mere
religion of the intellect, and that they oppress spiritual fervor
and vitality.
Both charges may be true when the man or the Church
is out of joint with the living Word of God, but when the
Word is truly operative, creeds are no more an obstruction
to the Church or the man than are the guns and armor of a
battleship an obstruction to the engines or the mariners who
have the battle to fight. It is a question of adjustment, pro
portion and proper use, and of understanding and co-operat
ing with the plan of the vessel as a whole. The man who
says, "Luther's Catechism is confession enough for me," is
the man who would use his personal revolver in an attempt
to batter down the defences of Gibralter; and the man who
would make his catechumens commit the Formula of Con
cord to memory is the man who would use the great sixteen-
inch gun in the tower to fire on a tiny steam launch. As there
8 Schmalkald Articles, II, 9,

A NECESSITY. 25
is a place for every true man, so there is a place for every
true creed in the kingdom of God.
Neither the Augsburg Confession,9 nor the Formula of
Concord, should be idolized. Nor, on the other hand, should
either of them be rejected by the Lutheran Church. The
Augsburg Confession is a foundation without a roof. Solidly
as it was laid, the storms and frosts of time were playing
havoc with its upper and outer stones, and the destruction
might have been entire, if the work had not been so labori
ously completed by the perilous but finally successful raising
of a covering in the Formula of Concord. The foundation
is always more simple than the roof and easier to stand on,
but not less necessary. There are many children of nature
who do not like to come in under a roof, or see its need —
until it rains.
The Augsburg Confession was the first seed that must
develop under the test of wind and storm into a full-grown
tree. It was the first great confessional reservoir of truth
since the Athanasian Creed, built to check the flood of eccles
iastical degeneracy; but the waters it contained and saved
must now still be clarified and spread healthfully over the
fields of the Church, as by proper irrigation we transform
our western barren plateaus into fertile plains. The later
Confessions were the sluices that gave to every part of our
symbolical system its due portion and proportion of truth.
What the Augsburg Confession proclaimed, had to be
worked out into the life-blood of the Church. It was written
by a few and expressed the feeling of the many, but the pain
ful process had now to begin, viz., the transmuting of that
feeling into solid conviction, and the conversion of that con
viction into the real but changing facts of history. This must
be done apart from the lives of the two Keformers, for they
must die some time.
With the lives of the Reformers left out of it, the history

• Perhaps for that reason Providence has involved the original edition In
obscurity

36 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
sinks from the mountain to the valley ; but it is the valley, and
not the mountain that gives direction to the final current
and determines in what direction the waters shall emerge into
the plain.

CHAPTER V.
DO CONFESSIONS CONSTRICT, OR DO THEY
CONSERVE?
Is the Confessional Principle Over-Emphasized? — Back to the Simplicity of Christ
— Back to the Bible as a Creed — Why the Bible can Not be a Creed — The
Creed is the Word of God Condensed and Pointed — A Summary and Just Ex
hibition of God's Word — The Bible is the Rule of Faith, the Creed is its Con
fession — To Judge men by Creeds is not Condemning Persons, but Assigning
Values — Why Creeds should be Clear-cut.
IT has been intimated that the Lutherans who object to a
creed are few. Yet there are many who feel that the
matter of confessing may be overdone. The sum total
of the Symbolical Books is oppressive, they feel, by their
quantity. The confessional spirit itself, if given full sway,
tends to too great sharpness of edge and narrowness of blade.
There is such a thing as over-emphasizing the confessional
side. Our Confession is fundamental and necessary, but it
should be characterized by more simplicity, larger elasticity,
greater moderateness and wider liberality.
The Apostolic and not the Mediaeval Church should be its
model. The simplicity as it is in Christ, and not the com
plexity as it is in the dogmaticians, should be its characteris
tic. Let us have the Lutheran Confession, but let us boil it
down and reduce it to its lowest terms. In fact, let us get
back to the early and purer days before dogma was formu
lated thetically. Why not greet the spirit of the age and join
in the cry, "Back to Christ!" Let us breathe the pure air
of Scripture itself, and not the confining and gloomy at
mosphere of a historic monastery. Christ's own words and
27

28 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
the Scripture itself, are a better confession than any technical
and long-drawn-out formulary that we can substitute for it;
and in them we feel that we can breathe free and open.
These words are strenuous, and frequently very honest.
They accord with the modern determination to be free and
shake off every encumbrance. We hesitate to suggest that
they spring up so easily, from the surface of religious
thought, since they are rooted in so shallow ground.'
Is the plan of abrupt return to the simple fountain-head
of faith really desirable ? Is it possible ? Can the Twentieth
Century go back with a leap, to the First ? Can the adult go
back to the ideal days of childhood? Is our model the un
developed child ? As little children, we are to become, but
not little children. Has God been at work in His world, and
in all these ages, for nothing ? Can and should the stream re
fuse its wider channels, its newer filtration beds, and flow
backwards to its higher and purer source %
Because Christ spoke in the First Century, are there no
further words for Luther to speak in the Sixteenth Century,
and no words for me to speak in mine ? Am I not to make the
Bible my own, for myself and for to-day, and to testify and
confess it against the errors that have been growing for a
thousand years in Rome, and that are springing up prolific-
ally in the superficial Christianity around me?
All Christendom says the Bible is its creed, but do I
thereby know what Christendom believes ? One and the same
Bible Dictionary contains within its covers no less than a
half-dozen conflicting faiths. If any one of them is the true
faith, the others are partially or totally false faiths. Which
one of them is my faith ?
Do I know what I believe without a creed? Can I give
every man a reason for the faith that is in me? Will the
world know what I believe, if I say the Bible is my creed ?
The Bible says, "There is no remembrance of the wise more

1 Compare Conservative Reformation, p. 83, which characterizes them as
' sophistical to the core."

'NOT OPPRESSIVE. 29
than of the fool forever." Is that my creed? The Bible
says, "I praised the dead which are already dead, more than
the living which are yet alive. Yea, better is he than both
they, which hath not yet been, who hath not seen the evil
work that is done under the sun." Is that my creed ? The
Bible says, "We are justified by faith without the works of
the law." It also says, "Faith without works is dead."
Which of these is my creed? The Bible says, Jesus is the
Son of man, and also says that He is the Son of God; is it
right in both cases, or in only one ? and why ?
The Bible raises ten thousand questions. If you answer
any one of them in your own way only, and without looking
farther, and say, "This is what I believe," you are setting up
a personal creed of your own. If you simply content your
self with the assertion, "The Bible is my creed," you are
leaving unanswered many of the most important and vital
questions of faith and life. And a Church's answer, more
than your own, must be ample to meet all questions. When
you refuse to take a definite stand on vital issues in the
Christian Faith, but say, "The Bible is my creed," are you
really confessing Christ, or are you taking the problems of
religious life easy, and evading the unpleasant but important
doctrines which the Spirit of God has brought to an issue in
the development of the Faith and His Church in history ?
The religious fanatics, the narrow-minded legalists, as
well as the most liberal and the most loose communions, have
claimed to make the Bible their creed. If there be no test
ing of these claims, and no framing of the true doctrine after
the test in a way in which I can bravely confess it before
all the world, am I witnessing to the truth as it is in Christ
Jesus ?
It is not the truth in the printed and dead page of the
Bible, but the truth that drops like a living seed2 into my
willing heart, and which is applied there by the Holy Ghost,

' The seed is the Word of God."
6

30 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
and which springs up into living faith that freely testifies of
itself, and which makes me a believer.
Dr. C. P. Krauth was right when he said, "Faith makes
men Christians; but Confession alone marks them as Chris
tians." He was right when he said, "The Scripture is God's
voice to us, and the Confession, our reply of assent to it."
He was right when he said, "The Bible can no more be any
man's creed than the stars can be any man's astronomy."
Even the Quaker Friend will believe that the words of the
Bible are true — the Bible is his Creed — yet he does not be
lieve that any of the words of the Bible are more inspired
than his own inner light. Even the Unitarian says he be
lieves all the statements in the Bible concerning Jesus, yet
he also believes that there is no Trinity, and that our Lord is
a mere man.
Unless you carefully put the meaning of the Bible, on
any particular point, into such definite language as cannot bo
used by a man who has a different faith than yours, you are
not really bearing witness to your faith. But such a clear
and unambiguous statement of your faith is a creed.
A Creed is the exact substance, or teaching, of the Bible, as
you believe it, with all the outer shells of vague language re
moved. A Creed is what the particular "Statement of the
Case" is as compared with the common law of the land. A
Creed is what a filtering and distributing reservoir is as com
pared with the original springs, pure at the source, but quickly
polluted in their flow down the mountain side. A Creed is
that which gathers, which selects, which holds and which
distributes and applies the waters of life.
God's system of evaporation and condensation, of rainfall
and percolation, of gravity and syphonage in the provision
for waters is good ; but God also intended that we, as civiliza
tion progresses, should guard the sources, preserve the waters
and effectively distribute them through artificial mains and
pipes, as an improvement, yea, a necessity under present

NOT OPPRESSIVE. 31
conditions, in addition to His natural system, of original
sources. Creeds are just such a necessity in the gathering, selection
and application of the true and saving doctrine found in the
sources of the Bible. And any man who says, "The whole
matter is too cumbersome: let us abandon the Creeds, and
go back to the original wells of salvation, back to the old
oaken bucket and the pitcher that the Samaritan woman
carried on her head and rested on the brim of Jacob's well,"
is a man who is taking a step backward and not a step for
ward. The worlds and the best men in it, the truest Christians
that have ever lived, the heroes and the martyrs of past ages,
have thought long and painfully of the problems of salvation
and faith, and of the truth as it is in Christ Jesus, and have
given us the results of their rich but dearly-bought experience
in the Creeds of the Church ; and now after the Lord has thus
enriched His children in the present generation, shall we
say, "No. No progress has been made by the truth. Let us
go back to tbe original simplicity and the first beginning?"
The fallacy of ail such reasoning lies here, viz., in pre
suming that the Scripture contains the very word of God,
and that the Creed does not. The fact is that the Scripture is
the word of Cod extended; and the Creed is the word of Cod
condensed; but condensed in the one way in which we can do
it, viz., by a universal, churchly, scholarly and providential
human effort. It is not true that Scripture is more simple
{vide the Epistles to the Romans, the Ephesians, the Colos-
sians, the Hebrews), less abstract and formal {vide the argu
mentation in Paul, the deep things in John, and the Jewish
apprehension and application of Old Testament passages in
Matthew), or less extended, than our Lutheran Confessions.
Not only is the creed the Word of God condensed, but it is
the Word of God pointed to defense, confession and judg
ment. Scripture is a whole world of life, and has many uses,
public and private, besides the important one of Confession;

32 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
but the Creed takes the word of God in Scripture, as confes
sional, and applies it to the problems of truth that are con
fronting our mind, our thought, our efforts for Christ and
our Church.
The Confession is God's Word pointed — it may be very
clumsily; but it is needed for this purpose and there is noth
ing to take its place, not even, as we have seen, the Scriptures.
The words of the Confession "are not in themselves as clear
and as good as the Scripture terms ; but as those who use them
can absolutely fix the sense of their own phraseology by a di
rect and infallible testimony, the human words may more
perfectly exclude heresy than the divine words do. The term
'Trinity,' for example, does not, in itself, as clearly and as
well express the doctrine of Scripture as the terms of the
Word of God do; but it correctly and compendiously states
that doctrine, and the trifler who pretends to receive the
Bible, and yet rejects its doctrine of the Trinity, cannot pre
tend that he receives what the Church means by the word
' Trinity.' " While the Apostles lived, the Word was both a rule of
faith and, in a certain sense, a confession of it; but when
the Canon was complete, when its inspired authors were
gone, when the living teacher was no longer at hand to cor
rect the errorist who distorted his word, the Church entered
on her normal and abiding relation to the Word and the
Creed, which is involved in these words: the Bible is the
rule of faith, but not the confession of it; the Creed is not
the rule of faith, but is the confession of it." "
It is the mode of a loose and superficial Christianity to
day to turn its back on the grand old symbols of the Church,
that rise like a range of Alpine mountain peaks out of the
valleys of time, hoary with the frost of many a morning, but
mighty in the granite of many ages, and green with the per
ennial verdure that springs about their sheltered base. They

' The Conservative Reformation,

NOT OPPRESSIVE. 33
are dismissed with the sneer that they are only "human
explanations of divine doctrine." But they are no more
human, because they have come in the heat of contest and
passion, than the everlasting hills' are less divine, because they
were raised from the level by the power of earthquake and
volcano. " In exact proportion as the Word of God, opened to the
soul by the illumination of the Holy Spirit, is truly and cor
rectly apprehended, just in that proportion is the 'human
explanation' coincident with the divine truth. I explain
God's truth, and if I explain it correctly, my explanation
is God's truth."4
God's truth in the Scripture, like God's gold in the hills,
was given to be applied by men to the wants of man.
Whether it be a coin in the purse, or a watch in the pocket,
or a filling in the tooth, or a frame for the lens, or a pen
with iridium points for the flow of thought, it is, in all
these shapes and forms and degrees of fineness, God's own
gold. And if its fashioning into a stamp, or standard, for
testing metals, or resistance to acids, be done by human
hands, it is not on that account any the less divine. Our
Confessions are God's truth fashioned into a standard. They
have been set together by hearts and minds of experience,
in such graduated and fitting form, as that God's Word
can be applied as a standard to the opinions and principles
of men. They are human in their form, in their combina
tion, and in their application; but they are divine in their
quality. The standard they exhibit is not human. The
doctrines they set forth are not human. The faith they
express, and the teaching they convey, is the very Word of
God itself.
But why must we be confined to a credal Confession that
is historical, composed of various documents (six or nine short
ones instead of the sixty-six long ones of Scripture), and
that covers all the ground ? Why do we not leave it as wide

'Con. Bef., pp. 185 sq.

'34 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
in spirit as it is in compass ? Why should it be narrowed
down to anything less than a general Christianity itself?
Why should it be exclusive ? Dare we use it to exclude other
human beings who are members of the Lord's Church and
whom we expect to meet in Heaven? Is not this the very
mark of a narrow sectarian orthodoxy, to deem one's own pe
culiar teachings so important that we will not associate with
other followers of Christ who are as good Christians as we are ?
This very widespread feeling among Christians of our
day can only be dealt with when we are discussing it with
people who will admit that religion is not chiefly a social sen
timent — " sweetness and light," as Matthew Arnold puts it —
but the most serious and thorough-going business of life. In
serious business, distinctions, classification, grades of value,
the separation of the genuine from the specious, and of first
quality from that a little more inferior, are of prime im
portance. In separating a man not of our faith from ourselves or our
communion, we are simply taking religion seriously, as the
most practical business of life. We are not attempting to ex
clude such a man from the Christian Church, nor passing
judgment on his eternal welfare; but we are marking him
as a non-Lutheran in belief and practice and as not properly
belonging to its particular communion and faith. We are ask
ing him to go to his own spiritual people, where his kind of
faith is promulgated and used as a basis of hope and life,
where he will not be a disturbing element to other people's
principles, and where he can be cared for on his own princi
ples. Is it charitable to encourage him to be faithless toward
his own principles ? Even though his personal tastes, or his
earthly fellowships, should draw him into our communion,
can we, from any justifiable motive, ask him, even once, to
testify against his own principles, which should be more
precious to him than life; and to participate in the most
sacred and crowning act of faith (e. g., the Sacrament),
of which we are capable, but in which he is at variance with

NOT OPPRESSIVE. 35
us? The bride does not ask even her most intimate and
honored friends and guests at the wedding to participate with
her in her act of marriage with the groom. We must draw
the line in all sacred relationships. The more important the
relationship, the more careful our action.
We are doing nothing more nor less, in fact, than what
everybody believes to be right in the case of the United States,
when it allows only naturalized citizens to vote ; and when it
excludes from its voting membership those who either do
not go to the trouble, or are, for any more serious reason, un
willing to take the oath of allegiance and subscribe to our
national Confession, the Constitution. This is not illiberal,
but just and, in the long run, charitable to all.
A real reason why people justify this care and strictness
in the -State and criticise it in the Church is that they esti
mate the importance of citizenship as above that of Church
membership, and allow matters of convenience, sentiment as
to family relationship and general friendship, and other sec
ondary considerations, to operate in religion, but not in poli
tics. A man will go five hundred miles to vote, and will not
walk five squares to church. That tells the whole story of
his estimate of the comparative importance of this world's
rule and order, and rule and order in the kingdom of God.
Confessional fidelity is a matter of conscience as it works
itself out into order ; for order is Heaven's first law, not only
in business but also in religion. Good order is not the antago
nist of sweet charity; but sweet charity appreciates the value
of order, and is willing to take the other car rather than stand
on the platform or cling to a footboard outside, when there
are good public reasons for keeping people either entirely
inside or entirely outside.
After the above was written, the author was called away
from his study, and the following conversation Was repeated
to him as having just taken place at a public table: "Are
you a member of any Church?" "No; but my wife is a
Lutheran." "And is she a good Lutheran ?" "What do you

36 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
mean by 'good Lutheran' ?" "I mean one who attends her
Church regularly." "I cannot say that she is, at least we are
now going to the Presbyterian Church, because we have met
some very fine people in that church, with whom we are quite
social." That is the " exclusive " question in a nutshell. In
our daily walk and confession, religion is to be regarded as
secondary to sociability and social considerations.
But is our discussion, up to this point, completely fair?
Does it exhaust the subject? How shall we recognize the
unity that embraces in itself all true Christians of every land,
many of whom are entirely outside the Lutheran Church?
Or is there no such unity?
Yes, there is such a unity — the only really universal and
eternal unity of believers. But it is invisible. No one but
God knows who are its members. No Church or denomina
tion upon earth composes it as such. And the Churches
upon earth can not presume to be identical with the commun
ion of saints, or to assert the relations of their visible mem
bership to it. They each claim to have its principles, or if
they do not, they are greatly injuring the Kingdom of the
Lord by maintaining separate organizations; and they each
must act conscientiously, just as men do in private and
business life, being faithful to that which they believe
and know, and leaving that which they see through a glass
darkly to the Day of the Lord.
With many Christians to-day, the importance of unity is
not its real inner existence, but its outer demonstration. It
is not to be one, but to impress outsiders properly with the
fact that we are one, and are mighty as one. It is not the
unity for its own sake, but the unity for the sake of what it
will do and show in this world. This is the difference be
tween union and unity. Both are legitimate, but both are
not equally important. Unionism, which is union by com
promise is not legitimate, nor abidingly important.
The Church is not designed chiefly to bring men into out
ward earthly associations, or to make them acquainted with

NOT OPPRESSIVE. 37
each other as preparatory to an acquaintanceship in Heaven ;
but it is designed to implant the saving Word of truth within
them, and to relate them organically through the Spirit to the
Head of the Church and, through Him only, to each other.
The Church is thus the body of Christ, the pillar and ground
of His saving truth; and the Confession is our deepest con
viction of that saving truth.

CHAPTER VI.
SHOULD CONFESSIONS CONDEMN AND
EXCLUDE ?
Against the enforcement of Confessional Authority are Toleration, Church Rival
ries, Individualism and Democracy, Historical Persecution — But Abuse does
not abrogate Use— The Responsibility of Lutheranism — Discipline and Minatory
Elements in Scripture and the Confessions.
MANY complicated causes contribute to the modern
feeling that the Church should be sufficiently broad
and liberal, not to raise its voice in condemnation of error,
nor its hand in excluding even the unworthy and the re
probate from its membership.
The spirit of universal toleration, which is indifferent to
doctrine, and regards it rather as a dead heirloom from a
historical past, and more or less of an incubus to the Church
of the present, than as the dynamic of faith and life; and
which substitutes the common sense and personal judgment
of each Christian individual, for the collective judgment of
the Church as recorded in its Confessions, is a prime cause
for this feeling. But there are others.
One of these is the existence of many rival Protestant or
ganizations, each claiming by the fact of their separate ex
istence (and many of them repudiating their own claim by
"laxity of word and act), that they are the true Church, and
that their confession and discipline are decisive. This spec
tacle does not in itself disprove that there really is some one
Church which possesses the true doctrine, for the truth is
nearly always surrounded by approximations and counter-
38

SHOULD THEY CONDEMN? 39
feits of itself ; but, in view of the fact that human nature is
prone to regard itself as right, and to set up an exclusive
claim of right for its own party, and to condemn all who are
outside of its party — which the pages of history illustrate
abundantly — the world to-day feels that even the true Church
should be modest and slow to condemn others' errors and sins,
since, very likely, at least a part of the condemnatory act is
to be attributed to the ordinary frailty of human nature,
found even in the true Church, and not to the purity of
doctrine which it rightly claims to emphasize.
Still another prejudice against Confessions that condemn
is to be found in the emphasis which our modern life places
upon the individual, as being of more importance than the
institution, and upon the low views of the congregation of
Christ -which are current in our country. This is a serious
thing. The general public has almost ceased to regard the
Protestant Church as a divine institution, but looks on it as a
voluntary human association into which individuals enter
when they desire, in which they remain as long as they please,
and from which they are privileged to withdraw, as they
would from any other mere society, as a matter of course and
of right, whenever they wish to do so, for any or no cause
whatsoever. Each individual brings to the congregational
society his sensitive personality, together with his " doctrinal
views and opinions," which must be respected not only in
discipline, but also in preaching, and which will resent any
rebuke or allusion to them as error, even though the admoni
tion be of the mildest kind.
The doctrine of the Church as the Communion of Saints
has fallen so low, that the Church is no longer regarded as a
real brotherhood subject to the teaching and the disci
pline of a common Scriptural life. Not the doctrine of the
Confessions, but the "sentiments", "opinions" and "views"
of pastor and members, which are influenced rather by con
temporary philosophical discussion than by a searching of
the Scriptures or an assimilation of the Confessions, prevail

40 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
in the congregation. There is a disposition to allow the
pulpit, and the mind of the hearer, to be open and untram-
meled on all sides, and to accept such ideas as seem to each
individual to be most helpful to his own spiritual life. Hence
each member is to be left to regulate his faith and life by
ideas that appeal to him, rather than by the strict doctrine
that is revealed in Scripture.
We reach one deep root of the matter when we say that
the Church of this age, with all our other institutions, is
affected by a reaction which the spirit of democracy is awak
ening against all authority. Whether the authority is good
and lawful or not makes no difference. There is, especially
in our nation, something in the nature of a universal protest
against constraint or discipline of any kind. The disinclina
tion to admit and to use authority, and the difficulty in which
officials find themselves in administering their authority
justly, without making a far-reaching mistake, or involving
the cause which they represent in destructive consequences,
have become exceedingly great. The feeling exists that
"truth is mighty and will prevail." Give it a fair opportunity
to fight its own battles, and stand back far enough, and it will
win. What a pity it did not win in the Garden of Eden!
Calvary and the Cross would then have been unnecessary. It
will prevail indeed — in the end, when God shall be all in all.
Meanwhile members of the Church are growing up with
the idea that saving faith consists in subjective individ
ual sentiment, and in the acceptance of the privileges of re
ligion, without the acceptance of the duties and burdens and
responsibilities which the Church must, if she is true to her
Lord and to her members, impose upon all.
There is little willingness in the modern spirit to accept re
buke either for sin or for error. The Protestant idea of the
individual right of conscience is carried so far that the
Church, in its collective capacity, as representing God, can
not speak out against a torpid conscience without being re
garded as narrow and as attempting to exceed her authority.

SHOULD THEY CONDEMN? 41
For ourselves, we freely confess both our faith and our
sympathy with the positive method of quietly and continu
ously sowing good seed over and over again, rather than in
the continuous attempt and effort to pursue and destroy error
by the use of ecclesiastical authority. While it will not do to
allow error to spring up unchecked,1 since it is so much more
prolific and overshadowing than truth ; yet, nevertheless, the
chief aim of the Church should be the planting of truth, and
not the rooting out of error. The two go together, but there
is constant danger that the zealot will turn his Christian devo
tion into a military fervor for destruction, and will "breathe
out threatenings and slaughter " against error ; and there is
equally constant danger that the latitudinarian is neglecting
the extirpation of error, because it is no eyesore to him and
because he is not devoted, heart and soul, to the implantation
of the sound doctrine.
The road to truth 2 is not a straight one, but, as the world is
constituted, has been reached through controversy with the
extremes of error. "Honest and earnest controversy," says
Dr. Philip Schaff, " conducted in a Christian and catholic
spirit, promotes true and lasting union. Polemics looks to
Irenics. The aim of war is peace." To this we heartily sub
scribe; and while it is not possible in this age to beat the
sword into ploughshares, nor to turn the spears into pruning
hooks,' yet the right thing to do is to use the ploughshare
regularly and faithfully, and to hang up the sword in reserve
for those occasions in which the ploughshare will not suffice.
The point here is that the presence of the sword (of the Spirit)
is wholesome, and that the Confessions have the right to hold
it in reserve and to wield it as actual necessity may require.

' The parable of the wheat and the tares is not applicable in this connection
to the Church's testing, and condemnation, and exclusion of heresy and error.
'The line to truth is a straight one, as the bird flies, but not the actual
road on earth. There are high mountains and winding valleys to be
traversed. 8 In which capacity they would often be useless, since the liberal modern
Church neither desires nor tolerates " pruning."

42 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
In addition to the objections mentioned above as lying
in the public mind against the enforcement of Confessional
authority, there is still another. The history of the Christian
congregation in its efforts to uphold pure doctrine and sound
spiritual life among its membership, especially during the
many centuries of the rule of Rome, and even under the do
minion of the sterner kinds of Protestantism, has been so
sad, and is so permeated by the sinfulness of human nature,
that the very principle of ecclesiastical authority itself, in
spiritual things, which is as legitimate in its right use as it
is illegitimate in its abuse, is now being denied as valid.
It is true that the tyranny of much of the earlier Protest
antism, as exemplified in this country particularly by the
laws of Puritanism, is not to be found in the Lutheran
Church, whose heart is foreign to a rule of legalism of any
sort. Krauth has plead the conspicuous innocence of the
Lutheran Church as follows:
"The glorious words of Luther were, 'The pen, not the fire,
is to put down heretics. The hangmen are not doctors of
theology. This is not the place for force. Not the sword,
but the Word, fits for this battle. If the Word does not put
down error, error would stand, though the world were
drenched with blood.' By these just views, the Lutheran
Church has stood,* and will stand forever. But she is none
the less earnest in just modes of shielding herself and her
children from the teachings of error which takes cover under
the pretence of private judgment. She would not burn Serve-
tus, nor, for opinion's sake, touch a hair of his head ; neither,
however, would she permit him to bear her name, to 'preach
another Jesus' in her pulpits, to teach error in her univer
sities, or to approach with her children the table of their
Lord, Whom he denied. Her name, her confessions, her
history, her very being protest against the supposition of such

* Notwithstanding the bitterness and the exceptional cases of persecution
which occurred after Luther's death in the midst of the Protestant internal
controversies, by civil rulers, at the instigation of the extremists of all parties.

SHOULD THEY C0NDE2IN? 43
'fellowship with the works of darkness,' such sympathy with
heresy, such levity in regard to the faith. She never prac
ticed thus. She never can do it. Those who imagine . . . the
right of men, within the Lutheran Church, to teach what
they please in the face of her testimony, know not the nature
of the right they claim, nor of the Church, whose very life
involves her refusal to have fellowship with them in their
error. It is not the right of private judgment which makes
or marks a man Lutheran. ... It and the right of Church
discipline are co-ordinate and harmonious rights, essential
to the prevention, each of the abuse of the other. To uphold
either intelligently, is to uphold both. In maintaining, there
fore, as Protestants, the right and duty of men to form their
own convictions, unfettered by civil penalties or inquisitorial
powers, we maintain, also, the right and duty of the Church
to shield herself from corruption in doctrine by setting forth
the truth in her Confession, by faithfully controverting
heresy, by personal warning to those that err, and, finally,
with the contumacious, by rejecting them from her commun
ion, till, through grace, they are led to see and renounce the
falsehood for which they claimed the name of truth." *
" No church, apart from the fundamentals of the gospel in
which her unity and very life are involved, is so mild, so
mediating, so thoroughly tolerant as our own. Over against
the unity of Rome under a universal Head, the unity of High-
Churchism under the rule of Bishops, the unities which turn
upon like rites or usages as in themselves necessary, or which
build up the mere subtleties of human speculation into arti
cles of faith, over against these the Lutheran Church was the
first to stand forth, declaring that the unity of the Church
turns upon nothing that is of man. Where the one pure
Gospel of Christ is preached, where the one foundation of
doctrine is laid, where the ' one faith ' is confessed, and the
alone divine Sacraments administered aright, there is the one
Church ; this is her unity.

'Con. Ref., pp. 174 sq. For the following, Vid. ib., pp. 181 sq.

44 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
"Our fathers clearly saw and sharply drew the distinction
between God's foundation and man's superstructure, between
faith and opinion, between religion and speculative theology,
and, with all these distinctions before them, declared, that
consent in the doctrine of the Gospel and the right adminis
tration of the Sacraments is the only basis of the unity of
the Church. This basis, the Lutheran Church has defined
and rests on it, to abide there, we trust, by God's grace, to the
end of time."
If the Lutheran Church is true to Scripture and true to
herself, as the Church of the pure Word and Sacraments
she cannot avoid the responsibility of condemnation and ex
clusion. Her ministers and congregations, after making
all due allowance for the fact that they differ from the
Church in Apostolic days in that they have not the Saviour
or the inspired Apostles to guide them, that we are ignorant
of the inner life, motives and principles of other men, and
are not acquainted with either the conditions that determine
their action, or the possibilities of amendment that their fu
ture may contain, and with due reference to the fact that
others are not to be judged by us, that is, to receive a sweep
ing and final verdict on general principles at our hands ; and,
further, remembering that it is necessary to exercise the
greatest patience and forbearance, and at times to refrain
from judging even where the outward evidence seems to con
vince (John 8: 11; 1 Cor. 4: 5), must, nevertheless, both
warn and exclude error from the Church.
The Lutheran doctrine of Absolution is not complete and
is never really exercised, unless the "binding" accompanies
the "loosing," unless the Word is applied not only for release,
but also for condemnation. The witness of the Church is to
be two-edged (Matt. 16: 19; 18: 18; John 20: 23). Exclu
sion, as exercised by the Christian Church, was instituted by
our Lord (Matt. 18: 15, 18), and commanded and practiced
by St. Paul (1 Tim. 1: 20; 1 Cor. 5:7; Titus 3: 10).
The three-fold admonition, first privately, then in the pres-

SHOULD THEY CONDEMN? 45
ence of two or three witnesses, and finally before the Church,
leads to a recognized and appointed way in which a church
member must at last become to his brethren as a heathen man
and publican. This exclusion is to follow on the member's
unrepentant rejection of the censure of the church passed
on him for a trespass which he has committed.
St. Paul not only gives directions to "admonish the dis
orderly" (1 Thess. 5: 14ff ; 1 Tim. 5: 20), and to hold aloof
from members who are openly wicked (1 Cor. 5 : 11), or who
refuse to obey his word in his letters (2 Cor. 3: 14ff; Rom.
16 : 17), but also claims the right to exercise discipline (com
pare 2 Cor. 1 : 23 ; 13 : 10). His letters refer to the exercise
of this authority in the case of two offenders cut off from the
Church (1 Cor. 5; 1 Tim. 1: 19, 20). Persons were disci
plined not only for moral offences, but for a schismatic spirit
(Titus 3 : 10, " A man that is heretical, after a first and
second admonition refuse"). In 2 John 5, 10, false doctrine
is made the ground for absolute breach of intercourse.
Moreover, the Apostle Paul writes positively that we
are to cut ourselves off, or withdraw, from those who do
not obey sound doctrine (2 Thess. 3: 14; Rom. 16: 17; Gal.
5 : 2 ; 1 Tim. 6:3). The rulers of some of the seven Churches
in Revelation are rebuked for their latitudinarian spirit and
teaching; and St. Paul emphatically declares, "Though
we or an angel from Heaven preach any other Gospel unto
you than that we have preached unto you, let him be ac
cursed" (Gal. 1:8, 9); i.e., "disclaim and renounce all
communion with him."
The fact that the exercise of this duty of condemnation or
exclusion often was abused (compare Luke 6 : 22 ; John 9 :
22; 12: 42; 16: 2; 3 John 9, 10), was not regarded in the
New Testament as a reason for retiring the exercise of this
function of the Word into the background.
Our own Confessions, in accordance with Scripture, recog
nize excommunication. Melanchthon does so in the Apology,
chap, iv, 3. Speaking of Confession, in the Apology
,7

46 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSION'S.
(chapter iv, 61), Melanchthon says, "Excommunication is
also pronounced against the openly wicked and the despisers
of the Sacraments. These things are thus done, both accord
ing to the Gospel and according to the old canons."
The Schmalkald Articles carefully distinguish between the
civil and the spiritual excommunication, in Part in, 9.
They say, "The greater excommunication, as the Pope calls it,
we regard only as a civil penalty, and not pertaining to us
ministers of the Church. But the less is true Christian ex
communication, which prohibits manifest and obstinate sin
ners from the sacrament and other communion of the Church
until they are reformed and avoid sin." This power inheres
in the ministry. "Therefore the bishop has the power of the
order, i. e., the ministry of the Word and Sacraments; he has
also the power of jurisdiction, i. e., the authority to excom
municate those guilty of open crimes, and again to absolve
them if they are converted and seek absolution." * " It is
right to restore this jurisdiction to godly pastors, and to see
to it that it be legitimately exercised for the reformation of
life and the glory of God." 8
Compare also " The Office of the Keys as the Head of the
Family should Teach it in all Simplicity to his Household,"
in Luther's Small Catechism : " I believe that when the
called ministers of Christ deal with us by His divine com
mand, especially when they exclude manifest and impenitent
sinners from the Christian congregation, and, again, when
they absolve those who repent, . . . this is as valid and cer
tain, in heaven also, as if Christ, our dear Lord, dealt with
us Himself."
The Augsburg Confession itself (article xxviii) declares

' That Melanchthon could condemn we see in the Apology where, In
speaking of the Trinity, he says : " We constantly affirm that those thinking
otherwise are outside of the Church of Christ, and are idolatrous, and insult
God." — Apol. Art. I.
''Ibid., p. 288.
"The Schmalkald Articles, Power and Primacy of the Pope, 343.

SHOULD THEY CONDEMN? 47
that the power of the "Keys" is "a power of preaching
the Gospel, of remitting or retaining sins and of administer
ing the Sacraments." Thus our earlier Confessions, in
manner as mild as possible, reject errors and heresies, ancient
and modern, that are contrary to the Word of God.
In terms not any less measured than these, but with the
keen experience of half a century behind them, the confessors
in the Preface to the Book of Concord declare : "It seemed
exceedingly necessary that, amidst so many errors that had
arisen in our times, as well as causes of offence, variances
and these long-continued dissensions, a godly explanation and
agreement concerning all these controversies, derived from
God's Word, should exist, according to which the pure doc
trine might be discriminated and separated from the false.
Besides, this matter is of importance also in this respect, viz.,
that troublesome and contentious men, who do not suffer
themselves to be bound to any formula of the purer doctrine,
may not have the liberty, according to their good pleasure, to
excite controversies which furnish ground for offence, and
to publish and contend for extravagant opinions. For the
result of these things, at length, is that the purer doctrine
is obscured and lost, and nothing is transmitted to posterity
except academical opinions and suspensions of judgment."
That, however, this condemnation of unsound doctrine is
exceedingly mild in our Confessional writings is to be seen
from another statement in the Preface to the Book of Con
cord: " Thus as it is in no way our design, and purpose to con
demn those men who err from a certain simplicity of mind,
and, nevertheless, are not blasphemers against the truth of
the heavenly doctrine, much less indeed entire churches,
which are either under the Roman Empire of the German
nation or elsewhere; nay, rather it has been our intention
and disposition, in this manner, to openly censure and con
demn only the fanatical opinions and their obstinate and blas
phemous teachers (which we judge should in no way be

48 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
tolerated in our dominions,' churches and schools), because
these errors conflict with the express Word of God, and that
too in such a way that they cannot be reconciled with it.
We have also undertaken this for this reason, viz., that all
godly persons might be warned concerning diligently avoid
ing them. . . .
"Wherefore, by this writing of ours, we testify in the
sight of Almighty God, and before the entire Church, that
it has never been our purpose, by means of this godly formula
for union, to occasion trouble or danger to the godly who to
day are suffering persecution. For as, moved by Christian
love, we have already entered into the fellowship of grief
with them, so we are shocked at the persecution and most
grievous tyranny which with such severity is exercised
against these poor men, and sincerely detest it. For in no
way do we consent to the shedding of that innocent blood,
for which undoubtedly a reckoning will be demanded with
great severity from the persecutors at the awful judgment of
the Lord, and before the tribunal of Christ, and they will
then certainly render a most strict account and suffer fearful
punishment." When we come to examine the condemnatory elements to
be found in the Confessions of the Lutheran Church, we shall
perhaps be surprised to see how much more mild they are,
comparatively, than is the Scripture itself. We may also be
surprised to find that the Augsburg Confession is not any
stronger in its condemnations than is the Athanasian Creed,
and that the Formula of Concord is probably as mild in its
condemnation as is the Augsburg Confession.
It is strange that it does not occur to the Lutheran who con
demns the Confessions for their minatory passages that they

•The separation of Church and State, possible in America, enables the
Lutheran Church to develop her confessional principle of Law and Gospel,
entirely apart from the aid of the State, more fully than she could in Germany
in the Reformation era. As a Church she will not even pass the customary
resolutions that ask the State not to tolerate the secularization of the Lord's
day ("Sabbath desecration").

SHOULD THEY CONDEMN? 49
are far less minatory than the Scriptures themselves. Will
we be consistent and condemn Scripture because Scripture
condemns error, heresy and wickedness ?
The fact is that the whole Scripture is terribly negative in
dealing with error and sin. Every one, except the third, of
the Ten Commandments is a negative. A large part of our
Saviour's utterances are negative and condemnatory in form,
and all of them are in view of the existence of evil, to be
witnessed against, struck down, suffered for and overcome.
The sharp condemnation of the Christian Church in her
old theology is usually attributed to the influence of the
Apostle Paul and his more narrow and rabbinic outlook ; but
if any more terrible denunciations have ever come from
human lips than those that came so freely from the mild
and gentle Son of Man in the Sermon on the Mount, in the
picture of the children of the kingdom cast into outer dark
ness, in upbraiding Chorazin and Bethsaida, in comparing
the men of Nineveh with His own generation, in condemning
those who have ears to hear and hear not, in ruling out the
tradition of the elders (Matt. 15), in rebuking His own dis
ciples, and the unbelief of those who listened to Him, and
the wickedness of the unjust debtor, and rich men who trust
in their riches, and the useless fig tree, and those who reject
the Cornerstone, and the bidden who would not come, and
the man without a wedding garment, and the unprofitable
servant to be cast into outer darkness, and, above all, the
Pharisees who shall receive the greater damnation, in woes
and denunciations most terrible (see also the whole Gospel of
St. John, including even the stern words in the tender parable
of the Good Shepherd) — ^if any condemnation more stern and
terrible than this has come from the mouth of man, we know
not where to find it.
The Old Testament, it will be admitted, is full of con
demnation and exclusion, but we doubt whether the fulness
of its volume is appreciated.
The first scene in the Bible closes with a curse on man and

50 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
his exclusion from the Garden of Eden. The next scene
shows us Cain being branded by the Lord as a murderer.
Then comes the condemnation of the whole earth and its
punishment in the flood. The punishments of Jacob and his
sons, the warnings, condemnations, ceremonial exclusions and
severe visitations on rebellious Israel in the wanderings,
the punishments of the inhabitants of Canaan, of Israel un
der the judges and kings, are notable. Can you pick up a
passage from Isaiah or any one of the prophets and find it
unmingled with commination ? We shall not speak of the im
precatory ' Psalms ; but we direct attention to the fact that
with all the change of attitude from the Old Testament to the
New, in the coming of Grace and Truth, while love takes the
place of hate toward our enemies, there is no intimation that
toleration has taken the place of condemnation in our relation
to error and falsehood.
"Think not that I am come to destroy the law or the proph
ets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I
say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one
tittle shall in no wise pass from the law till all be ful
filled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least
commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called
the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do,
and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom
of heaven. Beware of false prophets, which come to you in
sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye
shall know them by their fruits." — Matt. Chapts. 5-7.
"But in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines
the commandments of men. Every plant, which .my heavenly
Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up." — Matt. 15 :
9, 13.
"For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous
wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock." — Acts 20 :
29. " Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause di
visions and offences, contrary to the doctrine which ye have

SHOULD THEY CONDEMN? 51
learned; and avoid them. For they that are such serve not
our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly, and by good words
and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple." — Rom.
16: 17, 18.
"For we are not as many which corrupt the word of God:
but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God, speak
we in Christ."— 2 Cor. 2 : 17.
"For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transform
ing themselves into the apostles of Christ. And no marvel ;
for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.
Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be trans
formed as the ministers of righteousness, whose end shall be
according to their works." — 2 Cor. 11 : 13-15.
"And this I say, lest any man should beguile you with en
ticing words. Beware lest any man spoil you through phil
osophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the
rudiments of the world, and not after Christ." — Col. 2 : 4, 8.
"But there were false prophets also among the people, even
'as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall
bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that
bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction."
— 2 Peter 2 : 1.
We have brought these passages to remembrance to make it
evident that the elements of condemnation in the Symbolical
Books of the Lutheran Church are not as severe as the con
demnation of false teaching and living to be found in Scrip
ture. Analyzing the condemnatory elements in the Augsburg
Confession, we find that Article i condemns those who set
up two eternal principles of good and evil, and those who
contend that there is only one person in the Trinity. Article
ii condemns the Pelagians, who argue that a man may by
the strength of his own reason be justified before God. Ar
ticle v condemns the Anabaptists and others who imagine
that the Holy Spirit is given to men without the outward
Word. Article vin condemns the Donatists. Article ix

52 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
condemns those who condemn Infant Baptism. Article x
"disapproves" of those that teach non-Lutheran doctrine on
the Lord's Supper. Article xn condemns those who main
tain the doctrine of sinless perfection. Article xni con
demns an opus operalum use of the Sacraments. Article
xvn condemns those who believe in a limited state of tor
ment and in a millenium. Article xviii condemns the
Pelagians, who believe that we are able to love God without
His Spirit.
Neither the Apology" nor the Schmalkald Articles (ex
cept with reference to the Papists), nor the Small nor the
Large Catechisms contain formal condemnatory matter. The
Formula of Concord, which was composed to deal with and
settle controversies, and which is written in most moderate
tone, rejects and condemns thirteen false doctrines concern
ing original sin, without, however, mentioning any con
temporaries. It rejects eight false doctrines concerning the
free-will, without mentioning contemporaries. It rejects
and condemns eleven errors respecting the righteousness of
faith, without mentioning any names at all. It rejects and
condemns three false doctrines concerning good works, with
out mentioning any names. It rejects and condemns the
wrong teaching concerning the Law and the Gospel, without
mentioning any names.
It also condemns twenty-one doctrines of the Sacramentar-
ians concerning the Lord's Supper. It rejects twenty false
doctrines concerning the Person of Christ, without mention
ing contemporaries; four false doctrines concerning church
rites, and four false doctrines concerning predestination,
without mentioning any names. It also "simply enumerates
the mere articles wherein the heretics of our time err and
teach what is contrary to our Christian faith and Confes
sion." Among these are seventeen errors of the Anabaptists,
eight of the Schwenkfeldians, one of the new Arians and one
of the anti-Trinitarians.
10 But V. p. 46.

SHOULD THEY CONDEMN? 53
In other words, it covers the whole field of error as it pre
sented itself to the Lutheran Church at that time, and clearly
presents the errors, without a trace of personality or any
bitterness of discussion. It says, "We cannot forbear testi
fying against them publicly, before all Christendom, that we
have neither part nor fellowship with these errors, but reject
and condemn them one and all as wrong and heretical, con
trary to the Scriptures of the Prophets and Apostles, as well
as to our well-grounded Augsburg Confession."
To our mind there can be no more useful service per
formed by a public standard of the Church, than to point out
the dangers and pitfalls of doctrine which have come up in
the course of actual experience and which threaten the true
faith in Christ. As Frederic Meyrick says, "If Christianity
is merely a philosophical idea thrown into the world to do
battle with other theories, and to be valued according as it
maintains its ground or not in the conflict of opinions, exj
communication and ecclesiastical discipline are unreasonable.
If a society has been instituted for maintaining any body of
doctrine and any code of morals, they are necessary to the
existence of that society. That the Christian Church is a
spiritual kingdom of God on earth is the declaration of the
Bible."

CHAPTER VII.
WHAT GIVES THE CONFESSION VALIDITY?
A Confession is Testimony, not Agreement, nor Contract — Its Aim is Instruction,
not Obligation — The Agreement is the Pre-existing one of Doctrine — Cannot
be put together by Negotiation — The Result (Not the Cause) of the Substantial
Unities in Christ — Not a Platform, nor a Delineation for Comparative Distinction
— Born, not Made — The Stress of Providence — Its Validity is that of Testimony
— Evidence of the Lutheran Confession — Analysis of the Legal Situation— Not
Based on Social Pact — Lacks the Essence of Contract, viz. : An Interchange of
Legal Rights Whose Transfer the Law Will Compel — The Binding Clauses of
our Confessions.
THE Church's Confession is testimony, and its validity
lies in its witness. The form in which this, witness is
cast is unessential, if the substance be complete and perfect
and the form do no injustice to the substance. The strength
of the Confession is the strength of God's truth, which, in
Christ, builds and holds the Church ; and which, besides the
bodily utterance, is the chief thing in the Confession. The
strength of the Church's Confessions is her Confession.
The agreement of men in this Confessional testimony, is
that of a common conviction in which they find themselves, not
that of a common understanding at which they have arrived.
The number of those sharing the conviction and confessing it
does not add validity, though it may add credibility, under
the regular conditions of number in evidence, to the witness.
The value of a witness depends on conscience as it is intel
ligently enlightened through revealed truth, and not on any
attempt to make our witness agree with that of others. When
the witness of two or three agrees, the added force arises be
cause we see the truth to be strong enough to simultaneously
affect a number of consciences. It shows that the Confession
54

VALIDITY. 55
is that of a communion in which every conscience testifies to
the same effect.
Four different classes of agreement centre in a Confession :
1, the agreement of the Confession with Scripture; 2, the
agreement of the Confession with the confession and with
itself; 3, the agreement of the confessors with the Confes
sion, and 4, the agreement of the confessors with each other
as to the Confession. The validity of the Confession depends
upon the first kind of agreement: "The value of creeds de
pends upon the measure of their agreement with the Scrip
tures. The Bible is the norma normans; the Confession the
norma normata. The Bible is the rule of faith {regula
fidei) ; the Confession the rule of doctrine {regula doc-
trinae)."1 The chief permanent use of a Confession is based on its
power as genuine and valid testimony. Its chief purpose in
the Church is to illuminate, to clarify and to convince. Its
chief binding power is the binding power of the truth. Its
chief hold is its hold on the conscience of those whose mind
has been illuminated and convinced by it.
This, in modern terms, is but another way of saying that
the chief value of a Church Confession is educational, rather
than restrictive. In itself, the whole restrictive strength of
the Confession lies in its moral force. An additional act,
exterior to itself, is required to turn its validity into the
validity of ecclesiastical law. And it is important to separate
this additional act, as an inferior function, from the Con
fession's main office of testimony. The first duty of the
Church is to instruct its members in its testimony so thor
oughly that they will come to voluntary agreement with it
under the influence of its truth. If, in addition, the Church
feel it to be salutary to make her members promise, in vow
or by subscription, to remain faithful to such Confession,
this act is in itself an important incidental application of

* Creeds of Christendom, I, p. 7.

5fi THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
the Confession as a part of a precautionary ecclesiastical
administration. But as the main use of Scripture is not its
normative use, so the main use of the Confession is not
Verpflichtung.' That the Lutheran Confessions take this view of their
validity' and regard their chief purpose to be instruction,
is to be seen from the manner in which they characterize
themselves. The Augsburg Confession terms itself " Sum
mary of the Doctrine of our Teachers." The Large Cate
chism terms itself "A Course of Instruction" * and "A Treat
ment of the Five Articles of the Entire Christian Doc-
trinae."6 The Formula of Concord declares itself to be "A
Summary Exhibition of Doctrine." ' And while the Confes
sors state their mutual agreement in the doctrines and declare
"to stand on them, if God so will, even to death ;" ' and agree,
in the Formula of Concord, to "neither speak nor write any
thing contrary to this declaration, but intend to abide there
by," yet the chief matter is the "wish to testify that the above
declaration and no other, is our faith, doctrine and confes
sion." Any agreement in confession, which has not had a pre-
existence as a fact, perhaps not explicit, yet actually wrought,
in the hearts and minds of those who are under the power
of the pure Gospel, does not add to the strength of the Con
fession. Any agreement which is not in itself the spontane
ous originating cause of uniting men in their testimony, but
which is the result of a concerted attempt to agree and
which locates and places the agreement in the formulation
and does not regard the latter as an explication and expres
sion of a fact already existent, weakens the validity of the
Confession.

2 In Europe, where Church and State have always been united, and where
the Confessional obligation has ultimately been to the State, the matter of
Verpflichtung early assumed a serious, if not overshadowing, importance.
For such Verpflichtungs formeln, see Kollner, I. 121 sqq.
* Schaff declares that the Lutheran Confessions were "originally intended
merely as testimonies or confessions of faith." — Creeds of Christendom, p. 222.
• Second Preface. 6 Ibid. • F. C, p. 537. * Schmalkald Articles.

VALIDITY. 57
It is a misinterpretation of the origin of a true Confession
to say that various wings of a Church came together and
agreed on a sum of doctrine which they put forth to be con
fessed. If the Confession is a true one, as we believe those
of our Church to be, they came together to find or to express
the agreement already existing in their doctrine, and not to
make a doctrine or consensus of doctrine in which they would
agree to agree. In the case of the Augsburg Confession,
Melanchthon's wish to thwart the full and open confession of
the faith, his attempts to conciliate the opposite party and to
subordinate the real end of confession to a conciliation of the
Emperor came to naught through the Providential course of
events, and he was obliged to give form to the full Lutheran
truth in spite of himself. In the Formula of Concord, where
the discovery was of confessional truth which two internal ex
tremes would recognize and confess as their own, the diffi
culties were overcome by a thorough study of Scripture and
a constant reference and adherence to it step by step.
The existence of a contract to agree, or even of an inten
tion to come to agreement at all events, prior to the sufficient
discovery of agreement, is, in so far, a presumption against
the validity of a Confession.
The fundamental fact is that Confessions in their real na
ture, their real purpose and their main usefulness are of the
order of testimony and not of the order of contract.
So far from Confessions being of the nature of a contract
between men, by means of which they may agree in their re
ligious thoughts and organizations and activities,8 and to
attain which, they may add here a little and subtract there

8 It is true that the Preface of the Electors and Princes to the Book of
Concord calls the Formula " a formula of agreement," "haec pacificationis
formula," " diese jetzige Vergleichung;" but this phrase does not mean an
agreement as to what the truth of the confession shall be, but an agreement
that will follow from the discovery of what the truth is. The parties do not
come together, and by a selection of some points, and a compromise of others
make the truth on which they agree to agree ; but the parties search out
the various partial statements, and statements with light and shadow in
them, as presented from the different sides, until they discover the real and
fundamental objective .fact as it is, which fact convinces them all and brings
them into agreement.

58 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
a little, Confessions are only real and valuable in so far as
they embody and reflect God's own Word. It is from their
objective substance, that they derive their value. This object
is uniformly the grace of God, as revealed in Scripture, and
offered in Word and sacrament.
This objective and intrinsically valuable content of the
Confession never varies ; and it is not composed of the assem
blage of propositions in which the Faith is attempted to be
expressed, but is the reality of the facts in the Divine will,
revealed in Scripture, accepted by faith, and witnessed to by
Confession ; and on which facts we rely for our life and sal
vation, and which we attempt to fix in human language. Con
fessions, as the soul's and the Church's apprehension and
expression of the divine reality, are matters of conscience.
So little is the idea of confession, in God's Word, merely a
conviction of the understanding, that we find it, in Scripture,
to be an acknowledgment of man's going out of himself, and
resting in the grace of God in confident trust. It is a move
ment of the whole inner man that seizes the heart and moves
the mouth to utterance (Rom. 10: 9-11).
A Common Confession in a Church is not mediated by the
intellect, or by the thoughtful arrival at a form of words that
will cover contraries and bridge chasms, but it becomes com
mon and united because the members of the Church them
selves are united in one Head, one Faith, one Baptism, one
God and Father of all.
We cannot emphasize too strongly that confession and the
Confessions, in so far as they are delineative, and in so far as
they possess combining power, are the result of other and
more substantial unities in Christ, and not the cause of them.
Christ, the Faith, the Church, the Truth, the Principles,
the Doctrine — all existed before they were apprehended and
set forth by our faith, or formulated by our thought, or ex
pressed by our mouth; and therefore they cannot legitimately
be touched, modified, softened down, or toned up and height
ened by any human agreement.

VALIDITY. 59
That was the fatal mistake of Melanchthon,9 and is the
undercurrent of weakness in the attempt of men to "get to
gether" on "a common platform of faith," in every age.
Such a confession is a "platform,*' a human thing; built
up by man's thought and skill, and according to his ideas,
which change from age to age ; and cannot be the source of
that strength and certainty, that comes from submissive and
total reliance on revelation, and that courses through the
channels of the objective unity already existent between the
Head of the Church and its members.
If to the above it be objected that no particular Church
can claim to have the objective and final confession, and to
have as its unity that objective oneness that holds together
Christ and His members, we reply that to the degree in which
the particular Church is true in faith and life, it is within
the compass of the pure faith and the real bonds of union in
Christ. What holds true of the accuracy and faithfulness of
the old orthodox Lutheran Confessions as a true reflex of the
objective content in Scripture is emphasized by the rational
istic but keen-sighted Carl Hase in the following language :
"Jene alte Orthodoxie, — welche Lessing, ihr ehrwiirdigster
Gegner, wegen ihres starken und Kiihnen Geistes bewunderte,
wahrend vor der neuen Rechtglaubigkeit ihm zuweilen eben
so iibel wurde, als vor der neuen Aufklarung, — sie ist darge-
stellt worden in ihrer ganzen Kraft und Consequenz; und eine
solche Darstellung, ohne irgend eine aussre Riicksicht, schien
allerdings der Wissenschaft in mancher Hinsicht forderlicher
[the true Lutheran would say, "schien allerdings dem Zeug-
nisse des Wortes Gottes mehr gemasz" ] , als die neuem Con-
cordate zwischen dem alten Kirchenglauben und der Philo
sophic oder Unphilosophie des Tages, welche nicht selten in
scheinbarem Vereine von beiden Seiten Widerstrebendes ver-

"The Confession, as being under the laws of testimony (not of contract), is
susceptible of adjustment to the perspective, proper for the time in which it
is uttered ; and therefore Melanchthon was justified in changing the adjust
ment (but not in concealing or weakening the truth) of the Confession, on
learning more and more of the nature' of the Diet, until the moment of its
utterance.

60 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
mischen und Eigenthiimliches aufopfem. . . . Eine , Wis-
senschaft von dem Glauben, fiir welchen unsre Vorfahren
Gut und Blut eingesetzt haben, verdient wenigstens von ihren
Nachkommen genau gekannt zu werden. . . .
"Nicht als wenn die Formeln der Vorzeit gel ten sollten,
weil sie gegolten haben: aber davon ziemt Jiinglingen, den
kiinftigen Lehrern und Hirten der Kirche, auszugehn, wovon
die Geschichte unsrer Kirche selbst ausgegangen ist, damit
sie die Zeit, die vor ihnen gewesen ist, und aus der die Ge-
genwart geworden ist, daher aus ihr auch verstanden wird,
in der wissenschaftlichen Erinnerung durchleben, und fest
gewurzelt in der Vergangenheit vorwarts streben und auf-
warts." "
The written or formulated Confessions of the Church are
an expression, in careful language, of the objective substance
of the Confession. They were not framed to show the differ
ences of the writers as a church party, or to distinguish one
church party from another, though they are thus used by
theologians and comparative historians. But they were
framed to enable us to acknowledge, indicate and defend our
objective Scriptural teaching of God's Word, especially on
loci that have been represented as different from what they
are, by other denominations. The occasion of the framing
is not necessarily the purpose of Providence, or even the
deepest purpose of the confessors in bringing them into being.
They were framed to protect and preserve the truth and
the Church ; and other beliefs and denominations are, at best,
the occasion, or the foil, furnishing the material for contrast,
and not the real ground for the existence of these formularies.
Thus it was not to distinguish between Lutheranism and
Romanism, not to designate comparatively the differences be
tween what Rome taught and what Lutheranism taught, that
the Augsburg Confession was framed; but it was to enable
Lutheranism to confess the one faith of the Scripture on such

10 Karl Hase, Hutter Redivivus, Oct., 1828.

VALIDITY. 61
points as had been obscured or perverted by Rome. The
true faith, "the sum of the doctrine," and not the distinctions
between the parties, is the object.
The agreement consequently is not between the confessing
members, but is between the Confession and the Scripture.
The agreement reached between the members, is not as to what
they will agree to, but as to what Scripture obliges them to
confess and binds them to hold. If there be a contract in the
confessional formulary, it is between the Lord and men, and
not between men and men. The strength, the sanction, the
validity lies in the relation of the confessors to the One Whom
they confess, and not in the relation to each other as signa
tories. The latter relation, so far as it exists, is secondary, and is
mediated between them only through the Head of the Church.
Neither does the number of signatories affect the validity,
the truthfulness and the strength of the Formulary as a
religious document or a marker of faith. Otherwise the
validity of a Confession would often be determined by the
political dexterity and the adaptation to governmental ex
pediency with which it was framed and introduced. Two
or three gathered in Jesus' name may confess the good and
valid Confession, and a whole Council purporting to repre
sent all Christendom might formulate an invalid Confes-
sion. It is on this account that the stress of Providence, the

11 The same fact is true with respect to the validity of a broken or
changed Confession. Jacobs says of a Church that tries to change her creed :
" When she teaches otherwise than they taught who were her historical
ancestors, she has broken her unity with them, and is no longer the same
Church, no difference though the name be retained, or however preponderant
on her side may be numerical majorities. If every member would agree to
a change in her Creed, this would not change the testimony of the communion
which was fixed at its organization. It would only show that the historical
successor was a different Church. The Roman Catholic Church cannot amend
the decrees of the Council of Trent so as to remove elements on which the
Tridentine fathers insisted, or to include Protestant conceptions of doctrine,
without thereby ceasing to be the same Church as that which for three centuries
and a half has recognized those decrees as the standard of teaching, and
excluded from the hope of salvation all who disputed their authority." — Dis
tinctive Doctrines and Usages, p. 92.
8

62 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
objective necessity of a situation, is essential to bring forth
a valid confession. This is the reason why a number of
able scholars cannot get together on their own initiative and
restate the old truths in the terms of the age, and have the
Church adopt the result as her Confession. A Church Con
fession is that which has been forced out of the Church by
Providence, Who has put a strain and a necessity on the con
fessors that compels them to speak, and that enables them to
come to speak as with one mind and one soul, in the unity of
the Spirit. The minor adjustment of phrase, style and outer
expression, on which agreement may be secured by vote or
by predominant weight of scholarship, only clothes and does
not constitute the Confession. All matters of degree, and
quality, and relative importance, and form, which are mat
ters of judgment, and which need agreement between con
fessors, are not the ground of the validity of the Confession.
The validity of the Formulary is the validity of testimony,
and not of contract. The official Confession, formulated
and accepted, is testimony as it stands finally, after thorough
cross-examination and testing, in which all the error is
eliminated, and in which, in the best conviction, all the
truth remains. The agreement of many or all men as fel
low-confessors in this one conviction is evidential and not
contractual ; neither is it essential to " a good confession "
on the part of the Church.
A strong light is thrown on the real, that is, the confes
sional, meaning and purpose of a symbol in the Formula of
Concord itself,12 by the manner in which the Formula ac
knowledges the preceding symbols of the Church. Of the
three oecumenical creeds it says : " Because, of old, the true
Christian doctrine, in a pure, sound sense, was collected from
God's Word into brief articles, or sections, against the cor
ruption of heretics, we accept as Confessional the three
Oecumenical Creeds as glorious Confessions of the faith,
brief, devout and founded upon Cod's Word.
"Part II, 569.

VALIDITY. 63
"Because God, out of special grace, has brought His
truth again to light, and has collected the same doctrine,
from and according to God's Word, into the articles and
sections of the Augsburg Confession; we confessionally ac
cept also the first Unaltered Augsburg Confession {not be
cause it was composed by our theologians, but because it
has been derived from God's Word) as the symbol of our
time whereby'" our Reformed Churches are distinguished
from the Papists, after the custom of the early Church.
"We unanimously accept this also [the Apology] as Con
fessional, because in it the said Augsburg Confession ... is
confirmed by clear, irrefutable testimonies of Holy Scripture.
" The articles composed, approved and received at Schmal
kald in the large assembly of theologians in the year 1537,
we confessionally accept.
"Because these highly important matters belong also to
the common people and laity, who, for their salvation, must
distinguish between pure and false doctrines, we accept as
Confessional also the Large and the Small Catechisms of
Dr. Luther . . . because they have been unanimously ap
proved and received . . . and publicly used . . . and be
cause also in them, the Christian doctrine from God's Word
is comprised in the most correct and simple way, and, in like
manner, is sufficiently explained for simple laymen.
"These public common writings have been always regarded
in the pure churches and schools as the sum and type of the
doctrine u which the late Dr. Luther has admirably deduced
against the Papacy and other sects from God's Word.
"By what has thus far been said concerning the summary
of our Christian doctrine we have only meant that we have
a unanimously received definite, common form of doctrine,
which our Evangelical Churches together and in common
confess. 11 As one of the effects, not as the controlling purpose, In which case the
language would have been " are to be distinguished."
" " Die Summa und Vorbild der Lehre," " compendaria hypotyposi seu
forma sana? doctrins."

64 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
"For that we have embodied the above-mentioned writings,
viz., the Augsburg Confession, the Apology, the Schmalkald
Articles, Luther's Large and Small Catechisms, as the sum of
our Christian doctrine, has occurred for the reason that these
have been always and everywhere regarded as containing
the common," unanimously received understanding of our
Churches, since the chief and most enlightened theologians
of that time subscribed them, and all Evangelical Churches
and schools have cordially received them. . . No one who
is true to the Augsburg Confession will complain of these
writings, but will cheerfully accept and tolerate them as
witnesses; no one, therefore, can blame us that we derive
from them an explanation and decision of the articles in
controversy, and that, as we lay God's Word, the eternal
truth, as the foundation, so also we introduce and quote
these writings as a witness of the truth, and a presentation
of the unanimously received correct understanding of our
predecessors who have steadfastly held fast to the pure doc
trine." In 573, 3, "Of the Antithesis," the Formula declares, "Be
cause some divisions arose among some theologians of the
Augsburg Confession, we have wished plainly, distinctly
and clearly to state and declare our faith and confession con
cerning each and every one of these taken in thesis and an
tithesis, . . . for the purpose of rendering the foundation of
divine truth manifest " and censuring all unlawful, doubtful,
suspicious and condemned doctrines; so that everyone may
be faithfully warned to avoid errors diffused on all sides.
15 "Dasz solche fiir den gemeinen einhelligen Verstand unserer Kirchen je und
allwege gehalten worden."
10 In the sense of "perception of meaning," not in the sense of " a tacit
agreement to construe things in a certain way." See same word at end of
paragraph. 11 " Wie wir Gottes Wort, als die ewige Wahrheit, zum Grunde legen, also
auch diese Schriften zum Zeugnis der Wahrheit, und fiir den einhelligen
rechten Verstand unserer Vorfahren, so bei der reinen Lehre standhaftig
gehalten, einfiihren und anziehen."
18 " Haben wir unsern Glauben und Bekenntnis rund, lauter und klar in thest
et antithesi, das ist die rechte Lehr und Gegenlehr, setzen und erklaren wollen,
damit der Orund gbttlicher Wahrheit in alien Artikeln offenbar (set)."

VALIDITY. 65
... If the Christian reader will carefully examine this
declaration and compare it with the writings enumerated
above, he will find that what was in the beginning confessed,
and what was afterward restated, and is repeated by us in
this document, is in no way contradictory, but the simple,
immutable, permanent truth."
In its highest, or religious sense, a Symbol is the Church's
Confession of Faith springing forth from her accurate
and whole-souled appropriation of the content of the Word
of God. It is the Church's witness and testimony of her
faith within to the Faith without. As such the Symbol need
not be authenticated nor officially adopted or decreed. Its
common use speaks sufficiently for it.
In the theological sense, a Symbol is an acknowledged and
recognized delineation or summary, generally official, of
the Church's faith as drawn from the standard of God's
Word, in view of a public necessity to present or defend it.
Except where it, in its own inner material, refers, by way
of contrast or rejection, to other faiths, or where it is
within the scope of its own purpose to distinguish between
its own and other faiths, such distinguishing is not an
essential, but an accident, in its definition.
A Symbol in an ecclesiastical sense is an officially recog
nized and accepted document which lays down the Faith of
the Church, and to which all teachers and ministrants within
the Church are expected to conform. As such, it may be
come the basis of an implied or expressed contract between
the 'Church and those in her positions.
We have seen that the Symbol, in its highest essence,
is the Church's Witness and Testimony of the faith within to
the Faith without.19 As such, it implies and involves, as

'" It is fair to define a Confession by its highest and main purpose. The
spiritual portion generally comprises nearly the whole of the document ; and
the agreement clause is insignificant, and often omitted.
It is possible to define man as a biped or as an animal with business
capacity^ or ' to define a congregation as a corporation composed of those
who have voluntarily United and properly organized, under a charter, for
religious worship ; but these definitions are not the ones to be accepted in
the Church.

66 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
does all expression of action in which more than a single
unity is engaged, agreement of various kinds. It is an
agreement of the truth it professes, with the Source from
which the truth is drawn. It is an agreement of the various
doctrines composing this truth, with each other. To become
recognized as a Symbol it involves an agreement " with
heart and mouth," of its confessors. To become officially
recognized, it involves a concurrence of those duly authorized
to accept or reject it on behalf of the Church. As an
.ecclesiastical instrument, and as inserted into the charter
of a religious corporation, for the purpose of fixing the
faith for which that corporation exists, it may become the
spiritual basis of a legal contract between the Church and
those who hold her positions.
We have enlarged upon the subject of this chapter be
cause we are impressed with the serious enfeeblement of
the confessing spirit and the confessional principle in the
Church, if she allow the great Confessions of her Faith
to drop to the level of a contract. It must be admitted that a
long and honorable usage, to be traced back to the etymology
and the historical usage of one of the chief terms used in
designating the Christian Confessions, viz., the word Symbol
(for the discussion see chap, xm), justifies a weight of tra
ditional authority that may be urged against our position.
We therefore desire to make some analysis of the under
lying formal relations that are embodied in the several terms
whose usage in custom, language, and law will determine
the propriety of their application to our Confessions.
Let us turn first of all to the most general and inclusive
formal term, viz., the word "agreement." In its widest
sense, agreement is the concurrence of two or more persons in
expressing a common intention, with the view of altering
their rights and duties (See 3 Savigny Syst. 309 ; Poll. Cont.
2). It is "aggregatio mentium, or the union of two or more
minds in a thing done or to be done" (I Com. Dig. 311 ; 5
East 10; 2 Sm. Lead. Cas., 241).

VALIDITY. 67
An agreement in this sense is without legal effect when
existing by itself, but is an essential preliminary to every
true contract, gift, payment, conveyance and compromise,
and of every voluntary variation or discharge of a contract
or other obligation."
When analyzed, the essential marks of an agreement are
these: "There must be at least two persons; they must
definitely intend the same thing; they must communicate
this intention to one another; and the object of their inten
tion must be such as will, when carried out, alter their
legal positions, e. g., by producing the transfer of property,
or the creation or extinction of a right." 21
Such an agreement or common intention involves a set
of promises K made in consideration of each other. If not
enforcible by law, an agreement is said to be void. If en-
forcible by law, it is a contract.23 It is in that case a writing
showing the terms and conditions of the agreement between
the two parties involved.
The narrowest definition of a contract is that of Kant,
who describes it as "the united will of two persons for the
transfer of property." 2i He takes property in a wide sense.
Hegel also limits the term contract to the transfer of
property, though more generally. Windscheid, one of the
most reliable of German writers on fundamental law, defines
a contract as consisting in the union of two declarations
of intentions. The one party declares to the effect that
he will be a debtor to the other party, subjecting his will
to the will of the other party; the declaration of the other
party is that he accepts this subjection. Koch 25 defines a
*> " Thus in a formal deed of conveyance the introductory recital always
refers to the agreement in pursuance of which the conveyance is executed."
This agreement is " the mutual assent of the parties at the time the deed is
executed." n Rapalje and Lawrence Am. and Eng. Law, Art. " Agreement."
22 A promise is the declaration of a person or persons, without consideration,
to do a thing.
» Contract Act of 1812.
M Wetaphysische Anfangsgriinde der Rechtslehre, pp. 98-103.
36 Koch Forderungen, § 69.

68 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
contract to be a reciprocal express agreement of two or
more persons in a common expression of will, by which
their legal relations are determined. Blackstone defines a
contract to be an agreement, on sufficient consideration, to
do or not to do a particular thing. The German code"
declares a contract to be a reciprocal assent to the acquisi
tion or alienation of a right. Savigny defines a contract
as the union of two or more persons in a common expres
sion of will, by which their legal relations are determined.
This broadens the field somewhat and includes some forms
of agreement which are not obligatory engagements, though
even Kant defined such relationships as that of marriage,
as obligatory contracts. A contract must have defined legal
rights as its object ; anything less is held to be a moral obli
gation or a mere engagement of honor. Wharton defines a
contract as an interchange by agreement of legal rights. To
be a contract, it must concern a right whose transfer the law
will compel. It must consist of a business proposal and ac
ceptance bearing on a specific act. A contract is resolvable
into proposal and acceptance.
" ' Contract,' therefore, differs from ' agreement ' in the
primary sense of that word, in including, in addition to the
unity of intention and the juridical nature of the subject-
matter constituting a simple agreement, the incident of one
of the parties being bound to a future performance or for
bearance, and of the other party doing or agreeing to do
something in return. On the side of the party so bound to
a future performance or forbearance, the expression of his
willingness or intention to do it is called a 'promise', and
the performance or forbearance done or promised by the
other party is called the ' consideration for his promise.' " "
The Confessions of the Lutheran Church, or the particular
Confessions of any church, are not in themselves, or by
virtue of any mutual agreement between the confessors to

" Allg. Landrecht, 1. B. {51.
M R. and L., Am. and Eng. Law.

VALIDITY. 69
abide by them, or of any implied agreement between the
Church and its ministry to remain faithful to them, in any
wise a contract in the above sense.
Would it not be stretching language very far to say that
a declaration of truth or of rights, though joined in and
agreed to by many persons, is of the essence of contract?
Neither the ultimate basis of the State, nor that of the Family,
nor that of the Church, rests on contract. The Constitu
tion of the United States is not even an instrument
of agreement, but one of ordination and establishment, and
rests on the authority and power that reside in the commu
nity, which are expressed' and defined in the Constitution,
but do not originate in its features as an agreement.
The general theory of Social Contract, originated in
antiquity by Epicurus, and in modern days by the rational
ism of the Eighteenth Century, is a vicious thing in the
State; and is still more vicious in the Church. It is not by
any choice or act of volition on our part that the State
exists. We did not make it. No agreement of ours can
either continue or destroy it. "It is not a physical but a
spiritual fact." 2S And this elevation above human choice is
more true of the Church. No denomination lives, — either as
to its particular order, which is its faith, or as to its ecclesias
tical order, which is its historical form, — by contract. Men
cannot contract with each other to testify to the truth. The
truth itself is the high obligating motive and power which
compels them both in their agreement and in their testimony.'
Hence, Symbols, in our opinion, are not even a sacred
compact or covenant, although they may be thrown into the
quasi form of a covenant or agreement, in order more con
veniently to gain universal assent. Such a form, however,
ia not determinative either of the validity, or the accuracy,
or the substance, or the durability of a Symbol. A most
striking proof of all this is to be found in the Confession to
which the term "Symbol" was originally applied, and which

28 Robert Ellis Thompson.

70 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
is not in the form of an agreement between two or more per
sons, but in the form of an individual declaration. The
Apostles' Creed says not "I agree to believe," but "I believe."
But contract is more than simple agreement or even
covenant. It is a bargain, and one that can be legally en
forced. A Symbol is not a contract because there are, as such,
no legal rights in it. It may, where State and Church are
united, or in a state religion, become the basis of legal rights,
and it may in itself become determinative of legal rights.
But as such, and without the addition of that which makes
it a legal instrument, it bears no legal authority. The Un
altered Augsburg Confession does not convey or preserve own
ership in any church in eastern Pennsylvania ; although if
the deed makes certain specifications, leading up to this Con
fession, or if there are certain facts and decisions in the his
tory of the local or larger Church that lead up to this Con
fession, the Confession may be the basis on which ownership
will be decided, just as it might be decided on the basis of
any natural relationship. A Symbol may become the basis
of contract between churches, but only as the churches are
incorporated, or are in possession of a legal instrument cov
ering property, and as the Symbol is recognized in the incor
poration or in the instrument.
Legally, there is something further to be considered. The
fundamental fact in a contract, namely, that of an inter
change, is lacking in a Symbol. There is no relation of Proni-
issor or Promisee in a Symbol. It is of the nature of a con
tract that one party has something to give, which the other
party receives, and vice versa. There are always two parties
on opposite sides. In a Confession all parties give and agree
on the one and same thing. There is no opposite side.
In the next place, a Symbol is not a contract because it
does not concern a right ivhose transfer the law will compel.
A Lutheran cannot sell his property in the Augsburg Confes-
fession as a Symbol and make it effective at law. Moreover,
the joint liability of the parties in agreement in a Symbol,

VALIDITY. 71
such as, for instance, that of the signers of the Augsburg Con
fession or of the Formula of Concord, unless extended by legal
statute, or unless there be some special personal obligation
assumed by the members individually, will not extend beyond
the range and the life of the corporate estate. The Symbol
would cease to be such at the end of the lives of the
signers, and outside of the regions they control, unless it were
formally held in continuance and extended, wherever it is
extended, by a legal renewal of the original formalities.
If the Symbol is to be regarded as belonging to the Church
in a general corporate sense, we must remember that, to be
valid even as a moral obligation, there would have to be no
confusion between the corporation and individuals in it. For
the corporation and the persons composing it are in no sense
convertible. Neither does a corporation receive into its mem
bership the legal representatives of its deceased members,
and there is> a limit of a certain number of years on the ordi
nary contraetural relations into which it enters.
The very idea, then, of a contract is not suitable for the
characterization of a Confession. As a frame of definition,
it does not sum up the higher confessional relations. A Con
fession is the Church's united avowal of its faith.
The Church's existence and its right to exist, to teach,
to judge truth, to affirm and condemn, are bound up in the
Tightness and sureness of its Faith; and therefore it may be
and is exceedingly important for the Confession to compare,
to discriminate and to mark any or all the facts of its Faith,
but only for the ultimate purpose of avowal. The primary
purpose of a Confession or Creed is not, as is often stated,
to distinguish one Faith, or one religious communion from
another; but it is to distinguish in order to teach, and to
teach in order to bring about a united avowal. Any creed or
confession or teaching which rests in the terms of a mutual
contract, or stops short of active testimony and avowal of the
truth as it is in Christ Jesus, fails in the one main function
in which it is of value to Christ and the Church. For, con-

72 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
fession is the necessary utterance of faith (Rom. 10: 10;
Matt. 12: 34b).
The Confessions of the Church, especially the oecumenical
creeds, are termed Symbols ; 2" and the common name for the
Book of Concord is " The Symbolical Books of the Evangel
ical Lutheran Church."
The word "symbol" draws attention to the external and the
human side of a Confession, and neither to that inner sub
stance of it which is the Word of God, nor to that inner ap
prehension of it which causes it to be a witness of living
and saving faith. Its fundamental idea is the human opera
tion of comparing different truths for the purpose of reach
ing a decision as to them, and finally of so marking the con
clusion reached that it can be distinguished and recognized.
It is, therefore, a term of society, indicating a discrimina
tive process, such as we find, for instance, in men of a polit
ical party coming together to construct a platform ; or a scien
tific process, such as we find in the comparative delineation
and estimate of various creeds in the science of "symbolics."
But it does not in the faintest way allude to either the life or
the power of God's Word which springs up out of the heart of
a believing Church in the utterance of weighty and united
testimony, which is, indeed, the main and substantial thing
in the Confessions of the Church. The Confessions of the
Church are the Testimony of its Faith to all the world.
It is in this sense also that the Formula of Concord is a
true Confession. The word " Symbol " is not used by the
authors in designating it in its title, but they call it, " Wieder-
holung und Erklarung etlichen Artikel Augsburgischen Con
fession," "Repetitio et Declaratio. . . . Augustanse Confes-
sionis. The " Christliche, Widerholete, einmiitige Bekenntniis,
Confessio Fidei," in its title; and the air of conviction and

28 See chap. XIII. Cp. Book of Concord, II, 535, 1 ; 537, 9.
m The comparative idea appears in the title of the Formula in its own sub
ordinate place, "nach Anieitung Gottes Worts und summarischem Inhalt unser
christlichen Lehr beigelegt und verglichen."

VALIDITY. 73
piety that breathes in its pages, show how truly it, in essence,
is a book of soul and conviction, and not of comparative re
ligious science. It is only in a later time, especially in
those editions issued in the rationalistic period of the Eigh
teenth Century, that the term "Symbol"- begins to occur in the
title of the Book of Concord. {Cp. Hutter Comp. Wittb.
1610, p. 10.) There is, in fact, no Confession of our
Church which terms itself a Symbol; or which, indeed, is
termed a Symbol, when alluded to in its vital and essential,
as apart from its historical and ecclesiastical, relations.
The Confessions, or Symbols, are valuable because they
contain the articles of faith, and the articles of faith are the
substance of the divine Word on each of the various points of
revelation, to be trustingly received by the sinner for his
salvation. It is found that "their connection is so intimate
that, when one is removed, the rest cannot continue sound
and whole." 81
The articles of faith embody the things that are to be be
lieved as such. They treat of the mysteries of faith that
transcend the comprehension of unaided human reason,32 and
that are revealed in the Word of God.
The Symbols embrace these articles as they have been called
forth from time to time, as, in various periods, particular
parts and teachings of the Word of God were put under
stress, and tested, and purified, and preserved for us in per
manent form. Together the articles constitute the Confes
sion of the Church's faith. Since the articles are found in
their original and permanent form in the Symbols, the latter
are summaries of true religion, from various points of view,
embracing the Christian faith.
"They are public Confessions, drawn up after much delib
eration and consultation, in the name of the Church, by or
thodox men, with reference to certain articles of faith, so
that the members of the orthodox church might be removed

n Hollazius Exam. Theol. Acroam., p. 44.
12 lb., p. 45.

74 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
from the ignorance and heretical wickedness of infidels and
be preserved in the proper profession of the faith." "They
are called Symbols because they were the tests of the ancient
Church by which the orthodox could be distinguished from
the heterodox." **
The term " Symbolical Books," so far as we know, was not
used on the title-page of the Concordia, or "Widerholete,
einmiitige Bekenntniis," before the Eighteenth Century. In
the earlier day the confessional idea was the prominent one ;
and by Hollazius, the last of the old dogmaticians, in the
middle of the Eighteenth Century, their necessity was still
defined as "to establish solid, permanent and firm concord in
the Church of God, so that there may be a certain compend
ious form, or type, approved by universal consent, in which
the common doctrine, which the churches of the purer doc
trine profess, collected from the Word of God, may be con
tained; to furnish an account of the Christian religion if it
be demanded by the civil authority, and to distinguish the
true members of the Church from her enemies, the heretics
and schismatics." 35
If now we come to examine the Confessions for their own
definition of their actual character, and for any clauses that
may be regarded as the binding clauses of the agreement, we
shall find none in the (Ecumenical creeds. The Augsburg
Confession speaks of itself as the "Articles in which is our
Confession and in which is seen a summary of the doctrine
of those who teach among us."
The Apology terms itself, "A Reply to the Confutation ;"
and Melanchthon says as to signing it : "I give my name so
that no one may complain that the book has been published
anonymously." The Schmalkald Articles terms itself "A
Declaration to stand on them, if God so will, even to death."
The Articles on the Power and Primacy of the Pope are

33 Hollazius Exam. Theol. Acroam., p. 54.
84 Calovius, Syst. Loc. Theol., I. p. 101.
35 Schmidt Dogmatik, Trans, by Jacobs, p. 121.

VALIDITY. 75
called "A harmonious Declaration of Approval ;" and by John
Brentz, a Testimony that "I thus hold, confess and constantly
will teach." The Small Catechism denominates itself a
"Statement of the Christian doctrine" in very brief and sim
ple terms (Preface). The Large Catechism declares itself to
be "A Course of Instruction" (Second Preface) ; and again,
"A Treatment of the Five Articles of the Entire Christian
Doctrine" (Second Preface).
The Epitome of the Formula of Concord declares "that
this is the doctrine, faith and confession of us all, for which
we will answer at the last day before the just Judge, our
Lord Jesus Christ, and that against this we will neither
secretly nor publicly speak or write, but that we intend, by
the grace of God, to persevere therein, we have, after mature
deliberation, testified in the true fear of God and invocation
of His name by signing with our own hands this Epitome."
In analyzing thi^ declaration, promise and testimony, we
find nothing of the essence of contract. There is a testimony
as to their "doctrine, faith and confession" (and a promise
not to "speak or write" contrarily), made solemnly ("answer
before the just Judge"), "after mature deliberation," "in the
true fear of God and invocation of His name," "signing with
our own hands " ; but that is all.
The corresponding clause in the "Comprehensive Sum
mary" is emphasized as a Testimony and Declaration. It
reads as follows:
"In the sight of God and of all Christendom, to those
. . . who shall come after us, we wish to testify that the
above Declaration ... is our faith, doctrine and confes
sion, in which we will appear before the judgment seat.
We will neither speak nor write anything contrary to this
Declaration, but . . . intend to abide thereby."
We find here no contract or article of agreement but, first,
a Testimony in the sight of God and all Christendom ; second,
a Declaration to those who come after us (and who cannot
therefore be the party of the second part-) ; third, an Acknowl-

76 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
edgment of the substance as "faith, doctrine and confession;"
and fourth, a Promise, general, but impliedly, to each other,
and a Declaration of intention " to abide thereby."
On the whole, then, we may conclude that the confessional
element of our Confessions, and not any agreement in them,
is their essential part and gives them their validity. They
are not — except secondarily — a solemn contract to regulate
officials in the church, nor a convenient mark by which peo
ple outside the Lutheran Church may recognize us, nor a
bond of union by which we recognize each other. They are
a witness and testimony — uniting their confessors in the
cogency of the truth — to the Church's Faith.
They arose not to mark distinctions between denomina
tions, but from the inner necessity of bearing witness to
the truth and against error. Their most important use is
not to mark religious distinctions in Protestantism, but to
testify and to teach within the Church.
The main purpose of the Confession is to teach the Church.
Their testimony is to become part of the Church's blood
and sinew. As the Catechism is already the standard teach
ing book in every congregation, so the Symbolical Books
should be the great fountain whence should flow into the
very life and character of every theological seminary the
Confessional principle.
Our object in training young men in theology is not
to give them a knowledge of comparative, historical, apolo
getic, or even systematic divinity, but to make them con
fessors of the Faith well-grounded and able to render every
man a reason for it, living witnesses, and faithful administra
tors of the Word and Sacraments. This Confessional con
ception of a seminary differentiates it from the scientific
institution in which theology as a science, rather than the
true faith, is taught ; and our Church, both in Germany and
in our own country, howsoever liberal her academic, col
legiate and university training may, and, in truth, should
be, can not possibly be made to shine like a city set upon a

VALIDITY. 77
hill until her seminaries' chief aim is to send forth wit
nesses of God's Word and confessors of the Church's Faith as
the future pastors of our congregations.
The Apostolic injunctions to individuals on this point
apply with still greater force to congregations, synods and
institutions, and to the Church as the total of believers.
The Formula of Concord implies that presenting "pure,
wholesome doctrine" aright, and reproving those "who teach
otherwise," is the main function of both the preacher and
teacher. The great thing in the Church is that faith be
awakened and the Faith be witnessed to and preserved in
its purity, and the ways of error be pointed out. "The
Church must direct the teachers to her Symbols and make
it their duty faithfully and uprightly to impress their
doctrine." 36
Confessions stimulate and preserve the unity of the Faith
and the oneness of the Church, not because they create it, or
form its bonds, but because they point to the deeper unities
in the body of Christ. " The God of our Lord Jesus
Christ, the Father of glory," aT "hath put all things under his
feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the
Church, which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all
in all ;" ™ that we "may grow up into him in all things, which
is the head, even Christ: from whom the whole body fitly
joined together and compacted by that which every joint sup-
plieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of
every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of
itself in love ;" *" for of this body "Christ is the head," 4"
"from which all the body by joints and bands having nourish
ment ministered, and knit together, increaseth with the in
crease of God."

36 Mueller, Einleit. " Eph. 1:17. t»i: 22, 23.
«• .4:15,16. "5:23. "Col. 2: 19.

CHAPTEE VIII.
DO CONFESSIONS BIND ?
Intellectual Liberty and the Official Christian Confessor— Why the Church Asks
Loyalty from those in Office— Why the Church needs Settled Teaching— Free
Investigation and Confessional Obligation.
THE eagle chafes, behind golden bars, in a foreign land.
It was made to soar. It cheerfully accepts the
limitations of bare cliffs, and narrow crags, and snow-capped
summits, and clouds whirling in tremendous storm; but it
pines in confinement.
If our conscience, heart and convictions are not at home
in a Confession that has not been made, approved or chosen
by us, but in which we find ourselves, we shall chafe under
its limitations. We shall continually be seeing the fence
instead of enjoying the farm; we shall be peering between
the bars) and climbing the pickets, and making ourselves
miserable, in the effort to convince the men within, and the
world without, that we are prisoners.
Yet the sagacious dog, more noble and more civilized than
the eagle, faithful to his master, enters eagerly into the law
and confines of a domestic and common life, and languishes,
or even dies, apart from the presence of his master. One of
the most forlorn objects on the earth is a lost dog — a dog
that has become "free," that is, exiled from its home and the
companionship and voice of its master.
The man who sleeps within the four limiting walls of his
house locks the doors and lies down to rest in peace, a free
soul, because he is at home; while the ill and fevered spirit
rising from its bed and seeking every avenue to escape is a
78

LOYALTY. 79
prisoner, who knows not why, and knows not where to find
repose. To some men Confessions are not only binding, but galling.
They fret beneath the yoke. Their hearts are not at home
in the limitations, and the result is inevitable. A senti
mental desire for freedom impels them, eagle-like, to soar
above and beyond the vineyard rather than to work within it.
Yet limitations are necessary, and are a condition not only of
life, and thought, and truth, but of country and achievement,
and age, and position, and also of faith.
Whether the accountability for rebellion against the lim
itations of a Confession resides in the individual ; or in his
early training and uncongenial environment, or in the Con
fession itself, is not always easy to decide.
The secret of the whole matter is sometimes to be found in
the man himself. Saul was an ambitious, an ardent and
a vengeful man. Jesus told him that the dissatisfaction of
his nature was his own fault: "It is hard for thee to kick
against the pricks;" and when he was converted this self
same man actually joyed in living within these distressing
limitations, in being a "slave" and a "yoke-fellow" under
Christ. Although, when Peter tried to throw the net of
Pharisaic realism around him, he yielded not — no, not for an
instant — yet the thorn in his flesh was accepted with thanks.
The galling power of truth itself is great to those who
do not desire to abide in and by it. They feel they must
escape. They cannot breathe in the same khan with Jesus
of Nazareth. They must escape to the Bedouin of the
desert; or if the Bedouin are in possession of the khan,
there will be " no room for the young child in the inn."
A trustful, confiding and converted spirit desires to keep
well within the law and will of the object of its confidence,
and finds its joys in the fulfilment of any given prescriptions.
For such as these there is always the widest freedom. For
them there is no law. Love has become the fulfiling of
the law, and is unhappy beyond the forbidden bounds.

80 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
There is a service in the law, which is result and satisfac
tion ; a service above the law, which is joy and freedom ; and
a service under the law, which is tyranny and bondage. It
may be the selfsame service in all three cases. It is a
galling service in bondage, to the weak man, the critic, the
dissatisfied man, and the thinker of untamed instincts. It
is a service in law, to the man of serious conscience. It
is a service above law, to the man of ardent loyalty and
generous affection.
We may conclude, then, that where there is confidence,
faith and trust, the Confession will not need to bind, and can
not gall. But where there is doubt, mistrust, or any trace of
the undevoted and critical mind, the Confession holds an
eagle behind the bars.
Has it the right to do so? Can it bind intellect aally,
morally, legally? If the bird of freedom has been trapped
on his upper crag, and has been brought unwillingly as a
captive into the confines of the Church, there is no intel
lectual or moral right to hold him ; but, if he has come down
as a freebooter in search of prey or as an independent soarer
of spreading wing, who wishes to abide with us and yet
will not say, "liberty and union, one and inseparable," it is
well that he be bound.
The trouble, however, may not be in the eagle, but in
the confining domain. There are necessary and proper lim
its to the binding power of Confessions. "The Church has
no power to bind the conscience, except as she truly teaches
what her Lord teaches, and faithfully commands what He
has charged her to command".1
The trouble very often is in the man's environment. He
has not been brought up to see the need of certain truths,
not to understand the importance of an honest and clear-cut
Confession. He may not realize the bearings of doctrines
that to him seem far away. He is in the Confession, but
not thoroughly of it, having failed to appropriate it ; and he
1 Cf. "Fundamental Principles of Faith and Church Polity."

LOYALTY. 81
is unwilling to give up his right, at least abstractly, to over
step it.
The Confirmation Confession, most solemn, and made on
the basis of the Smaller Catechism — which is the Larger
Catechism, the Augsburg Confession, the Formula! of Con
cord, yea, Scripture itself, condensed into manual form — is,
like the marriage avowal, or any other solemn promise or
covenant with the Lord, binding in this case for life. The
Ordination or Installation Confession, which is a similar
condensation, but shows more explicit apprehension of the doc
trine, is similarly binding. Yet the confessional bond is not
as inflexible as the marriage bond. To any and all classes of
men whatsoever, we say that the Church has no desire to keep
them in the confessional cage; no right to keep them, as it
were, in captivity, when they wish to be at liberty — as they
say — to worship according to the dictates of their own con
science. The door is open, let them spread their wings and
fly to that happier clime where the limitations accord with
their conscience and more enlightened conviction. "Go in
peace," we say.
A faith, a love, a conviction, an enlightenment, an at
mosphere, such as the old Church, with her heavy founda
tions and honest walls and bare brown rafters, offers,
does not suit you. You are restless here; and even if we
"modernize" the old home, and introduce the elegancies and
conveniences, and consign the antiques to the flames, and
give you an up-to-date twenty-four-hour alarm clock in
place of the old precious timepiece of grandfather, on the
stairs, and a veneered mahogany table in place of the solid
old family heirloom, you will not be satisfied. The Scriptural
doctrine is too heavy for you. You require a modern news
paper treatment. We cannot help you.
But to those men who, with the door standing open before
them, nevertheless do not fly, but desire to remain with
us within the limitations, we say: "You should observe
the order of this old home. You are not by yourself, alone

82 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
up on the rocks; nor journeying, without responsibility to
fixed relations, in 'a far country.' You are here in what
we believe to be a God-framed order, and if you elect to
stay with us, you cannot in good conscience do so, with the
feeling of 'a rebel against us ; but we must presume that your
presence among us is from a noble motive, and not merely
the result of self-interest and personal convenience, that
you appreciate our protective bulwark and believe in the
power of our principles, and that therefore you are ready to
train yourself in accordance with our restrictions.
" If you go, you are free. But if you stay in our house, you
are bound by the law of our house, which is our Confession,
or, rather, by the Scripture, which is our only rule, but of
which our Confession is the faithful, trusty, convenient,
tested, proven and accurate witness."
The Church desires this: that the harmonies of the doc
trinal teaching of her symbols with the pure Scripture
doctrine be recognized by those that belong to her and wish
to enjoy the benefits of her membership.
The Church asks no one to give assent to her doctrine
without inner conviction, but she also regards no one as
belonging to her, who is not able to make her Confession
his own. She cannot interpret her symbols so broadly and
unfaithfully as to leave room for every opinion that has
been reduced to a minimum of Christian faith.
The Church must speak out decidedly what she believes;
which doctrine she accepts in God's Word, and which doctrine
she rejects as being against it. If it were otherwise, she
would open herself as an arena for all kinds of heresies, and
would deserve her own destruction.2 Sartorius goes to the
root of the whole matter when he says that "In giving up her
Confessions, the Protestant Church gives up herself. But in
adhering faithfully to them, her lasting continuance as well
as her living development is guaranteed."

' Mueller, Elnleitung.

LOYALTY. 83
On account of this necessity, the Formula of Concord is
impelled to state : "As some divergencies have arisen between
theologians of the Augsburg Confessions, because of the
Interim and other matters, we have desired to set up and
declare our faith and Confession, 'rund, lauter und Mar , 'in
thesi et anlithesi', i. e., in the true doctrine and its opposite,
concerning each and every one of these matters, that the
foundation of divine truth may be clear in all the articles,
and all wrong, doubtful suspicious and condemned doctrines,
whoever may be disposed to defend them, may be exposed,
and every person be faithfully warned."
The supporting beams of our household of faith must be
kept ' rund, lauter und Mar;' and if your heart no longer
values them, but has cast them aside, if your love no longer
holds to the principle of our home, and you have cast that
principle aside, you may not use our roof and our shelter,
to attack the thing we cherish. If we have not the same
faith, and you cannot join our glad and open adherence to
it, you ought not be of our household. For our household is
a household of faith. Its communion and its union con
sists of persons who are animated by a common faith.
Our fellowship has been instituted to conserve the faith.
"You have the civil and the moral right to form your im
pressions in regard to truth. But there the right stops.
You have not the right to remain in our Christian union,
except as our terms of membership give you that right.
So easy is this distinction, and so clearly a part of practical
morals, that the law of the land recognizes it. You have
not the right to call yourself what you are not, and to keep
what does not belong to you."
Lutheranism is the exercise of the inalienable right of
judging according to one's own conscience. But it does not
stop there. That is only the formal side of it. Its sub
stance is a positive result, a well-defined system of faith,
which is no less precious than the form. Rationalism has
never been able to clear itself from the dishonor of its

84 THE LUTHERAN -CONFESSIONS.
evasion, when it pretended to bear the Lutheran name, in ex
ercise of the formal right of freedom, and yet rejected the
Lutheran result of that exercise of freedom, viz., the glorious
principle of justification by faith.
The very life of Lutheranism involves her refusal to have
fellowship with rationalism, whether it comes to her from
without, or whether it arises within the precincts of her
own home. The Augsburg Confession lays the foundations
of that home in the confession of the one Faith and the
administration of the sacraments of that Faith. The marks
of the Church are the pure and sound Doctrine of the Gos
pel and the right use of the sacraments ; and it is sufficient for
the true unity of the Church to agree upon these two things.
This basis the Lutheran Church has declared as fundamen
tal, and upon it, it is obliged to abide.
These considerations apply with manifold force to those
whom we have chosen as the pastors and teachers of our
household and the pillars in our home. In meekness and in
faith should they implant the ingrafted Word, which is able
to save our souls. We look to them to hold fast the form of
sound words, to take heed unto themselves and the doctrine,
and to continue in them. We look to them to stand fast in
one spirit, with one mind striving together for the faith of
the Gospel. We look to them to be of like mind, one toward
another, to speak the same thing, to have no divisions among
themselves, but to be perfectly joined together, in the same
mind and the same judgment. It is only thus that they can
really teach our doctrines. For where confidence and unity
in the faith are lacking among teachers, there doubt immedi
ately arises among hearers and scholars. But faith is the
one thing needful, and doubt is the one thing destructive, to
the future of our household.
We are so sure that we are right in our confidence in
Christ, in His Scripture, in our Church, in her Faith, as con
fessed in her Confessions, that we are ready to act and to take
the responsibility for those who come after us ; as every seri-

LOYALTY. 85
ous-minded parent and institution feel it their duty to do.
We therefore train our children in that which we have found
to be of such saving power ourselves, and when they are suffi
ciently mature we desire them to confess it in a lifelong,
gladsome vow. This we do not simply to perpetuate the in
stitution, the Church; not simply from the instinct of self-
preservation — that is the base insinuation which the world
casts up into our face; and while there is legitimate motive
in taking this position, it is not our highest and deepest
motive. It is the preciousness of our treasure, which moves
us to transmit it ; it is our calling and vocation from the Lord
to bring up our children in the Faith and to hold on to it our
selves, that moves us ; it is the service which the Faith renders
in the work of salvation, that moves us to extend it to others.
This binding extension to others we do not make apart
from their conviction, but with their free consent. Only
thus does the Church bind her own, whether catechumen or
public teacher, to her Confessions.
If there is any one in this world of whom the Church can
expect loyalty, it is her own teachers. They have offered
themselves for her service. They have come up out of her
life-blood and her faith. They have been trained in her
principles and her hopes and her institutions. They have
not been taken unawares. At every successive step in the pre
liminary years, their intellect, their feeling, their conscience
and conviction have had opportunity to enter into honorable
freedom. They know what the Church expects of them, be
fore they assume the vows of fidelity and service, viz. : that
they will make "a good confession before many witnesses."
They have had a long time to deliberate, to investigate. As
a rule, they are graduates of colleges and bear the degree of
M. A., and are perhaps as old as Martin Luther was when he
nailed the ninety-five Theses on the church door at Witten-
burg, sufficiently mature to know their own faith and their
own mind. If anyone in this life ever had sufficient time to
consider an obligation, the coming pastors of the Church cer-

86 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
tainly are among them. The Church can therefore justly ex
pect them to be faithful, and to enter her work with a con
vinced and loyal, and not with a critical spirit.
The faithful and single-minded fulfilment of such an ob
ligation is not only not a tyrannical expectation, but it is fair
and equitable to all parties. It is fair to the pastor, and pro
tects him in many ways ; it is fair to the flock, and is a most
important protection to them and their children ; it is fair to
the Church, and protects her in her most essential principles
and work.
"From the conception of the symbol as a common or con
gregational testimony to the truth, proceeds, eo ipso, its obli
gation upon ministers, whose calling it is to be witnesses of
the truth for the Christian community. The symbols are
public confessions, and the preacher is a public confessor ; but
only then an official confessor in the Church, when
he confesses himself in harmony with the confession of
the church by whose servants he is ordained a fellow-
servant. And where the preacher does not consent to the
confessions of the church, by whose servants he has been or
dained, he is no fellow-confessor, and certainly cannot be a
preacher of a confession which he does not acknowledge. In
no event is the preacher individually any more a witness to
the truth than the common testimony of the church in the sym
bols. He is not above the symbols, nor under the symbols,
but a joint witness with them.
"Hence he does not submit in his ordination to some law of
faith, forced ujron him by some higher or extrinsic authority ;
but the purport of his obligation, in giving his consent to the
forms of doctrine contained in the symbols, is essentially
this : that the minister, being called to the service of a public
confession of the truths of the Gospel, first acknowledges
these truths as his own personal faith. The ceremony of his
consecration, the laying on of the hands of the ordaining
minister and of the assisting brethren, indicates the fellow-

LOYALTY. 87
ship of the ministerial and witnessing office to which he is
dedicated." '
It is the Confession through which the minister publicly
testifies his union with Christ the Head, and with the mem
bers who are the Church. And if there is no confidence to be
placed in his confession, or if he makes it with secret reser
vations, it is hardly possible to see how his preaching is to be
confided in. Upon the ground of his confession Peter re
ceived his apostolic commission. Paul also, in his first Epis
tle to Timothy, which may be rightly called an Epistle on or
dination, reminds that young minister very impressively of
his good profession which he had professed before many wit
nesses. And in the second letter in which he brings to mind
his unfeigned faith, and urges him to stir up the gift of God
which was in him by the laying on of hands, he further says,
"Be not thou therefore, ashamed of the testimony of our Lord
as a faithful fellow-confessor of the Gospel." It is not upon
the person of Peter and his successors that the Church is
founded — this is a Romish error — but upon his faith and
confession, and upon his successors in the same faith and the
same confession. As a co-confessor of the confession of the
Apostles and the Church, the minister plants himself upon
that same foundation-rock, upon which the congregation is
as free from his personal mutability as he himself is from
the fluctuation of his members. For as the minister is no
lord of the congregation's faith, so the congregation dare not
lord it over his faith by the changing opinions of the ma
jority.* Those who object to the binding authority of the Confes
sions in the teaching and witnessing office of the Church, do
not seem to realize that the office in its nature and purpose is
for service toward the flock and not for a convenience for the

8 Sartorius. Uber die Nothwendigkeit u. Verbindlichkeit d. kirch. Olau-
bensbekenntnisses. 4 Saiss, Ev. Rev., IV, pp. 16-17.

88 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
utterance of the individual. The individual becomes, by free
will indeed, and yet really, an organ, a representative.
The binding character of the principles or instructions of
a house or firm, in ordinary business relations, is regarded as
unquestioned, and its breach would not be tolerated for a
moment. For a representative of any house to represent it
with reservations, to mingle doubt and suspicion in his state
ments, is treachery and sufficient reason for immediate dis
charge. The same principle is operative in the binding char
acter of the Church Confessions upon its representatives.
They are bound, not in contract, but in the nature of the
case. In both cases the representatives do not lose their
freedom in entering the service ; they are free to be true to
the principles in whose interests they serve, and they are
free to quit the service. They are not free to be untrue to the
principles and to continue the service.
It is clear that the Church, which claims to be a faithful
and reliable witness of the Word of God, and to whom has
been committed the office of the Word, cannot agree that
everyone within her should teach according to his own thought
of what is well, or what he desires ; but if she is to fulfil her
calling, and is not herself to disintegrate, she must declare
that only that teaching be accorded authority, and be pro
claimed, which accords with the existing, historically-
founded and publicly-recognized faith.5
Those who demur against this proposition, which seems to
be almost self-evident, do so from another point of view, viz. :
on the ground of the fundamental right of Protestantism, a
right without which it itself could not have come into exist
ence, namely, the right of free investigation, which dare not

5 The teaching oath was in use in the Roman Church before the Reforma
tion. In 1533,. Luther, Jonas and others enacted a statute requiring can
didates for the degree of Doctor of Theology to swear to the incorrupt doctrine
of the Gospel as taught in the symbols. After the Interims and the hardening
of the lines in the states, in the middle of the century, subscription began to
be enforced at times under pain of deposition and exile.— Kollner Symbolik
I, pp. 106 sqq.
Modern forms of subscription, as of ordination and worship., vary greatly
in the European States, and also in the American Church.

LOYALTY. 89
be bound or limited by any human formularies, but which
acknowledges the Scripture alone (sometimes not even Scrip
ture) as its judge.
They overlook the fact, however, that the right of free
investigation is not abridged in the least by Confessional ob
ligation. For, as v. Burger points out, the Lutheran Church
is full of the good assurance that her Confessions will stand
the test of every investigation according to the Scripture ; and
she does not ask for faithfulness toward her Confession as an
tithesis to free investigation, but upon the ground that such
an investigation, most ample and searching and thorough,
most free and yet duly and properly appointed, has been
made in time past, and shall have been made as a sufficient
and thorough preliminary in each individual case.
The investigation should be so broad indeed as to include
in its field not only the Confession, but also the conscience
of the investigator, so that he may be sure in advance that he
is willing to bring every thought and imagination of his own
into captivity to Christ ; and that lie is free from a constitu- ¦
tional instinct which leans toward other Confessions, and to
ward giving battle to the Confession of his Church to weaken
or destroy it; and that his chief concern in the office about
to be assumed is not the philosophical one, which is the ex
altation of pure reason, nor the scientific one, which is the
exaltation of pure natural law and fact, but the real con
fessing motive, which is the exaltation of pure faith, and
which works to the strengthening and establishing of the
Church as the institution of faith.
It is quite true that the teacher's intellect may see things
in a different light in different stages of life, and that there
may be a development of the mind, or of science to which
the mind is drawn, which may shake the faith of the man in
his Confessions, and, if he be of good conscience, will put him
out of touch with them. For conscience is and -ever should
be supreme ; and where a man is convinced that his salvation,
intellectual and spiritual, is outside of the Confession, it

90 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
becomes his duty to inform the Church. The right of protest,
properly guarded as to weight of substance and motive, still
remains unshattered in the mother of Protestantism. But
"protest" as an intellectual and ecclesiastical convenience is
an abuse of the most sacred and most exceptional right of the
Christian. When the exception becomes the rule, and the
protesting habit becomes chronic, we may safely conclude
that it is evaluated ; that its source is an over-exaggerated esti
mate by an individual of the importance of his own reason
ing powers in contrast with the combined judgment and wis
dom of the Church ; and that he conceives of his ecclesiastical
position much in the same way in which a mule regards his
stall, as a sphere in which he may give vent to his critical
faculties by continuous reaction, without restraining inter
ference on the part of the owners of the stable. Nature has
endowed such a " protestant " with extraordinary gifts of
pedal reaction, and he must be free to exercise them against
whatever may come within the range of contact.
We must never forget that the Truth, as a general principle,
is the quality, but not the essence, of the Confession ; and that
quality is only formally and not actually, superior to essence.
In real life, essence with quality is of more service and less
hindrance than quality without essence. In the life of the
Church the use of the substance of the Confession is of more
ordinary and regular importance than the critical devotion
to quality which, itself, without the essence, can scarcely be
kept free from a foreign essence.
Those clerical scholars who exalt intellectual freedom
above spiritual freedom, and who seek it before they seek
the things of the kingdom, do not normally, nor usually, come
to the Confessions with a really impartial mind. They come
unconsciously swollen with prejudice of quality, with phil
osophic theory, and thus they propose to test the essence.
They are no more free than is the devout and loyal mind, in
approaching the Confession.
A critical attitude, one in which unverified doubt is richly

LOYALTY. 91
suggestive and springing, does not bring an uninfluenced state
of mind to the investigation of the truth. He who is in a
critical attitude, or who already believes that the Confession
is not correct, is in a position which prevents him from being
a devoted teacher of the Church.
He who, in advance, is a party against or suspicious of the
Church, should not desire to be commissioned as her servant.
He who is a faithful teacher of the Church confesses and
teaches the Confession, not because the Confession forces
him to do it as a law laid upon him, but because he recognizes
and acknowledges the Scriptural truth in the Confession.
Therefore he also assumes the obligation, not in so far as
the symbol agrees! with the Scripture, but because it does
so. Without this conviction, he should not desire member
ship, much less public service in the Church.
But is there no freedom in the Church; is there no con
sideration for the various growing and maturing convictions
of students ; are there no rights for those who have faithfully
accepted the Church's Faith, and approved themselves as its
pastors and public teachers ? Is there no room to be left for
the development, progress and adjustment of the Faith under
the new light, new scholarship, and the new conditions which
each successive generation brings with it ? Yes, there is large
room — the Church must welcome all new light, new research,
and new progress ; but its confessional principle and its safety
• — as the only protection of Protestantism against individual
ism — require that such new teaching be not private, or ex
perimental, or a prerogative of one or a few ; but that it first
be tested by the Church, and be officially formulated and
accepted before it be taught.
The binding power of the Confessions is with reference
to all the facts of principle or doctrine, and not to the human
side of their statement as such. Here they differ from Scrip
ture, the only rule.' We are not bound to assert and confess

' Not being inspired.

92 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
the absolute correctness of their method of applying every
Scripture passage cited, or every historical allusion intro
duced, or of every form of logical proof they employ ; but we
are bound in conscience to that which the Confessional writ
ings declare to be the faith and doctrine of the Church.
Some of the Confessions are very free and occasional, others
are very well considered and balanced in their form, just as
is the case with their Rule, the Scriptures. Our obligation
is not on these points, but on the content and sum; in the
spirit, and not in the letter, of their teaching.
The obligation assumed is not a contract in the strict or
legal sense of the term, unless there is a property considera
tion or a salary involved, in which case the obligation, if
used as a basis for legally binding rights and property to
principle, becomes amenable to the law of the land. But as
a religious obligation, it is not a contract which requires a
consideration of value to make it valid, nor a promissory
oath ; but, as a general ecclesiastical act, it is in the form of a
vow to hold and to teach the Confession with the help of the
Holy Spirit. In this light, the obligation to the Confessions
is unassailable. The Church, if she is true to her Lord, her
self and her members, has the right and duty of demanding
it. After a thorough understanding of the general relations
between Faith and Truth, between Freedom and Loyalty,
between Liberty and Standing Order, between Criticism and
Service, between a Call and an Acceptance, only those could
dispute the propriety of such an obligation who find them
selves outside the Confession, but who desire to remain in the
service from other than the highest motives ; or by those who,
influenced by a false ideal of the abstract rights of truth,
desire to be unfettered in making their own confession effec
tive. But, as v. Burger observes, to ask freedom from the
Church itself to do this, is not any longer a right of her ser
vants, but a violation of the same.

CHAPTER IX.
THE RISE OF THE CONFESSIONAL PRINCIPLE
IN THE CHURCH.
Faith Within Manifests Itself in Outer Witness — Testimony Develops into the
Confession — The First Confessions in the New Testament — The Pentecostal and
Baptismal Confessions — The Fixed Confessional Forms of the New Testament —
The Confessions of the Second Century.
FAITH is the divinely wrought and spontaneous con
fidence and devotion of the soul to that to which it
clings. It may be a devotion to principles, or to principles
incarnate, i. e., to a person.
As soon as it becomes a part of the soul's experience, it
rushes to all possible pathways of utterance. It testifies by
the eye, by the lingering thought, by the lip, and by the act.
But this new-born confidence and devotion affects and often
changes the most important relations of life; and because
of the supreme character of its trust, it willingly makes
new adjustments in experience, and testifies to their exist
ence. It thus enters the realm of history, primarily as an in
formal and spontaneous modifier of all that it touches, but
finally as a witness to great, final and formal changes in the
historical order. Thus the devotion of personal love, first
expressing itself spontaneously and on occasion, gradually be
comes a regular confessional manifestation, and finally issues
in a solemn covenant, involving change of relationship to all
10 93

94 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
the world and transplanting the potencies of a long historical
development. It is in this way that faith in Jesus, the Lord of grace and
glory, first rising in the hearts of a few, and then in an ever-
widening circle of followers, has developed gradually from
spontaneous and single confessions of devotion to a complete
change of relationship, and finally into a solemn and formal
testimony, covering the whole field of principles involved
in the ehange of historical relationships, and summed up,
from time to time, and especially under the arraignment of
doubt and aspersion from without, into a deliberate and doc
umentary Declaration of the Church, respecting its various
relations to its Lord and Head ; and from which, in turn, its
subordinate relations to the other issues of life are de
termined and, as may become necessary, are formulated.
Thus the Confession of the Christian Church is a confes
sion springing from faith in Christ. The more true its Con
fessional principle is, the less will it start with abstract dog
matic relations, and the more will it centre in Him in Whom
is all the Church's trust.1 The Church confesses her Head,
and the Head in turn confesses its members (Matt. 10: 32).
There is nothing in the true Church's Confession which is
not at least an inference from its Lord's person or doctrine
or work.
The first spontaneous utterances of the Church's Confes
sion are very interesting. We hear Andrew, hastening out
and seeking his own brother, saying to him, "We have found
the Messiah." We see Nathanael coming to Jesus and confess
ing, "Rabbi, thou art the Son of God, thou art the King of
Israel." We discover Nicodemus and the Samaritan woman
moved spontaneously to at least a temporary and incomplete
confession. We find Matthew, the man of acts, confessing
the Lord completely by his sudden severance of existing
earthly relations. We hear Peter, in a time when many

1 This is true of the Lutheran as over against the Reformed Confession.

ORIGIN OF CONFESSIONALISM. 95
deserted the Lord, declaring, "Thou hast the words of eternal
life, and we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ,
the Son of the living God." We behold the man born blind
brought by the act and word of Jesus to say, "Lord, I be
lieve on the Son of God." We hear Martha from beneath the
dark cloud exclaim, "Yea, Lord; I believe that thou art the
Christ, the Son of God, which should come into the world."
Every one of these spontaneous confessions contains the germ
of a more formal credal statement.
But the high point of spontaneous apostolic Confession
was reached by Peter on the Mount of Transfiguration long
before the Resurrection, and by Thomas thereafter. These
two confessions deserve to be contrasted. The first one is
based on more imperfect perception and less scientific ma
terial, but on more glowing faith. The second one is based
on experimental evidence of the most definite and conclusive
character. The one is by the most ardent and the other by
the most pessimistic of the apostles. Yet, strange to say,
the first one, the one of ardent impulse, is most objective;
and the second one, the one of cold-blooded scientific exami
nation of testimony, is the most subjective one. Which of
the two the Lord preferred need not be stated. For Peter's
Confession He had nothing but pure praise; for Thomas'
Confession He had a comparison that implied rebuke:
"Blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed."
To our Lord, then, the confession of a living Church is
more than that of a dead historico-critical dogmatic. So
much emphasis did Christ place upon the inner conviction
and the outer confession of faith in Himself, that He declared
to Peter, what was the actual fact, as we shall see, that it was
on this rock of inner conviction and outer confession that His
Church would be built. In the light of these words, His
declaration of Luke 12 : 8, which makes the public acknowl
edgment of Himself in His person and work the great test
of true membership in Him, takes oh a new meaning ; and in
the light of Peter's Confession in Matthew 16:16, the same

96 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
disciple's later three-fold denial, followed by a three-fold
searching question to Peter after the Resurrection, shows
what pre-eminence the Lord attributed to a Confession flow
ing out from the deep conviction of faith, and loyally main
tained in the hour of greatest crisis.
The pre-eminent importance of the duty of faithful con
fession was also shown by Christ Himself in His own hour of
trial, when He stood before Pontius Pilate and made Con
fession as to Himself, declaring that He was born and had
come into the world for the purpose of bearing testimony to
the truth.
Thus from the very start of Christianity, faith has risen
into confession, and confession has taken the external form
of a Confession. " In a certain sense," claims Schaff," " it
may be said that the Christian Church has never been with
out a creed {Ecclesia sine symbolis nulla). The baptismal
formula and the words of institution of the Lord's Supper
are creeds. These and the Confession of Peter antedate even
the birth of the Christian Church on the day of Pentecost.
The Church is, indeed, not founded on symbols, but on
Christ ; not on any words of man, but on the Word of God ;
yet it is founded on Christ as confessed by men ; and a creed
is man's answer to Christ's question, man's acceptance and
interpretation of God's Word. Hence it is after the memor
able confession of Peter that Christ said, 'Thou art Rock, and
upon this rock I shall build my Church,' as if to say, 'Thou
art the Confessor of Christ, and on this Confession, as an
immovable rock, I shall build my Church.' Where there is
faith, there is also profession of faith. As 'faith without
works is dead,' so it may be said also that faith without con
fession is dead."
On the day of Pentecost, when the Church was established,
and immediately thereafter, there was only one Article of
Faith. All those who confessed Jesus as the Messiah, were

3 Creeds of Christendom, I, p. 5.

ORIGIN OF CONFESSIONALISM. 97
baptized at once, without the more explicit instruction that
preceded baptism in later days. This first rudiment of Con-
fessionalism in the new-born Christian Church, which con
sisted of faith in Christ as its one objective content, and
which became recognized as the standard of a good Christian
Confession, developed under the working of the Holy Ghost
through the Word, into a gradual consciousness of the whole
content of Christian faith.
"Out of this one 'Article of Faith,' viz., of 'Jesus the Mes
siah,' it followed, in the nature of the case, that the. whole
conception of that which the Messiah should be in the rightly
understood letter and spirit of the Old Testament promises,
was transferred to Him, so that He was recognized as the
Redeemer from sin, the Ruler of the kingdom of God, to
Whom one's whole life was to be consecrated, Whose laws
were to be followed in every respect, Who revealed Himself
by the impartation of a new divine power of life, which
conferred upon those redeemed and ruled by Him, the cer
tainty of the forgiveness of sin received from Him, and which
was to be the pledge of all the gifts that were to be granted
them in His kingdom.
"He who acknowledged Jesus as the Messiah also thereby
acknowledged Him as the infallible Prophet of God, Whose
instruction, as He Himself had imparted it upon earth, and
as He further imparted it through the Apostles, into whom
He had put new souls, would also further be appropriated
by Himself.
"Therefore baptism was at this time characterized as to its
peculiar Christian import according to this one Article of
Faith, which constituted the essence of Christianity, as a
Baptism upon Jesus, upon the name of Jesus as Messiah.
"It is true that one cannot positively conclude from this
characterization of baptism that the Formula of Baptism
was not something else. Yet it is probable that in the orig
inal Apostolic Formula of Baptism only this one point was
emphasized. This shorter Baptismal Formula contains in

98 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
itself all that is to be found in the words which Christ used
at the institution of Baptism. It includes the whole of Chris
tian doctrine in itself; but the consciousness of this content
was not yet developed in the baptismal subject." "
This Baptism in the name of Jesus for the remission of
sins, with the reception of the Holy Ghost (Acts 2 : 38), un
doubtedly implied also a Confession, in a more explicit form,
of the exaltation of the crucified Jesus, "that same Jesus
whom God hath made," that same Jesus " whom ye have cru
cified, both Lord and Christ" (Acts 2 : 36). Such may have
been the earliest actual form of Christian Creed.
It is very clear from the baptism of the Eunuch that some
simple Confession was connected with the administration of
Baptism from the beginning. The Eunuch said, "What
doth hinder me to be baptized ?" Philip said, "If thou be-
lievest with all thine heart, thou mayest." The Eunuch an
swered and said, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of
God." Then Philip baptized the Eunuch (Acts 8: 37, 38).
The baptisms recorded in the Acts of the Apostles all involve
a brief Confession.'
The words of our Lord, "Into the name of the Father and
of the Son and of the Holy Spirit," in instituting baptism
as the means of grace, and membership in the Church,
were probably used as a Formula by candidates for bajstism
in confessing their faith at a very early date, and developed
in the West into the Apostolic, and in the East into the
Nicene Creed.
Whether the summaries of the Apostle Paul, e. g., Romans

* Neander, Geschichte der Pflanmung und Leitung der Christlichen Kirche
durch die Apostel, I, pp. 26-28.
* " It has been pointed out that where baptism Is mentioned historically in
the New Testament, it is into the name of the Lord Jesus (Acts 19 : 5 ; etc.),
and not into the triune name (Matt. 28 : 19) ; but the surprise of Paul in
Acts 19 : 3, that any one could have been baptized without hearing of the
Holy Spirit is fair evidence that the Holy Spirit was mentioned, whenever
Christian baptism was dispensed (Observe the force of the illative in Acts 19 ;
3)." — Denney.
For the treatment of this problem as it affected the early centuries of
Church History and the development of the Apostles' Creed, see pp. 101 sqq.

ORIGIN OF CONFESSIONALISM. 99
1:3," Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed
of David according to the flesh; and declared to be the Son
of God with power, according to the Spirit of holiness, by
the resurection from the dead ;" and 1 Cor. 15 : 3, 4, "How
that Christ died for our sins according to the scrij)tures;
and that he was buried, and that he rose again the third
day according to the scriptures; " and 2 Thess. 2 : 13, " God
hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation, through
sanctification of the Spirit, and belief of the truth: where-
unto he called you by our gospel, to the obtaining of the
glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore, brethren, stand
fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught,
whether by word, or our epistle;" and 1 Tim. 3: 16, "God
was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of
angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world,
received up into glory ;" and Titus 3 : 4-8, "The kindness
and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared, not by
works of righteousness which we have done, but according
to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and
renewing of the Holy Ghost ; which he shed on us abundantly,
through Jesus Christ our Saviour ; that being justified by his
grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of
eternal life. This is a faithful saying, and these things I
will that thou affirm constantly :" — whether these summaries
are connected with the sacrament of baptism or not, they
all aided to put the substance of Christian fact and doctrine
into fixed form, and perhaps influenced the formulation of
Christian truth for Catechetical purposes.
One of these fixed confessional forms may be referred to
by Paul when he bids Timothy to "hold fast the form of
sound words, which thou hast heard of me, in faith and love
which is in Christ Jesus" (2 Tim. 1: 13). A fixed form of
dogma, whether Confessional or not, is evidently alluded to
in Rom. 6 : 17, "Ye have obeyed from the heart that form of
doctrine which was delivered you;" and in Heb. 6: 1, 2,
there is the implication of a certain round or system of doc-

100 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
trines well-known and confessed: "Therefore leaving the
principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfec
tion; not laying again the foundation of repentance from
dead works, and of faith toward God, of the doctrine of bap
tisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the
dead, and of eternal judgment."
We have thus seen that, in connection with the sacrament
of baptism, the Apostles insisted on the confession of Jesus
as the outer token of faith. This Confession contained an
avowal of Jesus as Lord (Rom. 10: 9; 1 Cor. 12: 3), and,
as we have noted, probably contained a confession of the res
urrection. Almost all the elements, yes, the very clauses of
the Apostles' Creed, are to be found, in the above quoted pas
sages, already under consideration. They were combined on
the basis of the baptismal formula, "The Father, the Son and
the Holy Spirit ;" but were confessed, first of all, as the truth
that is in Christ Jesus, since the approach to the unconverted
comes through Christ, and then naturally develops (as we see
in 1 Cor. 12: 4-6; 2 Cor. 13: 14; Eph. 2:8; Jude 20, 21;
John 14 : 16) into the faith and Confession of the Father and
the Spirit.
It is possible that the contents of the Church Confessions,
insisted on at Baptism, varied with the circumstances and
experience of the convert, and only gradually came to include
certain constant elements. Though always connected with
Christ, the Confession apparently was not always a definite
formulation. In Heb. 4 : 14, for instance, the Confession to
be made by the Christian, and held fast to, is evidently the
substance of doctrine and not its form : "Seeing then that we
have a great High Priest, that is passed into the heavens,
Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession."
It was the almost immediate appearance of false teaching
that undoubtedly caused the elements of the truth in Christ
Jesus to be drawn together into a fixed Confessional Form.
In the Epistles to John, for instance, the fuller Confession of
the Church as to the Fatherhood of God and the true Sonship

ORIGIN OF CONFESSIONALISM. 101
in Jesus, sets itself in antithesis to the errors of gnosticism ;
and in Paul's teaching in such churches as Ephesus, the Con
fession had doubtless rapidly crystallized into a "form of
sound words."
We thus come to the point where early formulated Con
fessions of the Church arose out of that confession of per
sonal faith which was required of the candidate for Baptism,
especially during the struggles of the Church with diverse
forms of heresy.
Seeberg believes that the original oral traditions in
cluded a Formula of Belief, of which 1 Cor. 15 : 3ff is a pre
served fragment, and that this Formula had a Confessional
character and was used at the administration of Baptism.
He concludes that there was therefore a formulated basis of
instruction, that is, a Baptismal Confession for those who
desired to receive the sacrament (Rom. 6: 3ff; cf. 4: 14;
Eph. 4: 5ff; 1 Pet. 3: 21ff; 1 Tim. 6: 20; 1 John 2: 20).
From 1 Cor. 15 : 3, he concludes that this Formula was
already known and used at the time of the baptism of Paul ;
and from the many trinitarian passages in Scripture, some of
which have already been quoted, he believes that the Formula
of Confession was arranged in a triad, and thus became the ba
sis from which at a later day our Apostles' Creed was derived.5
While baptism originally was administered in the name of
Christ, the instruction and Confession recognized the Father,
the Son and the Spirit; for the baptized person looked for
ward at once to the reception of the Spirit. And, so, the
more elementary and primitive form of Christ gave way,
finally, to the triune and more complete form of Matthew.
We have thus, in the period of the Apostolic Fathers, a
Church Confession in use as the Baptismal Formula.' Ire-
naeus and Tertullian maintained that the "Canon of the

0 Seeberg, History of Doctrines, tr. by Hay, I, p. 37.
* Didache 7 : 1 ; Justin, Apol., 183 ; and Tertullian, de Praescr., 9, 13, 37,
44, goes so far as to credit it to Christ Himself.

102 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
Truth" was identical with the Baptismal Formula, and every
where employed in the Church since the time of the Apostles.'
All scholars agree that this "Canon of the Truth" of the
Apostolic Fathers includes the baptismal Confession."
"And he who thus holds inflexible for himself the 'Canon
of Truth,' which he received by his baptism" — here follows
a short summary of the creed, which must accordingly be the
content of the baptismal confession.9 This short statement
of the great realities of the Christian faith, which Irenseus
(i, 9 : iv) calls "the brief embodiment (somation) of truth,"
is the first received confession of the Church. Seeberg feels
that the historic significance of this brief summary of
saving truth was very great: "it preserved intact the con
sciousness that salvation is dependent upon the deeds of
Christ. It taught the Church to construct Christian doctrine
as the doctrine of the deeds of God ; and finally taught men
to view the deeds of God under the three-fold conception of
Father, Son and Holy Spirit." '"
Irenaeus and Tertullian declare that the Rule of Faith
was handed down from the time of the Apostles. Ignatius
and Justin bear testimbny to Formulas of Confession in the
middle of the Second Century."
The Roman form may be traced to the middle of the
Third Century (cf. Novatian de Trinitate), and the most
ancient text of the Roman Creed that has been found dates
from the middle of the Fourth Century (Marcellus in Epiph.
haer. 52 al. 72, A. D. 337 or 338).

' Iren. adv. haer. i. 10. 1, 2 ; iii. 4. 1, 2. Tertul. de praescr. haeret. 37, 44,
42, 14, 26, 36 ; de virg. 1.
8 Kunze, in his Glaubensregel, Heilige Schrift und Ta-ufbekenntniss, holds that
the "Canon of the Truth" includes the Holy Scripture also, and not solely the
baptismal confession.
' Iren. i. 9. 4, cf. 10. 1. Tert. de speetac. 4 ; de coron. 3 ; de bapt. 11 ;
praescr. 14. See also Justin Apol. i. 61 extr. Clem. Al. Strom, viii. 15, p.
887. Potter, vi. 18, p. 826. Paed. i. 6, p. 116. Cf. Caspar! : Hat die Alex.
Kirche zur Zcit des Clem,, ein Taufbek. besessen Oder nicht, in Ztschr. f. k.
Wiss., 1886, p. 352ff. Also esp. Cyprian Ep. 69. 1 ; 70. 2 ; 75. 10 nn.
10 I, 86.
11 Ign. Magn. 11. Eph. 7. Trail. 9. Smyrn. 1. Just. Apol. 1. 13, 31, 46.
Dial. 85.

ORIGIN OF CONFESSIONALISM. 103
In spite of the fact that Irenseus and Tertullian regarded
this Church Confession as thoroughly oecumenical, and that
its origin was located by them in the Apostolic age, Harnack,
as is well known, came to the conclusion that this Confes
sional Formula appeared at Rome about A. D., 150, and
spread from thence through all the churches of the West;
and that this baptismal Confession, with the Canon of the
New Testament, was created by the Roman Church as an
infallible rule of faith in order to crush out heresy ; and that
it became the cause of leading Christianity away from the
historical Christ into historical Catholicism.
But Kunze u has shown that apostolic origin and not eccle
siastical sanction gave the Creed and the Canon their au
thority before the heretical conflicts arose. From the Fa
thers, Kunze concludes that the Rule of Faith in the Old
Catholic Church is the Confession at Baptism, in so far as
it was used against heresy, and is completed and illustrated
from Holy Scripture, Holy Scripture itself being always
included. Kattenbusch," in the most exhaustive treatise on the Apos
tles' Creed extant, re-discusses the old Roman "Apostolic"
form with great detail, and reviews the studies of Harnack
and Kunze. He argues for the existence of the Roman form
as early as A. D., 100; and that the evidence shows it to
have been circulated in Gallia, Africa and parts of Asia
Minor in the Second Century.

12 Glaubensregel, Heilige Schrift und Taufbekenntniss. Untersuchungen
fiber die dogmatische Autoritat, ihr Werden, und ihre Geschichte, vornehmlich
in der alten Kirche.
13 Das Apostolische Symbol, seine Entstehung, sein geschichtlicher Sinn,
seine urspriingliche Stellung in Kultus und in der Theologie der Kirche.
Ein Beitrag zur Symbolik und Dogmengeschichte.

CHAPTER X.
THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE CONFESSIONAL
PRINCIPLE IN THE CHURCH.
The Apostles' Creed — The Nicene Creed — The Athanasian Creed — The Mediaeval
Interval — The Ninety-Five Theses — The Marburg and Schwabach Articles —
The Augsburg Confession as a Confessional Development — The Confessional
Connection of the Augsburg Confession.
WE now have traced the rise of the Confessional Prin
ciple, the answer of the soul and the Church to the
Word, as it sprang from the lips of Christ and the first dis
ciples, as it accompanied the use of the Sacraments in the
Apostolic Church, and as it developed into the Apostles'
Creed in the days of the Church Fathers.
In the Apostles' Creed we possess the first rich and full
jewel of confessionalism, viz., a personal declaration of the
baptized member's faith in the one true and living God, Who
made us, redeemed us, and sanctified us in His Church. This
Apostolic Confession grew naturally out of the baptismal
formula ; and it summed up in three short articles of faith
the facts of the Christian religion, in the order of God's own
revelation, beginning with God and creation, continuing
on a larger and central scale through the person and work
of Christ, and concluding with the work of the Holy Spirit
in the Church, culminating in the resurrection of the body
and the life everlasting.
This Apostles' Creed is the very spinal column of our
faith, in fact and doctrine, and rightly takes its place in our
order of service as the fit liturgical medium for the regular,
104

DEVELOPMENT OF CONFESSIONALISM. 105
ordinary and united confession, or testimony, of faith of
the worshiping congregation.
As the Apostles' Creed arose in its Roman form in the
churches of the West, so the Nicene Creed arose out of the
baptismal formula used as a confession of faith at the bap
tismal service in the churches of the East. Just as the
Apostles' Creed bears the marks of the simple, practical and
stable Roman temperament; so the Nicene Creed bears the
more metaphysical, dogmatic and polemic form of the thought
of the East.
Like the Apostles' Creed, it was a growth of time, and
Avas the result of many changes, not in doctrine or sub
stance, but in form and statement.
It was the first creed to obtain universal authority, having
gradually arisen in the East, in the Fourth and Fifth Centu
ries ; and having been adopted in the West, with the addition
of "filioque" in Spain, at the end of the Sixth Century; in
England and France in the Eighth Century, and in Italy and
elsewhere in the Ninth Century.
This gradual growth of the oecumenical Nicene Con
fession, extending through centuries, and the lack of oecu
menical character of the Apostles' Creed, has an instructive
parallel on a smaller scale in the gradual growth of the
Lutheran Confession in the Sixteenth Century, and in the
lack of the Formula of Concord to gain an entirely univer
sal assent in the Lutheran Church. As the validity of the
Apostles' Creed and of the Formula of Concord are both
rooted in Scripture, and not in the universal assent of the
Church (in which at least two out of the so-called three1
oecumenical Creeds would fail in the test to-day, and all of
them would have failed in the earlier ages of the Church), we
need feel no concern as to the real confessional value of
either of them.

1 Even the Nicene Creed Is used very little in the Reformed Churches of
Protestantism. Calvin depreciated it.

106 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
The Nicene Creed,2 the only universal Creed, has come
down to us out of a warfare and struggle, compared with
which that in the Sixteenth Century was small indeed; and
one small word in it, which, however, in our form of Chris
tianity, ultimately triumphed, was the source of more confes
sional strife than has ever arisen from the attempts to up
hold the Augustana Invariata as over against the changes of
substance introduced by Melanchthon. So influential was
this one word filioque that it, as Schaff puts it, "next to the
authority of the Pope, is the chief source of the greatest
schism in Christendom."
After all, then, history teaches that a single phrase can
stand for a great deal in a confessional movement, and must
be respected for the background it brings with it. As
haa been pointed out by historians, the controversies con
cerning the double procession of the Holy Spirit were rooted
in a more general and deeper underlying cause, i. e., in a
difference of spirit of which this one point happened to be
a single illustration.
The glorious waves of Confession in the Nicene Creed
enlarge on the Apostles' Creed in their more explicit dec
larations of the divinity of Christ and of the Holy Ghost.
"The terms 'co-essential' or 'co-equal,' 'begotten before all
worlds,' 'very God of very God,' 'begotten, not made,' are
so many trophies of orthodoxy," says Schaff, "in its mighty
struggle with the Arian heresy which agitated the Church
for more than half a century." They remind us, in their

2 Tulloch, with the prejudice of his position, goes so far as to say : " The
two others associated with it in the services of the Western Church have
not only never had acceptance beyond the range of that church, but are
very gradual growths within it, without any definite parentage or deliberate
and consultative authority. They emerge gradually during many centuries
from the confusions and variations of Christian opinion, slowly crystallizing
into definite shape : and such authority as belongs to them is neither primitive
nor patristic. It is the reflected assent of the later church in the West, and
the uncritical patronage of a comparatively ignorant age, which have alone
elevated them to the same position as the faith defined at Nicasa, which is
the only truly Catholic or universal symbol of the universal church." The
tone of these British words condemnatory of the Apostles' Creed as a Con
fession, rings with almost identical quality among us in the condemnation of
the Formula of Concord as a real Confession.

DEVELOPMENT OF CONFE SSION ALISM. 107
fulness and their repeated recurrence, of the incoming tide
of the sea, which joyfully and steadily rises over every rock
of opposition in its pathway.
The Athanasian Creed is a further advance of one step in
doctrinal development over the Apostles' and the Nicene
Creeds. It formulatesi the absolute unity of the divine
being or essence, and the trinity of the Father, the Son, and
the Holy Spirit. Its strength depends on its meaning of the
term persona, by which it avoids Sabellianism on the one
hand and Tri-theism on the other. "If the mystery of the
Trinity can be logically defined, it is done here", says
Schaff ; and we might add, there is nothing more metaphysi
cal in basis and method in the whole Formula of Concord
than what we find on this point in this oecumenical Creed.
Its second part declares the doctrine of the person of Christ,
in opposition to the Apollinarian, the Nestorian and the
Eutychian heresies.
Of this symbol Luther says, "Es ist also gefasset, dass ich
nicht weiss, ob seit der Apostel Zeit in der Kirche des Neuen
Testamentes etwas Wichtigeres und Herrlicheres geschrieben
sei." " Of it Schaff says, It "is a remarkably clear and
precise summary of the doctrinal decisions of the first
four oecumenical Councils (from A. D. 325 to A. D. 451),
and of the Augustinian speculations on the Trinity and the
Incarnation. Its brief sentences are artistically arranged
and rhythmically expressed. It is a musical creed or dog
matic psalm. Dean Stanley calls it 'a triumphant ptean'
of the orthodox faith. It resembles, in this respect,, the older
Te Deum; but it is much more metaphysical and abstruse,
and its harmony is disturbed by a threefold anathema."
This oecumenical symbol with its threefold anathema and
the declaration that its faith in the Trinity and the Incarna
tion is the indispensable condition of salvation, and that all
who reject it will be lost forever, stronger than the condem-

» Walch, VI. 2315.

108 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
natory clauses of the Augsburg Confession and the Formula
of Concord, is, nevertheless, adopted by the Lutheran and
the Reformed and other Protestant Churches,4 though it has
never become an official symbol in the Greek Church and is
there used only for private devotion.
The strangest peculiarity of the Athanasian Creed is that
it is a pseudonym; and that, if its validity depended upon its
authorship and the circumstances connected with its adoption
into the Church, it could not remain a symbol of the Church.
It does not date back earlier, in fact, than toward the close of
the Eighth or the beginning of the Ninth Century.
Those who are inclined to find fault with the controversies,
the situation and the authors — in short, the historical source
whence originated the Lutheran Confessions; and to there
from attempt to invalidate one or the other of them, might
profitably consider this earlier course of confessional devel
opment in the Christian Church in its instructive parallels.
The Lutheran and the Anglican Churches have recognized
and embodied these three Creeds in their doctrinal and litur
gical standards. Luther clearly connected Protestantism
'with them, and the Formula of Concord calls them 'catholica
et generalia summaj auctoritatis symbola.'
With the Athanasian Creed, the development of the Con
fessional Principle, which had been at work for eight hun
dred years, came to a stop for an almost equally long period.
And no wonder ! Confessions are the answer of the soul and
the Church to Scripture. But the Scripture had disappeared
as the rule of Faith, and the Church itself took the soul in
charge, apart from the Scripture, and did its thinking, fur
nishing it with its doctrine ready-made and complete, and.
allowing only the scholastic comment of the schoolmen

» The Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States eliminated both,
the Nicene and the Athanasian Creeds, together with the clause, " He de
scended into hell," of the Apostles' Creed, from their prayerbook, in 1785;
but it was compelled to restore everything but the Athanasian Creed before
the Church of England would grant it the right of ordination.

DEVELOPMENT OF CONFE SSION ALISM. 109
thereon. In these ages, the soul of the Confessor did not
answer to the Word, for the face of the Word was hid.
" There are no further symbols, though theology was
greatly cultivated. Scholasticism is nothing else than the
vast expression of the intellectual labor bestowed on these
subjects during these ages. But it worked on the basis of
the doctrinal data already adopted and authorized by the
Church. Developing these data in endless sentences and
commentaries," B heresy was extirpated by force, and there
was no room for the witness and testimony of the individual
conscience. The individual no longer apprehended the truth
as it is in Christ Jesus in a vital manner, but accepted it
mechanically. As confessional needs arose, such as they were, it was not
additional Confession of the Scriptures, but edicts of the
Pope, that became both authority and testimony for Christi
anity: not truth reflected from Christ in the Word of God,
but rules formulated by the head of the Church, which were
to be received without question.
With the awakening in the Reformation it was inevi
table that the Confessional principle should rise even more
quickly than it had subsided. A purified Church would find
the neglected and inactive fountains of testimony to faith
and teaching, gushing forth anew their clear and salutary
waters to quench the universal thirst of mankind. The
foundation, laid in the old symbols, long covered with dust,
was swept clean once more, and the confessional building
was carried upward toward completion, each new stone laid
in it "bearing the impress of the time and the historical rela
tions out of which it grew." '
We present a summary of this period of re-awakening in
the words of Principal Tulloch, of the University of St.
Andrews : "A new era of creed-formations or confessions of
"faith set in. The process of exposition, out of which the
' Mueller, Elnleitung.
'Ib., p. 23.
11 -_

110 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
'Athanasian ' symbol gradually rose, became once more
urgent, not only in the disrupted branches of the Church
but also in the Roman Church from which the Confessions
were broken off. The Confessions cf the Lutheran Church
claim the first attention in chronological order. The first of
these is the Confessio Augustana. Secondly, immediately
following was numbered the Apologia, nearly five times
larger than the Confession itself. To these two primary
documents were afterwards added, thirdly, the Articles of
Schmalkald, signed at Schmalkald by an assembly of Evan
gelical theologians; and fourthly, the Formula Concordise
composed in 1576, after considerable doctrinal divisions had
broken out in Lutheranism.
"This latter document was not so universally accepted as
the others by the Lutheran Churches, but it has always been
reckoned along with them as of confessional authority. To
these remain to be added Luther's two Catechisms, which
have also a Confessional position among the Lutherans. The
collective documents are issued as a Concordia or Liber Con
cordia, printed with the three older creeds, and together they
sum up the confessional theology of Lutheranism."
The very first act of the Reformation, the nailing up of
the Ninety-Five Theses, was a confessional one. And these
Theses of 1517 already contained the germs of the Confes
sion at Augsburg in 1530. The doctrines of original sin,
baptism, the merits of Christ, good works, repentance, faith,
forgiveness, absolution and the power of the Church, all of
them important in the Augsburg Confession, are central here.
In 1518, Luther took the first step toward a common form
of doctrine for teaching the people, and in 1520, he published
his "Short Form of the Ten C-pmmandments, the Creed and
the Lord's Prayer." Meantime, in 1518, Melanchthon had
reached Wittenberg and become his co-laborer. " So con
stant and unreserved was the intimacy between them," says
Jacobs,7 beautifully, "that, from this time on, it becomes im-
' Life of Luther, p. 106,

DEVELOPMENT OF CONFESSION ALISM. Ill
possible to absolutely separate their labors, since in the prep
aration of most books and papers, and in their decisions on
all important questions, they acted with mutual consultation
and revision of each other's work. Jt was the work of Luther
to draw from the Holy Scriptures, under the pressure of
severe conflict, the testimony which the particular emergency
required. These testimonies came forth like sparks from the
anvil without regard to any rigid system. Melanchthon
gathered them togetherj reduced them to scientific statement
and methodical order, enriched them by his more varied read
ing, and carried to completion much that Luther had only
suggested." Luther went to meet the papal legate at Augsburg and dis
puted with Eck at Leipzig in 1519, burned the papal Bull in
1520, confessed at the Diet of Worms in 1521 ; translated
the New Testament in 1522-3 ; published the "Deutsches
Taufbiichlein " in 1523; the first hymn book in 1524; the
" Deutsche Messe und Ordnung des Gottesdienstes " in
1526; wrote his "Large Catechism" in 1528; and his
"Small Catechism" in 1529, the year of the Diet of Spires.'
Thus we come to the earliest of the Lutheran Confessions,

* We find the following historical summary in Johnson's Cyclopedia, V, on
" The Lutheran Church," signed by Jacobs : " Luther's internal conflicts, his
theses, the meetings with Cajetan, Miltitz, the Leipzig disputation, the
attraction of Melanchthon into his mighty orbit, his era of storm and pressure
(1520-21), the bull, the efforts of Charles V. at repression, the Diet of
Worms, the hiding at the Wartburg, the outbreak of radicalism at Witten
berg under Karlstadt (1522-25), the Peasant war and Anabaptist sedition
(1529), the controversies with Henry VIII. and Erasmus (1523-26) — all
had within them potencies for the future of the Church, on which Luther's
name, in the face of his protest, was to be fixed. The Lutheran Reformation
showed its unfolding strength in the empire at the Diet of Nuremberg
(1522-23) ; in the extension of the evangelical doctrine (1522-24) at the
second Diet of Nuremberg (Jan. 14, 1524) ; at the convention of Ratisbon
(1524), called to resist it; in the growing decision of the evangelical states
(1524) ; in the Torgau confederacy (1526). With the year 1526 the estates
began to use the right, successfully claimed at the Diet of Spires, to regulate
ecclesiastical matters in their own territories. In the years following
(1526-29) a number of the Lutheran state churches began to be established
and organized. Electoral Saxony, by Luther's advice, began with a thorough
visitation of the churches. The church constitution and Luther's two
catechisms (1529), which grew out of this visitation, became guides in
the organization and training of other state churches. The first martyrs
were two young Augustinian monks of Antwerp (1523), whose memory is
kept green by Luther's hymn."

112 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
the Large and the Small Catechisms of Dr. Martin Luther,
published in 1529, for the use, respectively, of all faithful
and godly pastors and teachers, in instructing their congrega
tions. In his preface to the Small Catechism Luther calls
the little book a "statement of the Christian doctrine," which
he has prepared in "very brief and simple terms," and which
he desired to have introduced among the young. He refers
to the custom of the Church before him in teaching the
Lord's Prayer, the Creed and the Ten Commandments; and
shows how "our office has now assumed a very different char
acter from that which it bore under the Pope ; it is now of a
very grave nature and is very salutary in its influence."
This earliest Confession of the Lutheran Church is a won
derful exponent of true Evangelical doctrine. It sums up the
whole Christian Faith as Law and Gospel in its first two
parts, the Christian life under the influence of the Word and
in communion with the Father in the third part, and the
Sacraments in the fourth and fifth parts.
We believe that this great symbol of the Church may be
most briefly and effectively characterized as The Confession
of the Word and the Sacraments, and as the fulness of the
teaching of Article VII of the Augsburg Confession: "The
Church is the congregation of saints in which the Gospel is
rightly taught and the Sacraments rightly administered."
While this earliest Confession begins with Law, it is the
Law of the Gospel, and the central position of the Confession,
i. e., the second article of the Creed, dominates the whole
Catechism. This little pioneer book really organizes the Lutheran con
ception of the doctrine of the Church and of the Christian
life under the influence of the Word and the Sacraments.
In it, the old x\postles' Creed, in the explanation to the
second and third articles, receives a wealth and fulness of
doctrinal content, such as is contained by no other Confession
of the Church in so few words. The whole full round of
Evangelical Protestant teaching lies therein as in a germ;

DEVELOPMENT OF CONFE SSION ALISM. 113
and what is said in the later Confessions of the Church is but
building upon this foundation, and from a more enlarged and
different point of view.
Luther gives the purpose as follows: "Thus there are in
all five parts of the entire doctrine which should be con
stantly practiced and heard recited word for word. For
you must not depend upon that which the young people may
learn and retain from the sermon alone. The reason that we
exercise such diligence in preaching so often upon the Cate
chism is in order that its truths may be inculcated on our
youth, not in an ambitious and acute manner, but briefly and
with the greatest simplicity, so as to enter the mind readily
. and be fixed in the memory."
When he comes to speak of the fourth part, he says, "We
have now finished the three chief parts of common Christian
doctrine. Besides these we have as yet to speak of our two
Sacraments instituted by Christ, of which also every Chris
tian should have at least some short elementary instruction;
because without them there can be no salvation, although
hitherto no instruction has been given. But in the first place
we take up baptism, by which we are first received into the
Christian Church. That it may be readily understood, we
will carefully treat of it, keeping only to that which it is
necessary to know. For how it is to be maintained and
defended against heretics and saints we will commend to the
learned." The confessional development in Luther's mind between
the Catechisms and the Marburg Articles is not difficult to
see. The Marburg Articles proceed upon the basis of the
Apostles' Creed, including the additions of the Nicene and
the Athanasian, and expand upon Luther's explanation of
the third article of the Apostles' Creed, giving particular
attention to Justification and the Word, and then proceed to
the Sacraments.
The two earliest symbols of the Lutheran Church were
works of testimony and confession intended for the upbuild-

i i

114 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
ing of the Church within. The same year, on October 3rd,
1529, came the fifteen Marburg Articles, drawn up by Luther,
and which were intended to conserve and strengthen the
Evangelical faith as it looked outward. The Augsburg Con
fession is rooted in these articles; and the seventeen articles
of Luther at Schwabach, October 15th, 1529, elaborate the
Marburg Articles. These two sets of articles, the teaching
of Luther (and without any condemnatory clauses), within
six months of the preparation of the Augsburg Confession
and nine months of its delivery, form the foundation of the
doctrinal articles of the Augsburg Confession.
The first article of Marburg and the first of Schwabach
is the substance of the first article of the Augsburg Confes
sion. The fourth article of Marburg, and of Schwabach, is the
substance of the second article of the Augsburg Confession.
The second and third articles of both Marburg and Schwa
bach are the substance of the third article of the Augsburg
Confession. Article V of Marburg and of Schwabach is the
substance of the fourth article of the Augsburg Confession.
Articles VI, VII and VIII of Marburg and VI and VII of
Schwabach are the basis of the fifth article of the Augsburg
Confession. Article X of Marburg is the basis of the sixth
article of the Augsburg Confession. Article XII of Schwa
bach is the basisi of the seventh article of the Augsburg Con
fession. Articles IX of Marburg and VIII and IX of Schwa
bach are the basis of the ninth article of the Augsburg Con
fession. Article X of Schwabach is the basis of the tenth
article of the Augsburg Confession. Article XI of Marburg
and of Schwabach is the basis of the eleventh article of the
Augsburg Confession. Article XV of Marburg is the basis
of the thirteenth article of the Augsburg Confession. Article
XVII of Schwabach is the basis of the fifteenth article of
the Augsburg Confession. Article XII of Marburg is the
basis of the sixteenth article of the Augsburg Confession.
Articles XIII and XIV of Schwabach are the basis of the
seventeenth article of the Augsburg Confession. Articles

DEVELOPMENT OF CONFE SSION ALISM. 115
XVIII and XIX, the two philosophical and metaphysical
articles of the Augsburg Confession, touching subjects such as
those treated in the Formula of Concord, have no basis in the
Luther articles of- Marburg and Schwabach.
If the foundation of the first seventeen articles of the
Augsburg Confession are to be found in the Marburg and
Schwabach articles, the foundation of the remaining articles
of the Augsburg Confession from twenty to twenty-eight are
to be found in the Torgau articles, written, it is supposed, by
Luther, certainly by Melanchthon, Jonas and Bugenhagen,
March 14-20th, 1530, within about three months prior to the
reading of the Augsburg Confession. Article XX of the
Augsburg Confession closely follows "B. Of Faith and
Works" of Torgau. Article XXI of the Augsburg Confess
sion, "Worship of Saints," is found in substance in the same
article of Torgau. Article XXII, "Of Both Kinds in the
Sacraments," is found essentially in the article, "Of Both
Forms," in Torgau. Article XXIII, "Of the Marriage of
Priests," is found in short compass under the same article in
Torgau; and Article XXIV, "Of the Mass," and Article
XXV, "Of Confession," are similarily found under said ar
ticle. Article XXVI, "Of Traditions of Men," is found
under the head of "The Doctrines and Ordinances of Men"
in Torgau. Article XXVII, "Of Monastic Vows," is found
under the same heading in Torgau. Article XXVIII, "Of
the Power of the Bishops," is found under the heading of
"Ordination" in Torgau, and also in "C. Of the Power of the
Keys." It thus will be seen that the substantial form of Lutheran
doctrine, both in its connection with the old oecumenical sym
bols, in its special teachings as to Justification by Faith and
not by worka, in its doctrine of the Word, the Sacraments
and the Church, and in every other positive point, except the
doctrine of Free Will, as well as in every other negative
point as contrasted with the Roman Church, was developed
by or well known to Luther, after passing through his Gate-

116 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
ehisms in 1528-9, in the articles of Marburg, Schwabach and
Torgau in 1529-30, shortly prior to the issuance of the Augs
burg Confession by Melanchthon. Though Luther had never
written a line of the Augsburg Confession, nor ever even seen
a sentence of it until after it was delivered to the emperor, it
was, nevertheless, in substance, his teaching and the work of
his mind, with the adjustments, to the occasion, made by
Melanchthon, under the direction and supervision of the
Elector and his chancellor.

CHAPTER XI.
THE CONFESSIONAL PRINCIPLE IN THE AUGS
BURG CONFESSION.
The Confessional Authorship of the Augsburg Confession — The Confessional Con
tent of the Augsburg Confession — The Confessional Progress of the Augsburg
Confession — The General Confessional Characteristics of the Augsburg Confes
sion — The Fate of the Augsburg Confession as Variata and its Essence as In
variata — The Wide Difference between the Theology of the Augsburg Confes
sion and Pure American Protestantism.
THE question as to the credit of the authorship of the
Augsburg Confession, as a Confession, is, to an un
biased mind, and in view of all the light now shed upon the
situation, an idle one.1 The Augsburg Confession is a true
confessional writing, in which the Providence of God, as over
against the will and hand of man, was the determining and
decisive factor.
When the Elector of Saxony learned that the Emperor
would come to Germany and hold a diet at Augsburg, and
started with his group of theologians to meet him, the doc
trine of the Evangelical Ohurches was already developed and
known. Luther, the great living Witness, was as near at hand
as God, through the Emperor, had designed and allowed. The
clear statements of doctrine from which the Confession was
to be drawn, and which had come largely from Luther him
self, with much consultation as to the same, were in the hand

1 Weber, Kollner, Riickert, Heppe (Reformed), and Zockler (as to spirit),
emphasize Melanchthon's authorship. Gieseler is influenced by his rationalistic
training at Halle ; and he was a member of the Masonic Fraternity.
117

118 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
and mind of Melanchthon. The responsibility and the bal
ance of power which would finally determine the quantity of
substance and the quality of form, lay with the wise and
steadfast elector (a layman) and his sturdy and clear-sighted
chancellor (also a layman). The modifying elements, provi
dentially permitted to enter, at the last moment, and serv
ing, with other factors, to give that golden poise on all sides
to the firmness of the Confession, were the awakened and
friendly Estates that joined in it. The inexorable demands
of circumstance, changing from day to day in the develop
ment of the situation in the Emperor's mind — demands
that threw Master Philip's mind out of its original channel
and, finally, almost frightened him out of his wits — were
beyond human control; and each and all these factors were
directly contributory to the substance, and to the formal con
tent of the Augsburg Confession. Then came Melanchthon,
the adaptable and gifted servant of the cause and of the Lord,
in himself not a prophet, but a moulder of the prophetic
voice, who combined a multitude of indispensable elements,
and gave to the result a ripe inner compactness, a beautiful
outer dress, and an abiding form of strength. To quote one
of those who love Melanchthon much, Kahnis 2 says :-
"Luther war der Meister des Inhalts, Melanchthon der
Meister der Form. . . . Melanchthon war der Mann, welcher
mit Objektivitat, Feinheit, Klarheit, Milde zu schreiben ver
stand. Und wie nie hat er diese Gabe in diesem Falle ver-
werthet." And Schaff declares that while the spirit and the
literary composition are that of Melanchthon, "as to the
doctrines, Luther had a right to say, 'The Catechism, the
Exposition of the Ten Commandments, and the Augsburg
Confession, are mine.' " *
If Melanchthon had been permitted to have his own way
in the framing and presentation of the Augsburg Confession,
and to exercise his own judgment as to material, purpose
3 Luth. Dogmatik, II, p. 424.
z Creeds of Christendom, I, p. 229.

THE AUGSBURG CONFESSION. 119
and style, it would have been an instrument different in sub
stance and form from what we now happily find it. Owing
to Melanchthon's want of stability, when diverse shades of
doctrine appealed to his judgment, and his willingness to
compromise with what appeared to be the most promising
hope at the moment, the Augsburg Confession would proba*
bly have been a dissimilar and diverse presentation each time,
at any one of several critical moments, had it been handed in
then, between the beginning of May and the end of June.'
The same desire for union with those without, and the
willingness to adapt and change, that kept Melanchthon busy
with the document, after it had once become the public prop
erty of the Lutheran Church, inspired him to work inces
santly at it, in order to fit it to the kaleidoscopic changes of
the political situation prior to the meeting of the diet. He
started, first of all, with the idea of healing the breach with
Rome. To achieve this more effectively, it had been determined to
abandon all the doctrinal articles; and, in place thereof, to
substitute a lengthy Preface in which the elector was eulo
gized. The changes of faith and custom introduced into the
Protestant churches by the reformers were to be minimized
as much as possible, so as to cause them to look comparatively
unimportant, and to convey the impression that the Evan
gelical Church was still, barring certain abuses, in complete
harmony with Rome.
In thus modifying the language to conciliate Rome, which
was the great threatening power in the horizon at that mo
ment, prior to the Diet at Augsburg, Melanchthon neces
sarily broke with the more radical elements of Protestantism,
including the Zwinglians ; and it was in his interest to show,
at this time, the Emperor and the Pope -how little the Evan
gelical Church, which he represented, had in common with

* In other words, the Variata would have been begun prior rather than
subsequent to its historical delivery.

120 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
the Reformed churches, and thus widen the breach between
them as much as possible/
Hence, had Melanchthon remained in control, there might
never have been an Augsburg Confession; for the document,
if handed in to the Diet, would have been constituted of a
Preface defending the Elector and declaring how near the
churches in the electorate of Saxony approached the practice
of Rome, and a statement of the abuses that the Protestants
had justly been attempting to correct.
It was the attack on Lutheran doctrine as such by the Ro
manists, and the apparent impression of this attack on the
Emperor before he arrived at Augsburg, and the wisdom and
insistence of the Chancellor Briick,6 that put a complete
quietus on Melanchthon's plan, and compelled the introduc
tion of the twenty-one doctrinal articles at the head of the
Confession, and that finally cut off negotiations with Rome.
It was only at a late day that Philipp of Hesse, the friend
of the Reformed Churches, was admitted into the counsels
of the Elector of Saxony, and that the balance of the Con
fession was swung back to its true golden centre between
Rome and the Reformed, and that thus the real objective
treatment of Lutheran doctrine toward both its antitheses,
viz., Rome on the one side, and the Reformed on the other,
was really assured.
Had it been possible for Melanchthon to procure peace at
Augsburg by a compromise of the confessional principle,
we believe that he would, in accordance with the natural bent

6 Comp. even Kahnis : " The desire for an understanding with the Papists
made Melanchthon a very decided opponent of the Swiss, and even of the
Strasburgers." — Luth. Dogm., II, p. 436.
¦ How far it is possible for historians to get away from history, by the
use of a fact interpreted wrongly, is to be seen in Schaff's condemnation of
the present Preface to the Augsburg Confession, he not knowing how far
Melanchthon leaned toward Rome and against Zwingli in the original Preface.
Schaff says : " The diplomatic Preface to the Emperor is not from his
(Melanchthon's) pen, but from that of the Saxon Chancellor Briick. It
is clumsy, tortuous, dragging, extremely obsequious, and has no other merit
than to introduce the reader into the historical situation." — Creeds of Chris
tendom, I, p. 233. If Schaff were to see Melanchthon's first Augsburg Con
fession, and knew how Briick's hand was in restraint of these very traits,
would he apply the epithets of this estimate to Melanchthon?

THE AUGSBURG CONFESSION. 121
df his mind, have embraced that situation rather than have
prepared, as he finally was compelled and directed to do, the
full and objective confessional statement of the doctrine of
the Evangelical churches. But, in the Providence of God,
owing to the concurrence of various historical elements, and
with the over-shadowing power of sound Confessional Luther
anism as the key to the situation, the Confession came to em
body the teaching of the Evangelical churches.
When we come to note the progress of the Confessional
principle, as found in the Augsburg Confession, in compari
son with the three oecumenical symbols, we find, first of all,
in Article I of the Confession, a building on the old symbols,
especially on the Nicene Creed, in the doctrine of the Trinity.
We find, in addition, a now confessional article, not in the
oecumenical creeds, in the second article of the Augsburg Con
fession, namely, the one devoted to Anthropology and the
Doctrine of Original Sin, which is the negative basis of re
demption. We find in the third article a reiteration of the
oecumenical creeds as to the Person of Christ. We find in
the fourth the new but old and apostolic Doctrine of Justifi
cation by faith, in line with Luther's explanation of the third
part of the creed, in the clause, " I believe in the forgiveness
of sins." In Article V we find the new doctrine of the
Word and the Sacraments. In Article VI we have the cor
ollary of Article IV on Justification.
In Article VII we find the abridged doctrine of the Church
on the basis of "I believe in the Holy Christian Church, the
communion of Saints." In the eighth article we find a de
lineation of the relation of the communion of saints and the
Word and Sacraments to the world. In Articles IX, X and
XI we have the fourth and fifth parts of Luther's Catechism.
In Article XII we have a part of the teaching of the Ninety-
Five Theses, together with a condemnation of old and current
errors. In Article XIII we find the teaching that the two
Sacraments of the Church were not ordained chiefly to be
"marks of profession among men" (on which rests the mod-

122 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
ern theory of open communion), "but rather to be signs and
testimonies of the will of God toward us, instituted to awaken
and confirm faith in those who use them." Articles XIV
and XV relate to the internal ministry of the Church, and
are intended to hold the Evangelical truth as over against
both Roman and extreme Protestant error. Article XVI, on
civil affairs, is intended to hold the true faith as against ex
treme Protestant error. Article XVII, an expansion of the
final article in the Apostles' Creed, is also against extreme
Protestant error. Articles XVIII and XIX, on the freedom
of the will and on the cause of good works, revert back to
Article II on the original nature of man. The remainder
of the Confession, from Article XX on, is a defence of the
Protestant doctrine as it has worked itself out into practice.
The great distinctive features of the Augsburg Confession,
as going beyond the oecumenical creeds and the Catechisms
of Luther, in the order of historical development, are its
positive presentation of the doctrine of Luther's Ninety-Five
Theses, the material principle of the Reformation, Justifica
tion by faith ; its presentation of the one and great doctrine of
the Word and Sacraments, as constituting the office of the
Church ; its teaching of the Church, in all its various aspects,
in contrast with the wrong teaching of the Roman Church ;
and, particularly, its emphasis on the Church as invisible,
and its larger teaching on the Sacraments.
It is in these points that it marks a Confessional advanee
over the Oecumenical Creeds, and sets fast forever a new and
larger sum of confessional truth. But several things were
still to follow.
In the Augsburg Confession the Evangelical Protestant de
velopment had not yet reached a confession of the formal
principle of the Reformation, namely, that the Holy Scrip
tures are the only rule of faith and life ; nor of the funda
mental Lutheran truth of Law and Gospel ; nor any full ex
planation of the Person of Christ, particularly in its rela
tion to the Lord's Supper ; nor any confession on the Scrip-

THE AUGSBURG CONFESSION. 123
tural teaching of predestination and election. These leading
doctrines of revelation were reserved, in the Providence of
God, to be wrought out and eventually were confessed in the
Formula of Concord.
But let us now consider the Augsburg Confession as an
entity in itself, from its own standpoint : —
The Confession divides itself into two parts: the one,
dealing with dogma; the other, with ecclesiastical customs
and institutions. The twenty-one doctrinal articles, begin«
ing with the Trinity and ending with the worship of saints,
confess the truth of God held by the Evangelical faith, in
common with Rome, in common with Augustinian theology
(II, XVIII, XIX, VIII), in opposition to the semi-Pelag-
ianism of Rome, and in distinction from the Zwinglians and
the Anabaptists.
Linking itself to the old Catholic symbols in the doctrine
of God and Christ, it, for the first time in the history of the
Christian Church, adds to the Confessional principle the true
doctrine of man, in his sinful nature (II) and enslaved will
(XIX) ; and the true doctrine of the salvation of man, jus
tification by faith (IV), repentance (XII), new obedience
(VI), good works (XIX), daily life (XVI), and Christ the
only mediator (XX) ; as well as the true doctrine of the
Word and the ministry (V), ordination (XIV), the Church
(VII, VIII), confession and absolution (XI), the Sacra
ments (IX, X [real bodily presence and distribution of
Christ], XIII), and ecclesiastical rites (XV).
In common with the Church Catholic, the Confession
records itself as in opposition to Unitarians, Arians, Pelag
ians, Donatists, Sacramentarians and Anabaptists (who are
in error on the doctrines of infant baptism, the church, civil
offices and the millennium) ; and opposes the following abuses
of Rome: withdrawal of eup from the laity (I), celibacy of
the clergy (II),. sacrifice of the mass (III), detailed and ob
ligatory auricular confession (IV), obligatory celebration of
ceremonies and feasts and fasts (V), monastic vows (VI),

124 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
and secular power of the bishop where it interferes with the
purity of the holy office (VII).
The greatness of the Augsburg Confession lay not only in
its confessional substance, in which it added the whole doc
trine of man, salvation, faith, the church and the ministry
of the Word and Sacraments, to the old oecumenical creeds;
but also in its historical occasion, .and in its general tone.
As to the occasion, it was presented, at the command of the
German Emperor,' by Lutheran princes as an explicit state
ment of their faith, ostensibly that Catholics and Protestants
might be united once again as one undivided Christian
Church, in a war against the common enemy, the Turk, but,
in reality, as an apology for the protesting attitude of the
evangelical faith. In view of its ostensible purpose, so deeply
cherished by Melanchthon, it treads very softly, as Luther
says," and does not even mention the Papacy in many of its
worst abuses ; and declares itself in harmony, not only with
Scripture, but also with the genuine tradition of the Roman
Church. The historic heresies it condemns are those already
punishable according to the laws of the German empire. It
would come back to Rome, if Rome would leave its faith and
praxis undisturbed. But, we are not to conclude, from this
irenic tone, that it conceals any truth. Its attitude is gen
uine, churchly, devout, Scriptural, and without compromise.
In reviewing the general character of the Augsburg Con
fession, we find in it, first, a wonderful tone of objective
universality in which all its truths abide — and reach stability
and rest. Who would suppose that these confessors were
"protestants" or men of a perturbed past or unsettled fu
ture! The strength of the everlasting hills is in them, and
that quiet confidence which usually comes only with the sta-

7 The A. C. bases Its right to exist upon the Emperor's Call, on which it
builds, and which its Preface quotes freely, bringing Charles within its
authorship. 7* "Ich hab M. Philippsen Apologiam iiberlesen : die gefallet mir fast
wohl, und weiss nichts daran zu bessern noch andern, wiirde sich auch nicht
schicken ; derm lch so sanft und leise nicht treten kann." — Erl. 54. 145.

THE AUGSBURG CONFESSION. 125
bility of ages. With common consent, and as an established
and universal fact, the confessors declare, " our Churches do
teach." They speak as part of "the one holy Church that
continues forever." They calmly exhibit the summary of
their doctrine, "so that it might be understood that in doc
trine and ceremonies nothing has been received on our part
against Scripture or the Church Catholic ; " and in every
sentence they utter, they impress upon the attentive reader
the fact that they are true representatives of an abiding
inner harmony, namely, "the churches," "our churches,"
against which the gates of hell cannot prevail.
The next striking feature in the Confession is the spirit
of Catholic continuity, in which the Confession ranges itself
in line with the whole development of historical Christianity,
and with the Christian Church, as the abiding institution
amidst all changes, as is clearly demonstrated by the internal
evidence contained in the following statements : "That these
matters may be settled and brought back to one perfect truth
and Christian concord — that we may be able to live in unity
and concord in the one Christian Church — that the dissension
may be done away and brought back to the one true accord
ant religion; for as we all serve and do battle under one
Christ, we ought to confess the one Christ — to the true unity
of the Church, it is enough to agree concerning the doctrine
of the Gospel and the administration of the sacraments — no
one should publicly teach in the Church unless he be regu
larly called — in our doctrine there is nothing that varies from
the Scripture, or from the Church Catholic, or from the
Church of Rome as known from its writers — our churches
dissent in no article of the Faith from the Church Catholic —
our teachers must not be looked upon as having taken up this
matter rashly or from hatred of the bishops — very many
traditions are kept on our part which conduce to good order
in the Church, as the Order of Lessons in the Mass, and the
chief holy days — liberty in human rites was not unknown
to our Fathers — our teachers, for the comforting of men's con-

126 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
sciences, were constrained to show the difference between the
power of the Church and the power of the sword — since the
power of the Church grants eternal things, it does not inter
fere with civil government — nothing has been received on
our part against Scripture or the Church Catholic." We
find in this flowing current of testimony a consciousness of
connection with the Church of all ages; and in its broadest
and deepest life; a consciousness that is very rare indeed in
any declaration of principle, and which is truly oecumenical.
"The Confession exhibited the one undivided faith of the
entire Lutheran Church in the Empire. It was not the work
of men without authority to represent the Church, but was
the voice of all the Churches. Its groundwork was laid by
Luther ; materials were brought together by the great theo
logians of the whole Lutheran Church — by Brentius, Jonas,
Spalatin and others — who earefuly examined and tested each
other's work. The matchless hand of Melanchthon was em
ployed in giving the most perfect form, the most absolutely
finished statement of the faith ; the Confession was subjected
to the careful examination of Luther, by whom it was heartily
approved. Melanchthon's own account is: 'I brought to
gether the heads of the Confession, embracing almost the
sum of the doctrine of our Churches. I took nothing on my
self. In the presence of the Princes and the officials every
topic was discussed by our preachers, sentence by sentence. A
copy of the entire Confession was then sent to Luther, who
wrote to the Princes that he had read and that he approved
the Confession.' *
"The very name of Augsburg, which tells us where our
Confession was uttered, reminds us of the nature of the ob
ligations of those who profess to receive it. Two other Con
fessions were brought to that city : the Confession of Zwingle,
and the Tetrapolitan Confession — the former openly opposed
to the faith of our Church, especially in regard to the Sacra
ments ; the latter, ambiguous and evasive on some of the vital
" See Chapter XV for Kolde's reasoning and position on this point.

THE AUGSBURG CONFESSION. 127
points of the same doctrine. These two Confessions are now
remembered . . . only because of the historical glory shed by
ours over everything which came into any relation to it. But
can it be . . . that what was not Lutheranism there is
Lutheranism here; that what was Lutheranism then is not
Lutheranism now; that Zwingli or Hedio, of Strasburg,
could, without a change of views, honestly subscribe the Con
fession against which they had arrayed themselves, that very
Confession the main drift of some of whose most important
Articles was to teach the truth these men denied, and to
condemn the errors these men fostered !
"The Confessors say that in the Confession: 'There is
notiiixg which departs from the Church Catholic, the Uni
versal Christian Church.' 9 They declare, moreover, that it
is their grand design in the Confession to avoid the 'trans
mission as a heritage to their children and to the descendants
of another doctrine, a doctrine not in conformity with the
pure Divine word and Christian truth.' The witness of a
true faith is a witness to the end of time. When, therefore,
Briick, the Chancellor of Saxony, presented the Confession,
he said: 'By the help of God and our Lord Jesus Christ, this
Confession shall remain invincible against the gates of hell,
to eternity.' " '"
The third characteristic of the Augsburg Confession, that
rises like an earnest strain in all its voices, is the note of
personal salvation, through justification and remission of sins
by faith ; and in this it joins with Luther's second article of
the Creed and the fourth and fifth parts of his Catechism.
It is the Gospel idea made prominent in the Church Confes
sion :-" Christ a sacrifice, not only for original guilt, but
for all actual sins of men, when they believe that they are
received into favor and that their sins are forgiven for
Christ's sake — God, not for our own merits, but for Christ's
sake, justifieth those who believe — remission of sins and jus-

* Ab Ecclesia Catholica — gemeiner Christlichen Kirchen.
10 From Con. Ref., pp. 261-267.

128 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
tification are apprehended by faith — through baptism is of
fered the grace of God — for those who have fallen after bap
tism there is remission of sins whenever they are converted —
faith, born of the Gospel, or of absolution, believes that for
Christ's sake sins are forgiven — the Sacraments were insti
tuted to awaken and confirm faith in those who use them —
observances are not necessary to salvation — the natural man
receiveth not the things of the spirit — our works cannot re
concile God or merit forgiveness of sins, grace and Justifica
tion — Christ the only Mediator, Propitiation, High Priest
and Intercessor — the doctrine of grace and of the righteous
ness of faith is the chief part of the Gospel and ought to stand
out as the most prominent in the Church — the monks hare
taught that by their vows and observances they merited for
giveness of sins — the power of the keys is a power to preach
the Gospel, to remit and retain sins, and to administer sacra
ments — that the bishops allow the Gospel to be purely taught,
and that they relax some few observances which cannot be
kept without sin." Where in all the literature of the Church
is the Gospel of remission of sins unto salvation, by faith
alone, preached in so personal and yet so sacramental a
manner ! This is the Gospel Confession confessing Christ
crucified, believed on, and distributed in Word and Sacra
ment to every member of the Communion of Saints.
Still another majestic and most remarkable feature of the
Augsburg Confession is that of respectful freedom, in which
reverence and obedience for authority are combined in the
true golden mean with perfect liberty of conscience :-" In
obedience to Your Imperial Majesty's wishes, we offer our
Confession — abundantly prepared to join issue and to defend
the cause in a general, free Christian Council — to this Gen
eral Council we have made appeal in this gravest of matters
in due manner and form of law — to this appeal we still ad
here — neither do we intend to relinquish it by this or any
other document, of which this also is our solemn and public
testimony — all men are born with sin; and cannot be justi-

THE AUGSBURG CONFESSION. 129
fied before God by their own strength, but are freely justi
fied for Christ's sake — concerning rites let men be admon
ished that consciences are not to be burdened — lawful civil
ordinances are good works of God — the Gospel does not
destroy the State or the family — man's will has some liberty
for the attainment of civil righteousness — faith is the mother
of a good will and right doing — insomuch as abuses could
not be approved with a good conscience, they have been to
some extent corrected — no law of man can annul the com
mandment of God — we condemn the traditions which pre
scribe certain days and certain meats, with peril of con
science — -liberty in human rites was not unknown to the
Fathers — Christian perfection is to fear God from the
heart— some have awkwardly confounded the power of the
Church and the power of the sword — the power of the Church
and the civil power must not be confounded — let not the
Church prescribe laws to civil rulers concerning the form
of the Commonwealth — if bishops have the right to burden
churches with infinite traditions, and to ensnare consciences,
why does Scripture so often prohibit to make and to listen
to traditions ? — it is necessary that the doctrine of Christian
liberty be preserved in the churches — the righteousness of
faith and Christian liberty must not be disregarded — bish
ops might retain obedience, if they would not insist upon
the observance of what cannot be kept with a good con
science — it is not our design to wrest the government from
the bishops, but if they make no concession, it is for them
to see how they shall give account to God for having, by
their obstinacy, caused a schism" (the last word of the
Confession). Thus the Augsburg Confession calmly introduces the
modern doctrine of the complete separation of Church and
State, into the dawn of modern life; and does so, from a
purely spiritual point of view, for the sake of the souls of
men and the freedom of the Church, and without any ulte
rior design of usurping, as Rome attempted to do, the

130 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
reins of civil government; but, nevertheless, the spiritual
liberty thus implanted in the souls, did lead to great and
unexpected results within the sphere of the State. On this
point, we quote the eloquent words of Krauth : —
"The Augsburg Confession had, and has, great value, in
view of the sound political principles it asserted and guar
anteed. Signed by the princes and free cities, it was a sov
ereign ratification and guarantee of the rights of the Church
and of the individual Christian in the State. It asserted
the independence on the State of the Church, as a Church;
the distinctness of the spheres of the Church and State, the
rights of the State over the Christian, as a subject; the
Christian's duty to the State, as a subject ; and the supremacy
of God's law and of the demands of conscience, over all un
righteous enactments of man. It defined in brief, yet ample
statements, the entire relation of ecclesiastical and civil
power." It overthrew the conception of the Church as a great
world-dominating power — taught the obligation of legitimate
civil ordinances, the lawfulness of Christians bearing civil
office, the right of the State to demand oaths, to enact penal
ties, and to wage 'just wars,' and the obligation of the
Christian citizen to bear part in them. It asserts that 'God's
command is to be more regarded than all usage — that custom
introduced contrary to God's command is not to be ap
proved.' 'Christians should render obedience to magistrates
and their laws in all things,' 'save only those when they
command any sin, for then they must rather obey God than
men.' It overthrew monasticism and enforced celibacy,
those weaknesses of the State ; curbed the insolence of Pope,
Bishop and Clergy, and restored the normal and divine
relations of man to man, of subject to ruler, of Church to
State, of .God's law to human law, of loyalty to the rights
of conscience. The Lutheran Church gives to every State
into which she enters, her great voucher of fidelity to the
principles on which alone free governments can stand.
"Arts. VII., XVI., XXVIII.

THE AUGSBURG CONFESSION. 131
"The Augsburg Confession was exquisitely adapted to
all its objects, as a confession of faith, and a defence of it.
In it the very heart of the Gospel beats again. It gave
organic being to what had hitherto been but a tendency, and
knit together great nationalities in the holiest bond by which
men can be held in association. It enabled the Evangelical
princes, as a body, to throw their moral weight for truth
into the empire. These were the starting-points of its great
work and glory among men. To it, under God, more than
to any other cause, the whole Protestant world owes civil
and religious freedom. Under it, as a banner, the pride of
Rome was broken, and her armies destroyed. It is the
symbol of pure Protestantism, as the three General Creeds
are symbols of that developing Catholicity to which genuine
Protestantism is related, as the maturing fruit is related
to the blossom. To it the eyes of all deep thinkers have
been turned, as to a star of hope amid the internal strifes
of nominal Protestantism. Gieseler, the great Reformed
Church historian, says :" ' If the question be, Which, among
all Protestant Confessions, is best adapted for forming the
foundation of a union among Protestant Churches? we de
clare ourselves unreservedly for the Augsburg Confession.'
But no genuine union can ever be formed upon the basis
of the Augsburg Confession, except by a hearty consent in
its whole faith, an honest reception of all its statements of
doctrine in the sense which the statements bear in the Con
fession itself. If there be those who would forgive Rome
her unrepented sins, they must do it in the face of the
Augsburg Confession. If there be those who Would con
sent to a truce at least with Rationalism or Fanaticism,
they must begin their work by making men forget the great
Confession, which refused its covert to them from the begin
ning. "With the Augsburg Confession begins the clearly recog
nized life of the Evangelical Protestant Church, the purified

" Theolog. Stud. u. Kritik, 1833, ii, 1142. Schenkel takes the same view.

132 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
Church of the West, on which her enemies fixed the name
Lutheran. With this Confession her most self-sacrificing
struggles and greatest achievements are connected." '3
Up to this point we have seen dominant in the Augsburg
Confession, as a General Creed of the true Church, the
notes of Catholicism, of conservatism, of Gospel salvation
through faith, of freedom from sin and law binding the con
science, which resulted also in civil freedom ; and now we
turn to the remarkable simplicity and the equally remarkable
positiveness and objectiveness found in its teaching.
The great mysteries of the Trinity, the Fall, the Incarna
tion and Atonement, the doctrine of Justification, the Means
of Grace, the Word and the Sacraments, the One holy
Church, Religious Rites, and Civil Affairs, are gathered
together in all their essentials, and without complications,
and stated with the greatest force and simplicity, so that
nowhere else can such comprehensive and exact delineation
of the great mysteries of Christianity be found in space so
small and in phrase so crystal. As an expansion of the dog
matic content of the Confessional principle, advancing upon
the three older Creeds and the two newer Catechisms, in an
utterance at once sufficient, concise, complete and confes
sional, the Augsburg Confession is without a peer.
As, finally, the Confession showed itself in sympathy
with the great Church Catholic, even as it came through
Rome, and condemned the independent sects that arose apart
from it, so it does not hesitate to rebuke the errors which it
knew and found in Rome. We shall let Krauth speak also
on this point :-M
"The Augsburg Confession has incalculable value as an
abiding witness against the Errors of the Roman Catholic
Church. The old true Catholic Church was almost lost in
pride, avarice, and superstition. The great labor of the body

" Con. Ref., pp. 257-9.
" Con. Ref., p. 255.

THE AUGSBURG CONFESSION. 133
of the clergy was to defend the errors by which they were
enriched. Two false doctrines were of especial value to this
end: the first, that the Church tradition is part of the
Rule of Faith; the second, that good works can merit of
God. With both the formal and material principles of the
Church corrupted, what could result but the wreck of much
that is most precious in Christianity? The protest needed
then is needed still. The Roman Church has indeed for
mally abrogated some of the worst abuses which found their
justification in her false doctrines; the pressure of Protest
ant thinking forces, or the light of Protestant science, wins
her children to a Christianity better than her theories; but
the root of the old evil remains — the old errors are not given
up, and cannot be. Rome once committed, is committed
beyond redemption. It needs but propitious circumstances
to bring up any of her errors in all their ancient force. The
fundamental principle of infallibility, the pride of consist
ency, the power which these doctrines give her, make it cer
tain that they will not be abandoned. Against all of Rome's
many errors, and pre-eminently against those doctrines which
are in some way related to them all, the Augsburg Confes
sion must continue to hold up the pure light of the sole
Rule of Faith, and of its great central doctrine of justifica
tion by faith." w
In the eyes of the Lutheran Church, the Augsburg Con
fession is its chief historic jewel, because, as Zockler says,
"It forms the foundation laid in common by Luther and
Melanchthon for the whole Confessional literature of the
Lutheran Church." Or, to put the matter differently, it un
folds the common Lutheran faith at that point of develop
ment, in which the later maturity of an inner dividedness
had not yet revealed itself. It is the fair blossom upon
which all can look back with joy, and not the final fruitage
of the Reformation. The Protestant principle was begin-

15 Fikenscher. Gesch. d. R. z. Augsb., 208 ; Kollner, li, 395.

134 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
ning to unfold in its completeness, and was just in the act
of rising to its larger stage.
That Zockler sets down as the first glory of the Augsburg
Confession its worldly side, namely, its universal, historic
importance, as the instrument that opened the way for the
political recognition which it has secured for German Pro
testantism as well as that beyond Germany, has no interest
for us here, where we are treating of the Confessions of the
Church ; and particularly not in this land of America, where
the Church and the State are forever to remain separate,
and where confessions of faith are neither to seek nor to
receive any political influence. This political influence of
the Augsburg Confession has often been a detriment to it
as a confession, and to the sound Confessional principle of
the Lutheran Church.
Melanchthon originally hoped to make the Augsburg Con
fession a common standing ground between the Lutheran
and the Roman Church, by excluding the Reformed; and
then, through long years, by changing the language of the
instrument, and by his actions in the Interims, to make it a
common standing ground with the Reformed churches. Be
fore Melanchthon's death it was accepted by the Reformed
leaders as the common Protestant political symbol ;,e but the
worst political use to which it was put came in the following
century, with the close of the Thirty Years' War, the
Peace of Westphalia (already at Peace of Augsburg in 1555).
when large numbers of Reformed theologians and princes,
who by no means adhered to its doctrines, signed the Augs
burg Confession in order to gain the rights allowed to
Lutherans. Says Jacobs:-"
"The Confession thus lost its place as a doctrinal test

11 The Augsburg Confession was signed by John Calvin while ministering
to the Church at Strasburg, and as delegate to the Conference of Ratisbon,
1541 ; by Farel and Beza at the Conference in Worms, 1557 ; by the Calvinists
at Bremen, 1562; by Frederick III., (the Reformed) Elector of the Palatinate,
at the Convent of princes in Naumburg, 1561, and again at the Diet of
Augsburg, 1566 ; by John Sigismund, of Brandenburg, in 1614.
17 Distinctive Doctrines, p. 105.

THE AUGSBURG CONFESSION. 135
among Lutherans. The signatures to the Confession of
many who did not accept all its doctrine rendered even-
signature doubtful. It was for such reason that Arndt in
his dying testimony most solemnly confessed 'the true reli
gion of the Formula of Concord,' and Spener wrote an espe
cial treatise in defence of the same Formula, and the Halle
Faculty declared that they held with absolute firmness to all
the Symbolical Books, and Muhlenberg challenged his ac
cusers to find anything that he had said or written in con
flict with them."
The dream that a union of all Protestantism may some day
be brought about on the basis of the Augsburg Confession is
shattered even by such a unionist as Dr. Schaff, who, after
referring to the subscription of the German Evangelical Diet
of 1853 in Berlin, when over fourteen hundred clergymen —
Lutheran, German-Reformed, Evangelical Unionists and
Moravians — acknowledged the Augsburg Confession, with a
saving clause as to the interpretation of the Tenth article,
which compromise was repudiated by the sound Lutheran
university professors at Erlangen, Leipzig and Rostock " as
a frivolous depreciation of the most precious symbol of Ger
man Evangelical Christendom," goes on to say: —
"On this fact and the whole history of the Augsburg
Confession, some German writers of the evangelical Unionist
school have based the hope that the Augsburg Confession may
one day become the united Confession or oecumenical Creed
of all the evangelical churches of Germany. This scheme
stands and falls with the dream of a united and national
Protestant Church of the German Empire. Aside from other
difficulties, the Reformed and the majority of Unionists, to
gether with a considerable body of Lutherans, can never con
scientiously subscribe to the Tenth article as it stands in
the proper historical Confession of 1530 ; while orthodox
Lutherans, on the. other hand, will repudiate the Altered
edition of 1540. The Invariata is, after all, a purely Luth
eran, that is, a denominational symbol; and the Variata is

136 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
a friendly approach of Lutheranism towards the Reformed
communion, which had no share in its original production
and subsequent modification, although it responded to it.
Neither the one nor the other edition can be the expression
of a union, or confederation of two distinct denominations,
of which each has its own genius, history and symbols of
faith. Such an expression must proceed from the theological
and religious life of both, and meet the wants of the present
age. Great as the Augsburg Confession is, the Church will
produce something greater still whenever the Spirit of God
moves it to a new act of faith in opposition to the unbelief
and misbelief of modern times. Every age must do its own
work in its own way." 18
This rejection of the Augsburg Confession as a basis for
the union of Protestantism by the greatest Reformed sym
bolist in America is not due to the belief that there is any
serious doctrinal difference between Lutheranism and the
other evangelical Protestant bodies, but to these three prev
alent and yet erroneous ideas : that in the opinion of modern
theology, the Augsburg Confession, noble as it was for its
day, is after all an outworn instrument; that historical con
tinuity in confession is not vitally important; and that no
Confession of a single historical denomination can meet up-
to-date issues in an up-to-date way.
So far from considering that the teachings of the Augs
burg Confession separate Lutherans from other Protestants, it
is usually understood and declared by Reformed theologians,
and by Lutheran Melanchthonians, that the great body of
fundamental Protestant doctrines is held in common by all
Protestant denominations, and that the difference between
the Lutheran and the Reformed Confession is very small;
that, in fact, they are identical, on the main points, and
differ only as to one or two articles. Thus Schaff " himself
says, "The doctrinal difference between Lutheranism and
38 Schaff Creed of Christendom,, I, p. 237.
18 76. I, p. 212.

THE AUGSBURG CONFESSION. 137
Reform, was originally confined to two articles, namely,, the
nature of Christ's presence in the Sacrament of the Euchar
ist, and the extent of God's sovereignty in the ante-historic
and pre-mundane act of predestination." And, again, on
the following page, he says, " The two great families of
Protestantism are united in all essential articles of faith."
But this is a superficial view of the case. The difference
between the various Protestant systems of faith lies not
merely in some difference of their component elements, but
also in the way in which those elements are set in their
relation to each other; and the larger and more sweeping
difference, which counts on the whole, is to be found in the
latter fact. There is very little difference, so far as the ele
ments are concerned, between H20 and H202, but the small
additional quantity of " 0 " in the combination creates the
great difference between harmless water and the painful
bleaching agent binoxide of hydrogen. There is absolutely
no difference between the characters that make up the lovely
word "star" and those that constitute the low word "rats,"
but the method of combination induces a difference almost as
great as that between heaven and earth. The order of com
bination in the ' set ' of spiritual entities creates divergencies
very great, between elements that seem at first glance to be
almost or entirely identical.
The Roman Confession writes the doctrine of the Church
large, and makes it the visible centre on which all else re
volves. The original Reformed Confession writes the doc
trine of God, our Sovereign and Creator, large, and makes
it the centre and goal of the faith. Many of the older sects
exalted the doctrine of the individual and his freedom, as
the large and controlling element in their faith ; and many
of the newer Reformed and the churches of the New The
ology write the doctrine of Society, of the Kingdom of God
as it is to develop in this world, as the large central thing
in religion. Our modern religious thought, especially that
part which considers the old Confessions to be antiquated,

138 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
instead of making the doctrine of God, or the doctrine of
the Church the centre of their faith, makes man himself the
central and most important figure in religion, and, in this
connection, permits the introduction of all kinds of Pela
gian and rationalistic error.
The Lutheran Confession is the one Confession that writes
the doctrine of Christ large. "Of the Attributes of God and
the Holy Trinity it has nothing to say, except as they are
viewed in and through Christ. The doctrine of sin it learns
in its full significance only as seen in the light of the incar
nation, and as estimated from the standpoint of redemption.
The facts of predestination, Luther taught, were to be con
sidered only after the entire plan of salvation presented in
the Gospel was learned. It discriminates between those
books of the Bible that with greater and less fulness treat
of the doctrine of Christ. If Christology is thus the centre,
the centre of Christology is Christ's office as Priest, and
particularly that bf completed redemption through his vicar
ious satisfaction. In Word and Sacraments it recognizes
the means whereby the fruits of this satisfaction are ap
plied. The distinction between Law and Gospel, drawn
with a clearness and fulness that may be searched for else
where in vain, has the same explanation. The doctrine of
Christ is to it the solution of all the other doctrines. The
union of the divine and human, unchanged and unconfused,
and yet the one penetrating and energizing the other, per
vades the entire system. This belongs to the doctrines of
Inspiration, Providential Concurrence, Faith, the Mystical
Union, the Word, the Sacraments, Prayer, as well as Chris
tology." J°
So far as the ordinary American Protestantism is con
cerned, much of whose leaven is infused into parts of the
Lutheran Church ; and many of whose leaders assume or
declare that Lutheranism is only one of the many varieties
of a common evangelical Christianity, with a peculiar doc-
20 Jacobs.

THE AUGSBURG CONFESSION. 139
trine of the Lord's Supper, we must say that Lutheranism
differs from this Protestantism totally in the principle of
the Church; and in larger or less part in the principle of
salvation. Let us take the principle of the Church, which, to
the ordinary American Protestant, is either an institution
of religious convenience; or is a visible body composed of
the aggregate of the Protestant religious bodies in the land,
able in their opinion to make it the one fold of the one
Shepherd by their coming closer together, and by their recog
nizing each other in a common fellowship ; and which springs
up or dies away, as people have more or less contact with the
Bible. The Bible is an individual thing, and salvation is
an individual thing; and there is no particular fixed rela
tion between the Bible and the Church, or the individual
and the Church. The Bible is here, and the individual is
here, and salvation is here, and, to spread the Bible and save
the race, men join together and organize a Church.
To this conception we reply, that the Lutheran Church,
though it, with all its heart, rejects the Roman doctrine of
the Church, cannot agree to rob the Church of its own ob
jective strength, with which it was clothed by Christ Him
self. Our faith holds that the Word of God, in its work in the
world, has not returned unto Him void ; but has brought
forth rich results, which no individual can exhaust, and
which no generation can neglect, and which are organically
inherent in the Church of Christ, which is itself the con
tinuous living witness, in the preaching of the Word and
the administration of the Sacraments, of Christ and His
truth. Not that the Church is the Source of the Truth, or its
Norm. It must itself be constantly tested, pruned and cor
rected by the Word ; but with all its fallibility, it is Christ's
true and trusty Witness, more valuable and more to be
heeded, than the most brilliant self-commissioned individual

140 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
or age, which goes to the Word on its own charges, and offers
us that which it in itself and by itself has discovered to be
true. Extreme Protestantism ignores this continuous living Wit
ness, the historical Church, as a negligible factor, and
throws the congregation, the pastor and even the individual
soul back, as an isolated unit, upon the rock of Scripture.
It isolates Scripture from the help of its own results in
contact with the greatest and most sanctified saints of the
Church, and bids every raw mind draw not only faith and
salvation, but the whole content of truth from Scripture,
by its own unaided faculties.
In pure Protestantism, Scripture apprehended by me
alone is the exclusive source of doctrine, worship, and or
ganization; in our evangelical faith, Scripture, apprehended
by the Church, summarized by the Confession, and approved
by my judgment and conscience, is the norm and test of doc
trine, worship and organization, that has grown under the
constant application of the pure Word to the life of the
Communion of Saints.
Pure Protestantism, if it be Augustinian, sets every ele
ment of revelation and faith under the centralizing influ
ence of Divine Law. Pure Protestantism, if it be Pelagian,
groups every element of revelation and faith around the
centre of Human Freedom. But Evangelical and Catholic
Protestantism groups every element of revelation and faith
around Christ, the sacrificial source * of divine justification
and the substance of human faith. Our faith does not
centre its gravity either in the distant divine, or in the
helpless human; but in the concrete, yet perfect divine-
human Person of Christ. We hold to the Divine, both Law
and Love, yet through Christ. We hold to the human, cre
ated in the Divine image and corrupted by sin, yet restored
by Christ.

1 i. v., ground.

THE AUGSBURG CONFESSION. 141
Freedom, salvation, gospel, grace, Christ, are elements in
some Protestant systems ; faith, freedom, works, are elements
in other Protestant systems; but the balance between God
and man, as real in Christ, in Predestination, in Redemption,
in the Person of Christ, in Scripture, in the Word of God, in
Justification, Regeneration, Sanctification, in the Sacraments,
in the Church, in Confession and Absolution, in the State,
in History, and in the spiritual life of the Christian, is com
plete in the' Lutheran Faith alone.
Pure Pelagian Protestantism comes to God through man,
without the Gospel. Pure Semi-Pelagian Protestantism, in
which are practically found the bulk of American Protestants
to-day, comes to God through the Gospel and through man.
Pure Augustinian Protestantism, rare in American Protest
antism to-day, comes through God to the Gospel; but Pure
Evangelical iFaith comes to God through the Gospel alone —
sola. The resultant difference between denominational Protest
antism — whether Augustinian or Semi-Pelagian, or merely
sentimental, or Protestantism poised completely on a hu
man centre — and Lutheranism, is fundamental; and runs
into every channel of Confession, Worship, Organization,
Spirit and Life. It is not a difference in degree, but in
quality; yet not in all cases a difference in elements, for
some Protestant faiths have the full evangelical elements,
but a difference in the great organizing principle that is in
control of the elements.
"Calvinism is the proper Protestant counterpart of Ro
manism. The whole system of the dependence of the indi
vidual on a power which absolutely determines him in his
willing and doing, the system which is set up by Catholi
cism in its doctrine of the Church, is bound up by Calvin
ism in its absolute decree. In Calvinism, everything saving
and salutary lies in the decree ; in Romanism, it lies in the
Church. The Lutheran system, with its faith reposing on
the historical fact of the redemption, holds the mean be-
13

142 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
tween Calvinism and Romanism — between the transcendant
idealism of the one, the external realism of the other.

1

lTi2

" The essential difference between Calvin and Trent con
sists not in the definition of the Church, but in the historic
answer to the question, Is the Roman Church the true
Church ? For Calvin, the Church was a sacramental organi
zation with an authoritative ministry of the Word, watching
over the State in spiritual things, while the State did its
behests in material things." 3
For Zwingli, and for all humanists, the Church is the
Kingdom of God upon earth, which watches over the State
in spiritual things, and sees in the moral fruits of earthly
citizenship the attainment of its goal and the realization of
its ideals.'1
But for us, the Church is the congregation of believing
saints in which the Gospel, the saving Word and Sacraments
of Christ, are faithfully used, and which has neither national
goal, visible aim, nor earthly ideal, but embraces in its in
visible fellowship of the body of Christ, true believers of
every nation from the rising of the sun to the going down
thereof. Exceedingly superficial do the attempts appear that classify
Lutheranism as a simple variation of the common Protestant

72 F. C. Baur.
23 Thos. Hall of Union Theological Seminary in Hibbert Journal.
2i " In his practical operations in the church, Zwingli betrays his de
pendence upon the mediaeval ideals. But the theocratic ideal which he
pursued allows to neither church nor state its proper position. . . . The laws
of the state are, after all, valid only in so far as they conform to the law
of the church, or the Bible. This is a mediaeval idea. The carrying
out of his reformatory work embraced both a new system of doctrine and a
new order of social and practical life, which must be enforced by the agency
of the state. Christianity is an affair of the state, but the state is the organ
of the church. Like Savonarola, Zwingli sought to reform his city according
to the divine law of the Bible, with the help of the secular power. It was
also in accord with the example of Savonarola that Zwingli's political am
bition was not satisfied with the direction of his native city, but associated
his direct reformatory labors with political combinations of the widest and
most daring character. Thus, in every sphere of his doctrinal and prac
tical activity, we are impressed with the mediaeval and humanistic limita
tions of Zwingli, and that, too, in such forms as to emphasize the contrast
between his ideas and those of Luther," — Seeberg, Hist, of Doct., II, p. 317,
318.

THE AUGSBURG CONFESSION. 143
doctrine. Luther was thoroughly in the right ; and felt what
he was unable briefly to express, with respect to the new
shoot of rationalized Protestantism that was arising before
him, when he said, "Ihr habt einen andern Geist als wir."

CHAPTER XII.
THE HISTORY AND TENDENCY OF THE CON
FESSIONAL PRINCIPLE IN THE CHURCH.
Faith the Source of Confession— By Personal Confession the Word of the Lord
Multiplied and the Church Prevailed — The Confession of Peter — The Official
Testimony of the Church, as its Public Witness to the Word, is Dynamic — The
Confession is More than a Symbol — Christ the High Priest of our Confession —
The Church Developing her Confessions — The Cooling of Confessional Ardor —
Orthodoxy — Indifferentism in Both the Post-Nicene and the Post- Reformation
Periods — Calixtus above the Confessions — The Historical and Comparative
Standpoint — Walch — Planck — Marheinecke — Winer — Confessional Indifferent
ism is the Body without the Breath of Life — The Later Eighteenth-Century
Rationalism — The Standpoint of True Lutheranism.
IT has already been pointed out that the New Testament in
timately connects Confession and Faith. The two go to
gether naturally and necessarily. Confession is the coun
terpart of faith — it is faith come to utterance. The Word
works faith, and faith brings forth Confession. Or, as St.
Paul says, " The word of faith is in heart and mouth,"
Romans 10 : 8. "I have believed," says he, "and, therefore,
have I spoken."
In Confession, then, it is faith that is active. It testifies
in loyalty to conviction within, and in order to beget, repro
duce and quicken faith in others. Incidentally, it strength
ens its own conviction through the act of Confession.
Public Confession, which adds personal conviction to
proclamation, is the great builder and strengthener of the
Church. Nothing so transforms the "pale belief" of a con
gregation into "strong, full-blooded conviction," as public con
fession in its midst. The man who confesses has committed
144

HISTORY OF THE PRINCIPLE. 145
himself in weighty matters of principle and life before his
fellows. Sparks rising forth from the glowing truth within
him kindle a flame in soul after soul. The Confession fills
the assembled congregation with the inner and living power
of the Word, so that it has become "of one mind and one
soul." Thus in public confession, faith in Christ reaches its most
impressive power; and the "belief unto righteousness" in the
heart, becomes the "confession unto salvation" with the:
mouth (Romans 10: 10). Thus the "full assurance of
faith," in the heart, becomes the outer "holding fast to the
confession of our hope," in the act (Heb. 10: 22, 23).
Thus we see it to be one of the main purposes of confes
sion to give evidence of the faith that is within, "confessing
the good confession before many witnesses" ( 1 Timothy 6 :
12), and "not being ashamed of the testimony of our Lord"
(2 Timothy 1:8).
Thus confession is the living personal fountain located in
the time and space of this outer world, whose source is
faith, and whose utterance is the Faith.
Thus also the Confession is the Faith, uttered as suiting
time and place, unfolded, and, when necessary, defined, dis
tinguished, amplified ; but always by a power within itself,
i. e., the Word of God. It is by means of such Public Con
fession, of which preaching is the one most active, most con
stant and most prominent form,1 that the Faith is confirmed
and spread, and that the Church itself, with its blessings, is
extended. On the occasion of the great Confession of Peter (Matt.
16: 15, 16), Christ, for the first time, spake of His Church;
and declared that this Church was to be built on the rock
of the Confession of Christ (Matt. 16: 18). "So it proved
to be in after days. It was by St. Peter's powerful testimony

1 The Confession of Sins is diverse from the Confession of Faith. In
The Order of Public Service, the Office of the Word closely connects the.
Creed, the Confession of Faith by the Congregation, with the Sermon, the
Confession of Faith by the one who administers, i. e., preaches the Word.

146 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
to Jesus, as the risen Lord and Christ (Acts 2 : 32-36), that,
on the day of Pentecost, three thousand souls were led gladly
to receive the Word, and, in Baptism, to confess for them
selves, Christ (vv. 37-41). Paul knew the mighty power
that inheres in Confession ; and both in his preaching and
writing confessed (Acts 22: 6ff; 26: 12 ff; Gal. 1: 15 ff)
Jesus afresh as his Saviour and Lord. It was above all
else by the personal confessions of humble individuals — a
testimony often sealed with blood (Rev. 2: 13; 12: 11) —
that the pagan empire of Rome was cast down and the
Church of Christ built upon its ruins. And it is still by
personal confession, in one form or another, that the Word
of the Lord grows and multiplies, and His Church prevails
against 'the gates of Hell.' "
What is true of the living Confession of the preacher is
true just as directly, even if more abstractly, but in a
wider and, in certain respects, more weighty sense, of the
official utterance and testimony of the Church, which is not,
as we ministers are too apt to assume, a map showing the
demarcations of the denominational field of Christianity
for the convenience and guidance of its theologians, but
which is a public witness and testimony of the Church's
Faith before all the world.
The Church's Confessions, then, in their chief strength
and purpose, and in their highest and dynamic sense, are
not completely described in the traditional term, "Sym
bols," employed to designate them. A Symbol is the ac
cepted and marked material resulting from a critical exami
nation of the Faith in Scripture. The Symbol embraces
two ideas: that of comparison, definition and identification,
and that of the actual use of what has been thus compared,
defined and identified in Confession. The first element is
preliminary to the second, and is not complete, without the
second, in itself. Even as the Word is more than the Scrip
ture, so is the confession in the Confession more than the
distinguishing and identifying element of the Symbol.

HISTORY OF THE PRINCIPLE. 147
The supreme position of Confession is seen in the life and
work of the Lord Jesus Christ, Who in "witnessing a good
confession before Pontius Pilate" (1 Tim. 6: 13) testified
that "to this end was I born, and for this cause came I
into the world" (John 18 : 37) ; and Whose deepest teach
ings were, not indeed a Confession in the sense of an avowal
of saving faith, but a confession in the sense of requiring
of such great faith an avowal of such supreme knowledge
(Cp. His discourses, John, chapters 6-16).
Still further did He show the pre-eminent place that He
gave to Confession, by His own most solemn teachings and
warnings as to it, and the apostles reflect His words. "Who
soever shall confess me before men, him will I confess also
before my Father which is in heaven." The Confession here
asked is not a verbal subscription.2 It is confessing Christ
out of a state of inner oneness with Him. The confessor
confesses out of his' life in Christ, out of the identity be
tween Christ and himself brought about by faith. It is the
confession of those who have been "perfected into one" with
Christ, " that the world may know that thou hast sent me."
" Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in
the flesh is of God" (1 John 4:2). "If thou shalt con
fess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in
thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou
shalt be saved." Thus Christ becomes the High Priest and
Apostle of our Confession (Heb- 3:1).
The Confession of Faith in the Christian Church gath
ers, as we saw at length in the last two chapters, around the
name, person and work of Christ. The Gospels and the
Epistles are filled with the material for the elaboration of
a full confession of Christ; and the Church, under the de
veloping influence of the Holy Ghost, and in the refining
hand of Providence, gave herself with great ardor to the
creation, the maintenance and the defense of her great

2 The " 'o Legon, Ky'rle, Ky'rie " of Matt. 7:21, in contradistinction to the
' 'o Poion," is a verbal subscriber.

148 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
Confession, — first in the embryonic elements of public Con
fession in the New Testament, as they were associated with
the reception of new members in Holy Baptism ; then in the
Formula of the Baptismal Confession, as it grew earlier
into the Apostles' Creed, and afterwards into the Nicene
Creed ; and still later, as it developed against error, into the
Athanasian Creed.
With the fresh outburst of Faith at the beginning and
during the Reformation, and amid new and mighty trials
first from without, and then from within, the Church again
became great and supreme in her Witness and Confession.
Again, with the rise of Lutheranism^ which is the synthesis
of individual freedom in the conscience and of the authority
of the divine Word within the communion of saints, the
Church rose to heroic and complete Confession, until at last
the adjustment to Protestantism, so far as the Word was
concerned, was completed.
In these two great cycles of Confession in the Christian
Church we see a tendency and learn a lesson that is most
instructive to the Church that now is and that is to come.
When primeval confessional ardor begins to cool, and, like
molten metal, to harden into fixed external form, as it will
do with the lapse of time, there are two dangers to be feared.
The one is that of a cast-iron rigidity in adherence, which
becomes mechanical, superficial and oppressive. The other
is a dead coldness of indifferentism which chills the vital
touch between the confessing Church and its Confession.
In the first instance we have an insistence and severity of
outer orthodoxy in rule and form that becomes almost abso
lute in its assertion of power. In the other case we have
a dying away of the vitality of the inner substance, so that
only the outer form is left, but as a mere historical rem
nant. The spirit has fled, and left an interesting shell be-

8 Freedom of conscience, the first element of the synthesis, without the
second element, is sectarianism ; and the authority of the Church without the
first element, freedom of conscience, is Romanism.

HISTORY OF THE PRINCIPLE. 149
hind it, to be picked up and handled and made the object
of research like other facts in the field of knowledge, but
not to serve the purpose originally intended.
It is easy to see that both these dangers have been twice
encountered by the Church of Christ in its historical devel
opment. After the mighty confessional life of the New
Testament, and after the original glow and fervor of the
Apostolic age had died away, and the Faith was now com
ing, and came, into heroic contact with the world powers,
we find the Confessional Baptismal Formula and other forms
of instruction hardening into the Kav&v ttjs dXrj8ela<s,' the
regula ecclesiae, the regula fidei, the gramma, the graphe — ¦
" Symbolum est regula fidei brevis et grandis" (Augustine)
— which attained, in the minds of the orthodox, almost to
the strength of inspiration.
Again, in a similar period in the Seventeenth Century,
we find the Confessions acting as an ecclesiastical regula
fidei, mediately illuminated, and the confessional spirit hard
ening into extreme rigidity."
On the other hand, in the post-Nicene period of the An
cient Church, when the world had entered into her counsels,
we find the original orthodoxy of Apostolic confession on the
wane. Pelagianism arose, A. D., 411-31, with Semi-Pela-
gianism, A. D., 427-29 ; and then there came the controversy
and split between the East and the West on ceremonies and
government, and the broadening out and filtering down of
theology in Boethius, Cassiodorus, Isidore, Gregory of Tours,
and the venerable Bede.
In the same way, after the Second Awakening of the

•"Apart from the Scriptures," says Harnack; "in connection with the
Scriptures," says Kunze.
6 " The dispute with Calixtus led the Lutheran theologians to postulate a
mediate inspiration (illumination), and consequently, also, a divine authority
for the Symbolical Books ; but the distinction between the canon of Scripture
and such standards is, nevertheless, constantly preserved in word, if not
always in fact. In reality the Symbolical Books were regarded as a Kafion
t8s Pisteos throughout the Seventeenth Century side by side with "the
Scriptures, inasmuch as the faith was directly grounded on the symbol rather
than on the Bible."

150 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
Church, and after the confessional ardor of the Reformation
had first chilled into hard and superficial orthodoxy, it
gave way in the Eighteenth Century to the confessional in-
differentism of the periods of illumination and rational
ism. The Confessions now died away except as documentary
material for historical examination. It is unfortunate, but
natural, that the critical examination of the Confessions as
pure history, and the comparative study of the Confessional
Principle takes its first rise and receives its point of view
and its terminology in this age of confessional indifferent-
ism; and that the usual mode of approach and estimation
of a symbol by us is based on the presupposition that it is
a document of historical testimony, an exhibit of a past
age, rather than a ripe fruit of the Christian Church,
a living possession, for active confessional use in the pres
ent day. Much of the prejudice against Catechisms and
a sound confessional spirit is a heritage to us from the
latitudinarian rationalism of the Eighteenth Century.
It was the syncretistic controversy that marked the turn
ing-point in the relation of theology to the Confessions,
and that led to that change in the form of theological
science that caused the Confessions to be regarded more as
historical than as living testimonies. Calixtus claimed a
theological viewpoint that lay above the Confessions, in his
consensus quinquesecularis ecclesice primcevae, from which
he sought to judge, on a comparative basis, the doctrinal
differences of the various Churches. It was no longer the
confessional doctrines that were regarded as objective, but
it was the confessional differences that were reviewed from
this higher and supposedly objective standpoint.
The point of view was no longer that of the loyal confes
sor, but that of an objective student who regarded all these
positions of the past with impartial equanimity. The an
tagonistic doctrines of conflicting confessions were treated
historically, and not confessionally. The pioneer works

HISTORY OF THE PRINCIPLE. 151
of Walch, Sender, Planck and others, from whom we draw
many conceptions to-day, were thus infected, as was also the
extreme orthodox school, represented by Valentine Loescher
in his Reformations-Akta and his Historia moluum. This
was also the case with Chr. M. Pf aff, Buddeus, Baumgarten,
J. S, Feuerlin, W. F. Walch, and others.
The old ardor of active testimony was extinguished; and
we are thus burdened to-day yet with the historical and
external atmosphere of comparative theology, in attempt
ing to come into touch and to proper estimate of the Sym
bolical Books, through the isagogical work done on them at
the ebb of the tide of the confessional principle.
The new science of historical Confessional study— Sym
bolics, as it came to be termed, later on— began with G. F.
Planck, Winer, and Planck's disciple, Marheinecke. Planck
provided a genetic, pragmatic exposition of the chief eccle
siastical systems in his known large works, The History of
the Protestant Lehrbegriff and The History of the Catholic
Gesellschafts-Verfassung. In his small volume, " A Sketch
of Historical and Comparative Delineation of the Dogmatic
Systems of our Leading Christian Parties according to their
Fundamental Conceptions, and the Doctrinal Distinctions
drawn therefrom and their Practical Consequences, Gottin-
gen, 1796," he arranged the idea and the plan of a compara
tive Confessional Science.
Planck was the prince of pragmatic historians, springing
up in the heart of the age of rationalism, and influenced, as
he himself tells us, by the three great principles that sepa
rated his time, as by a chasm, from the old orthodoxy. The
first of these was a deeper critical foundation for historical
and dogmatic knowledge. The second was freedom of in
vestigation. The third was tolerance and justice toward
those thinking otherwise.
His own personal convictions did not seem so important
to him as the fascinating wealth of historical investigation,
and his tolerance was extended more liberally toward those

152 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
of other beliefs than toward those of his own faith. He
sought the explanation of history in subjective passions and
motives, and in the strength and weaknesses of its leading
figures; and thus he was led not only to overestimate the
importance of personalities, but also to underestimate the
weight and might of that general and unconscious progress
of principle which is due to the purpose of God. Ambi
tion, love of authority, eagerness for strife and agitation,
lack of mildness, want of toleration and absence of humility,
were the qualities he loved to find in the chief actors in any
scene, and by which he interpreted the current of events.
Thus, with all his learning, judgment and insight, he be
came an exponent of pragmatism in its lowest and most
unworthy sense. He expected and sought for the meaner
motives in analyzing movements with which his own mental
structure was out of sympathy.
He is so important to us in this discussion because, in his
mastery of the original sources of the confessional history
of the Lutheran Church, he constantly applied these prin
ciples and motives, and has thus left an impression not only
unsympathetic but unjust to the great confessional charac
ters and activities of the Sixteenth Century — results that are
inwoven to-day yet with our common historical conceptions,
and from whose trammels it is difficult to be freed.
He wrote the great history of the Rise, the Variations,
and the Forming of our Protestant Conception of Doctrine
from the beginning of the Reformation to the Introduction
of the Formula of Concord, in six volumes. This epoch-
making study of Protestant Confessionalism in the devel
opment of its history and doctrine as seen by a pragmatic,
unpartisan, tolerant and enthusiastic indifferentism, pictures
the foundation and development of Reformation doctrine
less as an unfolding of principle than as an attempt of the
representative men of the age to influence the direction of
doctrine. In all the controversies, where conflict waxed hot, it is,

HISTORY OF THE PRINCIPLE. 153
in Planck's delineation, rather Lessing's rationalistic and
comparative search after truth than the desire to find and
establish some truth that is felt. Even Schaff says of
Planck's Gesch. d. Prol. Lehrbegriffs that it was " without
proper appreciation of the doctrinal differences."' The fair
comparative presentation of both sides of doctrine is more
to him than any conclusion as to either, as we particularly
see in his pioneer work on Symbolics, "Historical and Com
parative Delineation of the Dogmatic Systems of our Lead
ing Christian Parties" ("unserer verschiedenen christlichen
Hauptparteien"), in which he sought to do away with all
prepossession for any doctrinal system and to increase the
respect for all alike.
This is the essence of the impartial historico-comparative
idea, which haunts our religious teachings both elementarv
or catechetical, and advanced or technical, to this day; and
which degenerates faith to opinion, and counts the open
mind as more important than the certain heart. If faith
be less than knowledge, if confession be an intellectual sub
scription, with or without mental reservation; if the Chris
tian Church is not contending for treasures, but for logical
terms; if witness bearing be of less account than weighing
witness — in short, if principle lives chiefly to be pitted
against principle, and conscience is to be evaporated into
definition, then Planck's point of view is right; but even
then his exaltation of unworthy personal motive ultimately
invites to skepticism and contempt.'
Planck's great disciple was Marheinecke, who lectured
upon the basis of Planck's sketch of this new science, and
who gave it the name "Symbolics."
• Creeds of Christendom, I, p. 258.
* The value of the critical, the historical, the purely comparative principle,
and of the results of the development through which the Church has passed
under their influence is to be written large. Impartial and fearless search for
the exact facts, bold and objective comparison, constant test and criticism,
are methods to be prized as invaluable and as having been bought with a
price. But their value is in their formal strength, and not in their substance.
As means, and where they do not set themselves up as the end, their
services are to be heartily welcomed.

154 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
Marheinecke attempted to eliminate the polemic element
from the various confessional principles, which now mani
fested their main strength in antagonistic clashings, and
"fought themselves to death;" and, in calmness, to produce
a historieo-dogmatic development of the peculiar Lehrbegriff
(doctrinal concept) of each of the "Parties" in the Chris
tian Church, on the basis of their respective symbols. The
work was never completed, but he carried out the idea, less
extensively, in his Latin compendium, "Institutiones sym
bolical, doctrinarum Cathol., Protest., Socin., Eccl. Grwcw,"
etc., summam et diserimina exhibentes, in usum scholarum
scr. Ph. M., Berlin, 1812. Thus Marheinecke sought to
exhibit the internal unit of each separate denominational
confession. It remained for Winer to bring the comparative method,
in its application to the science of Symbolics, to perfection.
With his usual analytic and synthetic strength, and his ob
jective method, he presented to view, side by side, in tabu
lar form, the differences existing in the various Confessions,
under the dissection of a skilful comparative analysis.
And here lies the secret of Confessional indifferentism.
The breath of life had departed from the symbols, and the
indefinable inner reserve of strength had disappeared. No
longer devoted to any Confessional cause with heart and
soul, the theologians no longer sought to exhibit and judge
everything in the light of a believing witness; but they
attempted, from a standpoint above the various Confessions,
to present and estimate them henceforth as historically con
ditioned . and, in this respect, equally justified, though not
equally valuable, developments of the Christian idea. They
described them as step-like approximations to a still higher
ideal, to be reached comparatively, and by the process of
elimination of the peculiarities of Christian Teaching.
Meantime doubts as to whether symbols were necessary
at all arose even as early as Spener. A century later the
obligation to adhere to the symbol was interpreted as refer-

HISTORY OF THE PRINCIPLE. 155
ring only to "the essentials ;" and most scholars viewed the
essential matter in the Confessions as very small, compared
with that which was "merely theological and not directly
religious," and, therefore, unessential. Rationalism caused
the subscription to degenerate to a hypocritical form, in
which the obligation was assumed, but not regarded as
binding. Thus the faith once delivered to the saints gave
way to subjective and scientific "approximations to the
Christian idea," and the Protestant Confessions, in Nine
teenth-Century language, were to be "regarded simply as
essays toward formulating the body of Christian doctrine,
which may be tested by criticism and revised," and none
of them as a doctrinally perfect attest of a "faith which
belongs equally to our fathers and to us."
As we of a living Faith have learned to penetrate through
and beyond the superficial illumination of the Eighteenth
Century, by virtue of our hold on the Word and the Faith ;
so we of a living Confession should abandon the lower and
comparative point of view of the Eighteenth Century, which
not only throws the outer shell aside, but leads to a subjective
approximation toward the "perfect Christian idea," instead
of an objective salvation and a real justification by faith in
Christ Jesus.
The standpoint of true Lutheranism lies not in the field
of historical investigation, though that is "a good and useful
outward discipline," nor in the field of comparative distinc
tion and estimate, nor in the discrimination of denomina
tional or sectarian peculiarities; but in the apprehension,
assimilation, affirmation, and application, of our own sym
bols, as the historical channels of the Word, to the spiritual
life and the upbuilding of our own people and our own
Church.

CHAPTER XIII.
THE CONFESSIONAL USE OF THE WORD
" SYMBOL."
The Meaning of the Term— Its Use by the Church Fathers— Its Use in the Re
formation and in the Book of Concord.
THE word "Symbol," to denote the Church's formulated
Confession of Faith, comes to us with an ancient
history. Though Carpzov will not admit its use to
antedate the Council. of Nice, and while it is true that the
term is but rarely found in the Church Fathers, the
word nevertheless occurs in Cyprian1 about the middle of
the Third Century, and thenceforward it seems to have been
used, at least occasionally, as a title given to the Apostles'
Creed. Ruffinus, in the middle of the Fourth Century, employed
it as the title of his work, Expositio in symbolum aposto-
lorum;* and Bossius justly argues from this and from the
fact that Ruffinus says in his work, " symbolum autem hoc
multis et justissimis ex causis appellare voluerunt," that the
earlier use of the word must have been general.
Unlike the word "Confession," whose origin and lineage
roots itself so thoroughly in Scripture, as we have seen in a
former chapter, the word "symbol" is not Biblical, but
came to the Church from the classical Greek and Latin.8

1 Ep. 75 ad Magnum.
2 Cp. Augustine, De Fide et Symbolo; Hilary, De Symbolo.
' For the meaning of symbolum, in classical and ecclesiastical Latin and
Greek, see the Lexicons of Stephanus, Passow-Rost, Forcellini, and Suicer ;
and Thesaurus eccl., II, 1081. 156

USAGE OF "SYMBOL." 157
The ecclesiastical origin of the term is disputed, but ety-
mologically the word is derived from the Greek sumbdllein,
which means, to throw one thing alongside of another, to
compare, to talk over matters together and come to a united
conclusion, an agreement. From this meaning there is but
a step to the further signification, denoting a sign or mark
agreed upon before, by which to infer or recognize any
thing. Thus has the word come to signify a badge of reeogr
nition. It further bore the meaning "watchword," "for
mula in the mysteries," and "a contract between two par
ties." *
Finally, the term came to designate the mark or sign by
which the connection of individuals to a whole, e. g., a cor
poration, or association, might be indicated. Such were the
badges which secured admission to a banquet, "the tessera
militarist the flag, and the password. As applied to reli
gion it would be the "formula credendorum, tanquam sigj
num, quo inter se credentes distinguuntur."
Cyprian employed this term to designate the Baptismal
Formula. Ruffinus and the writers of the Middle Ages
confine it to the Apostles' Creed ; but in the Thirteenth Cen
tury it was applied to the additional oecumenical creeds by
Alexander of Hales (A. D'. 1230).
The term was not used in the early days of the Reforma
tion; neither was it applied to Luther's Catechisms, nor to
the Augsburg Confession; but its earliest appearance seems
to have been in Wittenberg, in 1533, in the prescribed doc
tor's oath in the new statutes of the University of Witten
berg. Luther, five years later, in his older days (1538),
applied it to the Apostles' and the Athanasian Creeds, and
also to the Te Deum: "Die drey Symbola oder Bekentnis
des Glaubens Christi inn der Kirchen eintrechtiglich ge-
braucht, Wittem., 1538."
Melanchthon uses the term in his "Corpus doctrinse." In
1576, the Preface to the "Corpus Julium" characterized the

4 Miiller, Symbol. Biicher, Einleitung, p. XX.
14

158 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
Augsburg Confession as a "well-grounded Symbol of the
Reformed Churches."'
A fine and, for us, regulative use of the term "symbol"
occurs in the opening paragraph (the second) of the Pre
face of the Book of Concord, where the Augsburg Confes
sion itself is termed a symbol; not primarily, indeed, but
after calling it a "Confession" twice, we are told that it is
confessed as the "Symbol," or watchword, "of our time in
the contest with Papacy."
That the chief meaning and purpose of a symbol, as it is
here applied to the Augsburg Confession, is not that of con
tract, but that of an approved witness to the faith, more
spiritual in purpose, and wider in scope, than a binding
agreement to certain doctrines, is to be seen in the lan
guage and spirit of those who put forth the Book of Con
cord, and who say in their "Preface to the Readers, One
and All, to whom they Announce and Declare their Devotion
and Friendship, combined with Willing Service: —
"A brief and succinct Confession was prepared from the
Word of God, which was offered to the Emperor, and was
presented to the deputies, and finally being circulated among
all men professing Christian doctrine, and thus in the en
tire world was diffused everywhere, and began to be current
in the mouth and speech of all.
"Afterwards many churches and schools embraced and
defended this Confession, as a symbol of the present time
in regard to the chief articles of faith, . . . and with per
petual agreement have appealed to it without any contro
versy and doubt. The doctrine comprised in it which they
knew both to be supported by firm testimonies of Scripture,

• " Welcher Confession Artikel sind jetziger Zeit als ein rechtes, schones,
reines, wolgegriindtes Symbolum der reformirten Kirchen."
Julius was duke of Brunswick and founder of the University of Helmstedt.
He took offense at Chemnitz's criticism of him when he permitted his son
to become a member of the Roman Church, and excluded the Formula of
Concord from his Corpus doctrinas. The Julian Corpus contains the three
oecumenical symbols, the Augsburg Confession printed in 1531, the Apology,
the Schmalkald Articles, and the two Catechisms of Luther — everything but
the Formula.

USAGE OF "SYMBOL." 159
and to be approved by the ancient and received symbols,
they have also constantly judged to be the only and per
petual consensus of the truly believing Church, which was
formerly defended against manifold heresies and errors."
The Augsburg Confession is here declared to be a con
fession which has become the symbol, or confessional stand
ard, of the hour, to which all parties have agreed to appeal
(not an appeal which all parties have agreed to make), and
which contains the very doctrine found in the old tried
symbols, which are the acknowledged consensus of all the
Churches in their conflict with all kinds of sects; and have
appealed to it with Christian unanimity, and without any
controversy and doubt. Moreover, they have steadily held
fast to the doctrine apprehended in it, which is well grounded
in the divine Scripture, and is presented in brief compass
in the old, tried symbols as the one old consensus accredited
by the churches unanimously teaching the true doctrine, and
acknowledged in repeated conflicts against heresy.
The " consensus " here is their agreement in doctrine,
rather than an agreement to agree in doctrine. The Church,
when using the word "symbol," used it in the sense not of
a contract agreed upon, but of a Confession duly accredited
as in agreement with Scripture.
The same conclusion is reached in considering the usage
of the Formula of Concord, which defines symbols as "kurtze
runde Bekeihntnisse" {"brief, plain Confessions"). The
definition occurs in the second part of the introduction to
the Epitome: "And since immediately after the time of
the Apostles, and even during their lives, inroads were made
by false teachers and heretics; and symbols, i. e., brief,
plain, confessions, were set up against them in the early
Church, and were held to be the one common Christian
Faith and the Confession of the true and orthodox Churches,
namely, the Apostles' Creed, the Nicene Creed, and the
Athanasian Creed ; we confess them as binding upon us, and
herewith reject all heresies and dogmas, which were intro-

160 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
duced into the Church of God contrary to their teachings."
Here, indeed, matters are clearly defined. Symbols are
brief, plain Confessions set up (the setting up is a subordi
nate idea, and its mode and forms are not expressed) against
the heresies of false teachers, and held to by the true
Churches as the one common Christian Faith, and as their
Confession of it.
Finally, the whole, true, spiritual, churchly and confes
sional sense of a symbol as conceived by our fathers and
held to in the Confessions is characterized most amply in
the Preface to the Solid Declaration of the Formula, where
they tell us: —
"From our inmost hearts we herewith once again confess
this Christian Augsburg Confession, which is so thoroughly
grounded in God's Word. We abide by the simple, clear
and plain meaning that its words convey, and regard it in
all respects as a Christian symbol, which at the present time
Christians should receive next to God's Word, just as in
former times, when great controversies arose in the Church
of God, symbols and confessions were composed, which pure
teachers and hearers confessed with heart and mouth. We
intend also, by the grace of the Almighty, to faithfully abide
until our end by this Christian Confession."
And in the part of the Preface on the "comprehensive
summary, foundation, rule and standard," they tell us:
"Since it is necessary, for thorough and permanent unity,
above all to have a completely approved compendium in
which the concise and common doctrines confessed . by the
Churches of the true Christian religion are brought together
out of God's Word, just as the ancient Church always had
its fixed symbols for this use; and as this authority should
not be attached to private writings, but to such books as
have been composed, approved and received in the name
of the Churches who acknowledge one doctrine and reli
gion; we have declared to one another with heart and mouth
that we will neither make nor receive any separate or new

USAGE OF "SYMBOL." 101
confession of our faith, but acknowledge as confessional the
public common writings which always and everywhere were
received in all the Churches of the Augsburg Confession,
as such symbols or public confessions, before the dissensions
arose among those who accept the Augsburg Confession,"
etc. The word "symbol," then, as used in the Symbolical Books
of the Lutheran Church, is equivalent to A Public Confes
sion of the Faith, made with heart and mouth, and which,
in the course of events, and after passing through the tests
of history and time, has received the stamp of churchly
approval and adoption as in harmony with the one old con
sensus of the true and faithful doctrine, and has become
an external sign and bond of their fellowship.
Symbols are old/ tested and approved confessions of the
faith, in shortest form, used as a confessional formulary,
while Symbolical Writings are public, common writings,
"publica et approbata scrip ta," not private writings ("Pri-
vatschriften"), but books that have been approved and ac
cepted " in the name of the Churches which confess one doc
trine and religion," and which " publicly delineate, ground
and defend the doctrine of the Church." '
As far as the Church is necessary, declares Sartorius, so
far does there exist a necessity for the Symbol as the con
centrated expression of its common faith, and for the Con
fession as a manifestation of its general religious conscious
ness, "The Symbol," says Sartorius, " is no law — no prescription
of the faith — but a confession — a testimony of it — as indi
cated in its form. It does not come in the imperative crede,
but in the indicative credo. 'Credo ' begins the first, the
Apostles' Creed; and the last, the Formula of Concord, has
only translated the singular into the plural, and shows its
interior connection with the Apostles' doctrine, and follows

' " Bewahrten, alten Symbolis."
'Miiller, Einleit., p. XXII.

162 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
in the oft-recurring form, lCredimus, confitemur ct doce-
mus. "Every preacher," continues Sartorius, "is already a con
fessor; and as no preacher is a self-constituted confessor, the
very nature of the office implies that there must be a common
Confession — to which he declares himself as a fellow-conies-
sor, both when he is invested with his office, and in the ful
filment of its duties. The ministry of the Church pre
supposes the fellowship of a Confession or a Symbol."

CHAPTER XIV.
THE LUTHERAN CONFESSION.
Was It Born at Augsburg? — Luther the Great Living Confession of His Church —
The Reasons Why He was the Church's Living Confession — His Relation to
External Confessional Statements — The Weakness of a Living Witness.
LUTHER was himself the great Living Confession of his
Church and day. Before the political necessity of a
formal touch with the empire and the outer world had come
to a focus at Augsburg, and, also afterwards, Luther was, in
his own personality, the greatest promulgator, definer and
defender of the Church's Faith. It was he who determined
and decided and upheld the doctrine. He not only broke
the path, but he built the road, while others followed,
smoothing the surface and adjusting the side approaches.
It was his discoveries, his utterances, his constructions, in
university lectures to students, in numerous sermons, and
still more numerous letters, in colloquies and disputations,
with friends within and foes without, in advice and direc
tions, in books and treatises, in the publication of cate
chisms and Scriptures, that made him the great rediscov-
erer and recoverer of and, next after Paul, the greatest
Living Witness to the Faith.
And the cause for this is not hidden. Luther's daily,
direct and lifelong contact with the Scriptures, from which
he drew all his strength, and which furnished him with all
the doctrine, and which, through his agency, reacted with
instant and prevailing force among the Lutheran Churches,
made him the one Living Witness, the one Living Confes-
163

164 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
sion of the Church of the day. He lived in the Scriptures,
and in nothing else. He translated them, he applied them
to every sphere. They were to him, in his days and his
nights the only rule of faith and life. They were sufficient ;
and he cut off every human and civilizing source of power.
To him the wisdom of the ancients, the classics, the philoso
phy of Aristotle, the logic of the scholastics, the councils
and decisions of the Church, the ambitions in ecclesiastical
politics, the teachings of other great scholars of his age, the
adjustments of scholarship to the times — these were almost
absolutely nothing. But the saving doctrine of Scripture in
Christ, which ever came promptly to the surface in bold
confession, — it, to him, was everything.
This explains Luther's low estimate of the mere external
confessional statement, elaborated in complete and cautious
phrase. To him, the doctrinal reality itself was more than
the phrase. And he had little appreciation for that outer
adjustment in the forms of language and in the terms of
mutual avowal, which did not spring up spontaneously
from the inner doctrinal reality. Therefore, also, he had
little patience — though he often showed much patience —
with any program of external mediation and conciliation.
The inner spirit of the Word, Avhich crystallized into clear
and definite doctrine, was everything. For him no exter
nally elaborated Confessions of the Church were sufficient.
The Scripture itself was the rule — not in the sense in which
modern theologians who dislike confessionalism, appeal from
the Confessions to the Scriptures. With these it is often
the desire to get rid of doctrine, and of its definite and em
phatic confession. To him, Confessions were insufficient,
because no Confession was sufficiently full of doctrine, nor
could be made to exjwess the sharp and clear distinctiveness
of the doctrine, and the complete sum of doctrine with suffi
cient fulness. Confessions to him are inadequate, not be
cause they go too far, but because they cannot and do not
go far enough : — ¦

LUTHER THE CONFESSOR. 165
"There is no Council or Father," he says, "in whom we
can find or from which we can learn the entire Christian
doctrine. ;That of Nice treats only of the fact that Christ
is true God; that of Constantinople, that the Holy Ghost is
God; that of Ephesus, that Christ is not two persons, but
one; that of Chalcedon, that Christ has not one, but two na
tures. These are the four chief councils, and yet they have
only these four doctrines. Nevertheless, this is not the
Christian Faith. . . .In short, put all the Councils and all
the Fathers together, and even then you cannot derive from
them the entire doctrine of the Christian Faith. If the
Holy Scriptures were not retained, the Church would not long
abide by the Councils or the Fathers."1
But Luther does not allow sufficiently for God's gradual
unfolding of His plan in history, through which each age is
allotted some portion of the problem to conquer and some
sheaf of the fruit to reap. The "doctrine of the Church
does • not," says Plittj "in its entire extent, originate all
at once. The Church is immediately' certain of her salva
tion, which is decided in the person of Jesus Christ, her
living Head. But Jesus Christ is an historical person, the
goal of a series of facts of salvation tending towards Him
self, and the beginning of another series arising within Him
self. It is this rich diversity included in that living unity
which should become the subject of the Church's knowl
edge, and which she should clothe in expressions designating
its true nature.
"The knowledge of these manifold facts is only very grad
ually attained. No so-called accident, but inner necessity,
determines the succession in which the treatment of the
separate parts has been undertaken by the Church. Neither
has the Church been impelled and led by any inner arbitrari
ness or the natural desire for knowledge. On the contrary,
she has waited, until through her history, which is guided

'¦Erlangen, 25. 261.

166 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
by God, a definite call has reached her; she has constantly
fulfilled the task which God Himself points out to her,
through her development, which is controlled by His Spirit."'
Though Luther was the Living Confession of the Faith,
Luther himself, who was more powerful in promulgating
and determining, if not in actually defining and fixing the
nature of the Faith, than even the Augsburg Confession
itself (which was not formative, but a statement ex eventu) ;
and who declared the insufficiency of all the oecumenical
Confessions, because of their incompleteness — this Living
Confession could not forever remain in the Church. With
his personal removal, the Church would lose its Living Con
fession; and would be obliged to fall back and lean upon
leaders who were unlike him in spirit and in his simple
dependency on Scripture, but who drew strength also from
humanistic sources and from the written statements which,
like those in every great age of the Church, are left for the
guidance of the future. Would the Church be able to con
fess, after its Living Coufession was gone ?
The strength of a Living Witness is also always his weak
ness. Life is growth. It implies development. Develop
ment cannot take place without change, and change intro
duces uncertainty. But the necessities of a Confession re
quire that it state the doctrine in such a way that changes
will not affect it. Otherwise its usefulness as a foundation
and an anchor for the Church are gone. If the Confession
be always changing, as is the individual mind, or as is his
tory itself, it is of little service. At best, it is but an inter
mediary between the Scripture and the Church, fixing for
the Church, amid the shifting waves and sands of time, a
clear sight of the Scripture. If it itself be no better than
the moving waves around it, its one regulative and health
ful function largely disappears.
Therefore the utterances of Luther, since his experience

'i

2 Trans, in Jacobs, Book cf Concord, II, pp. 312, 313.

LUTHER THE CONFESSOR. 167
of Scripture was constantly changing and developing, are
not of final confessional value, except where they have been
confirmed by the judgment of the Church, as in the case of
the Catechisms and the Schmalkald Articles. Luther writes
from the very centre of the Scripture, but throws the force of
the doctrine into the temper of a single situation and into the
time of a single moment. He speaks without qualification,
and his growth, like that of every other great student, is a
record of change, and at times, of inconsistency. Yet, with
all this change, he so powerfully and closely reflected Scrip
ture that he was practically recognized as the personal con
fessional centre of the Church until his death.

CHAPTER XV.
THE LUTHERAN CONFESSION.
THE ORIGIN OF THE AUGSBURG CONFESSION.
KOLDE'S INTRODUCTION.
The Emperor — The Torgau Articles — The Elector at Coburg — The Beginnings of
the Confession — What Luther said on May 11th — The Saxon Draft — The Other
Estates Admitted — Melanchthon's Negotiation — Delivery of the Confession —
Luther and the Confession.
THE Diet of Spires, in the Spring of 1529, the attempt of
the Roman party to overthrow the Evangelical side by a
majority vote, and the Evangelical protest against this pro
cedure, constituted an important landmark in the history
of the Evangelical Church as it sprang into being. A closer
union was more than ever imperative. The consciousness of
the magnitude of the threatening danger led even in Spires
to the attempt to bridge over the internal differences in the
sacramentarian question, and to pave the way to a protective
federation of the leading Evangelical estates. Of necessity
this care had to increase, when, notwithstanding the Marburg
Colloquium in the first days of October and the divers diplo
matic negotiations between the Evangelical estates, neither
the. one nor the other was attained, and the rumor gained
currency as early as the Fall of 1529, that the Emperor
would come to Germany to hold a diet in person.
And Charles V. was really on the way to Germany!
Without the presence of the German princes he had himself
crowned as emperor in Bologna, February 24th, 1530, by
Pope Clement VII. The information received concerning
168

ORIGIN OF THE AUGUSTANA. 169
the relations between the two supreme powers gave little rea
son to expect any good for the Evangelical cause. Indeed,
not a few among the opponents looked forward to the Em
peror's coming with rejoicing, and hailed him as the longed-
for deliverer and "avenger."1
But the official document in which the Emperor from Bo
logna on January 21st gave invitations to another diet that
was to convene April 8th in Augsburg, had an unexpectedly
peaceful setting. Besides the repulsing of the Turkish peril,
the principal reason was stated thus :¦ — " How the error and
schism in the holy faith and the Christian religion might be
discussed and settled." The Emperor promised and ad
monished "to allay controversy, to abandon dislikes, to com
mit to the Saviour all error, and to use all diligence in hear
ing, understanding and weighing the opinion, thought and
belief of every one in love and clemency, bring all to one
harmonious Christian truth, and to settle all things which
are not right on either side, when thus presented and dis
cussed, and dispose of them."3
It is true, not all dared to believe in the peaceful inten
tions of the Emperor. Landgrave Philip of HeSsen, had
small inclination to attend the Diet, and still less did the
south German cities trust the matter. Nuremberg, cer
tainly, which always strove to maintain friendly relations
to the Emperor, hoped for the best, and so did Elector John
of Saxony, at whose court in Torgau the document had been
received on March 11th. His counsellors advised him to at
tend the Diet in person, for the sake of being invested with
the electorate, and because the matter of religion was to be
discussed, and, therefore, this Diet would take the place of
a council or national council. His chancellor, Dr. Gre-
gorius Briick (Pontanus), recommended, since, according
to the summons, "the opinion and thought of every one was
1 Cf. The Dithyrambus of the Dom. Joh. Dietenberger in Wedewer, Joh.
Dietenberger, Freiburg, 1888, p. 120 sq., and Luther in Eiders, Luthers
Briefwechsel, VII, 216.
"Forstemann, Urkundenbuch, I, 7 so..

170 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
to be heard," "that such opinion upon which our side has
heretofore stood and insisted, be projjerly drawn up in a doc
ument with thorough proof from the divine Scriptures, so
that it may be presented to the estates in writings in case
the estates would not be permitted to let the preachers pre
sent these matters in the discussions."3
Thereupon, on March 14th, a call was sent to Luther, Jus
tus Jonas, John Bugenhagen and Melanchthon, since the Diet
might take the place of a council or national assembly, to
take prompt counsel on all articles " concerning which there
is a reported dissension, both in doctrine and in external
ecclesiastical usages and ceremonies," and to render a per
sonal report on the same by March 20th. But, although the
matter was hurried as much as possible, and Luther in the
night of the same 14th of March, recalled Jonas, who was
absent on visitations, it required a second call, on March
21st,' and the result of the Wittenberg discussions was prob
ably not presented to the Elector in Torgau until March 27th."
Among the many extant writings and opinions of the
Wittenberg theologians of that time, which directly or indi
rectly refer to what was to be treated at the approaching
Diet, there is none entitled " Torgau Articles," or " Opin
ion presented at Torgau," but all indications point to the
fact that we must look for the much-sought " Torgau Arti
cles" in an opinion composed by Melanchthon, which the
Elector took to Augsburg as an important document, and
which plainly forms the basis of the second part of the
Augsburg Confession.'

'Forstemann, Urkundenbuch, II, 39 sq.
« E n d e r s VII, 253. C R. II, 33.
8 At least we know from Melanchthon's letters to Myconius, C. R. II, 33,
that the former was in Torgau on Mch. 27th, while Luther's presence, since
he knows only by hearsay of the errors of John Companus, concerning which
the discussion was then waged ( Bnders VII, 288 sq.), is very unlikely.
' While Bd. Bngelhardt, Die innere Genesis u. d. Zusammenhang der
Marburger, Schwabacher u. Torgauer Artikel. sowie der Augsburg. Conf. in
Ztschr. fur histor. Theol. 1865, pp. 515-629, was on the right road, T h .
Brieger in " Kirchengesch. Studien" (Leipzig, 1888), p. 269 sqq., where
the former discoveries are appreciated, has made it highly probable that the

ORIGIN OF THE AUGUSTANA. 171
The fact that, contrary to the Elector's demands to report
on doctrine and ceremonies, it treats only of the latter, is
explained by the introductory statements, according to which,
as the opponents themselves admitted, the doctrine preached
in the electoral territory "was Christian and comforting,
and right in itself," and the "controversy had arisen princi
pally on account of several abuses that had arisen through
human doctrine and teaching." Hence it was confined to
presenting the reasons for abolishing those abuses, but at
the close it was stated in case "it is desired to know what
else my most clement lord has preached, articles may be
presented in which the whole Christian doctrine is prop
erly arranged, so that it may be seen that my most clement
lord has suffered no heretical doctrine; but has had the holy
gospel of our Lord Christ preached in its utmost purity."
At the same time a further recasting of this opinion, which
was originally intended only for the Elector for official
copy in Augsburg, and quickly jotted down, was planned
from the outset, for after the first paragraph we find the
remark : " In hanc sententiam prodest proponere praef acio-
nem longam ac rhetoricam."
On April 3rd Luther, Melanchthon and Jonas left Witten
berg, for, as it was stated in the first call on March 14th, they
were to accompany the Elector at least as far as Coburg,
where they should learn "what should be done at the Diet
at Augsburg concerning the presentation of every one's opin
ion and thought," and whether the preachers were to be
admitted.' On the way George Spalatin, from Altenburg,
John Agricola, from Eisleben, and Kaspar Aquila, from
Saalfeld, joined the retinue of the Elector. On April 15th,
Good Friday, they reached the boundary of the electoral ter-

essay published by Forstemann, I, 68-84, is the document which
(according to Forstemann, I, 138) was taken to Augsburg under the title :
" Der gelerten zu Wittemberg bedenken," etc., and must be regarded as the
sought-for " Torgau Articles." Under this caption, with the articles numbered,
see Th. Kolde, D. Augsburgische Konfess. p. 128 sqq.
'Forstemann, I, 44.

172 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
ritory in Coburg, and the Elector determined to remain
here until after the Easter holidays, awaiting further tidings
concerning the coming of the Emperor. Since the original
plan, so much desired abroad, to take Luther along to Augs
burg,8 had to be abandoned on account of the imperial ban
resting on him, the Elector desired to leave the Reformer
in Nuremberg during the Diet, so as to have him at least
in a safe place and as near as possible. But the negotiations
in regard to this matter failed, since the Nuremberg Coun
cil, in its timidity and its anxious care to retain the favor
of the Emperor, would not even venture to assure Luther
of a free passage.9 Hence, on April 23rd, he was brought to
the fortress of Coburg, while the Elector journeyed onward
with his retinue, and reached Augsburg on May 2nd.
While still in Coburg, Melanchthon had begun to put in
good style the Torgau Articles, the "Apology " to be pre
sented at the Diet, and to write an introduction" to the
same, all with the idea that nothing more would need to be
done than to defend the abolition of the Roman abuses. But
he had hardly arrived in Augsburg when he became con
vinced that he could not thus limit himself. Before they
had received the summons to the Diet, and on the mere in
formation that the Emperor would have the religious con
troversy discussed at a diet, the Bavarian dukes, in a call
dated February 10th, had bidden the theological faculty at
Ingolstadt to arrange in an extract all articles that had
been preached by Luther for the last twelve years, and to
show their discrepancy with the true Christian faith, to
gether with the way in which they could most successfully be

8 Briick in Forstemann, Archiv., p. 17 : " Several parties who were
interested in the matter solicited the Elector of Saxony to have his electoral
highness bring Dr. Luther along to Augsb. on account of the great importance
of the matter, as the one whom God had given understanding before all
others," etc.
9 Concerning the transactions with reference to Luther's stay in Nuremberg,
cf. T h . Kolde, Beitrage zur Ref. Gesch. in " Kirchengesch. Studien,"
dedicated to Reuter, Leipzig, 1888, p. 251 sqq.
10 Melanchthon to Luther, May 4th, C. R. II, 39 : — " I made the introduction
of our apology somewhat more rhetorical, quam Ooburgi scripseram.

ORIGIN OF THE AUGUSTANA. 173
refuted, so that the dukes might have this document to hand
in case of need."
This must have been the external occasion for John Eck
of Ingolstadt, to issue a writing dedicated to the Emperor,
in which he collected -104 articles of "those who disturb the
peace of the Church." In these he first repeats the theses
of Luther condemned in the papal bull, also Eck's theses
for the disputations at Leipzig, Baden and Bern, and then
passages from the writings of Luther, Melanchthon, Zwingli
and Carlstadt, wrenched from their context and placed under
certain rubrics and put in line with statements of Anabap
tists, such as John Denk, Hubmeyer and others. At the
same time the author offered to prove in open disputation
before the Emperor and the Diet that the theses quoted were
unchristian.12 Now, there could be no doubt that the writing of defence
must also contain articles of doctrine, and for this reason,
and because the Emperor would have no time to listen to
long dissertations, Melanchthon determined to incorporate
articles of doctrine, and thus to give the whole more of the
character of a confession.™ Thus the apology became a con
fession of faith, and at least externally the defence of the
abolition of abuses was moved to the second place.
The " Marburg Articles " agreed to on October 4th, 1529,
at the close of the colloquium, and the articles afterward
called "Schwabach Articles,"" which were mainly com
posed by Luther, and which were intended for a common

11 V. A. Winter, Gesch. d. Schicksale d. ev. Lehre in und durch Bayern
bewirkt, Munich, 1809, I, 269.
12 Sub dom. Jhesu et Mariae patrocinio. Articulos 404. partim ad disputa-
tiones, Lips., Bad., et Bern, attinentes, etc. Ingolstadii impressum, 1530.
quarto. 33 Melanchthon to Luther, May 11th; "I send you our apology, which is
more properly a confession. The Emperor does not care to listen to pro
longed discussions, but still I said what I thought would either profit most
or be most becoming. With this purpose in mind I composed nearly all the
articles of faith. As Eck composed the most diabolical slanders against us I
wished to oppose a remedy to them." — C R. II, 45.
14 The Marburg and Schwabach Articles in T h . Kolde, D. Augs. Konf.,
p. 119 sq. and 123 sq. Cf. in the same. Der Tag von Schleiz u. d. Entstehung
d. Schwab. Art. in Beitrage zur Ref. Gesch. Gotha, 1896, p. 94, sqq.
15

174 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
basis of faith for the political federation of the evangelical
estates, but which on account of their specifically Wittenberg
coloring were not adopted by the Highland theologians at
the Schwabach convention on October 16th, 1529, could do
service as a pattern for the doctrinal articles. But one can
not fail to observe that the reference to Eck's articles has
also partially determined the selection of the material, and
we may conclude from the apparently surprising rejection of
heresies of the early and mediaeval church that Melanchthon
knew how much Eck, in an irritating letter to the Emperor
on March 14th, and in the manuscript copy of his pamphlet
intended for the latter, had heightened his attack by placing
evangelical theses on a par with former heretical positions.'
The Exordium written at Coburg was now recast, and, as
Melanchthon reported to Luther, "set more rhetorically."
In a few days the work had progressed so far that as early
as May 11th the Elector was able to send it to Luther with
the wish to have him look it over, and if he desired "to add
to it or omit from it," to make a marginal note of the fact.
And Luther returned it on May 15th and wrote to the Elector :
"I have read M. Philipp's Apologia : I like it very well, in
deed, and do not know how I could improve or alter it, and
it would not be proper to do so, for I myself cannot tread so
gently and softly. May Christ our Lord help that it may bear
much and great fruit, as I hope and pray. Amen."" In
spite of his ironical allusion to Melanchthon's well-known
endeavor to give no offence anywhere, he must have intended
to express his full assent to the document; but this does not
exclude the possibility of his having made some marginal
notes." There cannot have been many, of course, since

13 Cf. G. L. Plitt, Einleit. in d. Augustana, I, 527, sqq.
16 Melanchthon to Luther, C. R. II, 391. The Elector to Luther E n d e r s
VII, 328. Luther's answer, D e W e 1 1 e , IV, 17.
17 This would be certain if the "Concepta ermelter Confession durch Dr.
Martin Luther und Philippunv Melanchthon seligen gedechtnus mit eigen han-
den corrigirt u. dareingeschrieben," which were claimed to exist in Dresden in
1577 were the same as the concept sent to Luther (Cf. Kolde Zeitschr. fur
K. G. IV, 624 sq.). According toJoh.Marbach, Christtl. u. wahrhaftiger

ORIGIN OF THE AUGUSTANA. 175
Melanchthon complains that Luther had not thoroughly ex
amined the articles."
But what was it that Luther saw at the time? The oft-
repeated view that the Confession sent him contained only the
first 17 articles, the doctrinal ones,1' is erroneous, for the
Elector sends the articles, put into a statement by Luther and
the other theologians at Wittenberg, "that are in controversy
in religion," and which Melanchthon has " revised and form
ally expressed," i. e., the whole, and probably in German
and in Latin,2"; — as far as it was then formulated. How much
that was, can be only partly determined, since the manuscript
sent Luther, or a copy of it, has not been preserved. It
surely contained Melanchthon's Introduction, for the author
of it considered it so important that he would have liked to
present it to Luther in person." Of the doctrinal articles,
Art. 20 (Of Faith and Good Works) was entirely lacking,
and so was Art. 21 (Of Invocation of the Saints) ; but it is
still more important to know that Luther saw hardly one
article in the form in which the Confession was afterward
presented. For before the articles had come back from Luther
Melanchthon had continued to work on them, as he writes to
Luther on May 22nd ; nay more, he found something to alter
every day. We learn at the same time, that he replaced Art.

Unterrlcht, etc., Strassburg (1565), p. 149, Luther is said to have added to the
10th article the words " et improbant secus docentes." This cannot be proven ;
but is slightly supported by a remark of Melanchthon on the signature of
the Landgrave : " He subscribed the Confession for us in which Is also the
article concerning the Lord's Supper, near Luther's sentence." — C. R. II, 142.
As Melanchthon at that time was as strenuously opposed to the Zwinglians as
Luther, the remark is at least striking.
u r> j wjsn you had read through the articles of faith, and if you thought
there is no mistake in them, we shall treat of the rest at some time." To
Luther on May 22nd, C R. II, 60, K n a a k e ' s assertion that then these
articles had not come back, is erroneous, since Melanchthon's letter is the
reply to Luther's of May 15th (E n d e r s VII, 334), and reached Augsburg
on the same day as that of the Elector. Only so much is conceivable, that
Melanchthon had not yet examined the articles as they came back from
Luther since the messenger arrived between writings.
" K n a a k e 75. Enders VII, 331:
20 T h . Kolde, Die alteste Redaktion, p. 73 sq.
" " I shall briug the Introduction in a short time, or, if the Prince does not
permit it, will send it." To Luther, May 4th, C. R. II, 39 sq.

176 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
27 (Of- Vows), which seemed too scant, by a fuller one, and
was busy also working over the 28th article. This article,
which then treated De Potestate Clavium, and also of the
Power of the Pope, is preserved to us in the original form in
which Luther saw it f but through the influence of Chancel
lor Briick, who, as the Nuremberg delegates report, took a
vivid interest in the alterations/4 it received an essentially
different form. It turned into an article De Potestate Eccle-
siastica. There was nothing more said of the power of the
Pope,25 and it was no longer found necessary "to submissively
please his imperial majesty, and for certain reasons to praise
the papacy," 2" for — and Melanchthon expressed this princi
ple quite harmlessly to Luther — the articles ought to be
adapted to circumstances (or the prevailing condition), and
the Saxon counsellors desired to have the document "formu
lated in such a way that there was no getting out of hearing
the argument." "
As soon as they had arrived in Augsburg, they had
learned that they had overestimated the Emperor's peaceful
intentions, which were seemingly guaranteed by the summons
to the Diet, and that the papal legate, Lorenzo Campeggi,
George of Saxony, and other princes of Roman propensities,
who had journeyed to meet the Emperor at Innsbruck, had
made their influence felt against the Protestants. In order
to weaken the influence of the Eckian calumnies, and to
testify to his own orthodoxy and his opposition to the "Sac-
ramentarians," the Elector had under the utmost secrecy in
the first days of his stay in Augsburg sent a poor transla-

22 We change much of the Apology daily, etc., C. R. II, 60. Cf. p. 71.
23 Forstemann I, 87 sqq.
24 On May 24th the Nuremberg delegates write (C. R. II, 62) : " The Saxon
Counsel has been returned by Dr. Luther ; but Dr. Briick, the old chancellor,
has to recast it from beginning to end."
25 T h . Kolde, Alteste Redaktion, p. 63 sq.
26 Thus the Strassburg delegates reported 1537 from the Diet of Schmalkald.
T h . Kolde, Analecta Lutherana. Gotha. 1883, p. 297.
21 C R. II, 71.

ORIGIN OF THE AUGUSTANA. 177
tion of the Schwabach articles to the Emperor.28 But he
had small success with it, for Charles V. demanded that
Evangelical preaching be prohibited in Augsburg.
Under these Conditions the oldest draft of the Confession
(so far known to us) was produced. It was received by the
Nuremberg delegates May 31st, and, after they had also re
ceived the preface or introduction, was sent home by them
on June 3rd, with the remark: "It still lacks an article or
two at the end, besides the resolution still being worked upon
by the Saxon theologians." The text in question was in
Latin, but is known to us only through a German version
prepared for the Nuremberg Council by Jerome Baumgart-'
ner. At any rate, we learn from it how far the Confession
had progressed in scope and contents by the end of May.2*
Following Melanchthon's Introduction, which was sup
posed to have been lost, and of which special mention will be
made, comes the Confession itself, with its two chief divi
sions: "the articles of faith" and the "disputed articles."
Hence the main outline and the subjects treated are (aside
from the fact that the articles on "faith and good works"
and on the "invocation of saints" are still wanting) the
same as every one knows them from the completed confes
sion. But in the framing of the separate parts there is at
times quite a considerable difference, and the arrangement
of the separate articles of faith then extant is altogether
different. Following the first article of God, the second of original
sin, the third of the Son of God, who justifies and sanctifies
through the Holy Ghost, comes a fourth, corresponding to the
later fifth article (the office of teaching the Gospel), on ob
taining the Holy Ghost through the Word and the Sacra
ments. The article on Justification does not come until the

aTh. Brieger, in Kirchengesch. Studien, p. 392. C. Stange,
Kurf. Johanns Glaubensbekenntniss vom Mai 1530. Theol. Stud. u. Kritiken.
1903, p. 459 sqq. Ehses, Rom. Quartalschrift. XVII (1903), p. 385.
" K o 1 d e , Alteste Redaktion, p. 4, sqq.

( 1

178 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
fifth place, and, in comparison with the later form in a
frame somewhat less dogmatical in which the doctrine of
the imputatio (Hanc fidem imputat Deus pro justitia
coram Deo) is not yet clearly expressed. In article 6 at
that time more stress was laid on the "through grace," later
more on the "faith." The later articles 7 and 8, which
stand in essentially the same form, are there still put to
gether in one article, and clearly show that Melanchthon's
endeavor was to treat not of the Church, but of the " unity
of the Church."" The article on baptism was then an article
on the necessity of infant baptism, while the one on the
Lord's Supper had its present form. The later article
11, de confessione, was intended to treat of private abso
lution. This was followed with slight variations and changes
of order by the articles on repentance and the use of the
sacraments, and then (in an order which was changed soon
after) the 13th article of human ordinances, of the ordo
ecclesiasticus (evidently omitted from the manuscript) and
(15) of civil affairs. The following, 16th, which was later
changed to the 17th, "of the second coming of Christ," origi
nally treated in by no means biblical fashion of the resurrec
tion of the dead ("that all deceased persons shall be awakened
with that same body of theirs in which they had died"),
turned against the doctrine of the "followers of Origen and
the Anabaptists" of the ultimate redemption of the damned
and the devils, and rejects, besides Chiliasm, specially those
who, ("in Jewish manner teach that the promise of the pos
session of the Promised Land is to be considered in a cor
poreal sense")." This is followed by the articles on the
Freedom of the Will and the Summary, with their wording
only slightly different from the final form.
The second part is opened in somewhat different form
and with a renewed emphasis on the assertion that no article
of faith has been departed from, by the same thoughts that
"Th. Kolde, D. Augsb. Konfession, p. 32.
"Th. Kolde, D. alteste Redaktion, p. 54 sq.

ORIGIN OF THE AUGUSTANA. 179
Melanchthon in the last revision placed partly in the Sum
mary. The material differences in the " disjmted articles "
are not so great in comparison with the later form (even
the Nuremberg text shows the previously mentioned recast
ing of the (28th) article on "The Power of the Keys" to
the "Power of the Church"), but they are more numerous, a
thing into which we need not enter here.32 It is characteris
tic, that Melanchthon has the greatest trust in the Emperor
even yet, and yields to the temptation in the article on the
Marriage of Priests " to address an apostrophe to him. An
other characteristic thing is the great severity against the
Sacramentarians. Thus we read at the close of the then very
short article on the Mass, which, however, contained a very
caustic objection to Masses for the Dead, which was after
ward suppressed, the following remark: "In this connec
tion we also condemn the unchristian teaching which denies
that the body and blood of Christ are truly present." "
But this earliest redaction only assumes full significance
in connection with Melanchthon's Introduction. If Eck's
attacks had moved him to convert the "Apology" into a con
fession, he all the more readily seized upon the opportunity
to give the detailed Introduction, which must be considered
an integral part of the whole Saxon Counsel, the character of
a defense of his Elector.
Next to God, the latter places his full trust in the ever
manifest goodness and grace of the Emperor, who had ever
sought only the peace of Europe, and had shown nothing
but clemency in the religious controversies, so that he is un
justly accused of cruelty, and had even now declared his
readiness to inquire into the matter. And, as can be learned
from Ps. 2 : 10, there is nothing more well pleasing to God
than if the Emperor would use all his power toward a unifi-

»Th, Kolde, D. alteste Redaktion, p. 57
"lb., p. 18.
84 lb., pp. 19 and 59.
» lb., p. 20.

180 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
cation of Christendom, just as formerly Theodoric, Charle
magne and Henry II., to whom Charles V. is in no wise
inferior in virtues and piety, and whom he far surpasses in
power and glory.
Before, then, discussing the doctrine preached in the elec
torate, it must be shown that the Elector did not foster this
new doctrine from malign purpose. He and his brother
Frederick have through all their lives been inclined to the
Christian religion and faith, and have built and adorned
churches and institutions partly at their own expense. They
have always preserved allegiance to the Roman emperors, and
in all affairs of the empire have rendered considerable help
in money and armature. They have never entered into
treaties with foreign nations or the enemies of the Empire,
nor given any occasion for discord, but rather have shown
patience in the interest of peace, and more than once "by
their diligence and pains have brought others who were al-
waj's armed, to peace and quiet." No one could believe that
the Elector, without great reason, would have gotten himself
and his family into such great danger; but the matter had
proceeded from the many pious souls, who were hindered
by the many human ordinances and the daily increasing
abuses, and the fact that nothing more was said about repent
ance and the free grace offered, not for the sake of our own
merit, but the faith in Christ.
Then it is told how the preaching of indulgences had
induced Luther to contradict "scholastically" and not before
the people, and without abusing the papacy, in "several
pamphlets;" but that his opponents, whom he was obliged
to answer, had created a great controversy. Since then
many had found great delight in his salutary and comforting
doctrine of repentance, it would have been contrary to con
science to do anything against the adherents of this doctrine,
inasmuch as if the learned preachers had been removed, the
perversion of doctrine would have become much worse. For
even before Luther had written anything, obnoxious and er-

ORIGIN OF THE AUGUSTANA, 181
roneous doctrine had originated, and would have caused dan
gerous innovation and revolt, had not Luther interposed.
Thus many heresies against the holy sacrament had been
suppressed; also the doctrine of the Anabaptists ("which
had started before Luther") against possession of temporal
property, judgment and power of the authorities, and against
all civil order, would have spread much further had not the
hearts of men been strengthened by evangelical teaching.
But the matter had been made obnoxious by the common
rumor that the evangelical people had done away with all
ceremonies and had overthrown all spiritual order. But it
could be truthfully said that in all Germany the mass (dur
ing which, beside the Latin singing, there were also German
hymns) was observed according to the usual custom, with
no greater fear of God than in the Electorate of Saxony.
And in order to prove the unfoundedness of assertions to the
contrary, Melanchthon seeks to draw a picture of the eccle
siastical order in Saxony. He points to the frequent partici
pation in the Lord's Supper by the people, the retention of
confession, the praise of the power of the Keys in preaching,
the maintenance of schools, etc., and above all to the very
useful observance once diligently maintained and then
'dropped through laziness of pastors and people, and by
which an effort was now made in Saxony to lead the chil
dren to a Christian understanding of faith and doctrine,
namely, the Catechism and Christian instruction.
Hence the order of the Church was "for the most part in
accordance with ancient custom and usage of the Roman
Church according to the instruction of the holy teachers."
And if the Bishops who persecuted the Evangelical people
on account of the marriage of priests, etc., were a little in
clined to suffer such matters no one would have any occa
sion to lament that the order of the Church is broken. They
maintained without reason that the Evangelical people aimed
at suppressing spiritual power. If the bishops gave up a few
improper and oppressive innovations, they would suffer no

182 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
loss of power and glory, and would not need to worry about
their possessions, "although some others before our time re
peatedly undertook under the semblance of a reformation to
deprive the clerics of their possessions." The poverty of the
bishops in itself was of no advantage to the Church. The
advantage lay in their preaching the gospel purely and with
out error. "Thus we teach," says the close, "to consider aU
civil commands and orders under secular and spiritual power
as an order of God, for the sake of peace and unity. There has
never been a reformation undertaken so utterly without vio
lence as this one, as it is manifest that others have been
brought to peace through ours, though they were already in
arms." Hence the Saxon Counsel, which nowhere paid attention to
the general condition of Evangelical believers, and never
said a word about the question of a council, was a private
confession in the full sense of the word. What the Elector
and his theologians strive for, is to put into the most favor
able light the ecclesiastical conditions in their own coun
try (though it be at the expense of others) and their own
loyalty, and also, above all things, to maintain peace in their
own land. We must, of course, remember that Melanchthon
and all the Wittenbergians were from the beginning opposed
to the efforts for confederation.
But the Emperor, according to the official invitation, desired
to hear the opinion of everybody and other estates had also
made preparations to this effect, notably Strasburg, Reutlin-
gen, Ulm, Constance, Heilbronn.30 On the mere tidings of
the impending Diet, Margrave George, of Brandenburg, had
as early as 1530 demanded of his principal pastors to deliver
an opinion in " untwisted " Avords on the true doctrine and

"Strassburg: Th. Keim, Schwab. Ref. Gesch. Tubingen 1855, p.
149. — H eutlingen: Gayler, Hist. Denkwiirdigkeiten der ehem. freien
Reichsstadt Reutlingen. Reutlingen, 1840, p. 350 sq. — U 1 m : G . B n g e 1-
h a a f , Deutsche Geschichte im 16. Jahrh. Vol. II. Leipzig, 1892, p. 142 sq.,
und Th. Kolde, Alteste Redak., p. 183. — C onstance: JohnFicker,
Das Konst. Bekennt. fiir d. Reichstag zu Augsb., 1530 (Theo. Abhandl. fur H.
J. Holtzmann) Tubingen, 1902. — Heilbronn: Duncker, Analekten zur
Ref. Gesch. Heilbronns ZKG. XXV, p. 311 sqq.

ORIGIN OF THE AUGUSTANA. 183
the justification for abolishing abuses. But we do not learn
that any attempt was made upon the basis of the individual
opinions received to elaborate a confession in the name of
the princes ; on the contrary, the Margrave intended from the
start to confer with Nuremberg, Saxony, and those who were
in harmony with him concerning the sacrament. This prob
ably from the beginning was the standpoint of Nuremberg,
for, although an opinion had been there elaborated, the
Nuremberg delegates to the Diet, Christopher v. Kress and
Clement Volkamer, had received orders to remain in
close touch with the Saxons.3' The Landgrave of Hessen,
who was utterly opposed to having the question of religion
decided at the Diet, does not seem to have prepared any con
fession. Nevertheless, he was probably the first, who per
haps unofficially in conversation with the Saxon theologians
had uttered the desire to unite with the Saxon Confession.
The same was done perhaps soon after the arrival of the
Margrave, on May 29th, by the Ansbach councillors and the
delegates of Reutlingen and Nuremberg.38
But the old Elector was hard to deal with. He did not
care for a confederation. He wished to maintain his isola
tion, and above all things would brook no interference. To
the Nuremberg delegates he sent word through the Chancellor
Briick : " His electoral Grace did not like many councillors
in such an affair, for the devil," these were his words, "was
fond of too much counsel." " But finally they at least on their
request obtained the copy previously mentioned. But the ne
gotiations did not advance. As late as June 8th the Branden
burg Chancellor Vogler and Kress complain that the Confes
sion was made only in the name of the Elector, for, as
Melanchthon had done in the name of the Elector, "the in
troduction might separately specify where it could not be done

31 T h . Kolde, Andreas Althamer, Erlangen, 1895, pp. 45, 65. C.
Schornbaum, Zur Politik des Markgrafen Georg von Brandenburg,
Miinchen, 1906, pp. 118 sq. and 426 sqq.
"Th. Kolde, Alteste Redaktion. p. 40 sq.
"C. R., II, 53.

184 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
in common, what every one had done for II. I. M." It is in
this sense that the Nurembergians and the Margrave desired
to have Melanchthon's Introduction altered. The Landgrave's
views were different. As appears from his correspondence "
carried on with Melanchthon, May llth-13th, he believed that
a prerequisite for a confederation was fraternalism (with the
Highland theologians) and the invitation to a council, i. e.,
he persisted in the early demands of the Evangelical party,
and declined to leave tbe decision with the Emperor and the
Diet as Melanchthon and the Elector desired to do.
In the meantime Melanchthon had continued to work on
the Confession. This is borne out by the German text," pre
served in Spalatin's hand, and which has been produced grad
ually. This for the greater part must be assigned to the
first half of June, and approaches the one finally adopted,
and in its alterations here and there plainly shows the in
fluence of the negotiations with the Landgrave.43
By June 15th the Saxon court had determined upon the
principle of admitting other estates to the confession ; for the
German text, which on this day was sent to Nuremberg, and
in which appears for the first time the twentieth article "On
Faith and Good Works," which was not yet completed in the
Latin, contained at the place where the Latin said that in the
Electorate of Saxony this or that was preached, "a common
word which can be applied to all estates ;" but neither the Nu
rembergians nor the Margrave had received a definite answer
up to this time." The decision followed soon after.

'" C. R., II, 88 sq. 41 76., 92 sqq.
42 Forstemann, Urkundenbuch I, 310, and Kolde, Alteste Red. p. 71.
43 Thus the very caustic passage against the Sacramentarians (Alteste Red.
p. 20 etc.) is omitted and replaced by a milder but not final form. On the
other hand, Melanchthon still puts his greatest trust in the Emperor, and in
the article on the marriage of priests praises him as a special lover of chastity
(Forstemann p. 329 sq. ).
" C. R. II, p. 105. (In Spalatin's copy the article on " Faith and Good
Works " is Inserted later.) The article on the " Invocation of Saints " was
still wanting. This non-extant Nuremberg German text must have had the
same form of the "Articles of Faith " as the so-called I Ansbach Manuscript in
Forstemann, Urkundenbuch I, 341 sq. (And the I Hannoveriari. Cf.
Tschaekert in Archiv f. Ref. Gesch. II, 69 sqq.) only that the Ansbacher
manuscript, which is several days older, does not yet contain the 20th article.

ORIGIN OF THE AUGUSTANA. 185
On June 15th the Emperor had entered Augsburg. He
at once demanded that the princes should take part in the
Corpus Christi procession and renewed his demand to desist
from preaching the Gospel. The magnitude of the danger in
which they found themselves, especially after the death at
Innsbruck, on June 4th, of the High Chancellor Mercurinus
Gattinara, who was considered a lover of peace, had been
the first thing to bring the evangelical princes together. The
Elector, the Margrave, Duke Ernest of Liineburg, and the
Landgrave, who had been commanded by the Emperor upon
his arrival in Augsburg to meet him in a separate apartment,
had in common maintained their evangelical standpoint in
the matter of preaching and the procession,'3 and in the opin
ion delivered on June 16th by the Brandenburg Chancellor
Vogler, who favors the plan of delivering the Articles of
Faith at once to the Emperor in order to convince him of the
orthodoxy of the Protestants, the princes, including Duke
Francis of Liineburg, already appear as a closed party.'6
The first one who was accepted as a fellow-confessor was
undoubtedly the Margrave, for from him and the Elector to
gether the Nurembergians, on June 18th, received the promise
to "receive them together with their graces in this matter." "
At the same time, although nothing direct is recorded on this
point, Duke Ernest of Liineburg, Duke Wolf of Anhalt
and the city of Reutlingen must also have been admitted,
while the negotiations with the Landgrave were not yet con
cluded. A Latin text of the Articles of Faith, which was
probably sent him during this time, and which must have
been of prime importance to him on account of his position
in reference to the Zwinglians, shows the final form with but
few variations, and contains the newly added article (prob
ably first written in Latin) on the "Invocation of the Saints.""'

« lb., 106. T h . Kolde, Martin Luther II, 342.
4e Forstemann, Urkundenbuch I, 215.
"C. R. II, 112.
48 See the French text based on the Latin Cassel, (now Marburg) manu
script in Forstemann 1, 357. Alteste Red., p. 69.

186 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
But now a memorable episode occurred. The unexpectedly
harsh conduct of the Emperor in the matter of the Corpus
Christi procession and of preaching had made an overwhelm
ing impression on the faint-hearted Melanchthon. Even
before, he had been busy to impress upon influential person
alities of the opposite party, his own love of peace, the insig
nificance of the departure from the Roman church in doc
trine and usages, and not the least the fact that he had noth
ing in common with the hated Zwinglians. Now, after the
arrival of the Emperor, in his consuming anxiety and urgent
desire to settle the matter as soon as possible, he at once
sought to get in touch with two imperial secretaries."
One of them, Cornelius Schepper, a Netherlander, who
was very reticent, only confirmed his fear that the Emperor
was determined to proceed against the Lutherans. As for
the other, Lorenzo Valdes, a Spaniard, he succeeded in con
vincing him of the thing which at the time appeared most
important to Melanchthon, that the matter was not by far
so difficult, and that the main issues were the twofold form
of the sacrament, the marriage of priests and the abolishment
of private masses. This man made a report to the Emperor,
who was long desirous of effecting harmony without an ex
tended examination and discussion, and now transmitted Me
lanchthon's presentations to Cardinal Campeggi. Since the
latter did not pronounce himself unfavorably, Melanchthon,
on June 18th, received from Valdes the Emperor's com
mand to present the controversial points in briefest and least
diffuse form, "in order to be able to consider the matter, if
possible, in all privacy and quiet." Melanchthon thereupon,
as he informed the Nuremberg delegates on June 19th, be
lieved momentarily that they would be able to desist from

"Th. Kolde. Anal. Lutherana 136, 140, C. R. II, 118 sq. 122. For the
initiative of Melanchthon and the details of the transactions and their apprecia
tion (against Brieger's contrary conception, Zur Gesch. d. Augsb.
Reichstags von 1530, Leipzig, 1903, Progr.) see Kolde, Alteste Red.,
76 sqq.

ORIGIN OF THE AUGUSTANA. 187
presenting the Confession and delayed finishing it. But be
fore he continued his negotiations, he considered it advisable
to confer with Chancellor Briick and with other theologians
concerning the matters to present to the Emperor. This was
on June 21st, on the day following the official opening of the
Diet. The result was the rejection of Melanchthon's inde
pendent negotiations, which would have given up the legal
foundation of the invitation, and a resolution was adopted
the same day now to draw into the deliberation the council
lors and theologians of the separate estates and complete a
common Confession.
Now, in connection with the transactions concerning the
final accession of the Landgrave, the matter of the Introduc
tion and the final "presentation" must have been decided.
The Landgrave himself had in the meantime reached the
conclusion that it would not be possible to effect a union with
the Swiss theologians.'" On the other hand, it had become
evident, how dangerous it would be to leave the decision to
the Emperor and the Diet as Melanchthon and the Saxons
desired, and that only the simultaneous falling back upon
the demand for a council, as Hessen emphasized, could guar
antee safe protection. Besides the original desire of the Mar
grave and the Nurembergians to see their services to the Em
peror and the country brought forward in the Introduction
as Melanchthon had done for Saxony, proved, to be impracti
cable even for formal reasons. Thus a compromise was ef
fected. Melanchthon's Introduction was completely laid
aside. In its place was put a preface edited in German by
the Chancellor Briick, and translated into Latin by Justus
Jonas.5' At the same time this preface omitted (as the

m This " fraternalism " he had given up by signing the explanation of the
Ey. princes in the preaching question, June 17th (Forstemann I, 288.
Cf. Th. Kolde, Alteste Red., p. 45).
81 That the German preface derives from Briick and was translated into Latin
by Justus Jonas, is proven by a marginal note of the latter (?) in a copy of the
first edition of the Augustana, 1531, in the Wittenberg Theol. Seminary :
" Translated from Briick's German text by Justus Jonas." Cf. FSrstemann
I, p. 460.

188 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
Landgrave, in the midst of his political relations to the
Swiss and Highlanders, could hardly do otherwise than de
mand) all the more or less open attacks of Melanchthon's
Introduction, upon the Sacramentarians and the declarations
upon the jurisdiction of the bishops, which could hardly be
harmonized with the positions assumed at the last Diet of
Spires. Referring in a businesslike way to the invitation to
a diet, the explanation is given that the Evangelical estates
hereby " deliver their opinion and judgment on account of
errors, schisms and abuses," and are ready, if the other es
tates did the same (of which Melanchthon's Introduction
made no mention), to discuss with them "in proper and legit
imate manner." And quite in accordance with the view of
the Landgrave, mention was made of the Diet transactions
of later years, and the Emperor's declaration not to permit
the Diet to legislate in matters of religion, but to demand a
council of the Pope. For this reason the Evangelical estates
" superfluously " offer to come to a free Christian council, by
renewing their former appeal to one. Thereby this offer,
the summing up of their demands and standpoints, for which
the Nurembergians had always waited, and which originally
was to have been put at the close, was put in the introduction
where it belonged.52
But we do not know exactly when the introduction was
finished, though it probably was in the final consultation on
Thursday, June 23rd. This was participated in by the Elector
of Saxony, the Landgrave of Hessen, the Margrave of Bran
denburg, the Dukes of Liineburg, the representatives of Nu
remberg and Reutlingen, as well as their counsellors and no
less than twelve theologians.53 As for the Confession, Me
lanchthon altered and filed it up to the last, and put things
more mildly, because he had learned to his anxiety that the
before-mentioned imperial secretary, Valdes, whom he had

52 See Kolde, Alteste Red., pp. 45 sq.
53 Cf. the Report of the Nuremberg delegates, C. R. II, 127 sq. where
Prince Wolfg. of Anhalt is not mentioned, nor during the presentation.

ORIGIN OF THE AUGUSTANA. 189
permitted to look at it, had found it much too caustic. It
was once more discussed and reviewed, during which process
several individual points received special consideration. Me
lanchthon desired very much to grant full jurisdiction to the
bishops, as he had done in his introduction ; but he could not
accomplish his purpose." That was probably the time when,
if not earlier, in the article on the sacrament in either kind
(22nd) the paragraph against processions with the host must
have been added. The statements against the sacramenta-
rians, as already stated, were partly omitted and partly soft
ened down. The attempt (which was probably made) in the
interest of the Highland theologians, who were willing to join
only if Article 10 were omitted, to make a change in the state
ments about the Lord's Supper, was futile. The 10th article
kept its form to the sorrow of the Landgrave. But he yielded.05
The following finally signed: Elector John, of Saxony;
Margrave Georg, of Brandenburg; Duke Ernest, of Bruns
wick-Lunenburg; Landgrave Philipp, of Hessen; Prince
Wolfgang, of Anhalt ; the representatives of the cities Nurem
berg and Reutlingen, and probably also Elector John Fred
erick and Duke Francis, of Liineburg.56
Thus the Confession was at last completed June 23rd. As
early as the 24th, after a postponement5' had in vain been
asked through the Cardinal of Mayence, for the purpose of
gaining time to produce a clean copy, it was to have been
presented in the Diet. But negotiations with the papal legate

"Mel. to Camerarius on June. 19th (?), C. R. II, 119: "I yield the whole
Jurisdiction, etc., to the bishops, etc." To the same (June 26, C. R. II, 140) :
" I changed and recast daily " etc. Jonas to Luther, June 30th ( E n d e r s
VIII, 67) : " Our Master Philipp is marching with the best disposition
cautiously and carefully. . . . And we have also had some strife about the
power and jurisdiction of the bishops, which I shall whisper about to you."
55 K o 1 d e , Alteste Red., p. 66 : The Argentinenses solicited rather often
to be received without the article of the sacrament ; but the princes were un
willing. Virck, Polit. Korresp. d. Stadt Strassburg (Strassburg, 1882), I,
458. Also Kolde, Anal. Luth., 125 and C R. II, 97 sqq.
"Kollner, Symbolik I, 201. B r ii c k , p. 28. J. T. M ii 1 1 e r, p. 585,
"Kolde, Neue Augustanastudien. Neue Kirchi. Zeitschr. XVII (1906),
p. 737 sqq.
16

190 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
and a long presentation of the representatives of Karinthia
and Krain on the Turkish danger had taken up so much time
that the Emperor and his counsellors declared it would not
be necessary to read the Confession, and desired to have it
merely presented. But the Evangelical Estates,5" who were
anxious to confess their faith publicly in view of the public
accusations of their opponents, insisted on the privilege of
reading it, which had been previously granted them, and the
eloquence of their spokesman, Chancellor Briick, finally pre
vailed, and the privilege was granted, the time for the read
ing being fixed for the next day.
Not in the council room (the "House"), where the pro
ceedings of the Diet usually took place, but in the " Palace
in the lower large apartment" (these are the words of the im
perial herald, Kaspar Sturm), i. e., in the chapter-room of
the episcopal palace, where the Emperor sojourned, was the
meeting held, on Saturday, June 25th, at 3 P. M. The two
Saxon chancellors, Dr. Greg. Briick and Dr. Chr. Beyer, one
with the Latin, the other with the German copy of the Con
fession, entered the middle space, while the Evangelical Es
tates, as many as had the courage to make an open confession
of the evangelical cause, arose from their seats. The Em
peror desired to hear the Latin copy read. But after Elector
John had reminded him that the Diet was Jield on German
soil, and expressed his hope to have the Emperor permit the
reading in German, the permission was granted.5'
Thereupon Dr. Beyer read the Confession. It took about
two hours, but he read so clearly and distinctly that the many
who had not gained admittance, and stood in the outside
court, understood every word."" Then the two copies were
presented. The Latin one was taken by the Emperor him-

M Jonas to Luther, in E n d e r s , VIII, 26. B r ii c k , p. 52. C. R. II, 128.
MCoelestin, Hist. Comitiorum, in Seekendorf II, 170.
m The impression on the opponents, C. R. II, 143, 145, 150, 154. E n d e r s ,
VIII, 66 sqq. D o b e 1 , Memmingen IV, 40. Binterlm, Der Reichstag zu
Augsb., etc., Dusseldorf, 1844.

ORIGIN OF THE AUGUSTANA. 191
self; the German he gave to the imperial Chancellor, the
Elector of Mayence," and at the same time prohibited the
publication of the Confession.
Immediately after the presentation a complete copy was
sent to Luther.82 Although he would surely have expressed
many things otherwise, and probably more sharply, and found
too great concessions in it (Pro mea persona, plus satis,
cessum est in ista Apologia, see Enders, viii, 42), and missed
clear statements on purgatory, worship of saints, and espe
cially on " the Pope as the Antichrist," he nevertheless gave
the same full approval to the work as a whole, as he had done
to the section he had seen before, and saw in it a fulfilment
of Ps. 119 : 46, the word of Scripture, which the first copies
printed in Augsburg and then regularly all printed copies
bore as a motto. And once, later on, he actually said :
Catechismus, tabula?, Confessio Augustana mea,°3 which, of
course, must be looked upon only as a most emphatic assent
to the contents of the Confession. He had taken part in the
elaboration of the Torgau articles, and it is not to be doubted
that Melanchthon had discussed with him before the Diet,
all other matters that might yet enter into consideration."
Neither is there any doubt that in the last redaction of the
Articles of Faith he reached back to the Marburg and Schwa
bach articles of Luther; but Luther's direct participation in
the framing of the Confession was very slight. Neverthe
less, we cannot say, as has been said repeatedly and without
proof, that un-Lutheran or Melanchthonian ideas in the
stricter sense have come into it.

"Spalatin, Annalen ed. Cyprian p. 139. Seekendorf II, 170. J. T.
Miiller, 587. Kolde, Neue Aug. Studien, N. K. Z. S., XVII, p. 738.
62 C. R. II, 140. Enders, VIII, 33.
63 This is the original form of the Tabletalk in Kroker, Leipzig, 1903.
" Melanchthon to Luther, June 27th, 1530, C. R. II, 146. Enders VIII,
39 : " The things were deliberated before, as you know, but they always turn
out otherwise in battle-line." .To«Camerarius Aug. 27th (C. R. II, 334) : "We
have so far granted nothing to the adversaries, besides those things which
Luther thought ought to be rendered, the matter being well and carefully de
liberated before the meeting." Cp. T h . Kolde. Alteste Red., p. 74 sq.

CHAPTEE XVI.
THE LUTHERAN CONFESSION.
MELANCHTHON'S UNSUCCESSFUL ATTEMPTS
AS A DIPLOMATIST. KOLDE'S ESSAY.
Melanchthon at Augsburg — Characterized by Kolde— Brieger' s Defense of Me
lanchthon — Why Brieger is Wrong — The Documentary Evidence — Melanch
thon's Lack of Sympathy with the Hated Zwinglians — Was the final Comple
tion of the Confession begun before June 21st? — Brieger says it was — Kolde's
Reply — Melanchthon's Negotiations with Rome Rejected — The Consequences
of their Rejection — Melanchthon's Four Points as Formulated by Valdes.
AMONG the unpleasant episodes in the life of Melanch
thon that have been rocks of offence for many, must
be mentioned his peculiar conduct in the transactions with
the imperial secretary, Alphonso Valdes, and the papal
legate, Lorenzo Campeggi, during the Diet of Augsburg.
Even in more recent times caustic judgment has been passed
upon the episode, and I, too, on the basis of renewed investi
gations and with all endeavor to be just to him, or rather
(to speak correctly) to understand him, could not refrain
from concluding that Melanchthon (to confine ourselves first
to his relations with Valdes) lost heart completely in the face
of the menacing condition into which the Evangelical party
was thrown unexpectedly right after the arrival of the Em
peror ; that he, for his own person, entered into private nego
tiations with the imperial secretaries, and during the course
of these negotiations persuaded himself that perhaps it would
192

KOLDE ON MELANCHTHON. 193
not become necessary to present a confession, and that, there
fore, he dallied with its completion.1
While a number of distinguished investigators assented
to these conclusions, or independently reached the same re
sults,2 Th. Brieger more recently opposed them. In a mono
graph entitled "Zur Geschichte des Augsburger Reichstages
von, 1530,"3 he critically reviewed in his well-known, ex
tremely careful manner the negotiations with Valdes (and
Campeggi), and reached results, which, if they were conclu
sive, would be of no mean importance to the history of the
formation of the Confession, and which at any rate compel
a new investigation of the matter.
His opinion, to preface the most important points, is this :
1. The negotiations of Melanchthon with the imperial secre
taries were opened by them and not by Melanchthon. (On
this point Brieger returns to the view formerly defended by
Maurenbrecher.1) 2. The negotiations were carried on by
Melanchthon, not upon his own authority, but with the con
sent of the Elector's counsellors. 3. If Melanchthon replies
to the Nuremberg delegates who were urging the presenta
tion of the complete confession, "the matter will probably
not come to such a far-reaching action, but will be withdrawn
and settled more briefly," it must not be understood that he
intended in accordance with the Emperor's wishes to accom
plish a compromise on the quiet, and if possible, without
"verbose public hearing and discussion," but that it has refer
ence to the proposal made by the Margrave's chancellor, Vog-
ler (who, in order to change the Emperor's intention in re-

1 Cf. Th. Kolde, M. Luther II, 343. Also Kolde, Die Augsb. Conf.,
p. 7. Prot. Realencykl. II, 245. Sharper and not always just, V i r c k ,
Melanchthon's polit. Stellung auf. d. Reichstage zu Augsb. Z. K. G. IX (1888),
pp. 92 scq.
2Cf. Fr.v.Bezold, Gesch. d. deutsch. Ref. Berlin, 1890, p. 621. Kaw
erau, Lehrbuch d. Kirchengesch. Ill (Reform, u. Gengenref. 2 A.) 1899, p.
97. Karl M ii 1 1 e r , Kirchengesch. II, 2. Freiburg 1902, p. -372 seq. G e o r g
E 1 1 i n g e r, Phil. Melanchthon. Berlin, 1902, pp. 268 seq.
" Leipzig, 1903. Programm.
4Wilh. Maurenbrecher, Gesch. d. Kath. Ref. I, Nordlingen, 1880,
pp. 287 seq.

194 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
gard to the matter of preaching, advised, on June 16th, "to
present to him as an intermediate action the Articles of
Faith"), and that the briefest possible confession which he
had in mind was in reality this confession which was com
posed of only 19 articles, and is still extant in the Ansbach
manuscript and other copies from the same period. Hence
the completion of the manuscript was not delayed even for
a day, and Melanchthon is to be exonerated from every charge
of indecision.
Brieger's acute presentation, from which, as always in his
works, much can be learned, at first sight looks very convinc
ing on account of its logical form of statement ; but a careful
investigation of his argument must lead to the opposite view,
as is to be shown in the following:5
Immediately upon the Emperor's entrance into Augsburg
we find Melanchthon, according to authentic reports, in nego
tiation e with the imperial secretary, Alphonso Valdes. *
How did he come to do so?
Brieger, as is elsewhere stated,8 considers it indubitable that
these negotiations were begun not by Melanchthon, but by the
followers of the Emperor : whether Valdes, the ardent admirer
of Erasmus, independently entered into correspondence with
the Wittenberg Humanist, and the Emperor then made use
of the naturally resulting opportunity to question Melanch
thon, and through him to influence the treatment of the reli
gious matter; or whether, as is more probable, the imperial
secretary from the beginning acted under orders from his
lord, who by all means wished to settle the religious question
"in private and in quiet," rather than to have it treated at
the Diet in the manner offered in his call to a diet, viz., to

"I would note the following was ready in first draft, before I received new
material in the " First Draft of the Augustana."
•Will be treated below.
* Compare on him and related literature the article of Ed. Bohmer,
Prot. Realencykl. 2 A. Vol. 16, 276 seq. The article lacks clearness and over
estimates Valdes' love of peace.
8 See Chap. XVII of this work.

KOLDE ON MELANCHTHON. 195
hear the "opinion and judgment" of both sides, and then to
effect a compromise (p. 5).
Let us look at the situation. We know that under Cam-
peggi's influence and that of Duke George of Saxony, and
other Catholic princes, and perhaps also under the impres
sion caused by John Eck's challenge, the disposition of the
Emperor toward the Evangelical party had become quite
different from what it appeared to be in the call to the Diet.
We know further that the secret presentation of his personal
Confession of Faith (which was only a poor Latin paraphrase
of the Schwabach Articles) had met with no success at the
imperial court, and that the Emperor, while still at Inns
bruck, demanded that evangelical preaching be stopped.
When Luther's sharp pamphlet, "Vermahnung an die
Geistlichen versammelt auf dem Reichstag zu Augsburg,"'
appeared, it only added oil to the fuel. It had hardly reached
Augsburg, June 7th, when Jacob Sturm sent it to Strass
burg; it was at once made known at the Emperor's court,
and the Emperor commanded that it be prohibited in Augs
burg." Now came the Emperor himself. With him came
the demand that the Protestants should take part in the
Corpus Christi processions, and the renewal of the prohibi
tion to preach, and all that, in the evident interest not only to
do justice to the wishes of Campeggi, but also to intimidate
the Protestants and to give them to understand for the present
that the Emperor did not purpose to brook any alteration of
the traditional forms of worship. And at this moment, he
claims, Valdes, only because he was an Erasmian, approached
Melanchthon, though in a tricky manner, to sound him and
use him as a tool to carry out the plans of the Emperor. But
who can prove that the things which the imperial secretary
announced during the negotiations as the Emperor's purpose,
to settle the religious questions in "quiet and secrecy," were

» E. A.8 24, 356 seqq. Cf. Th. Kolde, M. Luther II, 330.
10 Cf. Strassburg's Polit. Korrespondenz I, 451 and 455.

196 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
originally his plan and not developed as such during the dis
cussions with Melanchthon?
Brieger appeals for his view, that the initiative was made
by Valdes, to the report of the Nuremberg delegates, i. e.,
to what they learned of the matter. This may be so inter
preted; but when they write: "We are informed that Al-
phonsus Waldesius, one of the principal secretaries of H.
Imp. Maj., several times invited Philip Melanchthon to his
house,"" it does not mean that the instigation cannot have
been made by Melanchthon.
Then, too, the reference to Briick's history of the Diet,1
in which he points to the fact that several of "the most promi
nent (wegernsten) of the papal party" repeatedly approached
the theologians of the Christian estates, invited them to their
quarters, and pretended that they would by no means hinder
the gospel, and spoke to them of the controversial articles,
etc., does not affect the question, for Brieger overlooks the
fact that Briick states: "Especially before his imperial
majesty came to Augsburg," and nothing speaks for the fact
that Briick also had in mind the imperial secretary, since
we have knowledge of others who proceeded in the manner
described by Briick,. e. g., Cochlseus, Usingen, Marius.13
Melanchthon's own statement must decide. On June 19th
he writes to Myconius : "Ego pertentavi unius atque alterius
ex Hispanicis scribis animum; quantum proficiam videro."
The same day he writes to Camerarius: "Nactus sum His-
panum secretarium, qui benigne pollicetur, et jam de mea
sententia cum Cesare et Campegio collocutus est."" Could
Melanchthon say at all more clearly that he was the one who
sought relations with the influential personalities, to insinu
ate to them his sententia concerning the prevailing condi-

11 c. R. II, 122.
-Forstemann, Archiv. fiir Gesch. d. kirchi. Ref., Vol. I, Halle, 1831,
p. 19. B r i e g e r, p. 5.
13 C. R. II, 86. A d . W e i s z in Uffenheimer Nebenstunden, p. 686. Cf. also
A. S p a h n , Joh. Cochheus. Berlin 1898, p. 154 seq.
" C. R. II, 118 seqq.

KOLDE ON MELANCHTHON. 197
tions? I ask further: "What interest could Melanchthon
have, if he did not take the initiative, to create this impres
sion with Myconius and Camerarius, contrary to the truth ?"
And what we see Melanchthon do here is entirely in line
with what we can ascertain concerning his conduct other
wise in Augsburg. It was a peculiarity of his, which has
proven fatal more than once, that the great theologian tried
to act the diplomat now and then, and with the best of in
tentions entered into negotiations that were none of his busi
ness. We know now (a thing which Brieger, of course, could
not know so fully) in what great measure he put his trust
in the Emperor's clemency and love of peace. The imperial
call to a diet had so completely captivated him that he at
first entertained no fears of the influence of the papal legate,
Campeggi, whom in contrast to Cajetanus, whose call was
for a while rumored, he styled a virum peritum rerum
civilium.*' What concerned him most was to prove that his
elector had the pure doctrine preached in this country, had
abolished but few abuses which were recognized as such by
the prudent ones among the opponents, pursued no warlike
policies, but always opposed such, aimed only at peace and
concord, and had absolutely no sympathy with the hated
Zwinglians, who were always plotting war and revolution.
Cochlseus afterwards, in his hateful, exaggerating man
ner, accused Melanchthon of pretending to the utmost love
of peace and thus forcing an entrance in Augsburg into the
residences of private individuals, and also of cardinals, and
even to the court of the Emperor ; 10 but his assertions are not

M C. R. II, 40 and 42.
"Joannis Cochlei, Philippicas quatuor in Apologiam Philippi Mel
anchthonis. Lips. 1534, A iij b : (Translated) — '* In the first place indeed
Philippus ignores his own rudeness and tactlessness, for at Augsburg he did
not only publicly pretend that he was a lover of peace and concord and zealous
for the same ; but he also on his own initiative kept running here and
there, bursting into and entering not only the homes and entertainment places
of private individuals, but also the palaces of cardinals and other princes
and even the M. T. court seeking by an altogether too insidious circuit whom
he might devour by his hypocrisy. And indeed, by his wiles and simulated
blandishments he deceived not a few, while he affirmed here and there in
conferences and meetings that he could easily restore the peace of the church
if only these three things were granted to his friends, the sacrament to the

198 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
pure inventions, for Melanchthon did certainly carry on pri
vate transactions with a great number of people. As early as
the first days of June, i. e., during the time when danger ap
peared more clearly, he carried on a most secretly-kept (and
now evidently lost) correspondence with the cardinal of
Mayence, as we learn from a hitherto unprinted letter " of
John Rurer to And. Althamer, dated June 4th. In this he
prayed the cardinal to use his influence that the matter might
not lead to war.
His friendly intercourse with Catholic theologians, such
as Cochlseus, Usingen and Marius, of course, was started by
them. The cardinal of Salzburg, with whom Melanchthon
had a long conversation but a few days before the presenta
tion of the Confession, also seems to have invited him.
It is not quite so sure to me that it was also without his
initiative that he had the very remarkable conversation on
June 13th with Henry of Brunswick. At any rate, he took
advantage of it — it was in the very days in which he was
negotiating with the Landgrave — to give very tactless ex
pression in the presence of the Duke of Brunswick to his
revulsion against the intentions and plans of Philip and his
and Jacob Sturm's efforts at confederation. He rejoiced to
receive the promise from the Duke that the two-fold form of
the sacrament, the marriage of priests, monastic liberty, the
abolishment of paid masses (missse qusestuarise) and
freedom of foods were those points that could not rightly be
condemned, and that harmony could be reached, if they were

laity sub utraque, marriage for the priests, and the use and communication
of the mass. That in all other things his friends would be subject to the
bishops and prelates throughout and obedient to their word," etc. C o c h -
1 a e u s tells the same as early as 1531 in his Petitio Philippi Melanchthonis.
Ad R. D. Card. Campegium Augusta? scripta, etc., MDXXXI. In the letter of
dedication we find the following story : " Besides I heard the R. D. Dr. John
Fabri say there to a certain nobleman from Meissen, in my presence, that he
would say to Philipp, unless he ceased frequenting the hotels of the Spaniards
and excusing and proving his and Luther's writings to them, he himself would
publicly hang up bis most absurd and hateful errors on the church doors."
"Kolde, Alt. Red., Beilage I, p. 108.
18 Melanchthon reports to Luther June 25th (C. R. II, 126). According to
the report of Jonas (Kolde, Anal. Lutherana 140) : The Salzburg Cardinal
called Mr, Phil. Melanchthon through Wolffgang Stromer, the Nurembergian.

KOLDE ON MELANCHTHON. 199
adopted, at least with the pre-supposition that the Zwinglians
who wished to abolish the sacrament completely, were not to
be included. "
This clearly shows the unvarying point in the private ne
gotiations of Melanchthon. It is essentially the same that he
presented a few days later to the imperial secretary. And it
may be presumed also (we state it merely as a presumption)
what moved him especially to convince the entourage of the
Emperor of the innocuousness of the Protestants. As he him
self was averse to confederation (and the cunning insinuation
of the Duke of Brunswick concerning the plots of the Land
grave had only confirmed him in this), he had gained the con
viction from the elector's epistolary negotiations with the Em
peror, that Charles V. did, indeed, wish to make peace with
his lord sed hac conditione, Iva fj.yjSefj.Cap k\oi a~vfifia)(loLv.
Thus he wrote to Luther on June 13th.20 And just now the
elector was on the point of giving up his long-maintained iso
lated position in the religious question and to unite with the
other evangelical estates. And as matters stood, Melanch
thon himself must desire to win the Landgrave, for otherwise
he would be irretrievably driven into the arms of the Zwing
lians. But he must have learned so much from the negotia
tions with Philip that took place in these days, that in this
event the antithesis to the Zwinglian conception in the con
fession must be softened to the utmost. This increased the
danger of being confused with the Zwinglians. But even the
more tolerant Romans, and he had provided amply for that,
were not inclined to tolerate these. Henry, of Brunswick,
had confirmed this to him with clear words.'" In this con
suming anxiety (psene consumor miserimis curis, he wrote to

™ Report of Jonas to Luther, Anal. Luth., p. 133 ; Enders VII. 380. Me
lanchthon presents an essentially different report to Luther, concerning the
same conversation. Enders VII, 383. Luther claimed to know that he had
been invited to table by the Duke ; but there Is nothing about it In the
letters written to him. Enders VIII, 82.
20 Mel. to Luther, Enders VIII, 383.
MCf. First. Draft, etc.

200 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
Luther)22 it might appear to him to be his duty to act as
intermediary on his own responsibility and enter into nego
tiations with the followers of the Emperor.
We can even recognize the method which he pursued to
attain his end. First he renewed the relations with the Flem
ish secretary, Kornelius Schepper, known to the Wittenber-
gers previously, and whom Brieger wrongly sets aside as
having nothing to do with the matter.23 According to the
report of Jonas to Luther on June 18th, we may assume that
the first conversation in which Jonas also took part, probably
took place on Corpus Christi day, June 16th.24 On a second
occasion Jonas reports a meeting with Schepper on June
25th; but it is not quite certain whether this really has refer
ence to a second conversation. But that it was not Schepper
who sought the conversation may be concluded from Melanch
thon's remark : "Videtur ' singulari diligentia cavere, ne
veniat in suspicionem nostra? amicitise."25 The things which
Melanchthon • on this occasion learned concerning the threat-

22 Jonas to Luther, T h . Kolde, Anal. Luth., 133. Enders VII, 381.
But that they would never subscribe with those who take away the sacrament
of the Eucharist, as the Zwinglians do.
23 B r i e g e r , p. 3, note 1 : " Melanchthon's conversation with the Flemish
secretary Cornel von Schepper is of no importance to our subject." But though
Schepper was only the Dutch secretary and had no direct connection with
the imperial government, yet he was well informed on the state of the
matter. We know that he stood in close relations with Valdes, who entrusted
to him the revision of the writing (Pro religione Christiana res gestae in
Comitiis Augusta Vindel. habitis, A. D. 1530), which above all was the cause
of Briick's report on the Diet (Forstemann, Archiv. I, 1831), since he
wrote to Dantiscus : "I am sending a report of the things done in this city with
the Lutherans which I pray you to read in company with Dr. Cornelius If
he is present and to add or omit whatever is to be added or omitted (Ed.
Bohmer in Art. Valdes in Prot. Real Encykl. 2 ed. Vol. XVI, p. 279, note).
"Enders VII, 387. To this Mel. on June 19th, Enders VIII, 2 :
" Cornelius says that he had some hope for peace while Mercurinus was living.
He says that since M. is dead, there is nobody at court who has any au
thority to be the author of peace. Cornelius plays in his own way and
seems to take extraordinary care not to be suspected of friendship with
us. He is of no use to us at all. There is another Spanish secretary
here, who blandly promises and has already conferred in regard to my
sententia with the emperor and Campegius." The same day he wrote t-*
Camerarius, C. R. II, 119. "Cornelius Schepper affirms that he had go<-<i
hope of peace so long as Mercurinus lived. That since his death there is
no author of peace at court who is worthy in authority. I got hold of the
Spanish secretary who promised faithfully and has already spoken concerning
my view to the emperor and Campegius." To Myconius, ibid, June 19th : " I
have tested the opinion of one and the other of the Spanish delegates."
26 E n d e r s VIII, 24.

KOLDE ON MELANCHTHON. 201
ening disposition at the imperial court had a crushing effect
upon him. Jonas adds directly to his report to Luther : "D.
Philippus, ut nosti virum misere discruciatur illis tantse caus-
sae curis et solicitudinibus." "
The hope of negotiating with Campeggi is now completely
destroyed. He is the very one, as M. now learned, who is
stirring to war against the Protestants. But although noth
ing can be found in the reports to indicate that he has been
given hope in this direction, he clings to his old confidence in
the Emperor and his clemency: Nihil in aula Ca?saris ipso
mitius Cassare.2' Yes, he even claims to have heard from
kindly disposed courtiers nihil spei se habere de cognitione,
i.e., only upon investigation of the matter after examining the
evangelical "opinion and view," the evangelical confession.
There is only one recourse left, and that is to endeavor to
maintain the Emperor in his benevolent disposition. Hence
he determines, and he must have done so at once, since on
the 19th he reports concerning the negotiations with the Em
peror and the legates, to apply to the much more influential
personality, the imperial secretary, Alfonso Valdes, in order
to learn more from him, and above all, to acquaint him of
his sententia, and, if possible, to influence the Emperor
through him. And he succeeded in getting hold of the secre
tary : Nactus sum Hispanum. In view of this statement the
remark in the letter of the Nurembergians, which was writ
ten only after the negotiations had progressed further (that
"Waldesius . . . invited Melanchthon several times"), can
occupy only a secondary importance.
I must also maintain that at least his first visit to Valdes
was kept relatively secret, though Melanchthon mentions the
matter, in very general terms, it is true, almost unintelligibly,
in letters to Luther and Camerarius, i. e., to those outside,
for Jonas, who was accustomed to gossip in his letters about
everything he found out, does not seem to have learned about

20 E n d e r s VII, 387.
21 C. R. 117. Also M e n i u s . See Bindseil, Supplem., p. 61.

202 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
it, and only mentions the conversation with Schepper. 2" I
also consider it altogether out of the question that Melanch
thon should have acted in harmony with the counsellors of the
elector. Briick, the chancellor, whom we know to have his
hand in the game everywhere, knew him well enough at that
time, to be sure that this timid theologian, who could be
startled by a mere threat, was not the proper person to under
take such a momentous political negotiation.
But what was Melanchthon's sententia on the state of
affairs, and what came of the negotiations ? This we learn in
the first place from the report of the Nuremberg delegates,
dated Sunday, June 21st. We must have it before us to
judge it properly. It reads thus:"3
28 It must be observed that the vigilant Strassburgian, who had also
ferreted out the secret undertaking of the Schwabach Articles to Innsbruck
(Uwingli, opp. VIII, 458 ; V i r c k , Politische Korrespondenz, I, 446), did
not learn anything of the matter.
20 C. R. II, 122. The items here given are confirmed by an oft-printed
paper, " Schrift Aus Augsburg." It is first found in the Wittenberg ed.
IX, 409, then in the remaining Luther editions to Walch (XVI, 873 seq.
912, 936), then in perhaps more early form in Bretschneider, C. R., X, 125
seq. The passage on the relations with Valdes has been worked up by
Aurifaber in his report with few changes. If we look at the contents of this
report (which since the Leipzig Luther edition XX, 202, is ascribed to Spalatin,
whether correctly or not, cannot be determined), we find that it was written
on different days. The beginning to " God may send His Holy Spirit " Wttbg.
IX, 410. C R. X, 128, was written Sat., June 18, Cf. "Now Maj. is on
Sat." and " On Mon. the Diet will be opened." The following, to which
Bretschneider wrongly adds the note : Haec omnia quae jam sequuntur in
opp. Lutheri non leguntur," was not written until Mon. or Tues. Cf. "On
said Saturday." " On Saturday, Alfonsus." " On Sunday H. Imp. Maj."
" On Mon. they will hear the mass." " So much has been done till now."
The Nuremberg report and this paper therefore were written, so far as they
refer to ValdSs, at exactly the same time. The paper reports the following
(C. R. X, 129) : "Alfonsus the Chancellor of H. Imp. Maj. in Spain and
Cornelius have had several pleasant conversations with Philipp and told him
that the Spaniards had been informed that they did not believe in God nor
the Holy Trinity nor Christ nor Mary, so that they thought that if they
killed a Lutheran they did God a greater service than by killing a Turk. He
says that though he conversed much with them, he persuaded few. The rest
remained in their own belief.
On Saturday Alfonsus sent for Philippus and informed him that in the
morning he had visited H. Imp. Maj. and for a long time had no more
suitable time or place to speak with H. Maj. and that he had informed
H. Maj. concerning all the Lutheran articles and that they do not believe
contrary to the church. Then the emperor said " Quid volunt de Monachis,"
etc., and commanded Alfonso to tell Philipp to send in brief and without long
discourses the articles upon, which they insisted. Then that Philip did so
and also asked Alfonso to go to the legate. This was also done, and now
the greatest objection is in regard to the mass. God be praised ! It appears
now as if the emperor were willing to help. God has used His means on him
also." An essential difference lies in this, that the paper says that Me
lanchthon really wrote the articles and that Valdfis after the Saturday meet
ing delivered these written articles to the legate.

KOLDE ON MELANCHTHON. 203
"We are informed that Alfonsus Waldesius, one of the
"most prominent secretaries of H. I. Maj., several times in-
"vited Philips Melanchthon to his house, treated with him
"concerning the Lutheran matter, and finally asked him to
"report what was the desire of the Lutherans and how the
"matter might be helped. And then Melanchthon reported to
"him about the matter as much as had been considered orally
"and in set speeches about in this manner: The Lutheran
"matter is by no means so extensive and out of the way as
"H. I. Maj. was perhaps informed, and the controversy prin
cipally concerned the two-fold form 'of the sacrament, the
"marriage of priests and monks, and the mass, namely, that
"the Lutherans could not approve of the special private
"masses. If an agreement were reached in regard to these ar-
"ticles, it was his opinion that ways and means could be
"found concerning all the others. Above mentioned Alfon-
"sus Waldesius had undertaken to present this report to H.
"Imp. Maj., and on Saturday had again sent for Philippus
"and announced to him that H. Imp. Maj. had been glad to
"hear it and was well pleased with it, and had asked him,
"Alfonso, to inform the papal legate, and he had done so.
"The legate also was well pleased with the report, and did
"not specially object to the articles on the two-fold form of
"the sacrament or the marriage of priests and monks, but
"was opposed to the abolition of private masses, and A'fonsus,
"after such information, said finally to Philippus: It was
"the desire of H. Imp. Maj. that Philippus should make a
"brief statement of the articles which the Lutherans desired
"and hand them to Alfonsus, and he would present them to
"H. Maj. for further consideration. But it was H. Maj.
"desire that he should not state such matter profusely, but
"very briefly, so that H. Maj. might have more reason to
"take action toward settling and ending this error. II. Maj.
"also thought it was best to consider this matter privately and
"not in open argument and discussion, for such arguments and
"discussions merely caused further dissension and no unity.

204 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
"Upon said request Philippus offered to consider the mat-
"ter and write the statement; but he desired to-day to con-
"verse regarding it with Dr. Briick and other theologians,
"then to write a draft for the elector, and if he approved, and
"considered it, to give it to Alfonso." Here follows in the
original 3° following passage which was omitted by Bretschnei
der, but is not unimportant, and describes the secrecy with
which the transaction was carried on: "This we desired to
report to your worthies and did not wish it to be undiscov
ered, though they, for the present, wish to keep it a secret."
To this we must add a remark of Melanchthon's reported
by the Nuremberg delegates on June 19th, and which could
not have been made until after his meeting with Valdes on
June 18th: "For as Philippus Melanchthon reports, the
matter will perhaps not be carried so far, but will be drawn
much closer, and written and treated more briefly. But what
ever action shall be taken, whether the former [scil. confes
sion] be completed or a new one drawn up, shall be reported
by us to your worthies."31
When I connected this remark, as I could not possibly help
doing, with the negotiations with Valdes, I came to the
conclusion that Melanchthon, after having been instructed
by the Emperor on June 18th to hasten to present a list of
the points in controversy, for this very reason delayed the
completion of the confession, and actually believed for a
while that its delivery would not be insisted upon; that he
afterwards deemed it quite proper to consult with Briick and
other theologians on June 21st, and that they did not ap
prove of his secret agreements, as they imperilled the legal
status -of the call to the Diet.32 This Brieger contradicted
in all principal details.
First let us dispose of a chronological question. Accord-

30 The letters of the Nuremberg delegates to the council are now pre
served in the Nuremberg City Archives.
81 C. R. II, 112, seq.
»= T h . Kolde, M. Luth. II, 343 ; Augsb. Conf. p. 7 ; Pr. Realencykl., II,
245.

KOLDE ON MELANCHTHON. 205
ing to Brieger (p. 8 sq.) the "work on the confession was
not delayed a single day by the negotiations with Valdes."
"Since the last three days of the week were entirely consumed
with the negotiations caused by the prohibition to preach,"
they did not wait till after the opening (on Monday, June
20th) till June 21st, but immediately, "Sunday morning,
June 19th, began the completion of the document of defence
and the Nurembergians were immediately consulted." That
the resumption of the work in the confession contrary to the
accepted view took place, not on the 21st, but on the 19th, is
splendidly argued by Brieger by endeavoring to prove that
the postscript of the letter of the Nurembergians, which in
forms us on this point, and is printed in the Corp. Ref. II,
124, as an addition to the letter of June 21st, in reality be
longs to the letter of June 19th. He correctly observes that
the council, in an answer on June 23rd, does not refer to the
sending of Osiander desired in said postscript, but does so
on June 25th, where, as Brieger thinks, the remark "from
your former writing ", in contrast with " your most recent
writing", (thus the answer on 23rd describes that of 21st)
means the one of 19th. In fact, we must be grateful to
this acute critic for touching upon this point, but his sur
mise is erroneous, though he cannot be made responsible
for that. The postscript33 in question actually belongs to the
letter of the delegates of June 21st (though as a separate
piece in the documentary find it might just as well belong to
any other letter). On examining the correspondence books
of the council in the Nuremberg Archive we discover that
the publisher, Vogt, who displayed very little care, actually
did not print the passage in which the council in its answer
speaks of the call of Osiander (just as in other letters he
omitted much that is of value to the investigator) .
33 This contains a section in the original through which the reply of 25th,
(Vogt, p. 19) becomes intelligible. " This I offered to report fully to your
worthies and if your worthies will order me up, as I regard needful and useful,
y. w. will please write to me whom you appointed and how many there will be,
so that we may provide lodging near by, since we can place nobody else in
our lodging place."
17

206 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
We read at the close of the letter of June 23rd (after the
part published by Vogt, p. 18 seq.) : "If time should permit
we will not withhold our intention, and will reply to your
writing regarding the sending of Osiander in our next mes
sage. The sixth hour of the day." This explains why the
question is not discussed by the council until June 25th,
after being in the meantime deliberated upon by the coun
cil." And since this establishes the fact that the postscript
in question belongs to the letter of June 21st, we also know
definitely that the "final completion of the confession was not
begun until after the opening of the Diet, Tuesday, June
21st." This would allow ample time for the delay maintained
by me and others, but the important question is whether this
delay was caused by Melanchthon's negotiations with Valdes
and Campeggi, or from the standpoint of the criticism of
sources, the answer to the question, "Of what did Melanch
thon think when he informed the Nuremberg delegates that
the matter would perhaps not reach such a full discussion,
but would be drawn closer and framed more briefly."
Brieger admits that the Nuremberg delegates drew the
conclusion that possibly a new concept {i. e., article of de
fence) would be elaborated, but he overlooks the fact that
the Nuremberg council (and I, too) from what it learned
of the transactions, drew the conclusion that eventually, con
trary to the call to the Diet, the delivery of a written apology
in Latin and German would be given up.35 At any rate,
Brieger considers this view to be erroneous, and thinks
rather that Melanchthon, and not he alone, thought of a
much abbreviated form of the confession. In a very skilful

*4 On June 25th the council resolution was passed : "That Mr. Osiander
should ride to Augsburg, to send him at once and to receive him in the lodg
ing of our gentlemen, and to write this up more fully.
That in 8 days Mr. Krystoff Roller and Jo. Baumgartner should ride to
Augsb. and that this be hereby indicated and that they be received in the
lodging of our gentlemen." On Sunday, June 26th, Osiander was accordingly
sent: "and. onssiander (!) preacher is to ride on."
"Vogt, p. 18.

KOLDE ON MELANCHTHON. 207
investigation he connects the matter with a peculiarly formed
recension of the Augustana, embracing only 19 articles of
faith, the so-called first Ansbach manuscript (mentioned
in another connection), and further with the fact ascer
tained by Forstemann, and also known to us before, that
Chancellor Vogler, in an opinion dated June 16th, in the
transactions on the preaching question, recommends to in
form the Emperor as to the Christian character of evangelical
preaching:36 "And in order that your Imp. Maj. may in
brief be thoroughly informed about the teaching and preach
ing of our preachers, which we consider a pure gospel and the
Word of God, we hereby deliver to your Imp. Maj. a clear
statement of the same, in haste briefly stated."
This recension may gain weight for the question before
us, since in Spalatin's manuscript of the Augustana, and in a
Latin one (the Hessian and French translation)37 we have
a confession of equal limitation (and as Brieger seeks to
prove) with a conclusion (the summa) which gave no occa
sion to the view that it was only a transition to a second part
which formulated the reasons for abolishing certain cere
monies. It was rather to be an epilogue closing the confes
sion. Brieger, also, while pointing out that Spalatin's text
(which is evidently older than the Ansbach text) does not
have the later summa, but a quite different transition to the
second part, is of the opinion that these above-mentioned
documents, which were in existence (before the arrival of the
Emperor) in the middle of June, must actually be considered
independent forms of the confession (p. 24). He also thinks
it may be proven that in view of the impending danger the
evangelical princes more and more became of the opinion that
it would be proper to confess their faith in brief and con
cise form, and by confirming their doctrine and preaching
with the clear truth of the word of God to silence the accu-

ss Brieger, p. 13, twice writes wrongly July 16th. The opinion in F o r s -
t e m a n n I, 274 seq.
"Forstemann, I, 355. Here already the article on invocation of
saints.

208 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
sation of heresy; and, on the other hand, to reserve the de
fence of their alterations of church ceremonies for the dis
cussion, which, according to the call to the Diet, had to fol
low the mutual declaration of opinions.
Brieger sums up his opinion, which I will repeat verbatim,
in the following theses (p. 29) :
I. In the time of which we speak (shortly before the ar
rival of the Emperor) we find the German confession, and
possibly about the same time, also the Latin (and this also in
a French version) in much briefer form, i. e., limited to the
articles of faith, and provided with an addition not in exist
ence a week before, which in its Latin version gives the im
pression of a concluding passage, and in the German can
be so understood so that we can hardly conceive that this
briefer form owes its existence to chance.
II. At that very time, before the arrival of the Em
peror, a pause was made in the final revision of the preface
and conclusion belonging to the great confession.
III. A proposition made June 16th by 'the Margrave-
Brandenburg side to employ the (German) abbreviated con
fession as the basis of an apology to be delivered to the Em
peror the next day was declined by Saxony. This short form
of the confession, giving information only on the faith and
preaching of the Protestants, was not prepared for such a
purpose as the private instruction of the Emperor.
IV. When two days later the Nuremberg delegates, im
mediately after being officially admitted to the confession
of the princes, requested to be told the preface and conclu
sion of the comprehensive document previously delivered to
them, they learn that the "conclusion is not yet composed,"
and Melanchthon does not explain this by that reason of
which he had spoken a few days before to the Nurember
gians, who then were not yet formal allies, nor the circum
stance that during the last few days which were entirely
taken up with the care about the preservation of evangelical
preaching, there was no time left for composing the conclu-

KOLDE ON MELANCHTHON. 209
sion ; but he refers to the uncertainty of the elector as to the
compass of his apology.
V. Immediately the next morning (June 19th) a session
of the councils of Saxony, Brandenburg, Hessen and Liine
burg takes place for the purpose of examining and editing
the "instructions in faith," as ordered by the elector, and
the same of which the Nurembergians had "received copei."
A Nuremberg delegate is called to the session and informed
that this work has been resumed. We can hardly be mis
taken if we assume that at this session the hesitation in re
gard to the extent of the document is ended and the reso
lution adopted to complete the large apology.
According to this, Melanchthon, when he made said re
mark to the Nurembergians, thought of the intention of pro
ceeding eventually to the articles of faith, and, therefore, the
uncertainty about this question had lasted until June 21st.
To this of Brieger I have the following reply to make :
I. The existence of Augustana manuscripts that con
tain only the articles of faith is no proof that they were writ
ten only to form documents complete in themselves and to
serve special purposes."5 And if Brieger repeatedly empha
sizes the fact that so often the contemporaneous documents
speak of what is preached and taught, and infers that the
doctrinal articles were pushed to the front and tries to prove
that the intention was to deliver only the doctrinal articles,
I would like to state that the entire Augustana after its deliv
ery was considered to be a summary of all that the preach
ers taught. This, e. g., was the opinion of the Strassburg
delegates upon the basis of what they heard and a copy re
ceived from the landgrave: "which contains nothing more
than their preachers teach." 39
II. It is correct that the Summa received its later form
no earlier than in June, but it owes its origin not to "chance,"
as a comparison of Na with the later revision proves, but to

38 See report of Nuremberg delegates.
30 Pol. Korrespondenz I, 463.

210 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
the proper consideration that the statements already made in
Na, but divided between the close of the first and the be
ginning of the second part, would be more effective, if they
were all placed at the close of the first part.
III. It is correct that the Latin Summa does sound as
if one did not need to expect a second part," but that does
not justify the view that it was to be an epilogue, actually
closing the confession, for, as Brieger must also have seen,
it is found unchanged in the confession as afterward deliv
ered. IV. It is not correct that Melanchthon, as Brieger states
in his fourth point, gives it as a reason why the apology is
not yet completed that the elector is in doubt as to the extent
of the apology. There is no mention made of it in the re
port of June 19th, and that is very important ; Melanchthon
is in doubt whether the matter could not be drawn more
closely and treated in terser form.
V. It is correct that Chancellor Vogler, in discussing
the preaching question, made the proposition to deliver to the
Emperor only the articles of faith, to prove the Christianity
of evangelical preaching; but this thought of the chancellor
or his margrave was only ephemeral, and that in the full
sense of the word. On June 16th the opinion was stated
on the same evening the matter was discussed," and upon
voting down Chancelor Vogler's motion, the document com
posed by Chancellor Briick was adopted and then sent on
the 17th.'2 This document was signed not only by the elector,

"Brieger admitted p. 22 that this was not the case in the German
Summa. 41 Report of the Nurembergians June 16th : "Jorg Vogler reports that
said princes have determined not to omit the preaching and that on the
morrow they are willing to deliver a written explanation to H. Imp. Maj."
C. R. II, 108.
42F5rstemann, I, 283. Brieger, p. 30, says that Vogler's proposi
tion was declined by Saxony and adds : "Possibly also by Hessen and Lunen
burg, in case they as is probable had already allied themselves to the elector
in matters of faith. This can be proven no earlier than June 19th". The only
document reporting this declining is the writing to the emperor of June 17th,
since the evangelical princes there first appear in writing as allies in the

KOLDE ON MELANCHTHON. 211
but also by Margrave George, Duke Ernst, of Liineburg,
Landgrave Philip, of Hessen, and Prince Wolf, of Anhalt.
And if the thought had ever come to one prince or another,
to subscribe only to the articles of faith, it was thereby re
pudiated. For if in that document they demand that they
be not condemned prematurely by the abolition of evangelical
preaching, but according to the call everyone's opinion and
view was here heard, and then everything that was wrongly
undertaken on either side was to be abolished and brought,
to Christian unity (p. 285), and if further they point to the
"terrible innovations" on the other side, both in doctrines,
customs and walk (p. 286), I deem the view excluded that the
princes could think of delivering only articles of faith.'3 It
is equally impossible that Melanchthon, in his reply to the
Nurembergians (say on June 18th), thought only of a con
fession limited to the articles of faith.

The same result is reached by an analysis of the reports
concerning Melanchthon's negotiations with Valdes. (See
above.) Even according to Brieger the negotiations with the im
perial secretary began soon after the arrival of the Emperor,

matter of confession. It is to be noticed that Briick there used Vogler's
Opinion. Cf. the statements that the Word must not be bound, the Word of
God Is the food of tLe soul and the reference to Matth. 4, " Man does not
live by bread alone." Forstemann, I, 275 and 284.
"Brieger certainly, who, so far as I can see, has not used this docu
ment, remarks on the declining of Vogler's proposition : " This form of the
confession, brief as it was and giving informaton only on the faith and preach
ing of the Protestants, was not prepared for such a purpose as the instruction
of the emperor." But it can not be proven that the first part was " made
over " for the purpose of presenting it alone. If Brieger attaches importance
(p. 13) to the fact that Vogler proposes to write: "Thus we deliver to your
Imp. Maj. a pure statement in haste briefly framed" (Forstemann p. 280)
the expression is easily explained from the fact that he well knew that the
articles of faith would not receive their final form for a long time. And
further, if we can easily understand Vogler's Intention to deliver the articles
of faith to the emperor temporarily on account of the preaching question,
I can not understand what occasion there could be without this special reason
to be silent at first about the abolition of abuses, the dogmatic relation of
which certainly would have to be treated at the Diet, and to postpone them
for an oral discussion which could not be avoided.

212 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
and Melanchthon in the course of the conversation, after
Valdes (according to the "message") had informed him of
the Spanish views of the Lutheran heresy, had tried to prove
to him that the Lutheran cause was not so terribly out of
the way as H. Imp. Maj. was perhaps informed, and that the
controversy concerned principally these articles, viz. : the two
fold form of the sacrament, the marriage of priests and monks
and of masses, that, namely, the Lutherans could not approve
of special private masses. "If these points were agreed
upon," he thought, "order and ways and means might be de
vised for the rest." "
These remarks must have been made before Saturday,
June 18th, for the Nurembergians further write: "Above-
mentioned Alfonsus undertook to deliver said report, and on
Saturday invited Philippus again." From this it is clear
that when Melanchthon (according to the report of June
19th) no later than June 18th, remarked to the delegates
"that the matter perhaps would not reach such a lengthy dis
cussion, but would be drawn closer and treated more briefly,"
he had the same thing in mind. If both statements, which
are so very nearly contemporaneous, are placed side by side
without prejudice, there really can be no doubt that Melanch
thon thought here as there and as at the delivery of the Torgau
Articles of this point, that the discussion of those practical
points was the principal thing, and that therefore the apology,
at least in its present extent, would perhaps be unnecessary.
At any rate I cannot conceive that the same Melanchthon,
who according to Brieger even negotiates with Valdes with
the knowledge of the elector's counsellors, explained this to

44 Notice the agreement with what Melanchthon according to Jonas' re
port had treated June 13th with Henry of Brunswick. Enders VII, 381 : " The
Duke of Brunswick talked for a while with Philipp some very good things
concerning the public cause. He said that he formerly and now every now
and then, ever since his return from Italy, read the New Testament and had
derived much profit from this reading, and that he saw that the sacrament
sub utraque, the marriage of priests, monastic liberty and the abolition of
private masses, and liberty in meats, were articles that could not rightly be
condemned, and that there with the help of God means of concord could be
discovered."

KOLDE ON MELANCHTHON. 213
him and at the same time (as we must assume with Brieger's
hypothesis) thought of giving the apology a form which
from principle refrains from the ceremonies and practical
questions and of delivering the articles of faith to the Em
peror as the principal matter, even though only for the
present. And Valdes and the Emperor look upon the matter simi
larly with the Nurembergians. Melanchthon's remarks are
transmitted by Valdes to the Emperor, who receives them
with approval, as does also the papal legate whom the Em
peror has informed. All this takes place from June 16th to
18th. And as late as the 18th Valdes invites Melanchthon
and reports to him what has been done in the meantime. We
learn that the Emperor, from what he has heard, has gained
the impression that it might be possible to avoid the public
hearing, the announcement of which he regretted for some
time. He has Melanchthon informed of his conviction that
"it would be the most profitable thing to undertake the matter
in quiet and privacy and not in an extended public argument
and discussion," i. e., as it had been specified in the Call.
The Emperor and Valdes evidently infer from Melanch
thon's remark that "the Lutheran cause was not so terribly
out of the way " that this is his intention also. How could
they do otherwise? How is it, therefore, possible, I ask
again, to think that Melanchthon, when he at the same time
said to the Nurembergians that the Confession might be
drawn more closely and stated more briefly, thought of de
livering to the Emperor a Confession embracing merely the
articles of faith?
I must, therefore, maintain what Brieger opposes quite
determinedly, that Melanchthon hesitated to complete the
Confession and momentarily believed the delivery of it might
even be dispensed with. For he agrees to the desire to state
most briefly the articles which the Lutherans especially de
manded (those questions on ceremonies) and to present them
to Alfonso. The Nuremberg delegates report expressly:

214 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
"Upon such request, Philippus offered to consider the case
and furnish a list."
And yet, before he went further, he determined to get
the consent of Chancellor Briick and the elector, — toward
which he first proceeded three days later (surely no argument
for the view that he has been acting up to this point in
harmony with the elector's counsellors). And the result
was the rejection of his private negotiations and the reso
lution to finish the Confession at last and proceed to it at
once.'5 And this was not the case, as Brieger assumes, on
Sunday, the 19th, but, as was ascertained before, on Tues
day, June 21st.

This ended Melanchthon's negotiations officially at least;
but how much had they attained ?
At this point we observe a difference between the two re
ports that have come down to . us from evangelical circles,
namely, the letter of the Nurembergians and the message
from Augsburg, that the latter adds to the statement that the
Emperor had commanded Valdes " to tell Philippus to send
H. Maj. a short statement without profuseness :" "That
Philippus did so, and therefore also commanded Alphonso to
go to the legate and negotiate with him. This was done and
the shook was greatest everywhere in the mass. This entitles
to good hope, thanks be to God, that the Emperor is willing to
help the matter and God has helped it along." This state
ment would be worth even more if it could be proven that
Spalatin is the reporter ; but that seems to be merely a later
supposition. Since the Augsburg report is not clear as to its
chronology, we cannot conclude from it that Melanchthon

46 That is not directly reported anywhere, but since the Nuremberg delegate
Christoph. Kress in the postscript to the letter in which he reports that
Melanchthon would " to-day converse " with Briick, makes the statement that
he was lust called into the hotel of the elector, where in the presence of the
counsellors of Saxony, Brandenburg, Hessen and Liineburg, he was informed
that they were on the point of " revising, writing and completing the articles,"
the conclusion is justified that Melanchthon's statements to Briick and the con
sultation, and the resolution of the assembled evangelical counsellors are con
nected with each other.

KOLDE ON MELANCHTHON. 215
delivered anything in writing either before or after the con
sultation with Briick, and it is extremely improbable. In
the Augsburg message there might possibly be a confusion
of the points verbally fixed.
After all, the negotiations with Valdes and mediately with
Campeggi had further consequences. What importance was
attached to them is seen from the fact that foreign embas
sadors, who heard about them, hastened to report the im
pending change at home. The Mantuan ambassador, Antonio
Bogarotto, wrote to the Duke of Mantua, that the Lutheran
princes had made "supplication" to have four points
granted them: 1. The confirming of the confiscated church
properties to the possession of the laity. 2. The sacrament
sub utraque. 3. The changes made in the mass. 4. The
marriage of priests. The Emperor was said to have replied
that he would act according to duty and reason, and to have
sent Granvella at once to the legate to confer with him on
the basis of these demands, quid agendum."
This report, which does not even mention Melanchthon,
and relates the demands of the " princes " immediately after
the negotiations of the evangelical estates with the Emperor
concerning the question of preaching, was written no later
than June 20th/" Hence it can apply only to what was re
lated in connection with Melanchthon's verbal statements and
not to points fixed in writing. If the question concerning
church properties here appears as a new point, it can not be
due to mere invention. At least it is quite probable that
Valdes also touched upon this point and that Melanchthon
then had no other choice than to remark that it was a self-
evident demand of the Protestants to grant the bestowal of
church properties."

40 First in (Thomas) M. Luther u. d. Ref. Bewegung in Deutschl. vom
J. 1520-1532 in Ausziigen aus Marino Sanutos Diarien. Ansbach 1883, p.
169. Complete in the Diarii di Marino Sanuto. Vol. 53, Venice 1899', p. 326.
" To my knowledge first ascertained by Brieger, p. 36.
40 Note that the Protestants in those days feared to be attacked upon
this very point. According to a council resolution Juno 25, the Nuremberg
Council resolved " to deliberate concerning monasteries, in case of contro
versy." (Kreisarchiv in Nuremberg.)

216 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
To the same time evidently belongs also the related re
port of the Venetian embassador, Tiepolo, which unfortu
nately is not dated." While the Mantuan (at least this is the
most probable) had his news from Valdes or Campeggi, much
speaks for the assumption that the Venetian received the
wishes of the " preachers " as it is here stated, through direct
intercourse with Melanchthon, which relation can be defi
nitely proven. Of course the notorious letter of Melanch
thon to Campeggi, which in several manuscripts is ascribed
to Oratori Thepulo (Tiepolo) "° is not addressed to him, but
really to Campeggi. An epistle to Tiepolo, not extant, which
in the middle of the fifties was circulated by the enemies of
Melanchthon, must have been a forgery. We can believe
Melanchthon when, September 5th, 1556, he writes that he
never wrote to Tiepolo; but in the same letter to Flacius in
which he states this he tells us of a conversation which he
had with Tiepolo during the Augsburg Diet."1 According to
it the Venetian embassador had been instructed to offer his
services to the Saxon elector. Melanchthon had been sent
to Tiepolo with Chancellor Briick, avowedly to thank the
Venetian senate, evidently because the speech had to be made
in Latin. After his address, in which, according to his state
ment, he had not mentioned the religious controversies, the
embassador had protested against receiving his remarks as
an assent to the doctrine accepted in the Saxon country. " I
replied," says Melanchthon, " that we had not thus regarded-
the matter. Thereupon, as was befitting, I spoke of the
virtue of the prince, his true piety and that he confessed
(amplecti) the doctrine of the Catholic Church, but rejected
"Sanuto, p. 312 [Kolde's original prints the quotation, which states
the above-mentioned four points] .
M July 6th. C. R. II, 169 seq. Cf. the Letters of R o s e 1 1 u s , Venice, C R.
II, 226 and 243. B e a r a t h , Jahrb. fur Prot. Theol. 1882, p. 179. There can
be no doubt of the authenticity of Melanchthon's Letter to Campeggi, -Brieger
(p. 37 note! to the contrary notwithstanding, as he does not enter upon
M.'s relations to Tiepolo. It agrees perfectly with M.'s original view of
Campeggi and with all that has been discovered about his position in the
introduction to tho Augustana, etc.
01 C R. VIII, 939. Cf. Salig, Vollstand. Historie der Augsb. Konfession.
Ill, (Halle 1735) p. 329.

KOLDE ON MELANCHTHON. 217
the abuses, and desired to have the controversial questions
which had arisen, decided and provision made for the wel
fare of the entire church." In this sense he had spoken to
this man who was hostile to the evangelical people, and per
haps had said a few general things to defend them, but could
not definitely remember his words. Afterwards his words
had been committed to writing, and'2 that may have been
the origin of said letter.
It does not concern us what was the nature of this letter ;
but what Melanchthon reports about the conversation gives
rise to the supposition, that at this occasion he also referred
to those points which according to his view were essential,
and that the embassador fixed upon them as the demand of
the. preachers and reported home accordingly. That Tiepolo
gives them first place in his report, even before mentioning
the opening of the Diet (June 20th), only proves the impor
tance which the zealous representative of the Catholic Church
attached to these remarks, and is no proof that this conversa
tion with which I hypothetically connect his report took
place before the 20th, although that is quite possible. Neither
can it be concluded from the fact that Briick was present
during these discussions that Melanchthon negotiated with
Valdes in agreement with Briick. According to Melanch
thon's own description of the situation, his remarks about
the religious question, the abolition of abuses, etc., were only
made incidentally with the view to exonerate his prince and
Protestants in general, but not, as in the negotiations with
Valdes, to attach definite propositions to them. The whole
episode only serves to show how much Melanchthon was in
clined to awaken the thought among opponents that the issue
was essentially about doing away with certain abuses, or
about certain concessions on the part of those of the old faith.
According to the information given by the imperial sec
retary, Cardinal Campeggi had also received the impression
that this would be the chief point in the " opinion and inten-
52 " Afterwards my words were annotated in some manner."

218 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
tion " prepared by the protesting estates.53 He writes, as
Brieger proves probably (p. 39), on the 23rd, that he had
learned in various ways that the Protestants in the " opin
ion " which they were to present the next day would confine
themselves to four points: the sacrament sub utraque, the
celibacy of priests, the canon of the mass, and what appears
here for the first time and is very important for the whole
investigation, a General Council." "They also desire, as is
said, to confiscate the possessions of the clergy." ™ The way
in which this point is here added, confirms the supposition I
expressed above, that this question was touched upon only
incidentally in the negotiations. In this general form Cam
peggi made his report to the cardinal secretary of state, Sal-
viati, in his message, written in intervals and sent June 26th.
At the same time, as Brieger has proven in a masterly
investigation, he must have sent officially to Rome, directly
to the Pope (perhaps by private messenger),™ four definite
points as the demands of the Lutherans. The question then
arises, " Whence come these four points ? " Did Melanch
thon perhaps, after all, as the message from Augsburg sug
gests, fix the demand of the Protestants for Valdes, i. e. (we
must assume this), since he wanted to confer with Briick,
officially with the sanction of Briick and the elector ? I con
sider that impossible in view of the preparation made for the
immediate delivery of the confession.
But how did they arise then ? Probably in the same way
as those sent to Venice by Tiepolo. " Their formulation,"
K For diverse reasons I intend that they should restrict themselves to
the four points. Lammer, Monum. Vaticana. Freiburg 1861, p. 43. This
incompletely transmitted message is well examined in B r i e g e r , p. 39.
51 The fourth that there should by all means be a General Council in which
I know the mind of N. S. (Lammer, p. 44).
65 They also speak of confiscating the ecclesiastical possessions, which would
be a robbery upon the whole eccl. state. Ibid.
M It is sufficient to refer to Brieger, p. 41, and the sources there mentioned.
I would like to add that to this message to the Pope must have been joined
the Diet proposition which Campeggi originally wished to join with his mes
sage to Salviati. (Lammer, p. 42), but which must have been sent sooner
than the writing of the 26th to Salviati, as according to the report of Andreas
del Burgo of July 12th (Brieger, p. 49) was read in the consistory on
the 6th.

KOLDE ON MELANCHTHON. 219
says Brieger correctly (p. 43), "may be traced to Valdes,
since he fixed the demands of the Protestants upon the basis
of Melanchthon's verbal statements." But if Brieger thinks
he can safely gather their contents from the report of the
Nurembergians, although the fourth article probably refers
to the demands for a General Council, and sees the occasion
of fixing them in the negotiations carried on until June 19th,
I can not consider this to be correct, since the addition of the
demand for a Council speaks against it.
I would rather venture another combination — and in the
scantiness of sources we all are dependent upon combinations
and surmises.
For Melanchthon, after the conversation with Briick on
June 21st, the negotiations with Valdes were not yet closed.
If he did not dare to conduct them in the name of the Evan
gelical estates, he did consider himself justified in continuing
them personally. We learn that from him directly, for as he
writes to Camerarius (June 26th) he has permitted Valdes to
examine the confession before its delivery. To his terror, he
learned that Valdes, notwithstanding the author's endeavor
to state everything as mildly as possible, had found it sharper
farucporepov) than the opponents could stand." After the
earlier negotiations it is probable that Melanchthon showed
him the second part specially, for the mKporepop in the opin
ion of Valdes can refer only to it. We can readily assume
that the three points were again mentioned, for that they
remained the principal thing to Melanchthon even after all
that had been treated in the last deliberations of the Evan
gelical estates can be seen from the fact that on the same
day, without special occasion on the part of the opponents, he
wrote to Luther: Nunc mihi constituendum, priusquam re-
spondeant adversarii, quid velimus concedere ipsis; de utra-
que specie, de conjugio, de privata Missa; omnis erat delib
eration

"C R. II. 140.
"Ib., 141.

220 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
But during this conversation with Valdes, which, ac
cording to the letter to Camerarius, could not have taken place
earlier than June 22d or 23d, Melanchthon, after Briick's
preface was completed, must also have acquainted him with
the renewed demand of a Council. This explains the circum
stances to me that after the previous negotiations, as far as I
see, this question was not again broached by the Protestants.
Campeggi in his report to Salviati now mentions the demand
for a Council as the fourth point. For we must almost surely
conclude that Campeggi, when he wrote this, had again been
acquainted by Valdes of the progress of affairs, since he, as
an argument of the opponents for the abolition of the celibacy
introduces a very special statement from the confession. This
he could scarcely have learned from anyone but Valdes, who
has seen the confession. "Allegano nostri Canonisti, quali
dicono che cosi come la Chiesa ex magna causa ordino il Celi-
bato, cosi adesso majori ex causa si doveria levari." 5a
We need no further declaration that Valdes also informed
Granvella or the Pope of those things which he had heard
of Melanchthon in renewed conversation. Though Melanch
thon had spoken only as a private man, he was still the best
known among the evangelical theologians, and his remarks
could pass as an authoritative statement of the sentiment.
Thereupon, Valdes must have received the commission to fix
them in writing, and, so as to know for all cases, how Rome
would act in regard to them, to send them to Rome directly
through Campeggi. Before he sent his message to Salviati
they must have gone to Rome, as articles of Melanchthon,™
since the consistory debated them July 6 th.
Thus on the foundation of fragmentary sources we must
imagine things to have taken place, until new discoveries
teach us something else.
Es L a m m e r , p. 44.
00 J . F i c k e r , D. Konfutation d. Augsb. Bekennt. Leipzig 1891, p. XVII.
The demand of a council was not a demand of Melanchthon's, who in this
point was willing to defer to the emperor. C. R. II, 94.

CHAPTER XVII.
THE LUTHERAN CONFESSION.
KOLDE ON THE FIRST KNOWN DRAFT, OR
OLDEST REDACTION, OF THE AUGS
BURG CONFESSION AND ITS
DISCOVERY.
The Discovery of the Document — Its Significance — A Brief Analysis of Its Con
tents, Including Especially Melanchthon's Introduction — Fate of this Redaction.

DIE ALTESTE REDAKTION
DER AUGSBURGER KONFESSION1
MIT MELANCHTHONS EINLEITUNG
zum erstenmal herausgegeben und geschichtlich gewiirdigt
VON
D. Theodor Kolde,
o. Prof, der Kirchengeschichte in Erlangen.

Giitersloh:.
Druck und Verlag von C. Bertelsmann.
1906.

1 The Oldest Redaction of the Augsburg Confession, with Melanchthon's
Introduction, for the first time published and historically rated, by Dr.
Theodor Kolde, regular Professor of Church History in Erlangen, etc.
18 221

PREFACE.,

HABENT sua fata libelli. The publisher's desire that I
should write an entirely new introduction to the Sym
bolical Books (which would be proportionate to the present
status of science, and which, the Lord willing, is to
appear during the next year) for " J. T. M ii 1 1 e r ' s Die
symbolischen Biicher der evangelisch-lutherischen Kirche,"
led me first of all to resume my Augustana researches, and es
pecially to reach clear conclusions ras to Th. Brieger's newest
work, " Zur Geschichte des Augsburger Reichstags von 1530."
Out of this work grew the dissertation* published in the sec
ond part of the present book "On Melanchthon's Negotia
tions with Alphonso Valdes and Lor. Campeggi." It was al
most completed in the first draft when the discovery of the
earliest redaction, which is here printed** for the first time,
claimed my entire attention. It was a matter of course that
the historical appreciation of this document should now come
to the fore, for, as I believe to have proven, it has brought us
a great deal further in our knowledge of the origin of the
principal evangelical confession. At the same time we have
caught important new glimpses of the political and ecclesi-

[* Constitutes Chap. XVI of this Book.]
[*» Constitutes Chap. XVIII of this Book.]
222

FIRST DRAFT OF AUGUSTANA. 223
astical history of the Augsburg Diet. As this also throws
new light on Melanchthon's private negotiations, which are
so closely connected with the history of the Augustana text,
I deemed it my duty to append my investigations as a sec
ond part, although the rather long title of my book does not
make special references to it.
D. TH. KOLDE.
Erlangen, Dec. 5th, 1905.

THE OLDEST REDACTION OF THE AUGSBUEG CONFESSION.
Next to the question about the genuine text of the Augs
burg Confession as it was read and presented June 25th, 1530,
to the Emperor and the land, the problem concerning its
gradual formation has from the start abundantly occupied
scientific investigators. Since the fundamental works of G .
G. Weber,2 Forstemann8 and Bindseil,4 a large
and ever increasing literature on the subject, has come into be
ing, and we owe it many an important result even in later
years. We know now, among other things, and it is one
of the merits of Th. Brieger5 to have determined
it, what is meant by the " Torgau Articles," that opin-

2 G . G. Weber, Kritische Geschichte der Augspurgischen Confession.
Frankfurt a. M. 1783 and 1784. 2 vols.
BK. Ed. Forstemann, Urkundenbuch zu der Geschichte des Reichstags
zu Augsburg im Jahre 1530. Halle 1830 f. 2 vols.
'H. E. Bindseil in the Corpus Ref., vol. xxvi (Brunswick 1858), pp. 97
seqq. 'Th. Brieger, The Torgau Articles, in Kirchengeschichtliche Studien,
Leipzig. 1888 pp. 265 seqq.

224 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
ion of the Wittenberg theologians that was delivered to the
Prince Elector at Torgau toward the end of April. With
this first draft of that which gradually grew into the Augs
burg Confession, we have gained a secure foundation for
further research. The more thorough examination of the
material in letters and official documents has given us in
formation about many details, and the origin and value of
various manuscript recensions of the Augustana as it grew
into shape, have been discussed in many instances. But
notwithstanding the acumen devoted to these problems, we
are still far from having a clear understanding of the his
tory of the gradual formation of the Confession, much less
can we determine with any degree of certainty the single
phases through which its text passed under the ever-amending
hand of Melanchthon and the influence ef circumstances.
The fact is, that all the copies extant from the time before
the presentation of the Confession, including even Spalatin's
which is deserving of special consideration, take us back not
much further than about the time of the arrival ef the Em
peror, that is, the middle of June.
For this very reason the question which justly was treated
again and again, concerning the extent and contents of the
"Apology" sent May 11th to Luther and approved by him,
could be answered only in the most imperfect manner. It was
surmised that it contained a rather rhetorically written in
troduction, which Melanchthon, as soon as he arrived in Augs
burg, substituted " for a simpler one written in Koburg, and
which afterward, before the presentation of the Confession,
had to give way to a preface written by the diplomat Briick.
Then it was determined, with considerable certainty, that the
"Apology" did not contain the (XX.) article "Of Faith
and Good Works," that the (XXVII.) article " Of Monastic
Vows " was given in shorter form than as we know it now,

•Melanchthon to Luther, May 2nd (Corp. Ref. II, 39 seq.). Ego exordium
nostrae apologiae feci aliquanto pnTopuidrepov quam Coburgae scripseram.

FIRST DRAFT OF AUGUSTANA. 225
and that the (XXVIII.), " De Potestate Ecclesiastica,"
which perhaps was not even written, most certainly was not
known to Luther in the form presented June 25th.'
A document of importance to the question as to what
Luther had really seen, could be expected to be found in the
Latin version which the Nuremberg delegates received May
31st and sent to Nuremberg on June 3rd.8 For even if the
text probably was no longer the same that Luther had seen,
since, as we know, many changes were made in it directly
after it returned from Koburg," it was still to be assumed
that the version sent to Nuremberg was after all nearer the
original one than it was to the final revision. And, in any
event, it must be an important stage in the history of the
Augustana text. But all searching for that "incomplete"
Latin version was in vain up to the present.
Then Dr. Karl Schornbaum, to whom the investi
gation of the history of the Frankish-Brandenburgian Refor
mation is so much indebted, in a letter dated July 11th, called
my attention to a document without date or title, found by him
in the Nuremberg district archives. He stated, "It agrees to
a remarkable degree with the Editio Princeps of the Augus
tana, although it makes mention of none but Saxons." When
on July 20th, I investigated the matter at the place of dis
covery, I discovered that it was an error to assume any
agreement with the Editio Princeps, but that here was dis
covered a link hitherto completely unknown in the history
of the growing Confession, and which, since we can deter
mine its origin, can give us some entirely unexpected infor
mation.

 I
' Cf. Brieger, as above, p. 278.
8 C. R. II, 78 and 83.
•Luther to Melanchthon May 22nd (C. R. II, 60) : "In Apologia quotidie
mutamus ; locum de votis, quia erat exilior iuiusto, exemi, supposita alia
disputatione eadem de re paulo uberiore. Nunc de potestate clavium etiam
disputo. Vellem percurrisses articulos fidei, in quibus si nihil putaveris esse
vitii reliqua utcunque tractabimus. Subinde enim mutandi sunt atque ad
occassiones accomodandi."
[N. B. — In place of Kolde's lapsus above, read, "Mel. to Luther." — T. E. S.]

226 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
The following is the version of the document : '°
[Here follows, in Kolde's German volume, the text of the
newly discovered manuscript. In this work, it constitutes
chapter XVIII.]
What, then, is the nature of this manuscript ? It needs
no argument to prove that we have an early redaction of the
Augustana before us. If the reader is observant he will at
once receive the impression that he is perusing a translation,
and that one which was made while in course of writing.
The many passages that arc crossed out and corrected (and
which are carefully reproduced in the reprint), with few
exceptions, constitute no corrections of mistakes in writing,
but, as is clearly discernible, of errors in translation. And
the "German," too, which in some cases evidently clings slav
ishly to the literal rendering of terms not entirely, familiar
to the layman, and in others employs specifically German
idioms to facilitate the understanding while preserving the
peculiarities of the foreign pattern, clearly shows that we are
dealing with a translation of a Latin original, and not with
an earlier emendation of the German text. The time and
origin are easily determined by documentary proof.
We know from a letter sent by the Nuremberg delegates
(to Augsburg), Christoph Kress and Clemens Volkamer, to
the council on May 81st, that on said day they had obtained
the "Articles like those previously composed in Latin," but
without preface or conclusion, and that they intended to have

"The manuscript, which has no title of any kind, and is preserved in the
Nuremberg District Archive in a bundle of documents bearing the signature
S. I. L. 68. No. 6 (recently reported by Schornbaum, Z. K.-G. xxvi, p. 146),
consists of 16 folio leaves in two layers of four sheets each, fastened to
gether. The first leaf and the last are blank. At the foot in the margin
are found signatures in part, but not continued A i]., etc. Dr. Schornbaum
had the kindness to copy the document for me, which is hereby most grate
fully acknowledged. Apart from the fact that double consonants were omitted
and the initial v's were changed to u, the spelling of the manuscript is ac
curately reproduced. It was necessary also to mark in the annotations the
words crossed out or corrected in the text, which prove that we have a trans
lation before us. (See below on this point.) The punctuation, which is
almost entirely lacking in the manuscript, has been inserted by me.

FIRST DRAFT OF AUGUSTANA. 227
them copied by "Mr. Jerome Ebner's sons" and sent to the
Council of Nuremberg."
This was done on June 3rd, on which clay they wrote home :
"Herewith we send your worships a copy of the Saxon reso
lution in Latin, accompanied by the preface or preamble.
But it lacks an article or two at the end and the conclusion,
since the Saxon Theologi are still at work on these parts."
According to this, the delegates upon their instance had also
obtained the preface, and it is easy to understand from its
contents that Melanchthon did not like to publish it too soon.
As early as June 4th (which shows how quickly messages
were carried in those days from Augsburg to Nuremberg) the
resolution was in the hands of the council, * and on the same
day it was resolved to present a copy to the theologians, but to
provide that no further copy be made, nor that it be put into
other hands."
The subsequent history of the document is related in a
letter of the council dated June 15th (resp. 17) to the dele
gates, in which we read: "We . . . have meanwhile, since
your writing, had the Latin defence of the Prince Elector
of Saxony translated into intelligible German." A resolu
tion of the council, dated June 10th, also informs us that
a no less personage than the illustrious Jerome Baumgartner
was entrusted with this task and excused from attendance at
the sessions of the council during the course of his work.
And this industrious man had finished his translation in
three days, for as early as June 14th the council had exam
ined the contents and determined to have its delegates in-

11 Corpus Reformatorum II, 78.
12 lb., 83.
"Vogt, Die Korrespondenz des Nurnberger Rats, etc. Mitt. d. Ver. f. d.
Gesch. Nurnbergs, IV. Heft. (1882), p. 13,
" "That the Latin resolution of the Saxons be presented to our theo
logians and previously be copied ; but that provision be made that it be not
copied nor put into the hands of any one." Resolution of the council, June
4, 1530. (.District Archive at Nuremberg.)
"Vogt, p. 13.

228 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
quire of the Elector whether it would be agreeable to him to
have the signatures of the councillors."
Since a comparison of this manuscript with other writings
definitely known to have been produced by Baumgartner,
prove him to have been the real writer, there can be no doubt
that the Augustana text before us — I shall henceforth desig
nate it with Na — is the translation of the Latin resolution
produced in Nuremberg for the information of the council
and made from the copy sent home June 3rd by the delegates.
The regrettable circumstance that the Latin original was
not preserved is easily understood from the fact that the
council did not preserve it in its archives, but sent back the
Latin articles June 15th (resp. 17) to the delegates " to
have at hand if needed." " At any rate, the discovery of this
document presents us (though it be only in a German trans
lation) the Augustana according to the stage at the end of
May, 1530, and along with it the oldest extant redaction of
the Confession, together with Melanchthon's preface, which
was hitherto considered lost — a circumstance which gives
peculiar value to the document.

The doeument is divided into the preface, the articles of
doctrine, 18 resp. 17 (see below), and the "controversial arti
cles in which are recounted the altered and abolished abuses."
Let us first look at the long preface, which ought more
correctly to be styled an introduction. Up to the present we
knew only the first short draft which Melanchthon prefixed

M Resolution, Tuesday, June 14th : — " That the delegates at Augsburg be
written that the Saxon resolution pleased a certain council and that they
ascertain from the Elector whether his grace would permit that a council
affix its signatures, and that they also send the decree of the Elector;" To
this was added " or whether discriminations were to be made." Concerning
the above negotiations of the Nuremberg theologians in the matter of joining
the Elector, Dr. C. Schornbaum will soon present more information in a book
entitled " The Politics of George the Pious."
"Vogt, as above p. 15, before the last Alinea omitted the following sen
tence from the original (correspondence of the Nuremberg Council 101, p.
118) :— " We return to you your copy of said apology sent us by you, that you
might have it at hand in case of necessity." The delegates In sending it had
requested to have it returned. (C. R. II, 84.)

FIRST DRAFT OF AUGUSTANA. 220
to the Torgau Articles with the remark: "In hanc senten-
tiam prodest proponere prefacionem longam et rhetoricam."
We also knew (if we may repeat the statement) that on his
journey to Augsburg, while in Koburg, he prepared that in
troduction of which, as I am inclined to assume, there is
preserved to us a fragment in a writing from his own hand
and preserved in the archive at Weimar,18 and which he im
mediately after his arrival in Augsburg elaborated more
rhetorically." There can be no doubt that in Na we possess
Melanchthon's introduction as then prepared, although we
cannot be sure whether it underwent further changes until
May 31st or not.
And it is characteristic enough. The original plan of the
Torgau Articles is still recognizable ; but it has received other
contents. In order to obtain a historical appreciation of this
circumstance we must remember that it was written under
the impression caused by John Eck's well-known writing and
the preface of the Ingolstadt disputator,20 which stirred the
Emperor to the greatest extremes. If Melanchthon, as he
himself recounts, found himself induced to transform the
original apology into a Confessio, he considered it all the
more stringent to give his introduction a strongly apologetical
character. He begins with a very evident captatio benevolenticv. In
the face of his calumniators the Elector next to God puts all
his hope upon the constantly proven goodness and clemency
of the Emperor. As he had always sought the peace of
Europe without pride, insolence or lust of blood, thus in the
religious controversies he had constantly shown clemency

"Forstemann I, 109. C. R. II, 63.
M Melanchthon to Luther, C. R. II. 39 seq. It is no longer believed that
the document printed by Forstemann I, 639 seqq. in C. R. IV, 999 seq.,
which in its whole tenor could hardly originate with Melanchthon, is a draft of
the exordium prepared in Augsburg, as Bretschneider presumed and Plitt I,
524, found highly creditable Brieger's view (Torgau Art., p. 296) that it is
probably an instruction for Dolzig on one of his embassies to the imperial
court, is probably nearer the truth.
20 See Kolde, as above. Preface by Plitt, Einleit. in d. Aug., I (Er
langen 1867), pp. 527 seq.

230 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
'alone, and was falsely accused of lust of blood, which was
evident from his declared readiness to hear the case. And
as the Elector desired nothing more than thus to further the
glory of God and establish universal peace, so nothing
would be better pleasing to God, than if the Emperor would
use his power to unite Christendom, just as formerly Theo-
doric, Charlemagne and Henry II. had done, for the Holv
Ghost actually admonished princes to protect the faith. And
since the present Emperor was endowed with no fewer virtues
and fear of God than said princes, and even far surpassed
them in power and splendor, it would not be beneath him to
hear the cause of Christendom and to unite it.
But before the doctrine preached in the Electorate is dis
cussed, the attempt is made to prove that the Elector did
not further the new doctrine with an evil purpose.21 Never
before did the two brothers, Dukes Frederick and Hans, fall
under any suspicion or evil report, for they were kind to
every one, no matter what his condition, and they have built
or adorned churches and institutions to a large degree with
their own means. They have always kept their allegiance to
the Roman emperors, and in all affairs of the government
they supplied noteworthy aid in money and armature. They
never entered into alliances with foreign nations or the oppo
nents of the government, and for the sake of the peace and
unity of Germany they never gave occasion for discord to
anyone, but in the face of great provocation they were pa
tient in the interest of peace, and more than once "by their
pains and exertions they brought to peace and quiet others
who were only too ready in arms." How could it be thought
that the Elector, without any great cause, would involve his
honor, property, children and grandchildren in such danger ?
What advantage could accrue to him from such dissension?
It was hidden from him what troubles he would assume along
with this matter. It did not originate with him, but with
the many pious souls, who were aggrieved because Christian
-' Compare the Introduction of the Torgau Art., Th. Kolde, p. 128.

FIRST DRAFT OF AUGUSTANA. 231
doctrine was oppressed and obscured with human opinions,
useless talk and daily increasing abuses, while no one was
able to speak concerning repentance and the grace offered
us not for the sake of our satisfaction, but through faith in
Christ. Furthermore, it was the preaching of indulgences in Sax
ony, which were unduly exalted, that induced Luther to offer
objections in several pamphlets, academically as it were, and
not before the people, and without any slander of the Pope.
But his opponents at once stirred up strife and secured his
banishment before the case was even tried. Luther was com
pelled to give answer and many were pleased thereM'ith, not
because he rejected indulgences, but because of the salutary
and comforting doctrine of repentance and justification by
faith. Hence it seemed a grievous and sinful thing to the Elector
to undertake anything against the originators of this doc
trine, especially since those who were concerned in it would
not venture to do anything in the matter, and the changes
in religion would have been much worse if the learned
preachers had been removed. For before Luther wrote any
thing, offensive and erroneous doctrine had arisen, and would
have caused dangerous innovations and rebellion, if Luther
had not prevented it. The opponents themselves, who now
speak much more guardedly of their own inventions, must
admit that there is much that is wholesome and useful in
this doctrine.
It is evident that through it many heresies against the
holy sacrament have been suppressed. Then, too, the doc
trine of the Anabaptists against the holding of earthly pos
sessions, against the courts, the power of the civil authorities
and all civil order would have been spread much more widely
had not the hearts of men been strengthened by this (evan
gelical) doctrine. It is even unfounded to say that the
Anabaptists and their ilk were sprung from Luther's doc
trine. "For such things have started before Luther and

232 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
abounded most in those places where there was a dearth of
true pastors that might have strengthened and guarded the
conscience of men against false doctrine."
The matter had been made odious, chiefly through the
common talk that the Evangelicals had done away with all
ceremonies and destroyed all spiritual order. On the con
trary, their constant endeavor was to retain them with all
godly fear, so that it could be said that the mass was not
celebrated with greater devoutness anywhere else in Ger
many. They followed the ordinary custom, too, except that
along with the Latin singing they also used the German.
The people received the sacrament with greater reverence and
oftener than formerly, and every one was examined before
hand, a thing which formerly could hardly be done, as peo
ple sometimes came to it in crowds. Confession is also ob
served, the power of the keys is lauded in public preaching,
and the sermons are pure and intelligible, and this surely is
the most acceptable offering before God.
At times psalms and the litany are sung, not for the sake
of lucre or money, but by the pupils and the assembled people,
whereby the ignorant receive practice and are earnestly ad
monished to prayer through God's Word, and that is the
purpose of the ceremonies.
The holy days are also observed with the exception of a
few newer ones, with which more enlightened men have long
been displeased. To this is added a very useful ceremony,
which in former times was very diligently observed and later
on was completely lost sight of, owing to the sloth of the
pastors and the people, namely, the catechising or instruc
tion of the young. For this the boys and girls are gathered
in the churches and the principles and foundations of the
Christian faith are explained to them, and they are then
examined as to what they have remembered. All this is of
great advantage in spreading Christian knowledge. The
churches, too, are maintained at great expense to the govern
ment.

FIRST DRAFT OF AUGUSTANA. 233
This is the ordering of the churches in the Electorate of
Saxony, and the Evangelicals wished nothing better than that
it were pleasing to the bishops also, but these persecuted it
on account of the marriage of the priests and such reasons.
"If they," writes Melanchthon, "were a little better disposed,
no one would need to complain that the order of the Church
is broken. It is unfounded to say that the object of this doc
trine is to suppress spiritual power." If the bishops would
give up some .new causes of complaint, their power and glory
would in no wise be diminished, and they would not need to
worry about their possessions. To this Melanchthon adds
very characteristically, "However, some others more than
once have attempted under the guise of a reformation to de
prive the ecclesiastics of their possessions." Also the Bohe
mians had said at the Council of Basle that ecclesiastics
ought not to have any possessions, but the evangelical doctrine
was that every Christian, also bishops and other ecclesiastics,
ought to be permitted to own property. The poverty of
bishops does not help the Church. The essential thing is that
the gospel be preached in its truth and purity.
Once again the statement is emphasized that the seditious
attempts to rob the clergy of their possessions have nothing
whatever to do with the doctrine of the Evangelicals, who
desire only that Christians be instructed in pure doctrine
and consciences remain undisturbed by unchristian precepts.
In conclusion it is stated: "Thus we teach that all civil
ordinances and laws under spiritual and temporal power be
considered the order of God for the sake of peace and unity.
Never has a reformation been undertaken so utterly without
violence as this one, and it is well known that our friends
have brought others to peace who were already prepared for
an uprising."

This is Melanchthon's significant introduction. How di
plomatically stated it must have appeared to its author, and

liat

234 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
how little it was so in reality ! There is not the slightest
reference to the political situation, and the question of a
council, which was so prominent in the minds of the lead
ing men, is not even touched upon. Melanchthon expects
everything from the Emperor. Hence his purpose is, above
all, to gain him and to reduce the contrasts to the lowest
degree. It is easy to see how much he was concerned to gain
Luther's consent to this introduction, which is. almost an in
tegral part of the whole, and that he purposed to get it per
sonally by traveling to Koburg.22 And Luther's remark in
his letter to the Elector, of May 15th,23 that he could not step
so softly will now be seen to apply by no means in the least
degree to this introduction. And surely it would hardly be
possible to step more softly than was done here !
It is also evident that this introduction, aside from its
special pointing toward Saxony, was by no means framed in
such a way as to be a common confession, and could not even
be made the foundation of one. The appeal to the Emperor
as the founder of religious peace and the divinely appointed
protector of pure doctrine,2* even if it was agreeable to the
gentle Nurembergers, could hardly have been acceptable to
the Landgrave. And the manner in which the merits of the
Elector were brought to light at the expense of others, and
with almost unmistakable allusion to Philipp's procedure in
the Pack Conspiracy and his propensity for entering into
alliances, even outside the Empire, was dwelt upon, must
actually have proven offensive to other Evangelical Estates.
22 Letter to Luther, May 4th : " I made the introduction to our apology
somewhat more rhetorical than I had written it at Koburg. But I shall bring
it to you myself, or if the Prince will not permit it, shall send it." C. R.
II, 39 seq.
23 D e Wette IV, 17.
24 The document mentioned before, which most probably came from the
Saxon chancery, and which must have contained instructions for Dolzig, shows
that the entourage of the Elector very soon gave up this view. For in this
the Emperor is to be admonished as follows : " That your Majesty would
condescend to be content with the obedience of the temporal sword since
your Majesty has no command of God over the spiritual sword to rule over
souls and therefore owe it to God not to usurp it nor to rule or constrain
the souls to believe thus or so." Forstemann I, 64.

FIRST DRAFT OF AUGUSTANA. 235
This must have sealed the fate of this introduction in the
days in which confederate action was proposed.
We can trace this even now, and many statements in the
documents referring to this matter are only now becoming
intelligible in connection with Melanchthon's document.

The first one who uttered the desire to subscribe to the
Saxon Confession must have been the Landgrave.25 But' this
could have been mentioned only in conversation with the
theologians with whom he was treating concerning an alli
ance with the Zwinglians2' without any knowledge of the
Apology," and by no means officially. At ieast Christopher
Kress, the Nuremberg delegate (whom he immediately,
upon his arrival, sought to win for the thought of urging a
council as such, and by no means to permit the estates of the
Empire to judge the matters of faith), understood the Land
grave to have said "that his Grace had not specially conversed
with the Elector about it, and also thought that they were not
on the best of terms with each other."28
Also the Nuremberg delegates who, like those from Reut-

23 Melanchthon writes as early as May 22nd : " Nunc Macedo agit ut orationi
nostrorum subscribat." (C. R. II, 60.) This must refer to the Confessio,
although the term oratio is surprising.
2" I am inclined to think that Melanchthon's information came from Urban
Rhegius, who writes to Luther on May 21st about a recent conversation with
the Landgrave Philipp and sums up his opinion thus (Kolde, Analecta
Lutherana, p. 124; Enders VII, 341) : "In short I formed the hope con
cerning the Hessian that he would by no means reject the sane counsels of
Philipp and others." Compare with this Melanchthon's report (C. R. II, 60) :
" Now Maeedo is treating about subscribing to our oration and seems able
to be won over to our side; but we need your letters. (Both documents may
have been sent to Luther simultaneously.) The only question is, whether
the~ immediately preceding sentence of Melanchthon, " All at once the articles
must be changed and accommodated to circumstances " must be referred to
the Landgrave's wish also to subscribe to the Apology. At any rate there
Is in Na no trace of deference to his conception.
23 This conclusion must be drawn from the fact that the Nurembergians,
although Chancellor Briick had promised to send them a copy of the docu
ment upon his return from Luther (C. R. II, 51), even though they had
presented their own counsel, did not at once receive it.
28 C. R. II, 52.

236 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
lingen,28 had received only the general instructions to side
with the Elector in matters of faith, did not begin definite
negotiations until they had Na in hands.80 Above all things,
the Elector himself in the beginning, so far as can be seen, did
not care at all about joining forces. When Chancellor Briick
informed him of the desire of the Nurembergians to see the.
counsel, he sent them the very plain answer : "His electoral
highness does not care to have many counsellors in such an
affair, for the devil (and the reporter adds these were his
very words), was fond of mixing in counsel." " It is easily
seen that he wished to act alone, and especially to brook no
interference. He had independently and secretly, without
consulting his theologians, in the first days after his arrival
in Augsburg, sent a translation of the Schwabach Articles
to Innsbruck to convince the Emperor of his orthodoxy.82
Neither did the Ansbach counsellors advance any farther.
As their partisanship up to date made natural, they sought
to get into contact with the Elector probably soon after the
Margrave's arrival on May 24th.S8
As late as June 8th Chancellor Vogler conversed with
Kress on the "Defect that the Saxon document was offered
only in the name of the Elector," while his lord thought best
to "have it offered in the name of all the princes and cities
that are in unity in the articles of faith." He thought, and
now only can we understand this demand, since we have dis
covered Melanchthon's recounting of the merits of the Elector

28 C. R., II, 57. Ad. Weiss' Diarium in G e o r g 1 i , Uffenhelmer Neben-
stunden. Schwabach 1743, p. 683, May 5 : " The Reutlingians in these days are
assuring the princes, the Elector of Saxony and ours (i. e., George of
Brandenburg), that they will persevere with them throughout, in common
risk and doctrine."
"Kolde, p. 33 note 4.
81 C. R. II, p. 53.
"Brieger, p. 392. C. Strange, Kurfurst Johanns Glaubensbekennt-
niss vom Mai 1530. Theol. Studien u. Kritiken, 1903, pp. 459 seq.
88 C. R. 69. That the Margrave from the beginning intended to go with the
Elector and Nuremberg (" as we are in unity with them in the articles of
our holy faith and the order of visitation ") is proven by the instruction
to his councillors on March 24th. Cf. Forstemann I, 119 seqq. (Ad
ditional information may be expected from Schornbaum, Die Politik
Georgs des Frommen, which is to appear soon.)

FIRST DRAFT OF AUGUSTANA. 237
¦ — that "In the introduction whatever any one had done for
his imperial majesty and the empire, might be specified and
mentioned in particular, where it could not be done in gen
eral, for the sake of every prince and estate." This shows in
what manner the Margrave and the Nuremberg delegates
wished to remodel Melanchthon's introduction.
This was not the case with the Landgrave, who, a few days
later, seems to have made earnest endeavors to effect a union
with the Elector. We have no direct proof for this, but it
is borne out by the Landgrave's correspondence of the period
from June llth-13th with Melanchthon and Brenz84 concern
ing the "Counsel regarding the division of the sacrament,"
which had been sent him from Strassburg. Neither can we
affirm with certainty whether Philipp already knew the word
ing of the Saxon "counsel" with Melanchthon's introduc
tion f but he did know that Melanchthon intended to exclude
the Zwinglians, and to grant the Emperor the right of deci
sion in the religious question (a thing which can refer only
to the "counsel"), and to substitute the Diet mediately for the
Council. He protests against both. "If this here is to be a council,
it will undoubtedly be a council such as there has never been
before. And if all of us who confess Christ were to wait for
the resolution to be adopted here, I must be mistaken in my
reading of the Scripture." " And it really appears as if he
meant to repudiate Melanchthon's statement in the introduc
tion, when he refers to Luther's teaching that "the authority
of the government does not extend so far ; but that the gov-

** The correspondence C. R. IT, 92 seqq. As to the origin of the " counsel "
— Melanchthon says only : " The writer of said document " in loc. p. 94 —
Vlrck, Strassburg's Politische Korrespondenz I, 447 — Brenz, who, with Adam
Weiss, was invited to dinner at the Landgrave's, June 13, had a verbal dis
cussion with him de re sacramentaria. Cf. Weiss' Diarium in G e o r g i i ,
Vffenhelmer Nebenstunden, p. 689.
•» One remark is even against it, namely p. 99, where he says : " And
I hope by no means that you intend to compel the Zwinglians by force to
accept your faith or that you will pass them by on account of their faith ; . . .
I do not think you are capable of that, although, much is told me."
"C. R. II, 98.
19

238 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
ernment must rule only over the body and property, and not
over souls and consciences." Or again, in answering the
attack upon the Zwinglians (in Melanchthon's letter : "what
ever foreign following they may have") just as if to mini
mize to the utmost Melanchthon's assertion in the introduc
tion that the Elector never allied himself with foreign nations
or the enemies of the empire,8' he very strikingly remarks
that the "Elector has also made alliances with princes and
cities, and daily seeks such."38 At any rate, "the confederation
and the invitation to a council ™ were the two points which
Landgrave Philipp originally established as the conditions
for his going with those of Wittenberg.""
It is upon this point that negotiations must have been
entered the next few days following, after the question of
preaching clearly showed the menacing danger, and made
the Saxons more ready to include their former allies in their
confession; but unfortunately we are not informed as to par
ticulars in this matter. On June 15th the question of going
together was settled in principle. At least Melanchthon, in
the "German" text which the Nurembergians then sent home,
had put "a common word that could be applied to all estates""
in place of the statement "of the Latin text that in the
Electorate of Saxony this or that was preached or observed ;"
but the work on the introduction and conclusion had been
postponed. Evidently they were delaying the decision on
Melanchthon's introduction, which the Elector must have
been very loathe to give up, and much to their discourage-
« Vid. Chap. XVIII.
58 C. R. II, 99.
"lb., II, 92 seq.
" A third question, but one In which the Landgrave did not stand alone,
was the one concerning the jurisdiction of the bishops. What Melanchthon
wrote in regard to it to Camerarius, June 19th : " Jurisdictionem totam K.aX to
al-iuua reddo Episcopis. Hoc fortasse urit quosdam qui aegre patiuntur sibi
libertatem suam adimi " (C. R. II, 119), does not agree with his statements
in Na nor in A, but with the introduction. How far he was ready to go in
this matter — perhaps even then — is best seen in his letter to Camerarius,
Aug. 31st. 76., 334.
41 lb., 105. This German text, which would be an important document for
the history of the text, has not yet been discovered.

FIRST DRAFT OF AUGUSTANA. 239
ment neither the Margrave nor the Nuremberg delegates re
ceived any information on the condition of the question.'2
But on the very day on which Kress wrote this, the com
mon danger had brought the princes closer together. Together
the Elector, the Margrave, the Duke of Liineburg and the
Landgrave, being invited to a "particular apartment" by the
Emperor, had maintained their evangelical position in the
question about preaching and the processions." They must
now stand together. And in the remarkable opinion of Chan
cellor Vogler, delivered June 16th, on the preaching question,
and in which he advises to deliver to the Emperor the doc
trinal articles of the confession so as to convince him of the
orthodoxy of the Protestants, the evangelical princes at least
are denoted as a fixed confessional group. It bears the title
"Certain considerations why my most clement lord, the
Elector of Saxony ; Margrave George, of Brandenburg ; Duke
Ernest and Diike Francis, of Brunswick and Liineberg;
Philipp Landgrave, of Hessen, and Wolfgang, Prince of An-
halt, cannot consent to postpone or set aside the preaching of
his electoral and princely grace." Not until June 18th did
the Nuremberg delegates receive the promise from the Elector
and the Margrave "to receive them in this matter along with
his grace." " Besides, if the observation of the delegates was
correct, that "the Margrave in this promise was more frank
and friendly with the Saxons," we may conclude that the
Elector had consented against his will. Now, however, the
question concerning the introduction and the invitation, which
was not yet forthcoming, had to become a more burning one.
The Landgrave must have convinced himself that the Swiss

42 " Since there is such a delay with the introduction and conclusion and
no reference is made either to Margrave George or to us, we think that there
might be a way to negotiate with Margrave George and then in the name
of his princely grace and your grace, a start be made with the Elector."
— C. R., II, 105.
43 lb., 106. T h . Kolde, Martin Luther, II, 342.
"Forstemann, I, 275. The paper sent to the Emperor in this matter
the next day bears the same signatures, except that of Duke Francis of Liine
burg.— C. R. II, 106.
« lb., 112.

240 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
and Highlanders were not to be included in the confession,
and in matters of the "brotherhood" he had already yielded
very much, when in his writing to the Emperor concerning
the postponement of the preaching he subscribed the sen
tence: "Thus they make a true report concerning several
doctrines, which (presented to the people for the sake of the
sacrament and, therefore, difficult, and for the sake of better
ing them as we trust in God) it would prove detrimental, if
our preacher were to cease preaching, though we might agree
to such postponement, and we would judge our own conscience
before God, if we were guilty of such evil." "
On the other hand, it must be seen from the latter occur
rences, what great danger it involved to leave the decision to
the Emperor and the Diet as Melanchthon desired in his
great reliance upon the clemency and goodness of the Em
peror. Secondly, it must be observed that only a dependence
upon the expected council, which was the Landgrave's chief
demand, promised sure defence. Besides the desire of the
Margrave and the Nurembergians as first expressed, to exalt
their services to the Emperor and the Empire in the same
manner as Melanchthon had done for the Elector, proved
unfeasible for formal reasons. Thus the compromise was
effected, which we possess in Briick's masterly address.
Melanchthon's introduction was entirely set aside. With
it were dropped all of its more or less open attacks tipon the
Sacramentarians and the declarations upon the jurisdiction
of the bishops which could hardly be harmonized with the
sentiment expressed at the last Diet of Spires. Even, as may
here be remarked, the attack upon the Sacramentarians, which
may be found in Na in the article on the Mass," was "

"Forstemann I, 288.
« Vid. Art. on the Mass in Chapt. XVIII.
" In a weakened form there is a recollection of it in the later German
text at the close of the first paragraph : " At the same time instruction is
given against erroneous teaching of the sacrament." This formula, which
is so general that the Landgrave and even a Zwinglian could accept It, must
surely be due to a compromise, for shortly before, Spalatin's text had it
" At the same time instruction is given against the wrong and erroneous

FIRST DRAFT OF AUGUSTANA. 241
omitted, although, much to the Landgrave's sorrow, the
Tenth Article retained the original phraseology.
But he was much more successful in regard to the other
point. In an entirely businesslike way it is mentioned in
reference to the call to a Diet, that the Evangelical Estates
present their "Opinion and View on account of errors, schisms
and abuses," and offer, if the other Estates did as much (of
which Melanchthon's introduction says nothing), to confer
with them "in an amicable, harmonious manner." At the
same time, quite in agreement with the Landgrave, and
referring to the Diet transactions of recent years, they recall
the declaration of the Emperor that he did not purpose to
let the Diet render a decision in matters of faith, but repeat
edly stated that he would request a council from the Pope.
For this reason the Evangelical Estates "superfluously"
offer to take part in such a common, free Christian council,
and renew their former appeal to one. Thus the "offer"
which summarized their demands and positions, and for
which the Nurembergians continued to wait," and which
originally was to have been -placed in the conclusion, was put
in the introduction where it belonged, and they contented
themselves with a short epilog, which perhaps was not added
until the final recension on June 23rd. It cannot as yet be
fully determined from the documents extant when the intro
duction was written, but it might be certain that the distinct
repudiation of the thought to let the Diet decide on a matter
of religion was occasioned ra in part by the imperial proposi
tion on the opening of the Diet on June 20th, and agreed

teaching of the sacrament," which could refer only to the Zwinglians.
(Forstemann, I, 331.)
<• " To write the delegates from Augsburg to send down as quickly as pos
sible the beginning and ending of the Saxon Council. Friday, June 17th".
(Council resolution).
M " And therefore his majesty is graciously disposed to consider and dis
pose of the matter in this manner," etc. (Forstemann I, 308. Cf. also
the remark of the Strassburg delegates. V i r c k , Politische Korrespondenz I,
458 : " And thus they are silent concerning their oft promised council ").

242 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
upon in the common deliberations of the Evangelical Estates
on June 21st.5'

[From the foregoing results as well as from a detailed
comparison of the texts in Na and A, it becomes evident
that the production of the text which was read to the Em
peror at the Augsburg Diet, was a matter of painstaking
labor involving many alterations in the original manuscripts.
We are now in a position to state with much ground for con
fidence by what process certain expressions found their way
into A and to whom certain statements were due. If we were
presenting the original text as Kolde did in regard to Na, it
would be possible to build up the argument critically. But
as these texts are not here at hand such an investigation
would prove almost useless. We therefore confine ourselves
to the summarized statement of the results of the investigation
as presented by Kolde, being convinced that the facts in the
case will bear out his conclusions, as he has stated them in
the following] : —
After these detailed investigations it will not be necessary
to point out again the importance of the Augustana text
newly acquired in Na. The only thing now is to combine the
old and the new and to state concisely the conclusions which
we now reach as to the gradual development of the text of
the Augustana.
An earlier shorter introduction developing the introduc
tory remarks in the Torgau Articles and which is not extant,
was written by Melanchthon in Koburg and a later and much
51 C. R. II, 124. That the Landgrave did not definitely join until the
end, may be inferred not only from a remark of Melanchthon C. R. II, 125
(155), but also from the fact that, e. g., the manuscripts Dresden 2 and
Koburg which date from the time before the final revision, do not name
Philip of Hessen among the Confessors, which (as Tschaekert says,
Archiv fiir Ref. Gesch. II, p. 62) can not be caused by inexactness or from the
fact that some one subsequently added the subscriptions from memory. (This
is assumed for Dresden 2.) This is disproven from the fact that the Elector
Francis of Liineburg and Albreeht of Mansfield are wanting, although in their
case it might be and was a question as to whether, according to their position,
they were eligible to appearance with the real Estates of the empire.

FIRST DRAFT OF AUGUSTANA. 243
fuller one during the first days of the stay at Augsburg.
We possess it, though perhaps with a few modifications, in
Na. As a result of the transactions carried on concerning a
confederation of the Evangelical Estates and probably not
before the 21st °2 it was supplanted by the Praefatio written
by Briick in German and translated into Latin by Justus
Jonas. The Latin edition of the Confession in its so far earliest
form as presented to us in Na comprised XIX articles in the
first part (resp. XVIII as Melanchthon had contracted VII
and VIII into one) but in such a way that Articles IV and V
and XIV-XVI were transposed. Hence Article XX, concern
ing "Faith and Good Works" was lacking, as we knew before,
and beside this to our surprise, Article XXI, provided for
in the Torgau Articles concerning " The Invocation of
Saints." The XX. Article is first mentioned in the German
version, not extant, which the Nuremberg delegates sent
home on June 15th. From the letter which they sent with it,
we learn that " it was not yet done into Latin " °8 hence its
Latin form was given shape after the 15th. The first Ger
man one which was finally after very many but stylistic
changes," adopted in the Augustana, is extant in Spalatin's
text. The XXI. Article concerning the " Invocation of
Saints," which was written in Latin originally, just as the
later inserted version in Spalatin's text is only a translation
of the Latin one and was afterward expunged,"" appears
first in the I. Marburg version and the French translation
which was made with it as a basis." The German version

"' In connection with the very late addition of the Praefatio it must also be
observed that it was added only as a supplement to the Latin Ansbach text.
Cf. Tschaekert, p. 41.
M C. R. II, 115.
"To this was added (Cf. Forstemann I, 326) the passage in A:
" For it is taught concerning faith in Hebrews 11, — as also the devils know."
In Tschaekert, p. 110, 9-19. The quotation in Forstemann I, 326
is omitted : " Since the Holy Ghost is given through faith, as St. Paul says
in the first chapter of the Epistle to the Hebrews."
"Forstemann I, 322.
"ID., 367.

244 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
sent June 15th to Nuremberg did not. contain it, since only
the article on "Faith and Good Works" is mentioned as being
added to Na. Hence in its German setting (A) it must have
gotten into the Confession as the last article.
The Summa at the close of the first part in its Latin ver
sion is found in its original form in Na. The second and
final form (aside from some unimportant variants) we
possess in Marburg I (and the French text).
For since these manuscripts in the order and contents of
the articles of faith which they alone contain, show an essen
tially different form, preparing the text of A and almost
identical with it, their text originated after Na and most
certainly not before June 8th, for at this date the Nuremberg
delegates and the Ansbach counsellors know nothing else
than that the Confession is presented in the name of the
Elector alone."' The copy itself (resp. the French transla
tion) must have been made about June 15th, i. e., at the time
when the Evangelical Estates were beginning to draw to
gether. And the fact that it contains only the Articles of
Faith is easily explained by the circumstance that the Land
grave in view of his relations to the Zwinglians must have
desired above all things to learn to know the Articles of
Faith, and also that the "Articles in Dispute " were still un
dergoing the most numerous alterations.
The two oldest German texts of the Articles of Faith, are
(as has been recently emphasized with justice) M the one of
Spalatin and the first Ansbach.™ These too did not receive
their final form before June, since they both approach the
type of A, and it cannot be assumed that Melanchthon pre
sented his Latin text to the Nuremberg delegates on May
31st while he had already undertaken such important alter
ations extending even to the arrangement of the articles in
his German version, and because in them the Elector no

" C R. II, 88.
M Cf. T h . Brieger, Zur Geschichte des Augsburger Reichstages, p. 17.
" Forstemann I, 310 seqq. and 343 seqq.

FIRST DRAFT OF AUGUSTANA. 245
longer appears in them as the sole confessor. As a matter
of fact it is now proven that the Anspach text was already
then in existence and must have served as an enclosure with
Chancellor Vogler's Opinion 60 composed June 16th in the
form preserved in the manuscript at Nuremberg as Forste
mann was the first to conjecture."
Since, further, Spalatin's text is considerably closer to
Na, as shown above, though much of Na is already omitted
or altered, the view stated first by G. G. Weber," will prevail,
according to which Sp. is older than Ansbach I, but of no
earlier origin than the first week in June. Thus we would
possess two different versions of the German text of the Arti
cles of Faith from the first half of June ; but the Summary
in only one version, since it is not given in Spalatin's manu
script,88 and that version with the exception of slight varia
tions in the same form in which it afterwards entered into
the Confession.
For the "Articles in Dispute " or the second part, we know
the Latin version only in the form recognizable in Na and
the final one in A. The former German version which corre
sponds to Na is lacking completely both for the Articles of
Faith and the second part. But for Article XXVIII we
have the earliest form in Forstemann, I. 87. While then all
the other unfinished German and Latin manuscripts that
originated before the final determination, show no new type
even though they differ in particulars, Spalatin's text un
doubtedly assumes the mean between the text to be deter
mined for the time of Na and the later ones presenting in the
main the form of A.

"Forstemann I, 274. Ad rem below.
M The same type is found in Hannover I, Cf. P. Tschaekert, Neue
Untersuchungen fiber Augustanahandschriften. Archiv fiir Ref. Gesch. II
(1904) 69 seqq.
•2Krit. Gesch. der Augsb. Konf. I, 310.
ra The fact that Spalatin's text does not reproduce the Summary, is no proof
that it did not then exist, as Brieger, Zur Gesch. des Augsb. Reichstags
p. 18 seems to assume We know from Na that it existed in Latin. Spalatin
must have omitted the passage, because he knew that there was something
missing after Art. XIX and later when Art. XX (and XXI) came to him, forgot
to Insert it, or did not do so, for want of space.

24G THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
But Spalatin's manuscript is noteworthy from still another
relation. In the first place it is clearly a real private un
dertaking, instigated by that collector's zeal to which we owe
so many valuable notes from the hand of Spalatin. It takes
a peep at Melanchthon's work at a time when the latter him
self did not consider it finished or at all right for inspection
by a third party. And this is what makes it especially valu
able. Besides, as was mentioned before, it arose gradually
and Articles XXI and XX were clearly not inserted until
later. And not only that. A new investigation of the manu
script " has convinced me that the rest was not written con
secutively either. Right in the second layer (fol. 46) begins
the second part: " Of the Articles in Dispute," and over this,
as over the title of " Articles of Faith and Doctrine," Spal
atin made a cross, just as he was accustomed to do over the
beginning of most of the documents and letters coming from
him. From this I infer that he wrote the two parts which
were not combined until later, apart from each other, ac
cording as they were accessible to him.
If my remarks above concerning the federation of the
Evangelical estates are correct, then e. g. the Article on the
, Mass, which probably also in the German text originally con
tained the severe condemnation of the Zwinglians,-later omit
ted [Vid. Art. XVI, p. 264], can only have originated when
the negotiations with the Landgrave were already in prog
ress, but not yet ended, for Spalatin does not contain said
passage, but an indirect and much more severe reservation
against their doctrine than the final version.65 Why Spal
atin suddenly broke off his copy in the Article on "Vows"
and unfortunately did not preserve for us the article so
important to the history of the Confession, on the Authority
of the Bishops we do not know. I should like to state my
surmise that he stopped when he learned that the whole

" I examined it there Sept. 27th, 1905.
c; See note 26, p. 235.

FIRST DRAFT OF AUGUSTANA. 247
document had in the meantime received an essentially dif
ferent form which made his copy superfluous.
r But Spalatin's text also permits of a thing which is
closely connected with the origin of the Confession, namely
important observations for the determination of the question
as to the languages in which the individual articles were
first written.
In the first place we must. emphasize over against errors"
that continue to be repeated, that the Latin and the Ger
man text arose independently beside each other, and that both
possess equal authenticity. In detail it cannot be proven
everywhere, but at least for some articles, that one was
written first in German, the other in Latin and that a
certain dependence can be observed even in the received
text. That Article XX as noted repeatedly67 was written
first in German, has been handed down direct, and that the
German text is virtually a translation from the Latin, is un
mistakable. Also the Article on the " Invocation of Saints,"
is, as shown before, in the German version preserved in
Spalatin, only a translation of the Latin. At the same time
I consider it possible that Spalatin's text is only a trans
lation of his own and for his own purposes, of the Article
so far extant only in Latin and that the later German version
must be regarded as an independent one and not a revision
of the text found in Spalatin. Also the XXIII. Article on
the " Marriage of Priests " was written first in Latin as in
dicated elsewhere " and as can also be seen from a comparison
with Spalatin's text. The same may be observed in Article
XXVII " On Monastic Vows," since its German text, at
least in the final version seems to be only a recasting of the

" Thus Tschaekert p. 7, who refers to several passages in the report
of the Nuremberg delegates C R. II, 80, 83, 105 ; but these are disproven
by other sources and the critical investigation, that the Latin text of the
Augsb. Conf. was prepared first.
•' C. R. II, 106.
"Brieger observed this. Torg. Art. p. 300, note 2.

248 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
original Latin text.09 We would have to conclude therefore
that Melanchthon first wrote the detailed elaboration of this .
article, of which he wrote to Luther on May 22nd, in Latin,
for the fragment of this article preserved in Spalatin has so
many points of resemblance to Na, that one is justified in
thinking of the same Latin original for both.
This leads to a further question. Did Luther see the
German or the Latin text of the Apology, as far as it was
done up to May 10th, or both? So far no absolutely re
liable reply can be given to this question. It has indeed
been considered proven that Luther saw the Apology in both
versions, from the fact that the " Protocoll " of the Nurem
berg delegates for May 16th states that the "Counsel written
in German and Latin, but not finally determined upon, was
sent to Dr. Luther to look over."'" But this so-called proto
coll is no independent source contemporaneous with the events
recorded, but a subsequent narration based upon the corre
spondence of the Nuremberg city council.
As Melanchthon rather wrote Latin than German, and as
the Latin version was completed relatively sooner than the
German, as can be inferred from various indications, it
would be quite natural to infer that Luther saw only the
Latin. But this is contrary to the consideration that it was
the Elector who sent him the Apology and that the latter
must first have read and approved it. Hence, until proof is
brought to the contrary it must be assumed as probable that
Luther saw both versions so far as they were finished.
But what was finished till then? As for the number of
articles seen by him, my investigations have brought out only

ra To mention one example. Quod ei obligatio votorum nullas haberet causas;
ut mutari possit. (Tschaekert p. 175, 6), is rendered quite awkwardly in Ger
man, " wo die Pflich der Gelubde kein ander ursach hette, dass sie mocht aufge-
hoben werden," while Baumgarten renders the sense much better : " Sollten den
diese Gelubd nit mogen aufgelost werden," etc.
70 Thus J . T . M ii 1 1 e r in his Einleitung of his edition of the Symbolical
Books. 4. Aufl. Giitersloh 1876, p. LVII and after him K n a a k e et al. Luthers
Anteil an der Augsb. Konf. Berlin 1863, p. 75.

FIRST DRAFT OF AUGUSTANA. 249
this new fact that beside Art. XX, Art. XXI was lacking.'1
The question as to the contents and form of the articles seen
by him, is far more important. Even on this point nothing
absolutely certain can be stated; but we are justified in
stating this very fact as a result of our investigations.
The comparison of Na with A, shows conclusively what
great changes the Articles suffered in the last two or three
weeks before the presentation. As we can not state positively
that Luther saw even the version in Na, but rather all things
seem to indicate that the text sent him was considerably
altered up to the time when Na was completed, and since the
correspondence between Augsburg and Koburg does not offer
the slightest indication that he had any part in the altera
tions made, or that any of the later versions was sent him,
Luther's direct part in the framing of the Confession, which
was defended during the last forty or fifty years more from
a confessional than scientific and historical interest, is rela
tively small." Luther helped to frame the Torgau Articles
and as can be proven, discussed with Melanchthon before
the Diet™ all other points that might come up and offered
no objection to what he saw in the days of May. But that
is all.
On the other hand it is also indubitable and must ever
be repeated, that nothing un-Lutheran in doctrine, or even
Melanchthonian, as has been asserted, has gotten into the
Confession by means of the many changes made by Melanch
thon and which Luther would have disliked if he could have

21 As is known from a letter of Luther's dated July 21st (De Wette IV.
110 ; Enders VIII, 133) he missed an article de sanctorum cultu, although it
was in the completed Augustana. This may be explained by the fact that he
missed it in the original draft and had not noticed the short article in the
finished copy.
72 I think of the works ofL. J. Rtlckert, Luthers Verhaltnis zum Augsb.
Bek. Jena 1854. Calinich, Luther und d. Aug. Konf. Leipzig 1861. J . K .
F . K n a a k e , Luthers Antell an d. Augsb. Konf. Berlin, 1863, etc.
»* Cf. Melanchthon to Luther, June 27th ( C . R . II , 146 ) : Res sunt antea
deliberates ut scis, sed semper aliter in acie se dant quam antea sunt de
liberate. To Camerarius, Aug. 27th (C . R . II, 334) : Nihil adhuc conces-
simus adversariis prater ea, quae Lutherus censuit esse reddenda, re bene ae
dlligenter deliberata ante conventum.

250 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
seen them in detail, merely because such changes were always
unpleasant to him and they frequently veiled the antithesis
and he would have expressed many things more incisively.
We know what great praise the Reformer bestowed upon the
work when done and how he rejoiced to have lived to the
hour " of this beautiful confession of Christ before such
an assembly " " and saw Ps. 119, 46 fulfilled in it. " I will
speak of thy testimonies also before kings and will not be
ashamed "- — that word which the first copies prepared in
Augsburg and after that all printed editions of the Confes
sion bore as a motto.

'* To Konrad Cordatus, July 6th : " Mihi vehementer placet, vixisse in hanc
horam, quia Christus per suos tantos confessores in tanto consessu publice est
pradicatus confessione plane pulcherrima." D e W e 1 1 e IV, 71 ; Enders
VIII, 83.

CHAPTER XVIII.
THE OLDEST REDACTION1 OF THE AUGSBURG
CONFESSION.
Preface of Melanchthon — The Eighteen Articles of Faith — The Articles in
Dispute.
SINCE there has been much and all kinds of talk about
the Elector of Saxony because his grace has permitted
and suffered the change of some few abuses in the order of
the Church, his Elec. Gr. has placed his highest hope and
trust next to God in the clemency and goodness of Y.
Imp. Maj., which is as famous and glorious with every one
as the powerful conquest of your enemies. And although
in former ages no emperor achieved as much against his
enemies, there is nothing more glorious and laudable than
that Y. Maj. has done in this nothing else than seek the peace
of all Europe. Besides, no pride, insolence or cruelty has
been noticeable in this conduct. Also that Y. Maj. in the
odious actions, which arose from a difference in common
religion and faith, has shown your clemency so manifestly,
that you have been willing to consent to graciously hear such
dissension. Hence no cruelty may be ascribed to Y. Imp.
Maj., since you have so graciously permitted us to come to
such a hearing of the case, contrary to the opinion of some.
Hence it is the submissive request of the Elector of Saxony
that Y. Imp. Maj. would, in the first place, not suffer your-

1 Kolde, in printing the manuscript, indicates in a series of footnotes the
textual readings of many words in this document as they were originally
written, but afterward stricken out and supplanted by the readings of the
final text. The MS. contains scarcely any punctuation. — Vid. Kolde, Die
alteste Redaktion, p. 3, note 1, and p. 4. note 1.
251

252 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
self to be moved to any disfavor or suspicion against him,
and secondly, to hear and consider the case in such a way
that thereby the glory of God may be furthered and common
peace be preserved and maintained, which the Elector of
Saxony desires, not only in view of his age ; but also on ac
count of the danger which every one may expect in it. May
God help Y. Imp. Maj. to further the unity of Christendom
with the same grace as has been done in other matters, since
Y. Maj. could perform nothing more well-pleasing to God,
nor more glorious or honorable to yourself forever, than to
use your power and might for the inquiry into this case and
the unification of Christendom.
Therefore, Y. Maj. should also endeavor to follow the
example of the most famous emperors, Theodosius, Charle
magne and Henry the Second, who rightly considered it
to be a duty of their oflice to weigh the dissensions of faith
and to bring about the preaching of pure doctrine in Chris
tendom, as the Holy Ghost specially admonishes princes to
defend the faith, when he says in the second Psalm, "Now,
therefore, be wise, oh ye kings; be instructed, ye judges of
the earth," and elsewhere : "The princes of the peoples gather
themselves together unto the God of Abraham." When the
princes of the land gather unto God, God is praised gloriously.
With such words the prophet would indicate that God's
honor is furthered when the people are induced by the piety
of the princes, and the princes maintain God-fearing preach
ers. Therefore, He also calls the princes the protectors of
the land, since they are to protect and defend the righteous
and the God-fearing with their power.
Since Y. Imp. Maj. is endowed with no fewer virtues and
fear of God than above-mentioned Theodosius, Charlemagne
and Henry, yea, far transcends several of them in power and
glory, it would not ill become Y. Maj. to examine into the
affairs of Christendom and bring about a union. The Apos
tles have prophesied that Christendom in these last times
would have much adversity, wherefore it would be quite

OLDEST AUGSBURG CONFESSION. 253
necessary to mark the present evils in such a manner that
things may not become worse and more dangerous.
But, later on, we will indicate what the doctrine is that
is taught in the Electorate of Saxony. At present we will
briefly show of what mind the Elector of Saxony is in this
matter, so that it might not be thought that he would further
and abet this new doctrine out of evil purpose.
The honorable Electors of Saxony, Duke Frederick and
Duke Hans, brothers, have always been of such an honorable
and brave nature that they have never been known or sus
pected of any evil. It is also manifest how kind and gra
cious they have always been toward everyone, no matter of
what estate; moreover how much they have always inclined
to the Christian religion and faith, is attested publicly, not
only by their whole life, but also the institutions and churches
which they have in part, at their own expense, built from the
foundation, and in part adorned and endowed. Thus they
have also shown their faith and allegiance to the Roman
Emperors in such a manner as became honorable electors.
In all affairs of the empire they have never fallen short in
furnishing money or sending stately well-armed auxiliaries.
With foreign nations or enemies of the empire they have
never had any understanding or treaty. For the peace and
unity of a common Germany they have been so inclined that
they neither ever gave any one occasion for disturbance ; but,
though they were highly tempted, they have shown patience
for the sake of common peace, so that the disturbance did not
become greater. They have also more than once, when
others were already arrayed in arms, by their diligence and
care brought them to peace and quiet.
And though such things as told above are more than suffi
cient, more and more praiseworthy things may yet be shown
from which the faith and good-will of above-mentioned Elect
ors of Saxony may be seen to greater evidence.
Who would imagine that the Elector of Saxony, without
notable and honorable reason, would imperil his honor, chil-
20

254 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
dren and grandchildren to such an extent ? Or what advan
tage might accrue to him from this miserable discord and dis
sension, that could be compared with this danger which he
undergoes and sees before his eyes daily ? From this it may
well be concluded that "if his conscience had not driven him,
he would not have undertaken to represent these matters, for
it was not hidden from him what a burden he would thus
load upon himself, although the matter did not originate with ¦
the Elector, but with others.
In the first place, many pious and learned people took
pleasure in this doctrine, since all upright men were desirous
of a pure doctrine, and bore it grievously that the Christian
doctrine was oppressed and darkened with the teachings
of men and with useless talk. Every one complained of the
abuses that increased daily; all teaching in the schools
was corrupted; some showed and praised their philosophy;
some exalted human teachings. But the things that were
given us through Christ, of repentance, of forgiveness of sins
that is given us not for the sake of our merit, but through
faith in Christ, — of all this no one could speak, although
among Christians, above all things, the righteousness ought
to be preached that comes from faith, the forgiveness of sins
from faith, etc. Every day new forms of worship were in
vented in the Church that brought revenue, new ways of sell
ing the mass, new saints, new ceremonies, indulgences with
out number, new monkery, and the consciences of the simple
were daily burdened with new commandments.
But there was no one who informed or comforted the
consciences with the gospel. This was the complaint, not
only of the common man, but also of the bishops, though
in secret, for nobody could speak against these things
publicly, since the monks ruled so powerfully in Christen
dom, even over the bishops. But it happened that the indul
gence and letters of remission were preached in Saxon lands
and exalted unduly. This Martinus Luther contradicted by
means of several smaller treatises, scholastically and not be-

OLDEST AUGSBURG CONFESSION. 255
fore the people, and also without abusing or maligning the
Pope. But his adversaries quickly kindled a great contro
versy and published many malicious books in both languages,
and soon, before the case was heard, brought up the ban and
condemnation of the doctrine. Through such unjust action
its respect was somewhat dimmed, and a change took place
in many locations.
Nevertheless, Luther was importuned to answer, and many
pious and learned people took pleasure in his answer, not
because he rejected the indulgence, but on account of the
salutary and comforting doctrine of repentance and the
righteousness that follows from faith. Thus this doctrine was
adopted by many pious people, so that it would have been
difficult for the Elector of Saxony to proceed in any wise
against the originator of this doctrine on account of so many
brave and learned people that clung to it, and on account of
his own conscience. This was especially the case, since those
whose duty it was did not wish to undertake the matter and
the change of religion was already at hand, and would only
have become greater and worse, if the learned preachers had
been put away. For before Luther had written anything, all
sorts of erroneous and scandalous doctrine had already arisen,
which would have caused much grievous change and op
pression in Christendom if Luther had not prevented it.
And the adversaries, if they have any sense at all, cannot
deny that much that is salutary and useful to the salvation
of the soul is contained in this doctrine, which they them
selves accept and allow. For it has brought this about that
the preachers now teach much more thoughtfully of the
power of the keys, of forgiveness of sins, of work-righteous
ness, of the use of the sacraments, of evangelical counsels,
of worldly statutes, of the merit of monastic life and such
like human doctrine, of the worship of saints, after such
things have been brought to light by us. They also dispute
more sharply with us, and even endeavor to slay us with our
own sword.

256 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
And, as can be proven, more than one heresy has thereby
been allayed, which had arisen with new and unchristian
writings against the holy sacraments. The Anabaptists had
spread a seductive and seditious doctrine against the posses
sion of temporal property, against the courts, against the
power of the magistrates, against all civil order, against
preaching, against the holy sacrament, all of which would
have been spread much further had not the hearts of men
been warned and strengthened by this teaching, whereby
authority and civil order are well maintained, and the right
eousness of faith is so bravely defended against the hypocrisy
of the Anabaptists and their imagined angelic holiness.
Hence it is not denied by any upright, honest man, that in
these schisms much has been brought to light that is abso
lutely essential to know. It is also entirely unfounded to
say that the Anabaptists or their ilk have originated from
Luther's doctrine, for such things have, occurred before
Luther, and most of all in such places where there was a lack
of skilful pastors who ought to have strengthened and
warned the consciences of men against false doctrine.
This cause was made specially odious on account of the gen
eral rumor spread by our adversaries that we had done away
with all ceremonies, and were destroying all spiritual order
and rule. With how much reason such things are attributed
to us the facts will show. For this doctrine is not directed
to the end that ceremonies be done away with but rather
that they should be preserved with true fear of God, and
we can say with truth, that in all Germany the mass is not
celebrated with greater fear of God and greater participation
of the people than with us. It is also celebrated according
to common custom, except that along with the Latin singing
we also use German, so that the people may have something
which they can understand -and learn.
The sacrament is received by the people with greater rev
erence and oftener than before, and every one is previously
examined and instructed, a thing which formerly could not

OLDEST AUGSBURG CONFESSION. 257
easily be done, as at such a time a whole crowd was accus
tomed to go together.
Confession is likewise still observed, and the power of
the keys is ofttimes praised in preaching and the people ad
monished what a great power there is in absolution.
The sermons are pure and sensible, which beyond doubt
is the most acceptable sacrifice unto God.
Psalms and the litany are also chanted at the proper
time, not for lucre or money, but by the pupils and the
congregation of people. Thereby the unskilled are practiced
and earnestly urged through the Word of God to pray. For
this reason the ceremonies must be observed in the churches.
The holy days are still observed, with the exception of a
few more recent ones, which have long been displeasing to
well-informed men, for, which reason the bishops and princes
have often counselled how they might abolish some.
Besides all this a very useful ceremony is also observed,
which formerly was used with great diligence in Christen
dom, but afterward fell into desuetude owing to negligence
of the pastors and the people, namely, the catechism and
and instruction of the young. For this the boys and girls
are asked to come together to the churches, where one of the
preachers delivers to them the beginning and foundation of
Christian doctrine, as the Creed, the Ten Commandments,
the Lord's Prayer, several portions of the Gospel on the re
mission of sins, of repentance, of faith in Christ, of good
works, of the cross, of Baptism and the Sacrament of the
Altar. Afterward every one is examined as to what it has
retained. Thus the children advance exceedingly in Christ
ian knowledge, which formerly Avas lacking even to the older
ones on accoimt of much useless disputation and talk.
The schools are maintained with great diligence and at
great expense to the authorities.
This is the order of the churches in the Electorate of
Saxony, mostly in accordance with ancient custom and usage
of the Roman Church, according to the instruction of holy

258 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
teachers, and we desire nothing more than that such should
also be acceptable to the bishops; but they are a little too
hard on us, because they persecute us on account of the mar
riage of priests and such like things.
But if they were inclined toward us with somewhat more
grace, no one would need to complain that the order of the
Church is being broken. For the matter of which many
accuse us, as if this doctrine had the sole tendency to break up
the power of the clergy, is altogether without foundation.
For they would lose nothing of their power and magnifi
cence if they would only let up on some new and improper
abuses. They would also not need entertain any fear for
their possessions, although many others more than once
before us have endeavored, under the semblance of a refor
mation, to take away the possessions of the clergy.
The Bohemians at the Council of Basel, among other
things, have also postulated that the servants of the Church
should have no private property ; but our teaching is entirely
different, namely, that as it is permissible to every Christian
to use other external things, just so every Christian, whether
he be a bishop or a pastor, may legally have and possess his
own property. For even if bishops should become poor and
lose their properties, that would not help other Christians.
But it would help them, if the bishops would provide for the
preaching of the pure and unadulterated Word. These
seditious propositions to take from the clergy what belongs
to it have nothing to do with our doctrine, which demands
only that Christendom be instructed in the pure teaching,
and the consciences be unburdened from unchristian com
mandments, for the Christian Church is born and maintained
solely from the Word as it is written: He has begotten us
through the Word of truth. Thus we teach that all civil
laws and ordinances under spiritual and secular power are to
be observed as an order of God for the sake of peace and
unity. Never has a reformation been undertaken so entirely
without violence as this one, as it is evident that through

OLDEST AUGSBURG CONFESSION. 259
our adherents others have been brought to peace who were
already arrayed in arms.
Up to this point we have shown that this controversy
arose not without cause, and that it was not tolerated by the
Elector of Saxony from a malicious purpose. Now we speak
of the doctrine, and first of all enumerate the principal arti
cles of faith from which Y. Imp. Maj. may learn that the
Elector of Saxony does not tolerate any unchristian teaching
in his territory, but has given all diligence to the universal
Christian faith.

Ube Btticles of jfaitb.
Article I.
In the Electorate of Saxony it is taught and preached
with common consent that the decree of the Council of Ni-
casa concerning the Unity of the Divine Essence and Three
Persons is to be held and believed without doubting; that
is to say, that there is one Divine Essence, which is called
and is God ; one, without body, without parts, of inexpressi
ble might, wisdom and goodness, the Preserver of all things
visible and invisible; and yet that there are three Persons
of one essence, might and eternity, namely, the Father, the
Son and the Holy Ghost. And the term "person" is un
derstood here as the Fathers have used it, to signify not a
part or quality in another, but that which subsists of itself.
On the other hand, all heresies are condemned that have
sprung up against this article, as the Manichseans, Valentin-
ians, etc. Article II.
Also it is taught that, since the Fall of Adam all men ac
cording to nature are born in sin, that is, without fear of and
trust in God, full of concupiscence, etc., and that this disease

260 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
of origin is truly sin, which condemns and brings into
eternal death all those who are not born again through
baptism. Article III.
Thirdly, it is taught that the Son of God did take man's
nature in the womb of the Holy Virgin Mary, so that the
Two Natures, the divine and the human, inseparably con
joined in the one Person are the one Christ, true God and
true man, truly born, suffered, crucified, dead and buried as
a sacrifice, not only for original sin, but also for the actual
sin of all men. He also descended into Hell, and truly rose
again on the third day ; afterward He ascended into Heaven,
that He might sit on the right hand of the Father, and
forever reign, justify, sanctify, quicken and defend all who
believe in Him by sending the Holy Ghost into their hearts.
He shall openly come again, and judge the quick and the
dead, as we confess in the Creed.
Article IV.
Fourthly, that the Holy Ghost is given by means of the
Word and the Sacraments, as Paul saith, "Faith cometh by
hearing." Here the Anabaptists and their ilk are rejected,
who despise the Word and the Sacraments, and think the
Holy Ghost is obtained through human preparation.
Article V.
Fifthly, that we cannot obtain remission of sins and justi
fication before God by any work or satisfaction of ours;
but we receive it free, gratis and unbought, if we believe
that our sin is forgiven us through Christ and we are received
through grace. For Christ came into the world to this end,
that all who believe in Him should not perish. John 3.
Through such faith in the Gospel or promise of grace we

OLDEST AUGSBURG CONFESSION. 261
receive the Holy Ghost, as Paul says, Gal. 3, that we have
received the promise of the Spirit through faith.
Article VI.
Sixthly, that this faith brings forth good works, or that
it is necessary to do good works because of God's will, but
that we do not thereby merit forgiveness of sins and justifi
cation before God, but these are freely given us if we be
lieve that the Father has graciously received us for Christ's
sake, and that we are justified, as the early teachers speak,
e. g., Ambrosius, the epistle to the Corinthians: "It is or
dained of God that he who believes in Christ is saved, freely
receiving remission of sins, without works, by faith alone."
Article VII.
Seventhly, that One Holy Church is to continue forever. I
The Church is the congregation of saints, in which the
Gospel is preached and the sacraments administered. And
to the unity of the Church it is enough to agree concerning
the Gospel and the sacraments. But it is not necessary that
the ceremonies or other human observances should be every
where alike, as Christ says,' "The Kingdom of God cometh
not with observation." Although the Church is, properly
speaking, a congregation of saints and true believers, never
theless, since in this life many hypocrites and evil persons
are mingled therewith, we may well and without danger use
the sacraments that are administered by evil men, according
to the saying of Christ : "The Scribes and the Pharisees sit
in Moses' seat." Both the Sacraments and Word are effec
tual by reason of the institution and commandment of Christ,
notwithstanding they be administered by evil men.
In this connection they condemn the Donatists and others
who taught that the ministry of evil men should not be used
in the Church, for what they do is of none effect.

262 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
Article VIII.
Eighthly, that children are to be baptized, and that through
Baptism they are offered to God and are received into His
grace. Here again they reject the Anabaptists, who say that bap
tism is of no use to children, and that little children are saved
without baptism. Article IX.
Ninthly, that the Body and Blood of Christ are truly
present and distributed in the Supper, and they reject those
who teach otherwise. Article X.
Tenthly, that private absolution ought to be retained in
the Church, although in confession it is not necessary to enu
merate all sins, for that is impossible.
Article XI.
Eleventh, that those who have sinned after baptism may at
any time be renewed by repentance, and that the Church
ought to impart absolution to such. But Repentance con
sists of two parts: firstly, contrition or terror of the con
science through the knowledge of sin ; the other is faith, born
of the Gospel or of absolution, which believes that for
Christ's sake sins are forgiven, and thus comforts and
strengthens the conscience. Then good works are bound to
follow as fruits of repentance.
Here are rejected the Novatians, who would not permit
any one who had sinned after baptism to come to repentance
and absolution. They are also rejected who teach that remis
sion of sins is obtained through our satisfaction, and not
through Christ. Also the Anabaptists, who teach that one
who has once been justified cannot again fall.

• OLDEST AUGSBURG CONFESSION. 263
Article XII.
Twelfthly, that the sacraments are not only ordained as
marks among men, but rather to a testimony of the divine
will toward us, instituted to strengthen faith in those who
use them. Wherefore we must so use the sacraments as to
believe the promises that are added through the sacraments.
Article XIII.
Thirteenth, that all rites that are instituted by men among
Christians to obtain grace and justification are unchristian,
and offend the honor and merit of Christ ; wherefore monastic
vows, difference of days and meats and similar traditions of
men are useless unto justification. But those usages that are
profitable that all things in the church may be done decently
ancLin order we teach ought to be observed for the sake of
peace and unity, such as ordering of holidays, chanting and
the like ; but they must not be made a matter of necessity or
of merit.
Article XIV.
[Not extant.] Article XV.
Fifteenth, of civil matters, that lawful civil ordinances are
a good work of God, that a Christian may bear a civil office,
sit as judge, determine matters by the existing imperial laws,
award just punishment, engage in just wars, buy and make
other contracts, hold property, make oath when required by
the magistrates, marry, etc.
Here again they reject the Anabaptists who forbid all these
things to Christians, also those who do not place the perfection
of the Gospel in the fear of God and in faith, but in forsaking
civil offices; for the Gospel teaches an eternal righteousness
of the heart. Meanwhile it does not destroy external order

264 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
and rule, but will have the same used as ordinances of God for
the exercise of charity. Therefore a Christian is bound to
obey the magistrates and their laws, save when they com
mand something unchristian and against God, for then he
ought to obey God rather than men.
Article XVI.
Sixteenth, that all men who have died shall again be awak
ened with the same body of theirs wherein they died, for the
judgment of Christ, among whom the elect shall really be
saved; but the damned together with the devils shall never
in all eternity be saved from the torment of hell.
Here are rejected the followers of Origen and the Anabap
tists, who teach that in the end also the damned and the devils
will be saved from torment, also those who according to
Jewish opinion say that the promise of the possession of the
Promised Land must be understood in a bodily sense, and
that before the resurrection and final judgment the ungodly
shall everywhere be suppressed by the saints, and these shall
obtain the civil power. Article XVII.
Seventeenth, of the freedom of the will we teach that man's
will has some liberty for the attainment of civil righteousness
and for the choice of things subject to reason. Nevertheless
it has no power without the Holy Ghost to work the inner
spiritual righteousness that counts before God, since the
natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God;
but this righteousness is wrought in the heart when the Holy
Ghost is received through the Word. As Augustine says:
" We grant that all men have a certain freedom of will ac
cording to the natural reason, whereby, however, they are
not capable either to begin or to complete aught spiritual or
divine, but only in works of this life, whether good or evil,

OLDEST AUGSBURG CONFESSION. 265
the good as to labor in the field, eat, drink, clothe, beget, etc.,
the evil, as to worship idols, commit murder, adultery, etc."

Article XVIII.
Of sin we teach that although God has created nature and
preserves it, yet the caiise of sin is nothing but the evil will
of the devil and ungodly men, which will, unaided of God,
turns itself from God, as the prophet Hosea says in the 13th
chapter : "O Israel, thou hast destroyed thyself ; but in me
is thine help."
This is about the Sum of the Doctrine in the Electorate
of Saxony, in which there is nothing that is contrary to the
Holy Scriptures or the Church Catholic or the Church of
Rome, in so far as it is founded on tried and accepted
teachers. Hence we are unjustly decried as heretics. The
whole disagreement is on certain abuses which have crept in
without the consent of Christendom. And even in these, if
there were some difference, there should be proper lenity on
the part of bishops to bear with us by reason of the present
confession of our faith, and not sever us from the Christian
Church nor reject us, for their own canons are not so severe
as to demand the same rites and ceremonies everywhere, nor
has it ever been so.

Mere follow tbe articles in Dispute, in wbicb are
reviewed tbe abuses wbicb bave been
Correcteo and abolisbeo.
Inasmuch as in the Electorate of Saxony there is no dis
sent in any article of the Faith from the holy Scriptures nor
the Church Catholic ; but only some abuses are omitted which

266 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
without any reason have become rooted among Christians, we
pray that your Imperial Majesty would graciously hear both
what has been changed and also what were the reasons for
such changes, since it may not be said of us with any truth
that we abolish all ancient usages and ceremonies; but we
desire to observe them as much as possible. But the common
complaint about the abuses in the Church is not a new one
of the present moment, wherefore it has been necessary to
correct a few as follows:
Of Both Kinds in the Sacrament.
To the laity are given Both Kinds in the holy Sacrament,
because Christ has thus commanded, Matt. 26 : "Drink ye
all of it ;" where Christ has manifestly commanded concern
ing the cup, that all should drink, and lest any man should
say that Christ hereby meant only the priests, we refer him
to the tenth chapter of Paul's first Epistle to the Corinthians,
from which it appears that the whole congregation did use
both kinds, when He says, "We are all partakers of one bread
and of one cup." This usage has long remained in the
Church, nor is it known when or by whose authority it was
changed. Cyprian indicates as much in many passages.
Thus it was previously nowhere forbidden. Indeed Pope
Gelasius commands that the sacrament be not divided. Only
custom, not so ancient, has it otherwise. But it is evident
that a custom introduced against the commandment of God
is not to be allowed. Therefore both kinds are to be used,
since Christ Himself commands it, and the canons do so
also, and the Church has observed this for a long time.
From which it follows that this correction has been made
with propriety. Of the Marriage of Priests.
There has been common complaint concerning the scanda
lous lives of priests who were not chaste. For this reason

OLDEST AUGSBURG CONFESSION. 267
also Pope Pius the Second is reported to have said repeatedly,
that there were certain reasons why marriage was taken away
from priests, but that there were far weightier ones why it
ought to be given back. Since therefore our priests were
desirous to avoid these open scandals, they married wives and
teach that it is lawful for them to do so, since Paul says:
"To avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife," etc.
Also: ''It is better to marry than to burn." Secondly,
Christ says : "Ail men cannot receive this saying," when He
teaches that not all men are fit to lead a single life, for God
created man for procreation, Gen. 1, nor is it in man's power,
without a singular gift and work of God to alter this purpose.
Therefore those who are not fit to lead a single life ought
to contract marriage. For no man's law, no vow can annul
the commandment and ordinance of God.
In the early ages this was the custom in the Church as
Paul testifies : "A bishop shall be the husband of one wife."
And in Germany, four hundred years ago for the first time,
the priests were violently compelled to lead a single life,
who indeed offered such resistance that the Archbishop of
Mayence, when about to publish the Pope's decree concerning
this matter, was almost killed by them. . And so harsh was
the dealing in the matter that not only were marriages for
bidden for the time to come, but existing marriages also were
torn asunder, contrary to divine and human law, contrary to
their own canons and the laws of many Councils.
In this connection may your Imp. Maj., in order to preserve
general morality and honesty, remember that as the world is
aging man's nature is gradually growing weaker, and there
fore it is quite necessary to guard that no more scandal and
vice steal in. For God has ordained marriage to be a help
against human infirmity. The Canons themselves say that
rigor ought to be relaxed according to the weakness of men,
which is devoutly to be wished were done also in this matter,
for the marriage of priests, especially of pastors and preach
ers, is not to the disadvantage of the Church. But although

268 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
God has commanded such things and it was the custom from
the beginning, and celibacy causes many scandals, adulteries
and other abominable vices, yet it is evident that not even
wrong-doing or crime is punished so horribly as the marriage
of priests. Who has ever seen or heard that anyone should
be punished on account of marriage which God has com
manded to honor, and which in all well-ordered common
wealths is held in honor even among the heathen. But now
the priests are tortured and put to death, contrary to the
Canons and for no other cause. Paul calls that a doctrine of
devils which • forbids marriage. This may now be readily
understood when such a prohibition must be maintained
with killing and murder.
But as no law of man can annul any commandment of God,
so also can no vow abrogate God's commandment. Accord
ingly also Cyprian advises that women who do not keep the
chastity they have promised, should marry. And even the
Canons show some leniency toward them who have taken
vows before the proper age.
Of the Mass.
We are falsely accused of having abolished the mass, for
it is celebrated by us with the highest reverence. But here
again it has been a public complaint that they have been
basely profaned and a regular fair has been made of them,
that priests had no desire for it and yet use it for the sake
of luere. When therefore such abuse among us was repri
manded by the preachers, Private Masses were discontinued,
since St. Paul severely threatens those who eat and drink this
bread and cup unworthily. But this abuse had crept in so
extensively that scarcely any Private Masses were celebrated,
except for lucre's sake, which the bishops ought to have cor
rected. Besides this it was also abused in another way, as if it could
blot out another's sin and bring profit to the dead and the

OLDEST AUGSBURG CONFESSION. 269
living, wherefore it increased and multiplied to such an ex
tent. Our preachers have also reproved this, since the Scrip
tures teach in many passages that we are justified through
faith alone and not through works, whether they be masses
or other works, etc. Christ by His death has obtained for us
the remission of sins, hence we must not look for it in the
Mass. Christ also did not command it, but He said to us,
to do it in remembrance of Him, that is to believe that He
will keep His promise made to us, for even Jews and infidels
remember Him in other ways. Wherefore the Mass is of use
to strengthen faith only to him who holds it, as Ambrose says :
"Because I sin daily, I must daily take medicine." Also
Christ says : "This do in remembrance of me," from which
it follows that the Mass is of no use to the dead, whose faith
and memory can not be strengthened thereby. Likewise the
Scriptures say that we should thereby proclaim the death of
the Lord. What shall we proclaim to the dead ?
Therefore in the Electorate of Saxony a single mass is
celebrated by the pastor, very much according to the ac
customed usage. He administers the Holy Sacrament to those
who desire it ; but they must first be proved and absolved, and
thus it was formerly also held in the Roman Church, as we
find recorded.
The people are also advised with the greatest diligence and
instructed concerning the use and profit of the sacrament,
how faith is strengthened thereby, in order that the people
may learn to trust in God and to expect and ask of Him all
that is good. This worship pleases God best.
Here we also reject the unchristian doctrine which denies
that the body and blood of Christ are truly present, and the
people are admonished to receive the sacrament frequently.
Of Confession.
Confession in our churches is not abolished ; for the sacra-
. ment is administered to no one except he have been previously-

270 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
examined and absolved. And the people are most carefully
taught concerning the assurance of absolution about which
aforetime not much was known. The power of the keys is
commended and we show what great consolation it brings to
anxious consciences, and that God requires of us that we
should believe such absolution as a voice sounding from
Heaven, from which faith follows the forgiveness of sins.
Aforetime much was said about our satisfaction alone, of
faith and the merit of Christ little was said. Wherefore on
this point we are unjustly accused. For this even our ad
versaries must concede that we have most diligently treated
the doctrine concerning repentance.
But of Confession we teach that consciences be not burd
ened with enumeration of all sins. For that is impossible, as
the psalm says, "Who can understand his errors ?" Thus the
ancient writers have held, as Chrysostomus : "I say not to
thee that thou shouldest disclose thyself in public; nor that
thou accuse thyself before others ; but I would have thee obey
the voice of the prophet who says, 'Disclose thy way before
God.' Therefore confess thy sins before God, the true Judge,
and recount thy trespass with prayer, not with the tongue,
but with the memory of thy conscience." These words in
dicate that the enumeration of sins is not necessary although
confession is not to be abolished on account of the great
benefit of absolution.
Of the Distinction of Meats.
It has been thought that making Distinctions of Meats and
like traditions are a satisfaction for sins and merit grace.
Thus many have taught and daily thought out something new.
Such error we did not wish to endure longer, since it is quite
contrary to the merit of Christ and the righteousness of faith,
which is constantly preached in the Church and ought to be
preached. Wherefore also Paul in almost all his epistles
opposes this point, in order that men may see that righteous-

OLDEST AUGSBURG CONFESSION. 271
ness comes not from such works but from faith in Christ.
Some say, although without reason, that we oppose this point,
only because we would lessen spiritual authority, some that
we are bringing heathen customs into the world, but we do
not oppose and abolish all human ordinances in common. But
we had to make plain to people what must be thought of
it. Besides we are not the first who have taught about it in
this manner. Augustine says that they should be considered
a matter of liberty. Gerson forbids binding men's consciences
with them and thus has given comfort to many pious people ;
for no one ever came to earth who has observed all these tra
ditions. Many fell into despair and some even took their own
lives because they did not have the comfort of the righteous
ness from faith. But those who kept some of these traditions
thought to acquire forgiveness thereby; besides, such tra
ditions were placed far above the commandments of God.
If any one fasted at an appointed time or did anything else
of the kind, he thought he was a Christian; but no one paid
attention to his calling, yea, it was not worth while, that a
Christian should concern himself with such matters as man
aging the household, governing wife, children and servants,
and educating them, etc. Such works were accounted as be
longing to the weak and imperfect, and only the works of
hypocrisy had an honorable name in being accounted holy,
Christian and well-pleasing to God.
The masters of canons and the theologians did not touch
on the Scriptures, but were forever busy with these things
and had no leisure to discourse about faith, hope, the cross
and the like. In this matter the bishops ought to have in
terfered and put an end to such misery. Now even our ad
versaries are deriving profit on these points and are able to
judge the traditions of men more clearly than heretofore. /j
Our teaching on this point is to this effect that the tra-//
ditions and ordinances of men do not merit the remission of//
sins and are not to be exalted as necessary unto the salvation//
of souls. This we prove from the Scriptures. When th«/

272 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
Apostles were accused of having transgressed those command
ments, Christ said: "In vain do they worship me with the
commandments of men." Likewise : "Whatsoever goeth into
the mouth, defileth not the man." Likewise Paul: "Let no
man therefore judge you in meat," etc. Also Acts 15 : "Why
tempt ye God, to put a yoke on the neck of the disciples, which
neither our fathers nor we were able to bear ; but we believe
that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, we shall be
saved, even as they." Likewise Paul calls the prohibition of
meats a doctrine of devils. Therefore such things should
not be demanded of Christians as necessary.
Nevertheless many traditions are observed among us, such
as holy days, chanting and other things which are serviceable
to good order in the Church. At the same time the people
are warned that such observances are kept, not of necessity,
but for the sake of peace and that it should not be made sin,
if they are omitted without scandal.
Such liberty was also used by the Fathers, as can be learned
from many decrees and canons. In the East they kept Easter
at another time than at Rome, this brought no discord into
the Church. Out Monastic Vows.
This discussion does not concern the whole Church; but
only a few special persons, for which reason the whole con
gregation can not justly be rejected, even if wrong should
be found in this change. Nevertheless we will also recount
here what we teach and observe in this matter.
It is generally known what has been the state of the mon
asteries and how many things were done in them contrary to
the Canons. In Augustine's time, they were free associations.
Afterward, when discipline was corrupted, vows were every
where added, for the purpose of strengthening discipline.
Gradually many other observances were added besides vows.
And these fetters were laid upon many before the lawful age,
contrary to the Canons. Many also entered through ignor-

OLDEST AUGSBURG CONFESSION. 273
ance, being unable to judge their strength, though they were
of sufficient age. Being thus ensnared, they were compelled
to remain, even though they could have been freed by the
provision of the Canons. This was more the case in convents
of women than of men, although more consideration should
have been shown them on account of their weakness. This
rigor displeased many good men before this time, who saw
that young men and maidens were thrown into convents for
a living and what unfortunate results came from this pro
cedure, what scandals, what snares upon the consciences ! It
is a grievous thing to learn that the Canons were so utterly
despised in this matter.
To this was added an all too great exaltation and praise of
vows although this also was not pleasing to every one. They
taught, namely, that monastic vows were equal to baptism
and that they merited forgiveness of sins and justification
before God, and even greater things, because they kept not
only the commandments, but also the "counsels."
Thus they believed that the monastic life was much better
than baptism and more meritorious than the life of magis
trates and pastors who serve their calling according to God's
commands. But what came to pass in the monasteries ? Aforetime they
were schools in which the Holy Scriptures and other branches
profitable to the Church were taught and thence pastors and
bishops were obtained. In those days they came together for
the sake of studying. Now they feign that it is a life in
stituted to merit grace and righteousness, yea, they preach
that they are in a state of perfection and they put it far above
other kinds of life ordained of God. These things we have
rehearsed in the least odious manner, to the end that it might
be the better understood what our teachers hold on this point.
First, concerning such as contract matrimony, they teach
that it is lawful for all who are not fitted for the single life,
to contract matrimony, because vows cannot annul the com
mandment and ordinance of God. But the commandment of

274 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
God is: "To avoid fornication, let every man have his own
wife." Nor is it the commandment only, but also the creation
and ordinance of God which forces those to marry who are
not excepted by a singular work of God, according to the text :
"It is not good that the man should be alone." Therefore
they do not sin who obey this commandment and ordinance
of God. What objection can be raised to this ? Let men extol
the vow as much as they list, yet it cannot annul the com
mandment of God. The Canons teach that the right of the
superior is excepted in every vow; how then can these vows
be of force against God's ordinance ?
If then those vows could not be changed, the Popes could
not have given dispensation so often, for what God binds, no
man can loose. But the Popes have prudently judged in
exercising leniency and not always exercising rigor.
In the second place, why do they exaggerate the obligation
of a vow when at the same time they are silent about the kind
and nature of the vow, that it ought to be possible, free and
chosen spontaneously? But it is not known to what extent
perpetual chastity is in the power of man. And how many
are there who have taken the vow spontaneously and deliber
ately? Truly very few. Young men and maidens, before
they are able to judge, are persuaded and sometimes even com
pelled to take the vow. Wherefore it is not fair to insist so
rigorously on the obligation, since it must be acknowledged
that there can be no vow unless that is vowed which is pos
sible, free and chosen spontaneously.
Many Canons rescind vows made before the age of fifteen,
for before that age there does not seem sufficient judgment
in a person to decide concerning the whole future of one's
life. Another Canon concedes three more years to human
weakness that fixes the age at eighteen years. Which shall
we follow? A great number of those who come from the
monasteries have the excuse that they took the vow before
that time.
Finally although the violation of a vow might be rebuked.

OLDEST AUGSBURG CONFESSION. 275
it does not follow that marriage between such persons should
be invalid, as Augustine writes, whose authority herein is
justly esteemed although other men afterwards thought other
wise. And although God's command concerning marriage delivers
many from the monastic vow, yet we introduce another argu
ment why vows should be invalid and void. For every ser
vice of God, ordained without God's command, to merit justi
fication and grace is unchristian and contrary to God, as
Christ says: "In vain do they worship me with the com
mandments of men." And Paul teaches everywhere that
righteousness is not to be sought by our own observances and
merits, but through faith in Christ, etc.
Now the monks have taught unblushingly, that their
monastic life works satisfaction for sin and merits grace and
justification. What else is this than to detract from the glory
of Christ and to deny the righteousness of faith ? It follows
therefore undeniably that these vows are an unchristian ser
vice and therefore void. No vow shall obligate to any evil,
as if any one vows to commit a murder, he does wrong; but
if he breaks this vow and does not keep it, he does right.
Also, Paul says : " Christ is become of no effect to you,
whosoever of you are justified by the law : ye are fallen from
grace." They, therefore, who want to be justified by their
vows have fallen from grace and Christ.
Above all this, they have imparted their good works to
others, and other such things of which they are now ashamed.
It is truly no small offence to set forth to the people a ser
vice devised by men, without the commandment of God, and
to teach that man is thereby justified. For the righteousness
of faith which chiefly ought to be preached, as well as God's
commandment and the true worship of God are thereby ob
scured, when the people are informed that only the monks
live in a state of perfection, in which are all who fear God
from the heart and have a sure trust that for Christ's sake
He will be gracious to us and ask of God and assuredly ex
pect His aid in all things.

276 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
But the people conceive many pernicious opinions from
the false commendations of monastic life. They hear un
married life praised beyond measure; therefore they lead
their married life with offense to their consciences, They
hear that only beggars are perfect, therefore they keep their
possessions and do business with offence to their consciences.
They hear that it is an evangelical counsel not to avenge;
therefore some in private life are not afraid to take revenge,
for they hear that it is but a counsel and not a commandment.
It also follows from this that a Christian cannot properly
hold a civil office or be a magistrate.
There are examples on record of men who forsaking mar
riage and the administration of the Commonwealth, have hid
themselves in monasteries. This they call fleeing from the
world and seeking a life which should be more pleasing to
God. Neither did they see, that God ought to be served in
those commandments which He Himself has given and not
in commandments devised of men. Every estate that has
a word and commandment of God is good and perfect. That
which has no word and commandment of God is dangerous.
It is necessary to admonish men of these things. And before
these times Gerson rebuked the monks for calling their life
one of perfection and says that in his day it was still a
new and unusual thing to say so. So many erroneous, un
christian things are inherent in vows that they must justly
be considered void.
Of the Power of the Church.
Aforetime there has been much controversy concerning the
Power of the Bishops, in which some have awkwardly con
founded the power of the Church and the power of the sword.
And from this confusion great wars and tumults have re
sulted, while the bishops, emboldened by their power of the
keys, not only have instituted new services, and burdened
consciences with reservation of cases and the powerful ban,

OLDEST AUGSBURG CONFESSION. 277
but have also undertaken to transfer the kingdoms of this
world and to take the Empire from the Emperor. These
wrongs have long since in the Church been rebuked by
learned and pious men. Therefore for the comforting of
men's consciences, we were constrained to show the difference
between the power of the Church and the power of the sword.
We teach on this point : that the power of the bishops or the
power of the keys, is a power or commandment of God
to preach the Gospel, to remit and retain sins, and to ad
minister the sacraments. For with that commandment -
Christ sends out His Apostles: "As my Father hath sent
me, even so send I you. Receive ye the Holy Ghost. Whose
soever sins ye remit," etc. Mark 16: "Go, preach the
Gospel to every creature."
This power is exercised only by preaching the Gospel
and administering the sacraments, to one or more as one is
called. For thereby are granted, not bodily, but eternal
things: as eternal righteousness, the Holy Ghost, eternal
life. These things cannot come but by the ministry of the
Word and the Sacraments. As Paul says : " The Gospel is
the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth."
And Psalm 118 : " Thy Word quickeneth me." Therefore
since the power of the Church grants eternal things and is
exercised only by the ministry of the Word, it does not inter
fere with civil government, no more than singing or arith
metic interferes with civil government. For civil govern
ment deals with other things than does the Gospel ; the civil
rulers defend not the souls, but the bodies and bodily
things against manifold injuries and restrain men with the
sword and bodily punishments in order to preserve civil
justice and peace.
Therefore the power of the Church and civil power must
not be confounded. The spiritual power has its own com
mandment, to teach the Gospel and to administer the sacra
ments. Let it not break into the office of another, let it not
transfer the kingdoms of the world, let it not abrogate the

278 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
laws of civil rulers; let it not abolish lawful obedience; let
it not interfere with judgments concerning civil ordinances
or contracts, let it not prescribe laws to civil rulers concern
ing the form of the Commonwealth. As Christ says : " My
kingdom is not of this world." Also : " Who made me a
judge or a divider over you ?" Paul also says : "Our citizen
ship is in heaven." Likewise : " The weapons of our war
fare are not carnal; but mighty through God to the casting
down of imaginations." Thus we discriminate between the
• duties, might and office of both these powers, and command
that both be honored as gifts of God.
If the bishops have any worldly power besides, they have
it not as bishops, by the commission of the Gospel, but by hu
man law, having received it of kings and emperors for the
civil administration of what is theirs. This, however, is
another office than the ministry of the Gospel.
Our teachers2 have always taught, for the avoidance of
rebellion and riot, that temporal possessions and power,
whether possessed by bishops or secular gentlemen, are of no
hindrance to the conscience. An honest distribution of
property and magistracies is not contrary to the Gospel. The
Apostles were fishermen, Luke a physician, Paul a weaver.
Their art and craft they retained with a clear conscience and
practiced it, although that was different from the ministry of
the Gospel and yet their conscience was not burdened thereby.
Thus every pastor may own property, some less, some more,
for the Gospel commands that an adequate support be given
the pastors; but they are to use their temporal possessions
in such a way as not to neglect their ministry. Thus bishops
are to be mindful of the duties of their office and not only
manage their secular government, although it is very difficult
to do both at once.
When therefore a question arises concerning the juris-

2 The following was already known to us from the Ansbach text (Forste
mann, I, 542) and the pre-Melanchthonian print which had it for a source,
namely, the so-called editio antiquior (C. R., XXVI, 231).

OLDEST AUGSBURG CONFESSION. 279
diction of bishops, civil authority must be distinguished from
ecclesiastical jurisdiction. For according to the Gospel or
the commandment of God, to the bishops as bishops, no
power belongs, except the ministry of the Word and the
sacraments, to forgive sins, to discern between Christian and
unchristian doctrine, and reject the unchristian, to exclude
from the communion of the Church wicked men whose wick
edness is known, and this without human force, simply by
the Word. Herein the congregations are bound by the Di
vine Law to obey them, as it is written : " He that heareth
you, heareth me."
But when* they teach or ordain anything against the Gos
pel, we are prohibited from obeying them. Matth. 7 : "Be
ware of false prophets." Gal. 1 : " Though an angel from
heaven preach another Gospel, let him be accursed." Like
wise 1 Cor. 13 : "We can do nothing against the truth, bu't
for the truth." Also : " The power which the Lord hath
given me to edification and not to destruction." Thus also
the canonical laws say more elsewhere, and St. Augustine
says : " Not even to Catholic bishops must we submit, if they
chance to err or hold anything contrary to the Canonical
Scriptures of God."
Moreover, it is disputed whether bishops or pastors have
the right to introduce ceremonies in the Church, and to
make laws concerning meats, holy days and orders of min
isters, etc. They that claim this right for the bishops refer
to this word of Christ : " I have yet many things to say unto
you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit, when he the
Spirit of truth is come, he will guide you into all truth."
They also refer to the example of the Apostles, who com
manded to abstain from blood and from things strangled.
They refer to the Sabbath day, as having been changed into
the Lord's Day, contrary to an express commandment of God,
upon which they insist most of all, that a bishop should have
such power.
Concerning this question, it is taught on our part, that

280 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
no bishop has power to decree anything against the Gospel.
Now it is plainly against the Scriptures to establish any
observance, whereby we may come into grace or make satis
faction for sins. For thereby Christ is dishonored. From
this reason, that men have thought to merit much thereby,
such traditions as holy days, fasting and worship of saints
have so much multiplied in the Church. It is manifestly
against God to make a sin of meat and holy days, as though
we were still under the Old Testament. Hence perhaps
some bishops have been tempted to make such observances.
Hence it is that they make it a mortal sin even without
offence to others, to do manual labor on holy-days, or to omit
the Canonical Hours.
Whence have the bishops the right to ensnare consciences
with these traditions, when Peter forbids to put a yoke on
the neck of disciples, and Paul says that the power given
him was unto edification, not to destruction ? " If ye be
dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as
though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances,
touch not, taste not, handle not, which all are to perish with
the using, after the commandments and doctrines of men?"
Also in Titus : " Not giving heed to Jewish fables and com
mandments of men, that turn from the truth." Likewise
Christ says, of those who require traditions, Matth. 15 : " Let
them alone, they are blind leaders of the blind." Likewise:
" Every plant which my Heavenly Father hath not planted,
shall be plucked up."
Hence it follows that it is not lawful for any bishop to
institute or exact such services, since the Holy Ghost did
not warn us against this in vain, especially if they be con
sidered necessary, or one thinks to obtain grace thereby.
For Christian liberty must everywhere be preserved in the
Church, so that all may know that we are justified not through
the Law or works, but from grace through faith in Christ.
What, then, are we to think of the change of the Sabbath
to Sunday ? To this we answer, we confess that it is lawful

.OLDEST AUGSBURG CONFESSION. 281
for bishops to make ordinances that things be done orderly
in the Church, not that thereby we should merit grace or
make satisfaction for sins, or that consciences should be
bound not to break them. So Paul ordains, that women
should cover their head in the congregation and that inter
preters should be heard in order in the Church.
It is proper that such ordinances should be kept for the
sake of peace and tranquillity, that all things be done in
the churches in order, and that no one be given offence and
that no conscience be burdened.
Thus it is with Sunday, Easter, Pentecost and other holy
days. For those who judge that they are ordered thus of
necessity, do greatly err. The Gospel has utterly abrogated
the Sabbath and other Jewish ceremonies, and yet it was
necessary to appoint a certain day that the people might
come together, for which purpose the Church elected the
Sunday, perhaps, also, for the sake of Christian liberty,
so that one might see that we are not bound to the Sabbath.
But the bishops might easily retain the lawful obedience
of the people, if they would not insist upon the observance of
such traditions as can not be kept with a good conscience.
Now they command celibacy. They admit none, unless they
swear that they will not teach the pure doctrine of the Gospel.
We do not ask that the bishops should restore concord at the
expense of their honor, which, nevertheless, it would be pro
per for good pastors to do. We only ask that they would re
lease unjust burdens which are new and have been received
contrary to the Church Catholic. It may be that there were
plausible reasons for some of these ordinances ; and yet they
are not adapted to modern times. It is also evident that some
were adopted through erroneous conceptions. Therefore it
would be befitting the clemency of the bishops to mitigate
them now; because such a modification does not shake the
unity of the Church. For many human traditions have been
changed, as the canons themselves show.
But if it be impossible to obtain a mitigation of such ob-

282 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
servances as cannot be kept without sin, we are bound to fol
low the Apostolic rule, which commands us to obey God
rather than men. Peter forbids bishops to be lords and to rule
over the churches. Now, it is not our design to wrest the
government from the bishops, but we ask that they allow the
Gospel to be purely taught and that they relax some few
observances which cannot be kept without sin. But if they
make no concession, it is for them to see how they shall give
account to God, for having, by their obstinacy, caused a
schism.

CHAPTER XIX.
THE HAND OF GOD IN THE FORMATION OF THE
AUGSBURG CONFESSION, AS SHOWN BY
THE COURSE OF EVENTS IN 1529
AND 1530, AND IN THE LETTERS
OF LUTHER, AND OF
MELANCHTHON.
The Real Question as to the Augsburg Confession — The Emperor's Call — The
History of the Reformation up to Augsburg — The Elector takes the Beginnings
of his Apology to Augsburg — The Emperor Delays and the Elector Awaits
His Coming — The Saxon Apology Becomes a Confession — The Question of
Preaching a Test — The Submission of the Confession to Luther — The Emperor's
Entry into Augsburg — The Opening of the Diet — The First Ten Days of Sus
pense — The Confession Completed and Delivered — The Attitude of Melanch
thon — Confessional History Subsequent to the Delivery of the Augsburg Con
fession — The Hand of Providence.
THIS chapter is a chronological study of events, and of
the original sources, — aiming, among other things, to
place the facts before the reader, in order that he may be
in a position to investigate the evidence for himself, and to
form his own judgment. With this chapter, Chapters XV
and XI of this work, the former by Theodor Kolde, and
Chapter VI of " The Conservative Reformation," should be
constantly compared.
We have seen that it is a mistake, in discussing the history
of the Augsburg Confession, to lay all stress on attempting to
establish the claim of authorship in behalf of one or another
person. The real question is, how the Augsburg Confession, in all
283

284 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
its greatness, came into being as the resultant of the forces
struggling for the mastery in this critical epoch of the
Christian Church. How did the great principles of which
the Confession is the great bearer, come to their maturity
in the form in which they were — to the surprise of all —
formally presented and confessed at Augsburg ?
Investigators and historians have been looking on the
Augsburg Confession as a matter of form intended, and as
complete in the eye and mind and hand of Luther and
Melanchthon, one or both ; whereas, in fact, these men were
not conscious of the standard character and the finality of
what they would be obliged to evolve and present, in the
situation which they were called to meet at Augsburg. The
Augustana, as the magna charta of the Evangelical Church,
was not premeditated by either the Elector, Luther, or Me
lanchthon, but was a growth resulting from many historical
factors, solely under the Providence of God.
That the two leading personalities of the Reformation had
no previous conception of the universal and immortal char
acter of the Confession they were preparing; that many
historical elements contributed, despite the unwillingness of
each and all the principals on both the Lutheran and the
Roman sides of the struggle, to the mighty result, attained
in this Confession for all time — a result unforeseen by all,
and in which the labors of each, beside the clear and mar
velous guidance of Providence, sink into comparative insig
nificance : it is the object of this chapter to establish.
As for the authorship itself, notwithstanding the change
of view-point and the modification of details brought about
by modern discoveries, we find nothing that will set aside
the substantiality of the old verdict that the Augsburg Con
fession is Luther's Lehr in Melanchthon's mouth.1 Barring

1 Melanchthon, historia de vita Lutheri lit. B. 3 : Quam formam doetrinse
& administrationis sacramentorum probauerit Lutherus, liquet ex confessione,
quam elector Johannes, & Philippus Landgraflus imp. Carolo V. anno 1530.
exhibuerunt. — Cyprian, p. 58,

PROVIDENCE AN', THE AUGUSTANA. 285
John's part, this is in line with other documents prepared in
consultation by these two great Confessors of the Refor
mation, except that Luther's enforced absence from Augs
burg gave Melanchthon a centrality and a standing in the
work of public confession, which had been lacking hith
erto, and which is seen still more fully developed in the
authorship of the Apology to the Augsburg Confession. The
real significance of the new light upon the Augsburg Con
fession is this : that in the course of events during the Spring
of 1530, by the hand of God, the presentation at Augsburg
became something very different from what it was originally
intended to be, and that it bears its present broad, clear and
permanent form, not by the conscious intention of Luther
or Melanchthon, but as a result of unexpected pressure from
foes, and under the constructive hand of the various Lutheran
forces — undesignedly united — that signed it.
It should be borne in mind that the Emperor himself set
the matter in motion, and in his Call to the Protestants to
attend the Diet, unexpectedly promised great mildness and
grace in dealing with them. This Imperial Call filled the
Elector, Luther and Melanchthon with hope. For the Elec
tor, this trust, with cautious distrust, in the Emperor probably
continued to abide until the latter delayed his coming, and
then issued the command to the Protestants to stop preaching
at Augsburg. It continued much longer in Melanchthon,
though broken temporarily by the sudden revelation, pre
cipitating Melanchthon into great fright, of the Emperor's
harshness at Corpus Christi; while in Luther it was not so
enthusiastic, but is visible in his "Admonition " and in his
private correspondence, and because of his meagre informa
tion at Coburg probably continued until after the delivery of
the Confession.

22

286 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
THE EMPEROR'S CALL FOR THE DIET AT AUGSBURG.

Original in the Archives at Weimar.
Printed in Forstemann, Urkundenbuch I, p. 2 ; Lunig's Eeichs-Archiv, part. gen.
cont. I, p. 496. January 21st, 1530.
To the High-born John, Duke of Saxony,
Landgrave of ThOringen and Margrave of Meissen,
Chief Marshall of the Holy Roman Empire.
Our Dear Uncle and Elector :
Charles by God's grace the elected Roman Emperor, etc  We should
like to abolish all injustice after hearing and diligently weighing every opinion and
view in the honorable German nation, and to uphold what is right and honorable
by the papal holiness and our imperial might, authority, and permission, and thus
have the Holy Empire of the German nation once more brought into unity. . . .
Recently the arch-enemy of our holy faith, the Turk, has invaded the Christian
Kingdom of Hungary and our Fatherland, the arch-duchy of Austria. . . . •
We have found in the Pope a much greater desire than we hoped, to order all
things in the German nation and in the Christian religion, in a right and honorable
way. . . .
Therefore we, as Roman Emperor and Head of Christendom, have thought it
good and useful to undertake a common Diet [Reichstag] and Assembly, and have
resolved to hold it on the eighth day of the coming month of April in our and the
holy city of Augsburg. . . .
Because of the duty you owe to us and to the empire, we command you to appear
in person at Augsburg on that day, together with the other princes and estates,
.... that we may take up the matter of deliverance from the Turk ; further,
how, because of error and division, it may be possible to deal and determine in
respect to the Holy Faith and the Christian Religion.
And in order that this may occur in a more wholesome way, (we desire to)
settle the differences, abandon obstinacy, give over past erroneousness into the hand
of our Redeemer, and use diligence to listen to, understand and weigh every expres
sion, opinion and view in love and graciousness among ourselves, to compare and to
bring them to a single Christian Truth, and to do away with everything that has not
been explained or transacted right on both sides, that we all may hold one single
and true Religion, and, as we all are and do battle under one Christ, we may thus
all live in one Commonwealth, one Church and one Unity. . . .
Given on the first and twentieth day of January. Carol.
Ad mandatum Csesareae et Catholica Majest. proprium.1*

lfc The document is lengthy, and for brevity's sake we have included only
some of the more vital utterances, in condensed translation. We have also
condensed many of the documents and letters which follow in this chapter.
Otherwise it would have been impossible to reproduce them for the reader.
In every instance, pains has been taken to convey the substance and render
the exact sense. — T. E. S.

PROVIDENCE AND THE AUGUSTANA. 287
This summons, commanding the Electors, Princes, and all
the Estates of the Empire to meet at Augsburg on the 8th of
April, was issued at Bologna. No threats marred the invita
tion. The Emperor announced that he meant to leave all
past errors to the judgment of the Redeemer ; that he wished
to give a charitable hearing to every man's opinions; and
that his only desire was to secure to all the right to live
under the one Christ, in one Commonwealth, one Church,
and one Unity.
Thus there appeared in the Protestant world this Call for
the purification of the Church and the reunion of a rended
Christendom after every diverging judgment had been gra
ciously and fairly weighed, and every difference honorably
adjusted. Thus by the sweet, gracious and winning way of
the thirty-year-old Emperor, who was coming to his German
dominions at last, with a fair mind against errors and abuses,
but a closed heart against protest, were the Elector, Luther,
and Melanchthon deceived.
The Empeeoe.
The sturdy German princes and rulers of the holy Roman
empire, in electing Charles, were under the illusion that they
would secure a German ruler, after the fashion of old Max,
the beloved grandfather of Charles ; but, too late, they found
they had a Spaniard!
Not that the young Emperor lacked principles, convictions,
conscientiousness, integrity and honor; but that his outlook,
his ideas of unity, government and rule, were those of the
Latin race; and his court and counsellors, with one or two
notable exceptions, were under the spell of Rome. He was
not on the side of the Pope in politics, and he was not com
mitted to the Curial view of absolute papal supremacy; but
he was a loyal son of the visible Church Catholic, and he felt
it to be his highest duty to preserve the unity and continuity
of the Mediaeval ecclesiasticism with its authority and its

288 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
rites ; though he clave to the idea of purification in doctrine
and rites, and to the principle that the ultimate earthly
seat of authority was not the Pope, but a General Council.
From his earliest days to his final hours of rule this one
thing seemed to be the chief matter on his conscience, that
he must not allow the " rending of the seamless mantle of the
Church." 2
This conviction, gradually working out into history, made
Charles the real great and decisive political enemy of the
Lutheran faith; and the course of Protestant events is af
fected at every point by his activity. In this one point he
was, like Melanchthon, and "like the unionist to-day, pre
pared to sacrifice inner issues to the restoration of visible
unity. Charles was born in 1500, and was a mere youth of twenty
years when he first saw Luther at the Diet at Worms in
1521, where Luther was brought so close to him on that
memorable afternoon, that the Reformer's8 heart was moved
to pity as he saw the thoughtful Emperor's face, and felt his
youthful Majesty was " like some poor lamb surrounded by
swine and hounds."4
Yet the address the Emperor read on that fateful occasion
might have convinced the most skeptical that his one ultimate
determination, to the achievement of which he would sacri
fice success and empire, was to put down the Lutheran Refor
mation as a separate movement. Hear his words:

CHAELES V., AT WOEMS, 1521.
"What my forefather established at Constance and other Councils, it is my
privilege to uphold. A single monk led astray by private judgment has set him-

2 Armstrong, The Emp. Charles V., Lon. 1902. I. 71.
8 Luther was facing death. He had said to Melanchthon in taking leave,
" My dear brother, if I do not come back, if my enemies put me to death,
you will go on teaching and standing fast in the truth. If you live, my death
will matter little."
4 De Wette, Br. I. 589.

PROVIDENCE AND THE AUGUSTANA. 289
self against the faith held by all Christians for a thousand years and more, and
impudently concludes that all Christians up to this time had erred. I have there
fore resolved to stake upon this cause all my dominions, my friends, my body
and my blood, my life and soul." 5
Had the Elector and the Reformers, when they read the
Emperor's Call to Augsburg a decade later, forgotten the
man they had to deal with, or thought that the imminent
presence of the Turk disposed his heart differently toward
Evangelical Germany ? It was ten full years now since his
attention had first been directed to the Reformation. On
May 12th, 1520, Juan Manuel, his embassador at Rome, had
written to Charles asking him to consider " a certain Martin
Luther who belongs to the following of the Elector of
Saxony,"" and whose j>reaching was not satisfactory to the
Roman Curia. Manuel meant that Luther might be a serv
iceable foil for the Emperor's use in a diplomatic contest
with the Curia.
One year after this, Charles, who owed his crown to the
supporters of Luther in Germany and who needed the sup
port of Germany in the impending conflict with Francis I.,
nevertheless gravely declared, as we have seen, that he would
put down Lutheranism though it cost him his dominions, his
blood, and his soul.

The Significance of the Diets Peiok to Augsburg.
But the German princes at Worms formed a cordon of
safety around their precious Luther. They held stoutly to
the political doctrine that their fellow-countryman should

B Deutsche Reichstagsakten, etc., ii, 595.
* Calendar of State Papers — Spanish, 1509-1525, Lon. 1866, p. 305.
In 1521, the King of England wrote that Luther's doctrine was already
known at that time in the whole world. Docitm. reform., II, p. 223. In this
year the wealthy King Emmanuel of Portugal sent an embassador to the
Elector of Saxony begging him to punish Luther according to the magnitude of
his deeds, and to rout out his doctrine. — Docum. reformations, II, p. 213.
The King of England, Henry VTII, also begged the Emperor in a writing
that he would destroy Luther, as far as possible, with fire, force and the
sword. — Cyprian, p. 28.

290 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
not be set under the ban before he were heard, with them
selves (not the Pope) as his judges. It was April 19th,
1521, when the Emperor proposed the ban; and when the
Germans, forcing him to temporarily yield, drew forth from
him his innermost determination in the paper referred to
above. Later he warmly insisted that he would never alter
one iota of his declaration. There was to be no compromise
between him and Luther : the edict was passed, and the ban *
was to be published ; but Luther had disappeared.
The imperial edict was unheeded and never harmed
Luther.0 The following Diet of 1522, and that of 1523,
reminded Hadrian VI., who was not versed in German af
fairs, that if the Pope had grievance against Luther, Ger
many had grievance against the Pope, for permitting abuses
which he was blaming Luther for pointing out. The Diet
in 1524" also did nothing to execute the edict of Worms
against Luther. It agreed to enforce the edict "as far as
possible," and agitated for a National Council — to the alarm
of the Pope, who thereupon succeeded in having the German
Catholic princes organize into a secret League, thus for the

1 Charles, shortly before his death, regretted that Luther had not been
burned by him.
8 The Emperor signed the edict with a smile. We meet Valdes already
at this time. A humanist, and a follower of Erasmus, Valdes blamed the
Pope for the ban. Lindsay says strikingly, " The humanist young sovereign
and the humanist pope, from whom so much had been expected, congratulated
each other on Luther's condemnation."
In the edict of Worms the Emperor expressly states that the Pope had
requested him to give over the bodily sword to him for the rescue of the
honor of Christ ; and that, in accordance with this, he now places this devil,
transformed into human form and wearing the robe of a monk, under the
ban. — Cyprian, p. 27.
' Duke George complained that Luther's presence at Wittenberg was an
insult to the Empire.
10 Hadrian had died, and Clement VII., who was under French influence,
took his place. It was at this diet that Campeggio first appeared on the
scene as the nuncio of Clement.
The exiled Queen of Denmark, the sister of Charles V., Isabella, at this
time became a confessor of the Evangelical religion. Carlstadt began his
fanaticism as to the doctrine of the Holy Supper in this year, from which the
lamentable division between the Evangelicals and the . Reformed arose. — Cy
prian, p. 32.

PROVIDENCE AND THE AUGUSTANA. 291
first time dividing Germany against itself, politically, into
Protestant and Catholic."
Up to this date the Elector of Saxony confidently expected
a peaceful and unanimous settlement of the religious difficul
ties in Germany, but in 1525 the great storm of the Peasants'
uprising swept across the country, for which Luther was
blamed," which solidified the South German anti-Protestant
Federation, composed of Austria, Bavaria and ducal Saxony,
and which for all subsequent time introduced a Roman and
a Lutheran party into the religious politics of Germany."
The Diet this year, 1525, was held at Augsburg; but was
poorly attended and the crisis was delayed until 1526, when
the Diet should be held at Spires. In 1526 at Spires the
Lutherans were in the majority though Ferdinand presided,

11 Chytraus in his Historia Der Augspurgischen Confession on pp. 3 and 4
sums up the imperial situation to this point, admirably, in the following
paragraphs : — ¦
" The Emperor Charles V. put Martin Luther under the ban at Worms in
1521 ; but Luther stood firm as a rock, immovable either to storm or the
waves of the sea. Samson-like he overthrew the two most prominent pillars
of the papacy, namely, the abomination of the masses, and the vows of the
monks, and wrote refutations in his Patmos.
" Meanwhile the Emperor Charles was called away on account of the discord
and disturbances among his subjects in Spain, and because of the war in
Navarre, and again in Spain, and eight whole years hereafter was burdened
with the Italian Wars. Although Italy has been greatly plagued by these
wars, nevertheless, as God does not allow anything to happen without our
getting some good out of it, so I believe that the Emperor Charles was de
tained through Providence by these wars so that in his absence the execution
of the edict of Worms might be postponed, and the doctrine of the Gospel
might be securely and early spread forever into Germany and other nations.
But, meantime other Diets concerning religious affairs were held : the first
at Nurnberg, where the estates, through fear of the growing restlessness and
disturbances in the people themselves, delayed the execution of the edict of
Worms and the Gospel was both to be preached according to the understanding
and interpretation given it by the Church of God ; and, then, in order that
the conflict in worship might be settled and abuses in the Romish Churches
might be done away with, the General Free Christian Council in Germany
was asked for."
13 This combination of democracy and fanaticism, in which Zwingli, as well
as Miintzer had a hand, and which had been stimulated by Luther's powerful
writings in behalf of individual liberty and the universal priesthood, still
further impelled Luther, though he was a peasant's son, to side permanently
with the established order of the princes, and to look ever afterward with
distrust on democracy and " the common man." The Peasants' War must
not be forgotten in Luther's general view of Zwingli's life and character.
"The Lutheran party called into being to offset the Catholic Federation
(i. e., "The Swabian League, which persecuted the Lutherans and their
pastors in South Germany ") was composed of the Elector of Saxony, the Land
grave of Hesse, the Margrave of Brandenburg, his brother Albert, Dukes Otto
Ernest and Francis of Brunswick-Liineberg, and the Counts of Mansfeld.

292 THE LUTHERAN CONFE 'SI0N8.
and they gained a great victory as follow : The Word of
God was to be preached without disturbance, indemnity was
to be granted for past offences against the edict of Worms,
and until a General Council met in a German city, each
State should so live as it hoped to answer for its conduct to
God and the Emperor." The Protestant princes and cities
interpreted this resolution as conferring upon them the legal
right to reorganize territorial churches, and to reform the
worship to accord with their evangelical faith. Within the
next three years all North Germany15 became Protestant.
But when the Diet met again at Speyer in 1529, the Pack
conspiracy and the mistakes of Philip of Hesse, together
with the coming reunion of Pope and Emperor, placed the
Romanists in a large majority. The clerical princes who
up to this time had chimed in with the evangelical com
plaints, because of the pretensions of the Papal Chair, now,
since they saw that the conflict had turned into one that
involved their own existence, stood, with ranks closed, en
tirely on the side of the Pope, and had come to the Diet of
Worms in great numbers, under capable leaders, to decide
this matter. The political princes, even those who hitherto
had not been enemies of the Reformation because of aversion
to the clericals, now realized that the new teaching had
made sufficient inroad into the repute and the power of the
clericals, and since the matter was threatening to assume a
political complexion, linked themselves closely with the cler
icals and zealous defenders of the old state of affairs. In
addition to all this, the Emperor and the Pope were now
reconciled to each other, and combined to gain the victory
over their opponents.
The Lutheran minority stood weak and discredited, and
the imperial commissioners were able to abolish the ordi-

11 Thus was the territorial system given legitimacy.
15 Except Ducal Saxony, Brandenburg, and Brunswick-Wolfenbuttel.
The Lutheran faith was introduced into Sweden in 1527. " But in Sweden,
the religion, as Luther brought it forth out of God's Word, was introduced by
King Gustave, and in Denmark by King Frederick I." — Cyprian, p. 35.

PROVIDENCE AND THE AUGUSTANA. 293
dance of 1526, which granted the Lutherans a right to found
territorial churches, and to take measures to restore the
Roman rule. Ferdinand was able to tell the Evangelicals,
"All is over. Submission is the only thing that remains."
At this fateful instant, upon which the existence of the Evan
gelical cause depended, the Evangelical Estates withdrew for
consultation, praying a few moments' grace. But King
Ferdinand and the Imperial Commissaries departed from
the assembly. Shortly thereafter the Evangelicals returned
and read their protest before the Estates still assembled.
This was the celebrated Protest at Spires (April 19th,
1529). The Protesting Estates would abide by the recess
of 1526, for that of 1529 was not binding because they were
not consenting parties. If forced to choose between obe
dience to God and obedience to the Emperor, they would
choose to obey God. They appealed from this Diet to the
Emperor, to the next free General Council of Christendom,
or to an assembly of the German nation16 The Protest was
signed by the Elector John of Saxony, Margrave George of
Brandenburg, Dukes Ernest and Francis of Brunswick-Liine-
burg, Landgrave Philip of Hesse, Prince Wolfgang of An-
halt, and fourteen cities, a number of them„Zwinglian.
SALIG ON THE PROTEST.
This Protestation conferred upon the Evangelical Estates the name of
Protestants, which they hold to-day yet. This name is a historical monument
whose memory the Lutheran Church will never allow to grow old. The Protest
was a precursor of the Augsburg Confession, preparing the way to a fearless con
fession, and clearing the path of hindrances which otherwise would have sprung
up in great numbers. It confirmed the name "Steadfast" for the dear Elector
John, and cost the excellent Electoral-prince John Frederick many a sigh and
care. It was he' who encouraged his steadfast father in many hearty letters to con
fess the truth unabashed, and not to permit himself to be led away from it. — Hist.
d. Augsp. Conf., II, 134-135.

M Affected by the withdrawal of Ferdinand, and the injury thus done to their
honor and their rights, they seized upon the legal measure of an Appellation,
which, attested by a notary and witnesses, they addressed to the Emperor,
to the promised free General Council, and to the whole German Nation. The
Impression created was a profound one.

294 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
These men, who thus protested and appealed, both on the
seventeenth of April after the writing of the Decree, and
also once again solemnly and formally on the twenty-fifth
before the Diet and every Christian judge, to the majesty of
the Emperor and a free Christian Council, did not believe
that they were bound to give up the action of the last Diet
of Spires, which had been brought about as with one mind
and heart and which wrought stability, peace and unity.
They did not believe that the majority which now thought
otherwise and which now desired to destroy this action,
should be permitted to put their faith and the common good
in peril. Ferdinand refused to incorporate the Protest into
the Decree. So each of the Princes regarded himself re
sponsible for making it known, and it was resolved to send
an announcement of it to the Emperor by a special embassy.

Luther's Opinion Concerning the Decree of the Diet of Spires as to
what Reasons the Elector Should Give the Emperor for Refusing to
Accept the Decree. April, 1529.
1. Your electoral Grace would go against your own conscience, and condemn
the doctrine which you recognize as Christian.
2. You would become a participant with all those who condemn such doctrine,
and thus in addition to your own sin would load upon you numberless horrible
strange sins.
3. Your electoral Grace has not the power to force anyone to re-establish the
abuses that have been abolished, just as you were not the beginner or the cause of
their disappearance, since this is a matter of the conscience of each one.
4. Your electoral Grace cannot assent that the abuses should again be estab
lished, for then you would be confirming the unbearable oppression of the clergy of
which the complaint was at Worms, and would be strengthening the very abuses
which his imperial Majesty himself promised to abolish.
5. That your electoral Grace has not dealt in an unchristian way can be seen by
his imperial Majesty in the fact that the estates of the empire have not condemned
this teaching, but have postponed it to a Council, which they would not have done
if they had regarded it as downright unchristian.
6. And since all the estates of the empire are awaiting a Council, and his im
perial Majesty has also encouraged them in this, may his imperial Majesty advise
and help, that Christian peace may be brought about in a right and orderly way,
and that the matter may come to a hearing, and may not be condemned in private,
which would be a forced, and not hearty and willing peace.

PROVIDENCE AND THE AUGUSTANA. 395
The worst was to be feared. No wonder that three days
after the reading of the Protest, the Elector of Saxony,
Philip of Hesse, and the cities of Strasburg, Ulm and Nurn
berg, concluded a secret treaty of mutual defence, in case
they should be attacked by a party of the opposite faith or
should be hindered in the discharge of their Christian duties.
In this Federation, divergency of Protestant doctrine had,
for the moment, been overlooked. Cities such as Stras
burg, Constance, Ulm, and the towns of the Swiss were
received with the other Protestants. But the majority of
the Lutheran theologians did not approve of the Federation.
Melanchthon went home half dead with worriment concern
ing it. He told Luther, who especially was opposed to the
position taken as to a Federation. To Luther's thoroughly
religious disposition the Federation seemed a human business
to help along the cause of God, which had arisen out of weak
faith, human fear, and human anger. The pure work of
the Gospel should have nothing in common with the calcu
lating prudence of an anxious political diplomacy. In re
ligion God should be left to rule and to care. How could
the Elector make cause with those who did not believe God's
Word as to the Sacraments ! Though he had been moved by
the sudden danger to enter into Federation, the Elector, on
more sober thought, doubted the wisdom of what had been
done. The representations of Luther therefore made the greatest
impression upon the Elector. Similar doubts arose in the
hearts of others, and when the matter came up at Rotach,
at the meeting agreed on already at Spires, to make more
definite arrangements concerning the Federation, hesitant
reserve on the part of Saxony, Nurnberg and other Luth
erans caused the deliberations to be deferred to a later con
vention at Schwabach, which then was entirely given up by
the Lutherans.

296 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
Luther Warns the Elector of a New Federation which He is
Said to have Entered Into with the Landgrave.
May 22nd, 1529.
Grace and peace in Christ ! Most gracious Lord. M. Philippus has brought
me the news from the Diet that a new Federation is to be established particularly
by the Landgrave of Hesse with certain cities. All of which moves me not a little.
For I was severely burned last year, when God by his wondrous grace released us
from the dangerous Federation. And, although I hope God will continue to pre
serve us, and will give your Grace His Spirit, and henceforth to keep you from such
and similar Federations ; I have, nevertheless, because of the earnestness of my
conscience, not been able to desist from writing to you, since one cannot be too
diligent in circumventing the devil. The Lord grant that, although the Landgrave
continues with his making of Federations, you be not bound and fettered in
with them ; for we cannot even conceive of the trouble that would follow there
from. First of all, this is certain, that such a Federation does not come from God, or
from trusting in God, but arises from human wit, and seeks human help alone, all
of which is building without a good foundation. Then such a confederation is not
necessary, for the multitude of papists has neither the courage nor the ability to
accomplish anything which could not be withstood by the good men whom God
has given us.
In the third place, our Federation will not accomplish any more than that the
opposite party will be incited to also establish a Federation, and to do that which
perhaps they would never otherwise have attempted.
In the fourth place, we must remember that the Landgrave, after establishing
such a Federation, inasmuch as he is a restless young prince, might not keep the
peace, but, as happened last year, might find causes not only for defense, but also
for offensive attack ; and it certainly is not God-like to assume this attitude when
no one is seeking to attack us.
In the next place, and this is the worst of all, such a Federation will consist of
mostly those who strive against God and the Sacrament, and we all shall become
participants of their blasphemy. I contend, indeed, that no more dangerous alli
ance could be undertaken. If there is no other way, may God help that your
electoral Grace part from the Landgrave, as I hear the Margrave George says he
will. Our Lord Jesus Christ Who has helped your electoral Grace, up to this time,
against the Landgrave, will doubtless continue to do so.
In the last place God has always condemned such Federations of human help
in the Old Testament, as Isaiah 30 : 15 says: " In quietness and in confidence
shall be your strength;" for we are to be children of faith toward God. The
Landgrave, who already has made such a great mistake, is not to be trusted,
especially because there does not seem to be any change in him, nor has he experi
enced any repentance or sorrow for his sin.
May the Lord preserve you from all attempts of the devil.
Your obedient MARTIN LUTHER.
Wittenberg, May 22nd, 1529.

PROVIDENCE AND THE AUGUSTANA. 297
The only one on the side of the Lutherans who was par
ticularly pained by this failure of the Evangelicals to federate
was the Landgrave Philip himself. He had set great hope
upon the strength of the Federation, and upon the help of
the Swiss. Great visions of future success arose in his mind,
and now all this was to be shattered because of a mere unim
portant doctrinal condition ! A bold thought occurred to him.
He would himself do away with the difficulty. He would
invite both parties to a colloquy at Marburg. The Swiss
theologians gladly accepted his invitation. The Saxons strove
against it. They, especially Luther, did not see that it
would bring any result.

MELANCHTHON AGAINST THE COLLOQUY AT MARBURG,
To the Elector.
C R., 1, 1066. May 14th, 1529-
To deal with Zwingli is entirely useless. . . . If he has been summoned,
it is not to be hoped that he would come. The others who dance to Zwingli's
music would probably be timid. ... I rest assured that I will have nothing
to do with the Strasburgers as long as I live, and I know that Zwingli and his
associates are mistaken on the Sacrament.

Luther (Probably to the Elector) on the Colloquy at Marburg.
June, 1520.
So far as my own person is concerned, I have no aversion to speaking with
Oecolampadius of the sacrament, and have not declined to do so to the Land
grave ; and I wish to God it might be a serviceable thing. For this matter is
not insignificant. They have a large following of such as are regarded as learned
in all Germany, for reasons that I understand. Yet they are wanting in one
thing, which they do not yet know, namely, how difficult it is to stand before
God, without God's Word. Their way of dealing is that of mere earthly wit and
brilliant frivolity.
To deal with Zwingli would be unfruitful. Therefore Oecolampadius is to be
asked to come; and if he has been asked, it is nevertheless not to be hoped that
he will come. ... It is not well that the Landgrave mingles with those Zwing
lians. I believe that he already has more pleasure in them than is good : for they
are keen and shrewd people, such as the Landgrave likes.

298 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
But the Landgrave was not satisfied. He insisted on his
plan, and addressed a letter to Luther, to which Luther
replied : Luther to the Landgrave of Hesse.
June 15th, 1529. \
Grace and peace in Christ.
Illustrious Prince ! I have obediently received your letter and gracious desire
that I should go to Marburg, to have a discussion with Oecolampadius and his
people concerning the dissension as to tbe Sacrament, so that God might give
peace and unity.
Although I have poor hopes of such peace, yet your diligence and concern are
praiseworthy, and I am willing, for my part, to undertake such a forlorn and per
haps dangerous service ; for I do not wish the other side to be able to say that
they are more inclined to peace and unity than I.
If they really desired to seek peace, as they declare, they might have addressed
us long ago in writing. I know very well, that I shall not yield to them at all,
and cannot do so. I am positively sure that they are in error, and that, in addi
tion, they are not certain concerning their own opinion ; for I have thoroughly
investigated their whole ground in this affair. They also, doubtless, have seen
my ground. Therefore it is my earnest prayer that you consider thoroughly
whether the final result will do more good or more harm. For this is sure that,
if they' do not yield, we shall part from one another fruitlessly, and shall have come
together in vain ; your Grace's gifts and pains will have been lost ; and they will
not be able to restrain themselves from boasting, as they have been accustomed to
do hitherto, and from slandering us, so that we shall be pressed anew to defend
ourselves. Then matters will be worse than now. This is what Satan wishes and
seeks. Willing,
Wittenberg, June 23rd, 1529. Martin Luther.
The date of the Rotach convention, at which final arrange
ments were to be made concerning the Federation, was only
a few days off, and Luther prepared a decisive Opinion for
this convention. LUTHLR AGAINST FEDERATIONS.
Opinion for the Rotach Convention.
June 28th, 1529.
First. Federation is impossible. For it must ground itself on the conscience or
faith of those who bind themselves to believe with one heart. But we do not find
such faith in the other party, and it certainly will be wrought in but few. And if

PROVIDENCE AND THE AUGUSTANA. 299
the Emperor should really make an attack at any spot, there would be very few to
stand steadfast, and the rest would desert us. Too late we should learn that the
cities, in themselves, are powerless, and the Federation would go to pieces in dis
grace. Of this we have had examples enough in Muelhausen, Nordhausen, Erfurt,
Augsburg, Nurnberg, Swabian Hall, etc. These at first really seemed to wish
to eat the Gospel from very love, but now have fallen away from it. It is to be
feared that the same would be the case with aUlm, Strasburg, etc. There are
many in these cities who are hostile to the Gospel.
Federation is also hazardous on account of the Landgrave, because he is a rest
less man. He might, as he did the other time, become dangerous, and might
storm monasteries without our consent. Yet afterward we would be bound by
what he had done, or would be regarded as having co-operated with him. The
same is the case with the cities of Basel and Strasburg, who have taken possession
of the " Chapter " by their own power. In all this we would be regarded as par
ticipating, and would be obliged to defend it. This is contrary to God (Matt. 4: 7).
In the third place, such a Federation will be a dubious and vexatious matter.
For who can prevent so many people from seeking a brachium carnis, i. c, more
support in human help than in God, and although two of three should be pure,
the rest would set up the Federation as their idol.
In the fourth place, it is unchristian, because of the heresy concerning the Sacra
ments ; for we should have to uphold and defend this heresy ; and if we would not
defend it, they would probably become more angry than before. For as they are
not changing their faith on this point, there is no hope that they will remain true
and steadfast in the other points.
Suppose someone would say that the cities are in unity with us in all points
but one, and that surely everything does not turn on this or that one thing. I
would answer : He is no less an unchristian who denies one article, than Arius, or
one of his kind. Moreover, the other party itself seems exceedingly concerned in
respect to this one "small point;" for, though it is not necessary, they are strip
ping the Sacrament of all ceremonies, and making of it a simple collation, which
we certainly cannot, forbearingly, be responsible for.
If another man should say, "This Federation does not concern the doctrine,
but is a matter of external force," I would answer: Such a statement will not
hold, for everyone knows that the opposite party desires to attack us for no other
reason than because of the doctrine.

What is to be Written to the Emperor ?
First of all, it would be well if our people would write, for themselves alone,
without Zwingli. And that the valuable services of our Elector to the Church and
the whole Empire be made clear, it should be said : —
1. That he has taught Christ and His Word most purely, as it has not been
taught for a thousand years. That many abuses have been removed, such as have
injured the Church and the common life, viz., traffic in the masses, misuses of indul
gences and tyranny of the ban, which even the other party itself demanded at
Worms that they be done away with.

300 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
2. That he has withstood the destroyers of pictures and Churches.
3. That the value of civil authority and of his Imperial Majesty has been brought
out more clearly than has been the case for many hundreds of years.
4. That against the seditious Munzer-mobs, and in behalf of the common peace,
we have done the most for the Emperor.
5. That no one has undertaken the defence of the Church against the Sacramen
tarians except us. The Papists were too weak.
6. The same is the case with the Anabaptists.
7. The same is the case with the deadly seed of other hurtful doctrines dissem
inated by these people concerning the Trinity, Faith in Christ and the like.
In this remarkable summary by Luther as to what was to
be presented to the Emperor (perhaps by the embassy that
bore the "Protest"), we see the germs of the Electoral
Apology (compare the Preface of the Apology sent to Nurn
berg on June 3rd, 1530), which gradually was transformed
into the Augsburg Confession. The responsible figure and
public representative of the whole Evangelical cause was a
layman, the Elector of Saxony; and we shall interrupt the
course of events at this point to gaze for a moment on this
sober, steadfast and God-fearing prince, who confessed in
deeds what Luther taught in words, and to whom, next to
Luther, we owe the Evangelical Confession made at Augs
burg.
The Elector of Saxony.
The responsibility in the nation for the existence of Luth
eranism, and for the reconstruction of the German churches
to the evangelical faith and life, and for the acceptance of
a formal dividing line by the Protest in 1529, rested upon
the Elector.1 His brilliant, mercurial, and erratic anti-

17 John, " the Constant," was born on the 30th of June, 1468, and reigned
from 1525 to 1532. He was over fifty years of age_ when the battle of the
Reformation began, but his earnest and receptive disposition caused him to
attach himself to the Evangelical Confession. He prized Luther's sermons,
and often made a copy of them for himself.
The seven years of his rule were years of growing intensity, and of recip
rocal lack of confidence on the part of the different parties in Germany ;
In which, nevertheless, external union was preserved, and the Reformation
progressed without hindrance, to which John's love of peace and his firmness
contributed materially.
John's grasp of the Evangelical faith was independent and accurate, and
he had the undaunted courage to defend it with property and life. His

PROVIDENCE AND THE AUGUSTANA. 301
thesis, Philip of Hesse, to whose youth he opposed the
weight of age, to whose militant aggressiveness he opposed a
settled peace; to whose human plans and restless activity, he
opposed a trustful faith and a deep spirituality; and to
whose desire for union, and for conquest, he opposed a plain
and simple obedience to the Word of God, — offered a type
of Protestantism, which, if it had triumphed at Rotach and
Marburg and Schwabach and Augsburg, would have fought
Rome with the weapons of Rome, and not solely with the
Word; and attacked this world with the weapons of this
world; and would have altered the whole history of our
evangelical Protestantism. Under the stern and terrible ne
cessity of giving answer for itself to those without, these
crucial days of 1529 were deciding whether the Word alone,
or also the world and its policies, should prevail within the
Evangelical movement.
And here the Elector stood with Luther. Melanchthon and
the other theologians also stood with Luther. And the Elec
tor decided to be true to his faith, and to give answer to the
Emperor without Federation with the Zwinglians. In all
the efforts of Philip of Hesse, that Summer and Fall, the
Elector's attitude seems to have been passive; and he went
to Augsburg, as we shall see, on his own responsibility.
Up to this time, the Elector had accomplished great things
for the Church and the faith. Not only had he, with his
brother Frederick, shielded Luther from the ban of the
Empire for ten long years, but by the action culminating in
the Diet of 1526, which made reconstruction possible, and
which had been carried into effect in his own and other

Chancellor, Briick, was the soul of his external and internal policies, and John
gave his theologians a leading place in his decisions. He held Luther in
particularly high esteem.
Luther honored him as " a pious, upright prince who has no bitterness at
all," whose " trust in God was so earnest that he remained an uncorrupted
man." Luther said of him that " Sincerity died with John, and Wisdom with
his brother Frederick."
Schaff, Creeds of Christendom, I, 227, characterizes him thus : " The
Elector John, justly styled the Constant, with all his loyalty to the Em
peror and wish for the peace of Germany, refused to compromise his con
science, and, in full view of the possible ruin of his earthly interest, he
resolved to stand by ' the imperishable Word of God.' "
23

303 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
domains for three years now, he had freed the Church and
established it in the pure Word throughout Northern Ger
many. The ecclesiastical question had ceased to be a matter of
one poor monk, notably since 1526, when the princes for
mally assumed responsibility for the religion and the
churches within their territory. The responsibility of Luther
at Worms in 1521 was so evidently shifted -upon the Elector
and his estate that, in the Call to the Diet of Augsburg, the
name of Luther was not even mentioned ; and, so far as the
purposes of the Diet were concerned, neither Luther, nor
Melanchthon, nor any of the theologians, assumed a leading
position, but were mere personal advisers to the Elector on
such points of doctrine and ecclesiastical life concerning
which he chose to consult them. As the official leader of
the old Roman empire in Germany, and its chief marshal,
the Call to Augsburg was sent to him.
Thus the Diet, even in its religious aspects, was a matter
of the Princes and not of the theologians ; and as the Elector
was the central and deciding one among the Princes, the
whole weight fell upon his shoulders.
Soon to be impressed with the apparently marvelous
change in the manner of the Emperor, realizing the common
danger at hand in the approach of the Turk, distrusting the
aggressiveness of Philip of Hesse, and inferring from the
Emperor's attitude that, if he would be dealt with favor
ably, it was necessary to eschew the radicalism of his more
offensive associates and keep himself apart from their de
sires for alliance; hoping, doubtless, to show to the more
favorable judgment of the Emperor that the Evangelical
movement, despite the Protest, was a temporary and, until
the convening of a .General Council, not a real separa
tion from the Church Catholic nor necessarily a final one
from Rome ; with the stirring events of only nine months ago
in mind, — the appeal then made to a General Council or to
a German Assembly of the nation to save the Evangelical

PROVIDENCE AND THE AUGUSTANA. 303
Church from ruin, — the Elector of Saxony received the Call
of the Emperor, so sweetly and graciously written, to the new
Diet which he himself would attend, and where all opinions
were to be fairly heard and all divisions in the Church to be
honorably settled, that there might be one Commonwealth and
one Church of Christ, even as there was one Lord. Thus
the Elector went to Augsburg.
What the Augsburg Confession finally became, it became
.through and by way of, and as representing the faith of the
Elector, though his personality had, in the Providence of God,
been eliminated in the document, and the other princes had
been admitted as joint-confessors. " It is to John, Elector of
Saxony, more than to any other prince, that the world is in
debted for the Augsburg Confession. There is not a nobler
prince than he commemorated on the pages of history
(hardly one so eminently Christian) . ' His exalted firmness
conferred on him the title of the Constant, and never was it
more admirably displayed than in connection with the Con
fession which was prepared under his auspices and by his
command. The letter patent of the Emperor summoning a
Diet at Augsburg reached him in Torgau.""
Having gained a clear conception of the personalities of
the Emperor and the Elector, and of the course of history
between the Diet of Worms in 1521 and the Diet of Spires in
1529, together with a knowledge of the Emperor's Call for
a Diet at Augsburg in 1530, it will now be necessary to take
the reader somewhat more in detail through the pregnant
events of 1529 and 1530, where we come upon some surpris
ing facts. THE YEAE 1529.
April 19th, 1529.
King Ferdinand declares to the Princes: "All is over.

18 C P. Krauth in Ev. Rev., I, p. 246.

304 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
Submission alone remains " ; and the Princes and Estates
protest.June 29th.

The Peace of Barcelona is established between the war
ring Emperor and Pope. The Emperor, on his part, prom
ises to restore the Medici to Florence, and to root out the
Lutheran doctrine.
July 12th. The Emperor's Warning to the Estates.
Mueller, Hist., p. 208; Liinig, Reichs-Archiv, part. gen. cont., II, p. 329.
July J2th, 1529.
We are reminded that you have not agreed to the Decree of the Diet at Spires
on account of the Article concerning our holy Christian Faith. This displeases us
with you not a little. You ought not have refused ; and since it is the old custom
that in a general Assembly of the Empire the Majority rules, the minority should
not withstand their decision, but obey it. If you remain in further disobedience to
this gracious warning, we shall be obliged to punish you in earnest. Charles.
August 9th.
Charles lands at Genoa, as a mighty Conqueror, with a
court of Spanish grandees, and proceeds, as the restorer of
peace in Italy, after full preparations, in state to Bologna
to meet the Pope, from whom he expects to receive the
imperial crown.
The Elector John in Saxony and his compeers received
early tidings of the terms of the treaty at Barcelona, and
the question was at once raised whether the Evangelical
princes and estates should not immediately enter into a
league with each other and "proceed against the Emperor
Avith their military forces before he could debouch from the
Welsh Mountains.
"But Dr. Luther, who was always given to peace, and who
continuously advised against undertaking war under the
guise of the Gospel, and had already several times persuaded

PROVIDENCE AND THE AUGUSTANA. 305
those who were ready for battle to desist, then dissuaded the
Evangelical Princes in a most earnest way from undertaking
a league and war against the Emperor in this matter of
religion. He commanded them to wait and pray God in firm
faith for help and protection, since the matter belonged to
God, and, in order to strengthen his faith and that of the
Theologians and Princes, he gathered a number of comfort
ing passages from the Scripture and published them.
"And at this time he put the 46th Psalm, ' God is our
refuge and strength,' etc., into beautiful melody and words,
that awaken a sad and troubled disposition and fill it with
courage, and had them frequently sung in the churches."1*
Dr. Martin Luther's Letter to the Elector of Saxony, in which He
Advises Against War.
Grace and peace in Christ ! In our conscience we cannot justify nor advise
such a League on which the shedding of blood might result. I would rather be
dead ten times than have my conscience burdened by this, that our Gospel should
be the cause of the shedding of blood or of injury.
There is no harm in your being obliged to be surrounded with danger. Our
Lord Christ is mighty enough to ward it off, and we also believe that the Em
peror's attitude is a pure threatening of the devil, that will be without power and
will at last conduce to the destruction of the other side.
Therefore I admonish you to be comforted and unterrified in this danger, and I
will pray and beseech God to accomplish more than they can do with all their vio
lence, only so that we keep our hands free from blood ; and if it came to the worst
(which I do not believe) and the Emperor insisted on demanding me or the others,
I will appear with God's help on my own behalf, and will not place your Grace in
danger. Everyone should defend his faith and not rely upon another. Christ our
Lord comfort and strengthen you richly. Amen.

Meantime Protestant affairs were fairly blazing in Swit
zerland, with King Ferdinand unable to keep them in check ;
and soon Charles was to be crowned as the head of the Holy
Roman Empire, surrounded by the pageantry of the Span
ish Court, and without any notification of the great event
or any invitation to attend it being sent to the great German

"Chytrseus, Augsp. Conf., p. 11.

306 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
electors. Thus, for the last time in history, was the union of
the spiritual and the civil hierarchy consummated.20
This coronation of Charles at the hand of the reluctant
Roman Pontiff, and without the presence of the Elector of
Saxony, had lifted him to the zenith of his power. "The
sickly-looking youth of Worms," according to the brilliant
picture painted of him by Lindsay," had become a grave man
of thirty, whose nine years of unbroken success had made
him the most commanding figure in Europe. He had quelled
the turbulant Spaniards; he had crushed his brilliant rival
of France at the battle of Pavia ; he had humbled the Pope,
and had taught his Holiness in the sack of Rome the danger
of defying the Head of the Holy Roman Empire. He had
added to and consolidated the family possessions of the
House of Hapsburg, and but lately his brother, Ferdinand,
had won, in name at least, the crowns of Bohemia and Hun
gary. October 1st. THE MARBURG COLLOQUY.
Philip of Hesse would not hear to the policy of non-
resistance, and bent his utmost efforts to uniting the Luth
erans and Zwinglians into one Confederation. The Luther
an doctrine was the chief obstacle. It was the first of October
before Philip succeeded in the difficult task of bringing the
Lutheran and the Reformed theologians face to face to en
gage in a colloquy in his own castle at Marburg, in order to

20 Seldom, if ever, in the history of the world has any one been born to such
weighty responsibilities. Columbus had been discovering for Charles terri
tories of unlimited extent. When he was fifteen years of age. the first
European saw the Pacific Ocean, and ere he was twenty years on the throne
of Spain, Pizarro had completed the conquest of Peru. It was the heroic
period of Spain, when religious and military enthusiasm elevated the national
character in an extraordinary manner, and the material wealth of great
countries was available to an extent which has seldom been surpassed. —
Encyc. Britannica.
21 History of the Reformation, I, p. 359.

PROVIDENCE AND THE AUGUSTANA. 307
attempt to harmonize theological differences, in view of the
supposed desperate political need of a united Protestantism.
October Ifth.
Luther to his Wife.
From L. Chr. Mieg Monum. piet. et Utter. Francof. 1C71.
Walch XXI, 299 ; De Wettein, 512.
October 4th.
Grace and peace in Christ ! Dear Lord Kate. Our friendly conference at Mar
burg is at an end, and we are in unity in nearly all things, excepting that the other
side wishes to retain simply bread in the Lord's Supper and to confess Christ as
spiritually present therein. To-day the Landgrave is ascertaining whether we can
become one, or at least, if we remain separate, nevertheless, regard ourselves as
brethren and members of Christ among each other. To this end the Landgrave is
strenuously active. But we do not want the " brethren and members' business"
(Aber wir wollen des Bruderen und Glieders nicht). To be peaceful and well
disposed we certainly desire. . . . Tell Herr Pommer that the best argument of
Zwingli has been that the body cannot exist without locality ; therefore the body
of Christ is not in the bread. The best argument of Oecolampadius is, that this
sacrament is a sign of the body of Christ. I believe that God has blinded them so
that they might not be able to advance anything. I have much to do and the mes
senger is in haste. Say Good-night to all and pray for us. We are all fresh and
strong and live like princes. Kiss little Lena and little Hans for me. On the day
of the present 1529. Your willing servant, Martin Lusher.
John Brenz, Andreas Osiander, and Dr. Stephen, of Augsburg, have also come
hither. Letter of Luther to Agricola.
Original in Wolf., Extv. 84. 18. Bl. 3 ; MS. in Cod. Goth., B, 28, f. 40b.
Printed in De Wette, IE, p. 513 ; in Erlangen, vn, p. 168 ; Buddeus, p. 71.
October 12th 1529.
Grace and peace in Christ ! . . . . They very humbly asked for peace. We
spoke together for two days. I answered Oecolampadius as well as Zwingli, and
held to the passage, " This is my body." I disposed of every objection. These
people are incompetent, and inexperienced in disputation. Although they saw that
their arguments proved nothing, they nevertheless were unwilling to yield, espe
cially on this one point, the presence of the body of Christ, and, I believe, more
from fear and shame than from an evil disposition. But finally they yielded on
all other points, as is to be seen on the printed report. Then at last they prayed,
or requested, that we should at least regard them as brethren, and said that the
princes would like to see this ; but it was not possible to consent to it. JVeverthe-

308 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
less we did extend to them the hand of peace and love, that now bitter
writings and words may cease, and everyone may hold his faith without hostile
assaults, yet not without defence and confutation. Thus we parted. Pray for us.
Amen ! Martin Luther.
Jena, October 12th, 1529. Postscript by Melanchthon.
They prayed us from the heart that we would call them brethren, but see what
folly ! While they are condemning us (verdammen), they still wish to be re
garded by us as brethren ! We would not be able to grant them this. I surely
believe that if the matter had not been as great, they would not now begin such
a farce. Luther has been severely blamed for refusing the proffer
of Zwingli, but from his standpoint how could he do other
wise ? It has been cast up against him that such harshness
was a result of his personal disposition. But in the letter
translated above, Melanchthon appears to be even more harsh
than Luther. Luther was neither vexed nor narrow-minded,
but at this time was patient and in good temper.
It was a matter of principle to Luther. The sacrament was
the central mystery of his faith ; and, after it had been robbed
of its power, and emptied of the divine presence, by those
on the other side, he conld not reach across the gulf thus
created, and say, "There is no important difference between
us." The hand "of peace and love" which he did really
extend, and which is never mentioned in most modern ac
counts, shows either how ignorant or how unjust these lat
ter are in attributing the position taken by Luther to his
bitterness of feeling. Luther to Landgrave Philipp.
Original in Zurich Archives in the Unsch. Nachr. 1756, p. 447.
DeWette, V, 87 ; Erl.Br. W., Ill, 84.
January 30th, 1535.
I have gladly perceived the great diligence you have used toward the uniting
of us all in the article of the Lord's Supper. ... I have come to the point of
confidently believing that there are many among them who mean it with a true and

PROVIDENCE AND THE AUGUSTANA. 309
earnest heart. On that account I am also more inclined to a union which shall
be fundamental and stable. But since not everything has been investigated on
both sides, in my opinion it is enough for this time to have come together so
near, until God helps us more and grants it to us to conclude a. certain union.
Such a matter, which has grown so long and so deeply, cannot be accomplished sud
denly and at once. For what I can ever do and suffer to the accomplishment of
such a beginning, you may be certain, so far as God permits me, that I shall not
be found failing. . . . Your willing D. Martin Luther.

Oct. 16th.

THE SEVENTEEN SCHWABACH ARTICLES OF LUTHEE.
The object of the Landgrave failed, and now more than
ever the Lutheran princes were resolved to withdraw from
all political fellowship with the others. At a convention of
the Lutherans at Schwabach22 in October, it was demanded
as a fundamental condition of being received into the Fed
eration, that the so-called Schwabach Articles, framed so as
to render it impossible for those who denied the true presence
of the body of Christ in the sacrament to sign them, must
be signed.
Thus the Lutherans stood alone when a new situation arose
which entirely dissipated every idea of Federation. The
Emperor had received the embassy (which had been sent
to hand him the Protest and Appeal for a Council, after
the Diet of Spires, and to represent to him the necessity
of Protest, and at the same time to assure him of their fidelity
and obedience) very ungraciously, and had had them im
prisoned for a time. Hence the question would now arise,
what was to be done if the Emperor himself should use force.
For, apparently, no one had considered this matter. The
Emperor had been far away in Spain when at the Diet of

22 The convention at Schwabach and the Colloquy at Marburg have the
most intimate connection with the Augsburg Confession, and furnish a clue
for guidance Into the same. — Salig, Hist. d. Augsp. Conf., II, 128.

310 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
Spires the hostile attitude of the German estates had caused
the Evangelicals to federate against the hostile estates. As
against equals, the right of defence was supposed to be pos
sessed. But how would it be, if now the Emperor, their
Lord, who meanwhile had come to Italy, and who next Spring
would be expected in Germany, would range himself on the
side of the enemies ? Dare one resist him ?
There was hesitation for a moment, but Luther saw nothing
but rebellion and destruction in the attempt to oppose the
Emperor. And most of the theologians agreed with him.
One must suffer the Emperor's will, even if he acted un
righteously. Country and people must remain bound to
him as long as he is Emperor. Only in one case could
obedience be denied. Should he wish to force princes and
authorities to aid in the suppression of the Gospel, it would
be right to obey God rather than man. This view pre
vailed. The princes and towns that were already resort
ing to arms for a defense, laid them down. They raised
themselves to the high point of courage required to confess
and to suffer what God should bring to pass. Luther's in
fluence was supreme.
Thus Philip of Hesse's grand coalition with France and
Switzerland against the Emperor had come to failure through
the influence of Luther. The Elector was to stand before
the Emperor by himself, and not to federate with one who
differed in so much as a single article of faith.
The Fall of the year was full of thrilling minor incidents,
each bearing on one of the two great problems. The theo
logical fruit of this soul-searching period was Luther's
precious Schwabach Articles, so clear, so short, so simple, so
extraordinary a Confession of the full Evangelical Gospel;
the political fruit was the impression made on the Emperor
as to the necessity of holding either a Council or a National
German Assembly, and the knowledge given him of the deep-
rooted character of the religious question,.

PROVIDENCE AND THE AUGUSTANA. 311
Oct. Hth.
APPEAL OF THE PROTESTANT ESTATES TO A CHRISTIAN
COUNCIL.
The appeal for a Christian Council caused the Emperor to
give most serious attention to the situation that would con
front him when he should cross over into Germany. " In
order to fit himself better for this important business he
asked certain reliable, learned and prominent men for their
opinions of the religious dissensions that had occurred.
"Some advised him not to allow any change in doctrine or in ceremonies, nor
to permit any Council to assemble, but to suppress with force all preachers and
estates who wilfully destroyed the common peace in the empire; for it is much more
harmful to permit anything new to exist than to endure that which might perhaps
be made better, because if the attempt be once made to change laws and customs,
shallow and frivolous people would only be incited to still greater and more pro
longed disputation and to further novel views.
" But others answered more mildly. Since the intention is to uphold God's
honor, and not only peace in God's churches ; and since evidently many unright
eous and godless opinions have forced their way into the church through error,
superstition, and avarice, God's honor demands that such errors shall be done away
and practical doctrine and a right kind of worship shall be ordained, for where this
does not occur, no permanent peace is to be had ; for as there will always be some
who will attack errors and abuses, this will become all the more uncontrollable if
it occurs without the pale of authority.
" Therefore it is proper not to exercise tyranny over the churches of God, but
to wrestle with the difficulties gently. This gentleness to the churches of God
is all the more proper since in them one is so often commanded to protect the weak.
Last of all, as so many highly respected Princes appeal to a Council, what a tyranny
it would be to exercise violence and cruelty prior to an investigation. To this the
examples of many emperors were cited, who assembled Councils, such as Constan-
tinus the Great, Theodosius, Arcadius, Marcianus, etc.
" The Emperor Charles, gracious by nature, opposed to all
tyranny and devout, when he read both proposals, after long
consideration and communication with prominent wise men,
finally selected the right and the mild way and resolved to
abide by it." "

28 Chytraus, Hist. Augsp. Conf., pp. 4b sq.

312 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
November 5th.

CHARLES V. AND THE POPE AT BOLOGNE.
" When, then, in the year 1529, on the 5th of November,
the Emperor came to Pope Clement toward Bononia, and
when certain other matters had been attended to, the de
liberation concerning the Lutheran affair and how again to
establish peace and unity in the Christian churches was
taken up.
" While now the Emperor and the Pope sat together in
counsel, and while, there stood around them on the one side,
the old, wise cardinals Genutius, Farnesius and others ; and
on the other side, the Spanish and Italian Princes — the Em
peror's Chancellor, Mercurinus, in a long, well-thought-out
and earnest oration, indicated the Emperor's will, and de
sired a Council." M
THE PLEA OF THE CHANCELLOR MERCURINUS,
November 5th, 1529,®
In the Assembly of the Pope and Cardinals and in the Presence of the
Emperor, in which he Begs the Pope, in the Name of the Emperor, to
Call a General Council.26
1. Most Holy Father, Most Venerable Lord : Ever since the Invincible Em
peror, at the beginning of his reign, became painfully conscious that a great dissen
sion has arisen among the prominent teachers of the Church and is increasing from
day to day, he cannot but notice how lamentable injury is being done, and many
pious souls are scandalized ; yea, the heat of controversy has grown so intense that,
if no one comes promptly to the aid of Christianity and the wretched Roman Empire,
the church and all the estates in the Empire will be placed in the extremest peril :
therefore his Imperial Majesty has from the beginning been thoughtfully striving to
find some means to restore peace to the Church and the Empire, now swaying in
danger, and to do away with all that seems to antagonize the common welfare.
2. Moreover, his Imperial Majesty well knows that the investigation of conflicts
24 Chytraus, Hist. Augsp. Conf., pp. 5b sqq.
25 The date is that given by Chytraeus. — Historia Augsp. Conf., p. 4b. Some
place it at the end of February of the following year. Vid. \ 3, " Coronation."
2S Colestin, hist, comit., 1580, I, p. 10 ; Miiller, Hist, lib., Ill, Cap. 2, p.
402 ; Liinig, orat. prccer. Europ., XXVII.

PROVIDENCE AND THE AUGUSTANA. 313
in the doctrine and usage of the Church are the province of your Highness, and that
as an old, pious and prudent man, you are concerned about the universal corruption.
Therefore his Majesty, despite the Imperial business and the wars in which he has
been involved, has often wished and prayed God that he might meet you and speak
of these important matters and compass a proper conclusion.
3. Since now this wish has been realized, and, at this act of coronation and through
his proposed journey to Germany, an opportunity has been given to personally
honor your Reverend Holiness and to enter into consultation with you, his Majesty
renders God the greatest thanks for the opportunity afforded ; since he firmly be
lieves that Your Holiness will find a way in this venerable assembly to remedy the
corruption of Christianity. For the Emperor is assured that you and he, the two
highest heads of the Church and the State, will turn their care to the upbuilding
of God's honor and the preservation of peace ; so that the right and whole
some doctrine in the Church may be preserved pure and true ; that where
errors, false doctrines, and superstition have insinuated themselves, they shall be
prevented ; that lapsed Church discipline shall be restored ; that bad morals in the
clergy and among the people shall be improved; and that the falsified doctrine of
the Church shall be cleansed and purified. In connection with which his Majesty
sincerely believes that if we are not zealously in earnest to permit a book of instruc
tion to be compiled from the Word of God, for healing the Church's injury and
exercising a more strict discipline, still greater confusion, and more abhorrent barbar
ism than we have ever experienced will follow, not to speak of the fact that the
most dreadful and righteous penalties will be visited upon those in authority and
those who are under it.
4. When then his Majesty began to deliberate and asked the advice of honorable
and intelligent men, they could find no more useful and appropriate remedy than
the Diet already called, in which the conflicts belonging to the Church should be
taken up in the fear of God, and decided according to the rule and truth of the
divine Word ; and that pious and learned men should be called together out of
all nations, and be given the free assurance of safe conduct to speak openly,
to argue, to point out the truth, to discuss opinions in which they differ from each
other in an upright way, and thus fully elucidate the sources of contention ; and
finally that your Papal Holiness, or certain qualified and impartial judges, see to
it that, after a thorough investigation, they hold firm and fast to that which
harmonizes with the evangelical teaching and with invincible truth ; and,
on the other hand, condemn harmful errors and abuses in teaching, which are in
conflict with the Word of God, and either bring their originators into the right
way, where possible, or give them over to the proper magistrate for punishment ;
but all is to be done in love, and not with force, so that at last all teachers
and hearers shall be brought to a true adoration and service of God, as well as to
obedience to the Church, and to believe right according to the pattern laid down,
to teach purely, to walk irreproachably and to glorify God in this way.
Your Imperial Majesty knows that your Papal Holiness has the right to call
together councils, and that the conflicts that have originated in the Church are
subject to you and your final judgment ; nevertheless his Majesty seeks all the less
to abridge the rights of the Roman chair since he has just recently promised under
oath to be and remain a friend and protector of the same ; but at the same time he
realizes that pressing necessity is at hand, that the universal welfare of the Church

314 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
demands it, that all right-minded people wish this one thing with great desire, and
that there seems to be no other way which is right, customary, and praiseworthy,
by which the respect and rights of your Holiness may be preserved, the declining
Church may be set on its feet again, the anxious souls of the pious be converted,
and the truth of the evangelical doctrine of Christ be asserted, than by the
calling together of such an assembly : therefore his Imperial Majesty prays Your
Holiness, for Christ's sake and for the general welfare, that you will, as early as
possible, issue a call for a Council to be held at a suitable place, and believes that
this method, which has already been in use for many hundreds of years, and is
appointed by God and the Apostles themselves, is as necessary as useful, since such
important controversies cannot possibly be decided by the verdict of one or another,
or only a few, but that this must occur in a free assembly of the leaders and
teachers. 5. Your Imperial Majesty confesses that love to the true religion and the ex
ample of the noblest emperors who have preceded him in rule, have impelled him
to this step. He remembers that when Arius scattered harmful and blasphemous
errors, Constantine held a famous Synod at Nicaea to investigate and condemn the
same, and brought matters so far that the proven errors were publicly condemned
by the holy bishops and the holy Church fathers. Also that the Emperor Theo
dosius and Valentinianus, not to speak of others, appointed similar great assemblies ;
and that after each one had a free opportunity of speaking, a common conclusion
was resolved on, and the errors that had arisen were condemned out of the
Word of God, and the originators thereof were visited with severe penalty. It
is certain that such conventions and deliberations have often been very useful to the
Church of God and the whole world, and that one has never been able to investi
gate the truth to better advantage than through proper assemblies ; and he does not
see how in our times the peace that has been lost can be restored in a better man
ner, since the use of force in this affair is questionable.
7. Therefore his Majesty hopes that your Holiness will approve his prayer, and
first of all by this mild means attempt a beginning of unification.
8. His Majesty also solemnly promises that he will ever stand by Your Holi
ness, and, in remembrance of his oath, will be a true and perfect defender of the
apostolic chair, the evangelical truth, and all the subjects of the Roman Empire.
Thus closed what is perhaps the most remarkable plea for
the pure Word of God, the unadulterated faith, the evangeli
cal doctrine, and the cause of religious truth, that ever came
before the Roman Curia from the lips of the representative
of an imperial sovereign.
The eloquent man to whom the Pope and his Cardinal
were obliged to give audience was the imperial Chancellor,
Mercurinus Gattinara, the Emperor's chief adviser, known
by the Wittenbergers as friendly to the Lutheran cause ; and
this fact may have contributed, especially with Melanchthon,

PROVIDENCE AND THE AUGUSTANA. 315
to the hopes they had for Augsburg. But let the reader note
that Mercurinus died on June 4th, 1530.
After Mercurinus had finished his plea to the Pope on
that November day at Bologne, Pope Clement, " who was a
wise and eloquent man, and who had bethought himself con
cerning this important matter, replied thus : — "
The Answer of Pope Clement, in which He Declines to Call a Council.
1. We do indeed believe, Emperor Charles, that you are pressing for a Synod in
all sincerity, although in this matter, in which the Church is in great danger, the chief
responsibility is with us ; for, in the Council of Nicaea it was decided that the divi
sions which arose in the Western Church should be brought before the Roman
Bishop, and that our chair should call the assembly. We have therefore delib
erated as to whether such matters should be dealt with in a Council, or whether
the men should be seized by force who diverge from the decrees and usual opinions.
Since we do not consider it advisable to call a Synod, we ask you here at the begin
ning that you do not think that we are in anxiety for the stability of our rule or
that of the Roman Church. It is said of John XXIII. that he was sorry that he
had held a Synod at Constance, since this caused his downfall. And we also
have recently been caught.
We positively are not possessed with this foolish desire to hold an assembly.
What has been decided in the past ought not to be robbed of its power by a new
discussion. If such a discussion were truly useful to peace and our prosperity, we
would not hinder it.
4. There are statements of doctrine which are not only false but also absurd,
such as those of the Anabaptists, and those that all persons should hold their
possessions in common ; that God has forbidden public law and punishment.
5. But just as everyone immediately runs to a fire to extinguish it, so should all
the civil authorities have shown themselves eager to suppress these controversies in
their very beginning ; and very bad consequences would follow if we should yet
allow disputation over them. The Emperor Constantine was able to sit in the
Council and hear blasphemy. Ought you be regarded as being as abandoned as
Constantine that you would listen to such deceitful addresses with the deepest
confidence ?
6. The other kind of error consists of confused teachings which it is not pos
sible to solve. It is much better that these should never come up, since it is not
possible to settle the conflicts. To this kind belong questions pertaining to the
adoration of the Bread, of the Offering, and of the Mass.
"After the Pope had thus spoken, the Emperor, inas
much as he determined to abide by his opinion and desire of

27 Chytraus, Hist. Augsp. Conf., pp. 6 sqq. ; Melanchthon, declamat., V,
pp. 94 sqq. In Nov., says Chytr. ; but Mercurinus indicates Feb.

316 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
a Council, then commanded his Chancellor Mercurinus to
answer the Pope ; but when Mercurinus had begun, the Pope
interrupted him while speaking, and said : ' How dare you
thus rashly oppose me and stir up your Lord against me ?'
" Then the Emperor himself stood up to answer the Pope.
The Princes and the old Cardinals were filled with wonder
to hear what the young Emperor wished to say, and listened
breathlessly. And this ™ is the sum and substance of his
speech : — The Emperor's Reply to the Pope.29
" I confess that I am young, and that I need the advice of this Mercurinus and
other sensible and wise men, and I recognize that I ought properly to hear others
who are of better understanding than I, but since I have conferred as to this import
ant matter, which I know to be to the honor of God, and to the good of the whole
race, with many wise and faithful people, I regard it as right and that it is highly
necessary for the Christian churches that a Council be held, for you know yourself,
Pope Clement, that all deserving people in the whole of Europe are requesting
such a Council with continuous petition, one that will be ordered and ruled in a
proper and Christian manner.
"Although I have faithfully weighed the arguments which you have just
opposed to it, I have nevertheless come to the conclusion that a Council shall be
called, and therefore you shall know that what was said by my Chancellor was said
by my orders, and that I, so long as I live, will not deviate from this intention.
Your opinion can indeed be maintained in an acceptable and respectable way by
those who do not concern themselves much concerning God and the churches. But
my opinion is more beneficial for the churches ; and if you do not hinder me, I
hope it shall be, with the help of God, wholesome for all Christendom.
" Neither am I moved to deviate from my opinion by your hard saying that one
shall not allow any disputation as to false articles or those that are in conflict with
all reason, or those that are confused, and not to be solved. For not everything,
concerning which the battle now rages, is in conflict with God's word and
reason. There are in the Church of God no such ' confused questions ' concerning
points necessary to salvation that cannot be decided.
" I have often quoted the saying of Plutarch, as one must permit some failings
in our parents, so, in government and religion, one must be patient with failings
and look at them through the fingers ; but this has its limits.
" The foundation of the true doctrine must indeed be preserved unfal-
sified. But certain superstitious and blasphemous adorations have crept into the
churches. Open disorder is before our eyes, and a Council is demanded not only
for the doing away with this abuse, but stern necessity demands that a well-

28 Chytraus, Hist. Augsp. Conf., p. 8.
24 lb., pp. 8 sqq.

PROVIDENCE AND THE AUGUSTANA. 317
grounded and rightly composed summa and corpus of the whole Christian
doctrine be drawn up, which shall be preached and taught in all nations
and in all churches with one voice, for you know, at this time there are great
objections as to the teaching even among the Roman churches.
" And as certain evidently false doctrines have been circulated, the Council
should oppose them by clear and sure arguments and by the testimony of Holy
Scripture, by which the people should be strengthened, so that they will not be led
astray any more.
" It does not comport with you as a Christian Bishop to say that no one can
be brought into the clear concerning certain confused articles. For God has
revealed Himself with especial grace, and if His doctrine were uncertain, it would
not be divine.
" I am reminded of the advice of the Emperor Theodosius, who allowed the
testimony of the old teachers to be brought to light in a Council, for I gladly listen
to the Church as my Mother and Teacher. And how much more appropriate your
decision will be if given in a Council ; for there will be much greater unity among
all the nations, if they all receive this with unanimity. After a proper hearing, I
shall also not be found wanting as to my office ; and that the hearing may occur in a
proper way, after the example of the old Emperors, I will be present myself, and as
much as is possible see to it that this honorable old law shall be maintained, that
the decision shall not be given in caprice, but explained according to the Law,
namely, according to the doctrine which has been given by God Himself.
"But what you now demand, namely, that I shall, without any previous hear
ing and investigation, extirpate both the good and the bad alike, I will in no wise
do. For I will not abolish the judgment of the churches and institute
tyranny. I have already shown my Christian humility and obedience toward the
churches and toward the Roman chair, and toward you, with sufficient clearness,
and will continue to do so."

"When the Pope and all the Princes present heard this
address, they greatly marveled at the high understanding and
the wonderful Christian courage of Charles; and on that
account, that he might not be agitated more violently, the
Pope answered quite gently : ' He would give more con
sideration to the matter, and take it into further deliberation
with his Cardinals.'
" This transaction at Bononia is sufficient evidence that
the Emperor Charles at that time proceeded with the great
discretion and moderation in these affairs of religion, which
he also subsequently showed at the Diet of Augsburg, in that
he permitted the Confession containing the teaching of our
Churches to be delivered to himself. All of which God the
24

318 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
Lord so ruled that the teaching of the Gospel might be mani
fested more clearly and spread more widely.
" But the Pope at the same time at once perceived, toward
the last, there at Bononia, that the Emperor agreed that he
would first of all proceed mildly with the Lutherans, that
they might again be brought to the obedience of the Romish
churches. But if they should be obstinate and abide in their
determined disobedience, he would suppress them with force.
" When the Pope took his departure, his imperial Ma
jesty, on the 21st of January, wrote a summons in very mild
and gracious words for a Diet to convene in Augsburg on the
8th of April. In this he expressly said, with respect to the
discord in religion, that he would hear, consider and weigh
every deliverance, opinion, and thought of each estate in love,
friendliness, and graciousness, and would reduce and compose
them into a single Christian Truth. Everything that had not
been rightly explained on either part, or that had been dealt
with wrongly, would be abolished, that we might all accept
and hold a single and true religion, as we are all under one
Christ and also all battle in one communion of churches and
live in one unity." " THE YEAR 1530.
Jan. 21st.

Charles V. issues the Call convening the Diet at Augs
burg. (This document appears earlier in the chapter.)

Early Spring.
The Emperor, leaving Bologna, crosses the Brenner Pass
to pay the visit to Germany he had determined on, and
by his personal presence to put an end to the Lutheran difii-

30 Thus far Chytrozus.

PROVIDENCE AND THE AUGUSTANA. 319
culty in the Church, which was distracting the German
portion of his empire; and to secure the imperial succession
for Ferdinand by having him elected King of the Eomans.
THE EMPEROR HOLDS COURT AT INNSBRUCK.
Charles was welcomed most heartily on this side of the
Alps. His court was a scene of brilliancy and power, and
was visited by the Roman Catholic princes of Germany ; but
the Elector, the chief marshall of the Empire, was con
spicuously absent.
Under this stimulating encouragement from part of Ger
many, Charles could afford to be less yielding and more con
stant to his real purpose in the matter of religion, than he
had seemed to be, in the Call, a few months earlier ; and the
flatteries and persuasion of the Romanists, with the bluntness
and the failures of the Evangelicals at Innsbruck, would not
render the newly-crowned potentate less firm. The impres
sion of his power made by the Emperor even upon Luther,
is seen in a letter he wrote to the Elector.
End of February or Beginning of March.
LUTHER TO THE ELECTOR.
Printed by Hans Lufft, Wittb. IX, 543. De Wette, III, 555 ; Erl. Br. W., II, 134.
Grace ancLpeace in Christ. The world is running so quickly to its end, that it
strongly occurs to me as though the last day would break in before it is possible
for me to completely translate the Holy Scripture into German. For this is certain
that we have nothing of a more temporal character to await in the Holy Scripture.
Everything is finished and fulfilled. The Roman Empire is at an end ; the Turk
has come to his height ; the splendor of the Papacy is falling away, and the world
is getting cracks at all its ends as though it would soon break and fall to pieces.
That this same Roman Empire has risen a little and become more powerful
under our Emperor Charles than it has been for a long time past, it seems to me is
the last act of God. As when a light or blade of straw, when burned out and
about to be extinguished, suddenly gives out a large flame as if it were just begin
ning to burn right, and then, at the same instant, goes out ; such to-day is the case
with Christendom and the bright Gospel.
No greater affliction has ever come upon earth and lasted longer than the abom
ination of Mohammed and the Pope.

320 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
March 11th.

The Elector receives the Emperor's Call in Torgau,
and his Chancellor Briick advises that the points in Eaith
and Ceremonies on which they would have to take their
stand be at once set together and grounded in Scripture.
March l^th.
Eck writes the Emperor, to stir him against the Protestants.
The Elector issues a command to his four theologians, to
promptly prepare a paper on the Articles of Faith which
were in dispute.
It was to be attended to immediately, for this was March
14th, and the Emperor had set April 8th as the date for the
Diet at Augsburg.
Command of the Elector to Luther, Jonas, Pomeranus and
Melanchthon.
Original in Archives at Weimar.
Printed in Colestin, 1, 134 ; Forstemann, 1, 42.
Torgau, March 14th, 1530.
We have received a summons from the Roman Emperor to a Diet at Augsburg,
with the other holy estates of the realm, on the 8th of April next, which the Em
peror will attend in person. We enclose a copy of the substance of the imperial
mandate. Inasmuch as the division in our Christian religion will be one of the most
weighty matters considered, and as it is important for the Estates themselves to
hear, understand and test every opinion, in order to compare and bring to a single
Christian truth, and to do away with everything that has not been properly explained
or transacted right on both sides, that one true religion may be accepted and adhered
to by us all, and as we all stand and contend under one Christ, and all live in one
Commonwealth, Church and Unity, ... in view of the pressing necessity, since
it may be that said Diet is to be held in the place of a Council, or National As
sembly (National-versammlung), in order that we may be rendered firm as to all
the disputed Articles, both in the Faith and also in other external ecclesiastical
customs and ceremonies ; so that we may before the beginning of such a Diet be
thoroughly determined whether, and in what form, and in how far, we and other
estates who have accepted and admitted the pure doctrine, may be able to do and
suffer with a good conscience before God.
We ask you to break away from other affairs that you may finish this work
between now and Oculi Sunday (March 20th), and come here to Torgau with your
result. The time between now and the Diet is very short, and we cannot delay. And

PROVIDENCE AND THE AUGUSTANA. 321
although the Call does not expressly give permission to every estate to come with
preachers and theologians, yet we wish you, Dr. Martin, and Doctor Jonas, Provost,
and also Magister Philip Melanchthon, to so regulate your affairs and those of the
University at Wittenberg, that you may be with us at Torgau on the day mentioned,
and with Magister Spalatin and Eisleben journey with us toward Coburg. Mean
time we shall try to see whether it will be possible for the estates to command the
preachers and theologians to come to them at Augsburg, that we may have you
come to us from Coburg. If not, you are, and especially you, D. Martinus, to
remain at Coburg until we come to a further decision.
In view of what these things mean to us all and to all Christendom, do not
allow yourselves to be overcome with anxiety. You will thereby gain our earnest
and gracious favor. Dated Torgau, Monday after Reminiscere, Anno Domini,
1530. To Doctor Martin
Doctor Jonas
Pommer Philip Melanchthon.
Luther Writes to Jonas.
Manuscript in Cod. Bostoch.
Printed in Colest. I. 24 ; Er. Bf. W. VII, 253.
March 14th.
To Justus Jonas, Visitator in the Duchy of Saxony.
Grace and peace in Christ. The prince has written us, /. e. , you, Pomeranus,
Philip, and myself, in a letter addressed to all in common, that we lay aside all
other business, assemble, and complete, before next Sunday, what may be necessary
for the coming Diet on April 8th. For Kaiser Carl will be present at Augsburg
himself, in order to settle all differences, as he writes in his bull. On that account
we three, although you are absent, shall do as much as we can to-day
and to-morrow. Yet it will also be incumbent on you to give your work over
to your associates, in order-to fulfil the will of the Prince, and join us here to
morrow. For all is in haste. Christ grant that all occur to his honor. Amen.
About 12 o'clock on March 14th, 1530. Martin Luther.
A graphic picture indeed. It reveals many things as to
the .coming Confession — the centrality of the Elector and
his serious sense of responsibility and sober zeal for the
preservation of the pure doctrine, and the unity of the Faith ;
the leading position of Luther as the Elector's spiritual
pillar, the lack of knowledge as to whether Augsburg would
prove to be a Council of the Church which would unite and

322 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
purify the whole Christian Church, or whether perhaps the
stand taken against the Protestants at Spires would be
modified ; and contains a reflection of the Emperor's view.
March 21st.

Jonas had not been reached promptly by the call of the
14th, and a second summons is sent to him.81
March 27th.

Melanchthon is at the Elector's court at Torgau" — per
haps with the result of the labors of the theologians at
Wittenberg; Luther was probably not yet there,33 but he,
with Melanchthon, arrived within a few days. Whether
the work of the theologians had been finished in Witten
berg, and Melanchthon sent on with it in advance, or
whether there was a Conference at Torgau after Luther
arrived and before the Elector started, we do not know. At
all events, the Torgau Articles, in the elaboration of which
Luther had taken a principal part,34 but which are in the
writing of Melanchthon, were now presumably shown to the
Elector as the answer of the Theologians.
What these Torgau Articles actually were, as a document,
has been a matter of uncertainty, but historians have arrived
at the conclusion that they are the document discovered by
Forstemann in the " Beilagen " to Brlick's Geschichte d.
Religions-Handlungen in 1530, in the archives at Weimar
(Bl. 311-323h), and printed in the Urkunden Buch, I,
68 sqq.
The Elector had definitely instructed them to prepare,
first and foremost, the Articles of Faith in dispute, and as

81 c. R. II. 33.
82 lb., 23 sq.
33 For Melanchthon was busy with the writings of the anti-Trinitarian Cam-
panus, and Luther in a letter on April 1st (C R., Ill, 566) does not yet
know what Campanus said.
34 The Elector to Luther, May 11th, 1530 : " As you and our other theologians
at Wittenberg have brought into summary statement the articles of religion."

PROVIDENCE AND THE AUGUSTANA. 323
the Torgau Articles are in the form of single declarations
concerning the abuses of the Roman Church which could
not be yielded to, and from later events, we may perhaps
infer that the Schwabach Articles of Luther, of five months
before, were given to the Elector as the answer on Faith ; and
these Torgau Articles as the answer on Ecclesiastical Life
and Ceremonies.
One week after the probable presentation of these Articles,
we have a letter of Luther to his friend, Nicholas Hausmann.

April 2nd.
LUTHER TO HAUSMANN.
Original in the Archives at Anhalt.
Printed in Colestin, I, 29 ; Erlangen Br.-W., VII, 290.
April 2nd.
To the Wonderfully Dear Man, Mr. Nicolas Hausmann, the Altogether
Pure Bishop of the Church at Zwickau, his Superior in the Lord.
Grace and Peace. ... I am going with the Prince as far as Coburg, together
with Philip and Jonas, until it becomes known what matters shall be taken up at
Augsburg. You get your Church to pray diligently for this Diet, and keep your
self right truly in the grace of Christ, and also remember me in your prayer.
Martin Luther.

LUTHER TO CORDATUS. ,
Original Complete in Cod. Rostoch.
Printed in Er. Br.-W., VII, 292. April 2nd.
Grace and peace in Christ. As I hear that you wish to hasten to the Diet, I
positively advise you not to do so. First, since I have not been called thither, but
for certain reasons shall only accompany the Elector within his territory. Second,
because the matter of the Gospel will scarcely be taken up, or at least very late,
since the Princes are not in such a hurry in the matter of godliness. Greet the
companion of your sorrow, and also rejoice somewhat more in the living Christ,
than grieve for your dead son.
Martin Luther, D.

324 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
April 3rd.
But the Emperor had delayed his journey to Germany,
and had kept his plan from the Elector. Therefore the
Elector did not wish to hasten his start for Augsburg. It
was only on the 3rd of April, on Sunday, that Luther, Mel
anchthon and Jonas left Wittenberg in order to join the
Elector in departing from Torgau. The following Saturday
they were still staying at Weimar. From here Jonas re
ported that intelligence had now come in of the arrival of the
Emperor in Trient, and that he would probably appear in
Augsburg; if ever, it was now necessary to call upon the
Lord in Heaven that He would steer His vessel through the
stormy sea; Satan will surely attempt everything. Presum
ably the theological travelers were not idle on their leisurely
journey of twelve days, but discussed the Confessional
Articles to be used by the Elector.
April 15th.
After some days stay in Weimar, the princely procession
arrived at Coburg on the 15th.
April 17th, Easter Day.
Luther preached two sermons, and another on second
Easter. As always under similar circumstances he pre
sented the great acts and truths of salvation simply, in
his ordinary manner, without referring to present events
in particular. Only in a general way did he furnish com
fort and encouragement from the Gospel for the pressure
caused by the Turk and the Pope, of which they were hearing
now, as well as for other need, hunger, care, and the like.
Eeports and rumors had come to Coburg concerning the
Emperor and the approaching Diet. It was said that the
former was still in Mantua, and would celebrate Easter
there ; that he would cross the Alps only in the beginning of

PROVIDENCE AND THE AUGUSTANA. 325
May, and then hold court in Innsbruck. It was said con
cerning the Papists, that they were laboring with all power
to prevent the assembly of the Diet, since they feared un
favorable results from it. It was rumored that the Pope
was angry at the Emperor because the latter had interfered
in things ecclesiastical.
The one report, as we have seen, was true. Charles had
come from Italy in the Springtime, and, being received mag
nificently by the Tyrolese, "eager to do all honor to the
grandson of their beloved Kaiser Max," was holding court
at Innsbruck. But the brilliancy of his reception had not
blinded him to the purpose of his visit. His object was the
pacification of Germany, and his thoughts were running on
plans for that purpose. His letters to his brother Ferdinand,
written during the stages of the journey, "reveal as fully as
that reserved soul could unbosom itself" his intentions at
Augsburg. " He meant to use every persuasion possible, to
make what compromises his conscience permitted (for Cath
olicism was a faith with Charles), to effect a peaceful settle
ment. But if these failed, he was determined to crush the
Reformation by force. He never seems to have doubted
that he would succeed. Never a thought crossed his mind
that he was about to encounter a great spiritual force whose
depth and intensity he was unable to measure, and which
was slowly creating a new world unknown to himself and to
his contemporaries." "
At Innsbruck.

The Emperor delayed at Innsbruck in order to make
every possible preparation for his success at Augsburg.
With promises and presents, he sought to gain different
members of the Diet for his policy. He did succeed here
in reconverting the exiled King Christian of Denmark, his

"Lindsay, I. P- 360.

326 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
father-in-law, from Lutheranism to Catholicism — a victory
that greatly pleased the Pope.
He even seems to have entertained hopes of bringing the
Elector John himself over to his side, if he could succeed in
inducing him to visit his court before the Diet. Duke George
and other Catholic princes were to be there, and Campeg
gius, the Papal nuncio, was continually by his side. It
would be exceedingly interesting to know more of the po
sition taken by Mercurinus, his chancellor, in those days.
Into this brilliant assembly at Innsbruck there came a
letter to the Emperor from the bitterest enemy of the Re
formation, which was full of stirring lies, and with it a
paper which set forth the Lutherans as heretics, not solely in
one or two Articles, but in almost every point of the Christian
faith, and which asserted that they were bringing back to
life again all the worst heresies of the early ages. Those
were the Four Hundred and Four Theses of John Eck,
which had been drawn from the writings of the Reformers
and placed their teachings falsely side by side with those of
the ancient heretical sects ; and these were sent by Eck him
self in a printed copy to the Emperor.
The change in the Emperor's mind — from his position in
the Call — can be imagined. The Lutherans were now on
trial as to the very fundamentals of their doctrine, and
the fatuity of their appearing at Augsburg with a few points
on ecclesiastical abuses is pathetic. No wonder the Counts
of Nassau advised the Elector to prepare a thorough report
in Latin or German on the matter of Religion.
No wonder, too, that the poor translation of the Schwabach
Articles which the Elector sent to Innsbruck failed to make
impression; that Luther's blunt Admonition to the Catholic
Clerical Estates at Augsburg, which reached the Emperor's
eye at Innsbruck, displeased him ; and that he sent down a
sharp demand that Evangelical preaching be stopped, and a
request that the Elector come to meet him on the way. But
we are anticipating, and must return back to the poor

PROVIDENCE AND THE AUGUSTANA. 327
Elector, and his guileless little company at Coburg, still
sunning themselves in the imperial favor.
Luther was at Coburg, unconcerned. He asked the
prayers of his friends, and spoke with calmness of the un
certain situation. His realm was that of the birds, and the
sky, and the pure Word of God. He evidently did not
believe that Augsburg was to be the great confessional Ru
bicon for the Church. It was to be the scene of another ex
hibition of diplomatic statesmanship. He did not care to
write a Confession to suit such an occasion, and was of the
opinion that the Princes at the Diet would not be very active
in religious affairs.3" Luther was really more concerned
about the " Turk and Mohammed." It was Melanchthon
who was filled with heavy cares concerning the inner sit
uation of Germany.3'
While the Elector and his train were waiting in Coburg,
doubtless Melanchthon took the statements of abuses brought
along from Torgau, and began to compose a connected writing
on the foundation of the labors mentioned above, which
should be delivered at Augsburg as the confession and justi
fication of the Evangelical party. He did it in agreement
with Luther ; " and not only put the Articles themselves into
good style, but began to write the Introduction39 to this
Saxon Confession, in praise of the Elector. According to
A. Buchholzer, Melanchthon, many years after, in 1554,
had exclaimed valde irato animo : " Etiam Lutherus ipse non
voluit scribere talem aliquam confessionem," *° — which he
himself then was compelled to write.

86 Vid. above letter to Cordatus of April 2nd. His experience in connection
with the proposed '* Bund " in Spring and Fall, and all the diplomacy he heard
and saw doubtless convinced him of this. He had not calculated on a provi
dential use of John Eck, as a blessing in disguise.
37 Jonas from Weimar : Pressel, Jonas, 135 ; Cod. Goth., 399 ; Erlang.
XVII, 350 sqq.
38 C. R., II, 39 sq.
89 To be inferred from the statement in C. R., II, 39.
40 Libell. arcanorum, etc., Msc. Dresd. B. 193. Seid. K. u. S. Bl., 1877,
p. 261.

328 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
April 17 th.
The Elector arrived at Coburg on the 15th, and here
awaited the results of an inquiry which he already had sent
on to the magistrate of Nurnberg, which was evangelical,
concerning a free safe conduct " for Luther's passing through.
On April 17th, he received a reply of declination from Niirn-
berg, and since Luther was under the ban of the Empire,
and there was no imperial safe-conduct to permit him to
appear at Augsburg, it now finally seemed necessary to leave
him back within the borders of the Electoral domain at Co
burg, from where his advice could still be gained, in a few
days, at Augsburg. In 1854, the rationalistic writer
Ruckert, in a work on " Luther's Relation to the Augsburg
Confession," advanced the theory that Luther's detention at
Coburg was part of a plan secretly arranged in advance by
the Elector and the chancellor Briick, who proposed to com
promise with Rome in a manner to which Luther would
never consent, and decided to keep Luther here to prevent
his spoiling their game. But the silence of Melanchthon
(who reported so much — even in later years), the knowl
edge which Luther had of the Confession on which Me
lanchthon was working at Coburg, and especially the stand
actually made by the Elector and by Briick at Augsburg
with reference to preaching, and a consideration of the im
perial and Papal tilt over a Free Council at Bologna, together
with the fact that the Elector did not accept the invitation
to go to the Emperor, and was not invested by the Emperor
at Augsburg; and, above all, the express declaration of the
messenger at Augsburg, in the letter of safe-conduct of the
30th of April, that, if the Elector had one in his train who
stood under the ban of the Emperor, this safe-conduct
should not be regarded as valid,42 with the declination even

41 For the negotiations with Nurnberg concerning the safe conduct see
Kolde, Analecta, 119 sq. ; Forstemann, Urkundenbuch, 146 ; Kolde, Theologische
Literaturzeitung, 1886, p. 445 ; Knaake, Luthers Antheil an der Augsb.
Conf., 36 sqq.
t2 Forstemann, Urkundenbuch, p. 161.

PROVIDENCE AND THE AUGUSTANA. 329
of Nurnberg, which was not a party to the Elector's original
plans, to furnish a safe-conduct to Luther, show how un
founded this theory is. 4a
So Luther, the Confessor, summoned to Worms a decade
earlier, was to remain in solitude, like a bird in its darkened
cage, on the heights of Coburg, in the rooms of the mighty
Castle. He should enjoy its protection : he did rejoice in its
silence and loneliness.
When the pass through Niirnberg was denied, Luther
wrote to his old friend, Coban Hess, then in Nurnberg,
that he would send him four living letters in the shape of
Melanchthon, Jonas, Spalatin and Agricola; and that he
would gladly come as the fifth, but some one had said to
him, " Keep silence : you have ' a bad voice ' " {eine schlechte
Stimme) ; but that Hess would see him; i. e., Luther,
in Melanchthon. For he bestowed full confidence upon Me
lanchthon as his representative.
April 18th. LUTHEK TO N. HAUSMANN.
Original in Anhalt Gesammt-Archiv.
Colestin, I, 29 ; Erlangen Br. W., VII, 296.
April 18th.
I have been ordered by the Prince to remain in Coburg, after the others have
departed to the Diet. I do not know for what reason. So everything is uncertain
from one day to another.
April 22nd. LUTHER TO W. LINK.
Original in Wolfbut., Cod. Helmst., 285, B.
CSlest., I, 30 ; Er. Br. W., VII, 299. April 22nd.
As for the rest, we are lying here at Coburg, uncertain concerning the Diet and

43 Cp. also Knaake, in loco.

330 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
the arrival of the Kaiser. Although my colleagues go to Augsburg, the Prince
desires that I remain here. You will see them, viz., Philip, Jonas, Eisleben and
Spalatin, when the Diet convenes.
On the Friday after Easter, the 22nd of April, the Elector,
who up to this time had been awaiting reliable intelligence
concerning the opening of the Diet, received an imperial
rescript according to which he should appear, without fail,
in Augsburg by the end of the month. Immediately he fixed
the next day for his departure from Coburg.
April 23rd.
Early in the morning, before four o'clock, while it is still
dark, Luther was brought to the Castle." His friends, Jonas,
Melanchthon and Spalatin, started on the way to Augsburg
with the Elector, while Agricola arrived at Augsburg as the
companion of Count Albrecht of Mansfeld. Luther's papers
did not arrive promptly, and he spent the earlier part of the
day in examining his new surroundings. About three o'clock
in the afternoon he wrote a letter to Melanchthon, whom he
had left just that morning before dawn.
LUTHER TO MELANCHTHON.
MS. in WolfenMttel, Cod. Helmst. 108, f. 11.
Printed Colestin 1, 39; Erlang. Br. VII, 302.
April 23rd.
To his exceedingly dear brother, Master Philip, the faithful and prudent servant
and disciple of Christ.
1. Grace and peace in the Lord Jesus. At last we have reached our Sinai,
dearest Philip, but we shall make a Zion out of it, and build three tabernacles : One
for the Psalter, one for the Prophets, and one for ./Esop.
The place is exceedingly pleasant and very well adapted to study, except that
your absence makes me sad. I am beginning to blaze up against the Turks and
Mohammed in the bottom of my heart, for I see the raging of Satan against bodies
and souls. Therefore I shall pray without ceasing until I have the consciousness
that my supplication is heard in Heaven. You are troubled by the internal disorder

44 Forstemann, a. a. O., I, 143 sq. 152. For Luther's getting to Coburg
on the night of the 22nd, and morning of the 23rd, compare his letters written
to Melanchthon, Jonas and Spalatin.

PROVIDENCE AND THE AUGUSTANA. 331
of our Empire. But we are the ones who are ordained to see and to suffer these
last two woes. But this very violence is a testimony and a prophecy of Satan's end
and our redemption.
2. I pray Christ that He will give you continuously good sleep, and that He
will free your heart from cares, i. e., from the fiery darts of Satan. Amen.
I am writing this because I am idle, for I have not yet received my chest with
the papers and other things.
Everything here is in keeping with solitude ; the very large house that juts forth
from the castle is entirely ours, and we hold the keys to all. It is said that over
thirty people abide here, among them twelve night watchmen and two trumpeteers
upon the towers. But why am I telling you this ? It is true there is nothing else
that I can write. By evening I hope the "Kastner" will be here. Then, perhaps,
we shall hear something new. The grace of God be with you. Amen.
3. Greet Doctor Caspar for me and M. Spalatin, for I will request Jonas to
greet Agricola and Aquila. Out of the Kingdom of the Birds, at 3 o'clock this
afternoon, 1530. Your Martin Luther.

Luther then wrote to Jonas, who also had gone on with the
Elector that morning.

LUTHER TO JONAS.
{Out of the Kingdom of Birds.)
MS. ill Wolfenbilttel, Cod. Helmst., 108, fol. 9b.
Printed Colestin, I, fol. 38b ; Erlang. Br., VII, 305.
April 23rd.
Grace and peace in Christ Jesus. At last we are sitting here beneath the clouds,
and in truth in the Kingdom of the Birds. My dearest Jonas, not to speak of the
other birds, whose -mingled medley of sound rises clearly above the storm, the jack
daws have taken possession of a whole wood right before our eyes. They have been
chattering from 4 o'clock this morning unwearily and unceasingly throughout the
whole day, and perhaps they will keep it up all night. . . . Here I see before
me the whole army of sophists and cochleits assembled out of all the world, so that
I may become better acquainted with their wisdom and their sweet song. The
nightingale has not yet appeared, but her forerunner, the cuckoo, praises itself in the
glorious beauty of its voice. Likewise the robin and the lark are cheerfully prais
ing the Lord. You see that I have nothing to write to you. The Lord be with
you, and we will pray for one another. This is necessary. Greet M. Agricola
and Aquila for me. I will write them as early as possible. Farewell. Out of
the Kingdom of Birds, especially of the "Dohlen," 1530.
Your Martin Luther.

332 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
We see that Luther was already at home amid his sur
roundings, and that, relieved from care, his imagination had
time to picture the Emperor and the coming Diet in the
feathered tribes outside his window with whom he had
already grown familiar. He knew the song was continuous,
when he wrote to Jonas, but did not yet know whether they
kept up their music in the early hours of the night.
In his first letter, to Melanchthon, Luther had sent greet
ings to Spalatin. About five o'clock, he determined to write
to Spalatin himself, and. in this letter he refers to the two
missives he had finished, and repeats his fancies concerning
the birds to Spalatin also.

LUTHER TO SPALATIN.
MS. in Wolfenbuttel, Cod. Helmst., 108, fol. 13 (Dated, May 19th).
Printed in Colestin, I, fol. 37b; Erlang. Br. W., VII, 307.
April 23rd.
To the dear man, Mr. George Spalatin, the faithful Servant of Christ in the
Gospel, his Superior.
Grace and peace in the Lord. You are not the only one, my dear Spalatin,
who are journeying to a Diet, for we also arrived at a Diet as soon as we parted
from you, and thus we have greatly anticipated you. And our journey to the Diet
was entirely without hindrance. It is true you are going to Augsburg, but you do
not know when you will see the beginning of your Diet. Here we have dropped
right into the midst of ours. Here you can see proud kings, dukes, and other
dignitaries of the realm, who are earnestly caring for all emergencies and for those
who belong to them, and who are making the air resonant with their resolutions
and their theses. They despise the folly of a raiment adorned with gold and silver,
and are all clothed in one color and with incredible similarity. They are all ar
rayed entirely in black. They all sing the same musical score in the same pitch,
except that there is a lovely difference between the voices of the old ones and the
young ones. I have not yet seen or heard their emperor. As much as I can un
derstand from their interpreter they have unanimously resolved to undertake a year's
crusade against the barley fields. We very much enjoy the privilege of being
spectators at this Diet.
But enough of pleasantry, although it is necessary to drive away the earnest
thoughts that rise, if indeed it is possible to banish them. You will hear the rest
from Jonas and Philip. Out of the kingdom of the Winged Dohlen, about 5 o' clock,
1530. Your Martin Luther.

k

PROVIDENCE AND THE AUGUSTANA. 333
April 28th.
Five days later, Luther penned a beautiful little letter to
the friends he had left in Wittenberg: —
LUTHEE TO HIS TABLE COMPANIONS IN WITTENBERG.

MS. Cod. Cioth. B. 28, fol. 72.
Printed Erlang. 64, p. 143.

April 28th.

Grace and peace in Christ. Dear Friends : We, namely, myself, Magister Veit
and Cyriacus, are not going to the Diet at Augsburg, but we have come upon another
kind of Diet. . . . To-day we have heard the first nightingale, for she did not
quite trust April. Up to this time we had nothing but lovely weather. It has not
rained at all, except yesterday a little. Perhaps it is otherwise with you. Herewith
I commend you to God. Keep house well. From the Diet of the "Maltztiirken, "
the 28th of April, 1530. Martinus Luther. D.
April 29th.
Luther tells Melanchthon that his Admonition to the
Clergy at Augsburg is well under way. Luther was in hope,
calm and peace at Coburg, which contrasted greatly with
the constant anxiety of Melanchthon.

LUTHER TO MELANCHTHON.
MS. in Wolfenbiittel, Cod. Helmst. 108, f , 10b.
Printed in Erlang. Br. VII, p. 313. April 29th.
Grace and peace in Christ. The house of Jonas has been hallowed by the cry
of a fifth child. . . . Find out what they of Strassburg are intending. But
Carlstadt will make my prophecy true in that I said that he does not believe there
is a God ; yet they may go and do what they wish. Here there is no news except
that we are wondering that no letters have come from you. I sent letters to you
on the first day on which we separated. But now, because the messenger is in
great haste, and I have been overwhelmed with a great multitude of letters, I have
been unable to write several. We are living here like lords, and are treated too
much as such. My shinbone does not want to heal yet. I judge that a sort of
rheum will result, which I would like to prevent, and yet I do not know. I am
writing about it to Dr. Caspar.
My admonition to the Clerical Estate is progressing. It is growing under my
25

334 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
hands, the material as well as the violence of attack, so that I am compelled to
drive off a whole troop [»'. e., his thoughts] by force, since they do not cease to
press in upon me unbidden. May the Lord, Who has blessed Jonas with a fifth
little son, also bless you with a third, a second Georg. Amen. Amen. Out of
the Diet of the Mailander, April 29th, 1530. Martin Luther.

Meantime the Elector and his train had spent the week in
journeying on to Augsburg.
April 30th.
The Elector receives a safe-conduct for his train into
Augsburg, but Luther is expressly excluded, though not
mentioned by name.
May 2nd.
THE ELECTOR REACHES AUGSBURG.
To-day we see John the Constant entering the city of Augs
burg. He is here, now, in response to the Call of his imperial
lord, issued on January 21st, and received by him on March
22nd." The old Elector's coming all the way to Augsburg" had
cost great effort, spiritual, confessional, diplomatic, and
financial on his part, and to keep him there would be an even
greater strain. He lived only a year or two longer.
But he was the first on the ground, to the surprise of every
body, especially the Papists, who had "supposed that the fear
of so many mighty foes would hold him away. His steadfast
ness and unperturbed demeanor caught every eye, and the

43 The first date for the Diet was April 8th. On the way, the Elector
learned of a postponement to May 1st. Then the news came en route that
the Emperor was celebrating Easter at Mantua. However, the Elector was
on hand May 2nd, and the other princes came a week later. The Emperor
did not arrive — in part to tire the Elector into submission — until June 15th,
when the Roman Corpus Christi must first be celebrated, and the sessions did
not open until the 20th. Salig, II, 156, says of the first postponement: " The
business (after the crowning at Bologna) accumulated to such an extent that
the Emperor had to postpone the opening of the Diet."
" For reasons why the Elector had decided to go to Augsburg, see Cyprian,
p. 151.

PROVIDENCE AND THE AUGUSTANA. 335
majority wished that he had not come. He had sent a repre
sentative, Hans von Doltzig, to the counts of Nassau and
Neuenar, asking them to look after his interests, especially
in the matter of the electoral investiture, and the many re
ligious charges preferred against him. Doltzig rode around
through Germany and Italy unable to find the Emperor, until
he at last reached Innsbruck five days in advance of Charles,
and there gained a personal audience and a gracious reply
from his Majesty."45
As soon as the Elector heard of the Emperor's arrival at
Innsbruck, he sent congratulations through the hereditary
marshalls, Sebastian and Joachim of Paffenheim, and de
spatched his counsel, Hans von Minqvitz, to Innsbruck, to
notify the Emperor of his arrival at Augsburg, to congratu
late his majesty on the coronation, and to aid Doltzig in his
labors." The faithful Elector had been careful, in his arrangements,
to adhere closely to the imperial instructions. After the Call
had reached him on March 11th at home, his Chancellor
Briick at once advised that the Saxon theologians prepare an
Opinion "of that upon which our party has stood immovable
up to now, mit griindlicher Bewahrung derselbigen aus gott-
licher Schrift." " His theologians at the University, with
Luther at the head, were bidden, on March 14th, to consult
concerning the controversial articles "both in faith and also
in other external ceremonies," and deliver a report at Tor
gau." These " Torgau Articles " have never been found un
der this name, but Brieger " has shown that they are probably
a document preserved by Forstemann,50 which the Elector
took with his party to Augsburg, and which was made the
base of the earliest confession.
It contained propositions on Abuses, was discussed and

,s Salig, Hist, der Augsp. Conf., II, 161, 162.
16 Miiller, VIII, 466, 477.
"Fbrst., I, 39.
»C. R., II, 25 sq.
" K. Gesch. Studien, 1888, 268 sqq.
M Ur. B., II, 68-74.

336 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
given to the Elector at Torgau, and was doubtless further dis
cussed and determined on by Luther and Melanchthon on the
way to Coburg. It did not deal largely with doctrine, but
took for granted that the doctrine preached by the Evangel
icals was "Christian and comforting and not new," and rec
ommended, if it were desired, "the delivery of Articles in
which the whole doctrine was set forth in an orderly way."
This paper Melanchthon was commissioned to elaborate
into a defensive delineation of the Saxon religious situation,
referring not so much to the faith as to the changes in the
rites in the churches; and not for the purpose of attacking
abuses, but in order to defend the Elector's reform in Saxony
as not being greatly at variance with Eome, except where,
for self-evident reasons, this was absolutely necessary.
This was the Elector's "Apology," so-called because it was
intended to defend the Elector and his reform before the
outside world from the slanders that were constantly being
uttered against it by the Romanists.5'
A chief part of it consisted of a Preface in praise and de
fence of the Elector's loyalty to the Emperor and the church.
At Coburg, Melanchthon had begun work on the Preface, con
tinued at the same on the journey, and was still elaborating
it when the Elector and his train reached Augsburg.5*
LUTHER IS MISSING.
The Elector's central figure, Luther, was not among the
Augsburg party. He had been left at Coburg because he was
under the imperial ban, and the Apology went on to Augs
burg in the hand of Melanchthon. There were a number of
good reasons, from the Elector's point of view, why Luther
should not be the bearer of the Electoral Apology in person.
The Elector indeed had intended to take Luther along to
Augsburg (Forst, Archiv., p. 17), but he found it imprac-
51 In Spain it was reported that the Lutherans did not even behive in a God.
62 On this section, cp. Forst., Archiv., I, 17 ; Schirrmaeher, a. a. 0., 25
sqq. ; Kolde, Anal., 454 sqq.

PROVIDENCE AND THE AUGUSTANA. 337
ticable on account of the ban. Augsburg would not admit
him. The Elector tried at least to have him close at hand in
Nuremberg; but to keep terms with the Emperor, Nurem
berg would not grant him even a safe conduct.
Moreover Luther had not been summoned to confess, this
time. It was the Elector's own turn. This was not a Coun
cil of the Church, but a Diet of the State. The Emperor had
exerted himself to secure a Council, but the Pope was ob
stinate,5*1 and the Emperor had then fallen back on the one
recourse open to him, viz., another Diet. The Edict of 1526
and the Call of 1530 made the Elector the party responsible
for the Faith in his territory. And if the Elector and the
Estates, as Weber points out,53 had attempted to deliver a
Confession to the Emperor, of which it was known that the
condemned Luther was the author, it would have awakened
bitterness, and subverted the object of the Diet, which was an
impartial presentation of differences, and a decision in
unity. In the second place, as Melanchthon in later years himself
reported to Camerarius, Luther did not care to write a Con
fession, or " Apology," for Augsburg — such as was at that
time intended, namely, one that expressed differences in
doctrine and practice as smoothly and gently as possible, and
which was phrased in diplomacy ; and which was to be offered
to a political Diet, as the sum of what the Protestants might
yield, and not to a religious Council. The Preface 5 already
wrought out in praise of the Elector could not as a Confes
sion have been to Luther's way of thinking, although Luther
himself had suggested the leading points for another purpose.
There is truth in Weber's statement56 that it was not advisable

52a « The Emperor experienced to satiety at Bologna that a Council was
not agreeable to the Pope." — Cyprian, p. 44 ; and to the Pope the Emperor
was obliged to bend the knee — Ad pontificio pedes flexo genu provolutus —
Masenius d. 1. 171.
53 Gesch., I, 27.
" In deciding to keep Luther at Coburg, the Elector had no doubt also
weighed the danger of an emphasis of Luther at Augsburg. Already at Worms
the Elector's charge of Luther was accompanied with " schier etwas Miihe."
56 Cp. the Oldest Redaction.
" Gesch., I, 28.

338 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
to have Luther, who, when it came to speaking the truth,
spared neither priest nor king, open his mouth before the
Emperor and the kingdom in such a delicate situation as the
religious situation that Spring. " For truth, if it is obliged
to battle with prejudice, is more effective in its action upon
the human heart, if it appear in an unassuming and pleasing
garb, rather than in a rough prickly covering, which dis
graces it, and which scratches the face and draws the blood
of those who are filled with prejudice, but very seldom, if
ever, improves the situation. . . . Melanchthon had a much
quieter spirit, was gentle and modest, and knew how to tell
the truth, in beautiful and pleasant style, in which he ex
celled the theologians of his time, without embittering the
opposite party."
However, there was another fact — which documentary
critics like Weber fail to catch — inwoven in the
larger course of history, that bears upon this point. Mel
anchthon is to be credited with an independent point of view,
which he had acquired at the Diet of Spires, which he had
succeeded to some extent in impressing on Luther, which Avas,
so far as the situation was a political one, responsible for the
rejection of Zwingli and the Swiss at Marburg, and which
harmonized very fully with the fundamental outlook of the
imperial Call. It was this: that separation from Rome was
not necessarily a finality, and that if the Lutherans on their
part would renounce the more radical and irresponsible Sac
ramentarians (the Reformed), and Rome would purify her
self of her worst errors, there would be a possibility, not
merely of compromise, but of the restoration of unity with
the old Church, on true Lutheran ground.57

57 The delusiveness of this conviction, strong in both Melanchthon and the
Emperor came to the surface first, when the Lutheran Faith was finally worked
out into the Augsburg Confession, whose fundamental teachings, principles and
tone, despite its soft tread, can never be brought into accord with Romanist
doctrine ; and second, when all attempts at fair dealing and mutual under
standing in the Diet were frustrated by the assumption, the claims and the
secret machinations of Rome. The Diet of Augsburg, in its Confession and
in its deliberations, is a graphie commentary, valuable for all time and for
every country, on the irreconcilable conflict between Rome and the Protestant
Christian conscience.

PROVIDENCE AND THE AUGUSTANA. 339'
Still another fact that dare not be ignored is this : the call
of Providence to confess at Augsburg was not a mere renewal
of the primitive call to Luther at Worms. The Evangelical
Faith had been planted in many localities and was growing
to maturity. Melanchthon's Visitation Articles, or Saxon
Confession, had already been written. Electoral Saxony and
Evangelical Germany were themselves now ripe for confes
sion. The Gospel found by Luther had been preached for
more than a decade, and had been thoroughly tested by the
Word, and by continuous battle, both with Rome, and with
all kinds of radical divergencies and extravagances. What
was now to be expected of the churches was not mere personal
and heroic testimony of individual Reformers (such as
Luther, e. g., gives in his Admonition to the Augsburg Diet) ,
but a maturity, an objectivity, and a calmness of utterance
that befitted the congregations, the earthly representatives of
the Communion of Saints.
In other words, the Confession at Augsburg was intended
by Providence to be a Church Confession. It was to em
phasize the common Christian doctrine, to bring the universal
Christian foundations into light, and to put the unrighteous
antithesis of the Romish teaching in as mild a form as the
truth allowed.
Not that it was to be a complete and exhaustive summary
of doctrinal principle. By its origin it had been limited to a
statement of "Opinions and Grievances," and circumstances,
divinely ordered, alone enlarged its scope. Its scale of truth
was the minimum for which the Evangelical cause must
stand ; its temper was conciliation where possible ; its method
was adjustment, and an endeavor to meet the other party as
far as possible. This in itself, while it aided the Confession
as a mature statement of the Faith for the Diet, cut it off
from being a complete, and still more from being the final
Confession of the Faith.58 The "Apology," in fact, was

M Its whole doctrinal part, as Kolde says, is intended to prove that Catholic
and Lutheran doctrine are one. The Lutheran doctrines of the Lord's Supper
and of Baptism are treated most briefly. There is no rejection of the remain-

340 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
obliged to follow right on its heels, and to emphasize much
that had been depressed in the Confession.
Luther, in truth, at this time, did not believe that there
would be a very earnest attempt by the princes to make a real
Confession, at a diet where political matters would probably
claim precedence. He also may have felt that Philip of
Hesse would be refractory.
In the third place, if Luther had been called to embody this
Confession in its final form, his open honesty in stating con
ditions, his enthusiastic ardor for the truth, and his violent
and personal aggressiveness against Rome, would have de
feated the Elector's hope of gaining a fair hearing from the
Emperor for the Lutheran party he represented. The Call
to the Diet did not itself touch the heart of things. It gave
each party a right to appear, but it made no promises of root
ing out poisonous existing institutions. It looked to some
possible compromise. No wonder that Luther lacked in en
thusiasm in preparing a confession which should correspond
in mildness to the terms set forth in the Call.
Although the Call promised that the error and division in
the holy Christian faith were to be taken up and considered,
and the opinion of each one should be heard in good will and
love, and properly weighed, until true unity should be re
stored, "of the abolition of papal abuses, or of what was dan
gerous to the Evangelical truth, of the protection of those who
were steadfast in the true faith, there was no word said." "
That Luther's "Stimme" was not "leise" will be seen at
once when we come to examine his "Address to the Clergy" at
the Diet. Luther did not think it right to keep silent, in any
Confession, as to the false claims of the Pope, whom he re
garded as Anti-Christ, to be testified against. But the subject

ing sacraments of Rome. Repentance is introduced in such a manner that it
does not exclude the possibility of its being a sacrament. Transubstantiation
is not rejected, and the emphasis of Scripture as the only rule of faith is not
found. The main emphasis at that time was laid on the Second Part, " Of
Abuses." " Salig, II, 156.

PROVIDENCE AND THE AUGUSTANA. 341
is ignored in the Augsburg Confession. He also would have
treated the ecclesiastical abuses more emphatically.
Yet there was a last and practical reason for taking the
final form of the Confession out of Luther's hand, and it was
insuperable. What was more pressing than all else was this :
Luther could not be at the Elector's side, and could not meet
the situation from day to day as it occurred. Though the
principals felt they had settled the details pretty thoroughly
before the Elector's train left Coburg, Providence was to
bring about great changes in the situation, and consequently
in the Confession.

THE PATHWAY BEHIND AND BEFORE THE ELECTOR.
While the Elector was passing on to Augsburg, history was
being made and modified on the other side of the Alps. The
Emperor, who had arrived at Bologna on the 5th of Novem
ber, remained there four whole months, and lived in the same
palace with the Pope. Separated only by a single partition,
they were able to communicate with each other without ob
servation at any time during the day or night.60 The Pope
finally succeeded in extorting a promise from Charles to sup
press Luther's doctrine and bring the Lutherans to obedience
to the Papal curia, first kindly, but if that did not avail, then
by force of arms. To this Charles agreed at his coronation
at Bologna, and it was but a renewal of the compact made at
Barcelona, which was as follows: Charles and Ferdinand
should lead the Lutherans back to their former religion, and
if they would not do it, compel them by force of arms.
Clement should also use all means to the same purpose, and
should move the remaining princes to the accomplishment of
such a godly work.6'

80 Cyprian, p. 61.
61 Spondanus. Narrat Belcarius, episcopus Metensis, rerum Gallicarum com-
mentariis anno 1529, p. m. 626. Raynaldus b. a. u. 62. verba foederis refert.
Cyprian, 49, 50.

342 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
Except for Mercurinus, the Romanists felt secure. The
Emperor had thrown the embassadors bearing the Spires
protest into prison ; he had on Matthias day at the coronation
confirmed the original compact. The Pope's gold was at hand
to stir up all rulers against the Lutherans. So sure were the
Romanists of success that when the Emperor crossed into
Germany, they cried out, "Salvador venit!" "
The Call had been framed with all this in view, and this
was the real Roman object of the Diet. From now on every
means was being used by the Romanists, and would soon be
adopted by the Emperor himself, to evade that "fair, impar
tial hearing of every opinion," and "that acceptance of every
doctrine that proved itself to be really Scriptural and true,"
which had been promised by the Emperor in the Call. The
truth and import of all these events stretching back of him,
the Elector could barely judge.
Still less did he foresee the pathway that stretched out be
fore him into the future. First of all, during his lengthy
stay at Augsburg, there were the six weeks of waiting, from
May 2nd to June 15th, for the Emperor to appear, and the
preliminary negotiations during that period which nerved the
Elector to his final stand. Second, there would then begin
that concentrated period of activity and suspense, during the
ten days succeeding the Emperor's arrival and preceding the
presentation of the Confession, from June 15th to June 25th.
And third, the delivery of the Confession would be followed
by that long and indeterminate Summer at Augsburg in
which the Emperor attempted to force his counter-proposals
upon the Protestants from June 25th to the day in September
when the Elector and his fellow Princes and Confessors took
their departure from the Diet. It was a pathway sufficiently
rugged to test the bravery, the strength and the endurance of
the great hero that the Elector proved himself to be.

62 Vid. Cyprian, p. 54.

PROVIDENCE AND THE AUGUSTANA. 343
May 2nd- June 15th.
I. Period of Waiting and Preparation.
ECK's " THESES," AND THE ELECTOR'S SECRET " CONFESSION."
Among the first tidings to fly to the Elector's ear on his
reaching Augsburg, was that Four Hundred and Four Theses
against "those who disturb the peace of the Church," i. e.,
against the Lutheran party of whom the Elector was the
head, with a flaming dedicatory preface, had been written on
February 10th, and sent in manuscript to the Emperor on
March 14th. John Eck, Professor at Ingolstadt, had re
sponded to the request of the Bavarian Dukes, made in Janu
ary, when they heard that the Emperor would deal with the
matter of religion at the Diet, that the Ingolstadt Faculty
should collect together "all Articles which had been published
by Luther in the last twelve years in one paper, and show how
they were out of harmony with the one Christian faith, together
with the way in which they could be most profitably refuted." "3
Eck had also offered to dispute his positions before the Em
peror at the Diet.
This was a new and startling situation. With it came the
news that the Emperor would probably recede from the
position of his Call. The Diet ahead was no longer to be a
calm, free, open and unbiased deliberative assembly, at which
every party would be cordially welcome to state its convic
tions and opinions, in order that, from a full consideration of
them all, the truth might be arrived at impartially; but it
now dawned on the Elector that tKe Emperor and the Pope
would themselves together constitute the party of the one
part, while the Lutherans would be practically, or perhaps
actually, on trial as defendants. At the very least, the pre
sumption was to be against them.
But if Eck's gross calumnies and misrepresentations had

68 Winter, Gesch. d. ev. Lehre in u. durch Baiern, Miinchen, 1809, I, 270.

344 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
swerved the Emperor from his orbit, and had deceived him
as to the real nature of the Evangelical Faith, which was not
heretical, or revolutionary, but was to be depended upon for
loyalty to the civil government, for fidelity to the one true
church, and for opposition to the fanaticism of the Anabap
tists and the Sacramentarians, it might still be possible to
present to the Emperor a statement of the doctrines of the
Lutheran party, which would convince him that the Evan
gelicals had been misrepresented. The Count of Nassau in
his friendly letter advised the Elector to have a complete
statement on Religion in Latin or German delivered to the
Emperor before the beginning of the Diet.
If the Elector could only get his own real personal faith
before the Emperor, as an antidote to the Theses of Eck, his
most gracious Majesty might even yet come to see that the
Lutheran doctrine was wholesome and true, and was a very
different thing from the aggregation of old heresies in which
Eck had painted it out. In any event Eck's Theses could not
be ignored; and, besides, the Elector had some special per
sonal rights in this case. He was his Majesty's uncle, the
chief marshall of the realm, entitled to the investiture, and
was the chief pillar of support for the empire in all northern
Germany.6* If Eck could send in representations that defamed his
faith, why should not the Elector personally do all he could
to disabuse the mind of Charles before the meeting of the
Diet? But what should he send to Charles? The Apology in
Melanchthon's hands would not meet the doctrinal situation
created by Eck. Neither did he feel that Melanchthon or
any of the theologians was the man with whom he could coun-

M So great was the prestige of the Saxon Electors that Frederick the Wise
might have become the Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire. But he declined
the honor, and used his influence in favor of Charles. Cp. Masenius anima
historia, p. 55, quoted by Cyprian, p. 24 : In 1519 the Emperor died, and
the Elector of Saxony, pending the election of another, became the imperial
Stadthalter. He could powerfully protect Luther, since he was the Prince
most looked up to in the Empire, and since he also declined the imperial
honor, and caused it to be conferred upon Charles V.

PROVIDENCE AND THE AUGUSTANA. 345
sel. Luther was at Coburg. What could he do? He had
one paper that expressed his faith, viz. : Luther's Schwabach
Articles^ Without consulting his theologians, in secrecy, he
sent the Emperor at Innsbruck a poor translation of the
Schwabach Articles as his own personal05 confession.

HANS BERN S SENSATION.
Verily truth is stranger than fiction. For these same
Schwabach Articles, sent with so much secrecy to the Em
peror as the Elector's personal confession in religion, were
now about to appear in print on the streets of Augsburg as
the Confession of Luther himself, which he would hand in
at the Diet. In response to the curiosity as to what state
ment the Protestants would make at Augsburg, an enterpris
ing printer at Coburg had attached Luther's name to them,
and put them forth as the coming Augsburg Confession. Both
Luther and the Elector must have been startled when they
saw what the printer Hans Bern had done. As they took up
the little quarto leaf, they read the following title: "Die
bekenntnus Martini Luthers auf den yetzigen angestelten
Reichstag zu Augspurgk eynzulegen, In siebentzehen Artikel
verfasset. Im XXX Jar"; and at the close, they saw,
"Gedruckt zu Coburgk durch Hands Bern. 4. Ein Bogen" °°
But other and more dangerous eyes soon caught this title,
and, misled by the daring but gratuitous assumption of the

65 Vid. Kiirfurst Johannus Glaubens bekenntniss vom mai 1530. The original
bears the endorsement, "Artickel vom Churfurst zu Sachssen des glaubens
halb." But compare the statement of Salig, Hist. Augsp. Cctnf., II, 143 :
"The pious Elector John did nothing in the matter of the confederation without
Luther's advice, and since Luther had now advised . . . that the differences
of opinions must show themselves in the accepting of certain prescribed articles,
it is doubtless certain that the Elector John desired these Articles from Luther
that they might be shown to the estates to be admitted to the League at the
Schmalkald Convention. He who accepted these would become a part of the
League. In this way they also bear the title in the Archives of Ulm of Articul
von Chiirfursten von Sachsen des Glaubens halb, because the Elector sent
them to Schwabach through his representatives as a Symbol of the Confederated
allies." M Original found by Elias Frick in the Archives at Ulm, and printed by him
in the German Seckendorf, p. 968.

346 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
Coburg printer, soon turned it to practical account. Among
the Papist theologians were those of the Elector Joachim,
with Wimpina at their head; and being very ungraciously
disposed toward Luther,67 they took advantage of this sup
posed early print of the coming Protestant Confession to pre
pare and issue a confutation of it in advance.

WIMPINA AND LUTHER CLASH.
Their brief Christian admonition against the Augsburg
Confession of Martin Luther bears the following title:
"Gegen die Bekenntnus Martini Luthers, auf den yetzigen
angestelten Reichstag zu Augsspurg, auffs neue eingelegt, in
siebenzehn Artickel verfasst. Kurtze und Christenlich un-
derricht durch Conrad Wimpina Doctor, Johann Mensing
Doctor, Wolffgang Redorffer Doctor, Rupert Elgersma
Licenci zu Augspurg. 1530.4."68
In this confutation of the supposed Augsburg Confession,
Wimpina tried to make it appear that Luther had omitted
many parts and articles of his teaching, which, according to
Wimpina, included revolution, idolatry, unchastity and the
breaking of oaths.
It was really too bad. Here was the Elector's confidential
Confession to the Emperor hawked about the streets of Augs
burg, branded as the work of the arch-heretic Luther, ac
cepted by the Romanist public as the coming Confession of
the Protestant estates, and vilified by a Papist reply in print !
Moreover these Articles, if their true history became known,
would stand out as an attempt at agreement between the
Lutherans and the Sacramentarians, with a view to a Protest
ant combination of estates to be engineered by Philip of
Hesse. Yet one of Melanchthon's strongest points in the
Apology he was amplifying, was that the Lutherans were

61 Cyprian, p. 52.
08 Erl. 2nd ed. 25. 344-355.

PROVIDENCE AND THE AUGUSTANA. 347
altogether different from the Sacramentarians, and had no
sympathy with them.
The situation was serious ; but Luther at Coburg was equal
to it. He sat down and wrote a reply to the outcry and noise
the Papists were making over these Articles. His broadside
bears the following title: "Auf das schreyen etlicher Pap-
isten fiber die sieben zehn Artickel, Antwort Martini Luthers.
Wittemberg. Im M. D. XXX Jar. 4. Ein Bogen.""9 The
Answer consisted simply of a reprint of the Articles them
selves, since they were their own best witness, together with
a Preface, in which Luther declares that he was not their sole
author, that they were not intended to be offered to the Augs
burg Diet, and that he had not desired or permitted their
publication. After a dignified introductory paragraph, a
sharp sally at the Papists, and a request to the printer not to
make such a mistake again, he concludes by asking the Chris
tian reader to pray for God's grace "upon the present Diet,
and upon the pious, good Emperor Carol, who is sitting like
an innocent little lamb between so many swine and dogs, yea
between many devils." " God Himself must work the good at
the Diet. Otherwise neither the counsel nor skill of Emperor,
princes or estates will avail : so angry and bitter is the devil.
. . . The devil has it in mind to introduce other articles,
which are horrible to behold. God help us. Amen."
Thus were the flames of falsehood lit at both ends — at the
Emperor's court en route and at Augsburg in prospect —
against the Lutherans; and the conciliatory document, now
being so industriously elaborated by Melanchthon, was al
ready behind the actual march of events. The only consola
tion the Emperor had in store for the Elector in reply to the
Confession secretly sent in, was a sharp command that he
prohibit his ministers from preaching their Evangelical doc
trine in the city of Augsburg.

«» Cyprian, Beil., p. 159 ; Erl. 2nd ed. 24. 337.

348 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
A GULF BEGINNING TO OPEN.
We now have reached the stage when it would soon dawn
on all the little party at Augsburg (except Melanchthon) that
the abyss between them and the Emperor was deep, and could
not be crossed ; and that the original intention to present only
an Apology containing the Torgau statement on rites and
abuses, and the rhetorical Preface in praise of the Emperor
and the Elector Would not meet the situation. The foundation
of the Evangelical doctrine had been attacked in its main
points. The Emperor had received information that the
Lutherans were heretics throughout the whole range of faith,
and they had been pointed to as men who had renewed the
worst errors of the ancient heretics of Christianity, which
was a far more serious thing than the changes in rites and
ceremonies with which the Torgau Articles dealt. It became
necessary to defend the Lutheran Teaching in every main
doctrine, and to show that it was not heretical. The mere
Apology would not suffice. A Confession of Faith must be
prepared. It must furnish a summary of Evangelical doc
trine ; and by rejecting heresies, must put a stop to the numer
ous slanders which identified the Lutherans with old-time
heretics. Thus we see that in the Providence of God, the lying theses
of John Eck were the occasion that brought about a readjust
ment of the Elector's intentions, and that introduced, so far
as the Articles of Faith were concerned, a historical and a
doctrinal character into the Augsburg Confession. As Eck
had compared the supposed Lutheran heresies in parallel
columns with ancient heresies of the Church, and with the
teachings of Anabaptists and Evangelicals, it was necessary
now to demonstrate, not merely that the Elector was not es
tablishing a new Church, or simply desiring to restore the old
one to a perfect condition; but it became imperative to show
that the Lutherans held strictly and historically to the funda
mental doctrines of the Ancient Church, and that they ad-

PROVIDENCE AND THE AUGUSTANA. 349
hered to the great oecumenical Confessions of the past, and
not to heretical tenets and to mere figments of doctrine as
Eck represented.
May 3rd. UNFURLS THE FLAG OF THE PURE GOSPEL.
The Elector took a bold and open stand in behalf of his
religion as soon as he reached the city of Augsburg. It was
not cowardice, or the hope of compromise that had caused
him to leave Luther at Coburg. Scarcely had he arrived
when he ordered one of his theologians to preach daily with
open doors in the church of the Dominicans.'0
This was his open and continuous Confession of his life
and faith in God's Word. It was his natural testimony to
the world, by simply putting into practice away from home
that which was his most important concern at home. To the
Elector this preaching was a very serious matter. It was
the essence of his position.
May Uth.
Immediately after the first cares of his arrival had been
settled, the Elector thought of the lonely man of God whom
he had left behind in the castle, and who was praying for him
with all his might. He could not refrain from writing him
a brief personal letter : —
The Elector to Luther.
Altenberger Ausgabe, V, 23.
Erl. Br. Wechs., VII, 327. May 4th.
Dear Doctor! Take things easy. Do not let the time seem long to you.
We are all very much concerned for your bodily health, and pray God that He

*° Seek., Latin, 193. Salig, II, 162, says " im Franciscaner-Closter," and
" on the Sunday Jubilate held Evangelical service in the St. Catharine, the
Virgin, Convent."
26

350 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
will long preserve you, for the sake of His dear Word; yea, and we admonish you
yourself to take care of your health, D. Caspar, our physician, is sending you
medicine with this messenger to strengthen head and heart; for he is your faithful
friend, and we also remain desirous of every grace for you, etc.
For eleven days, Luther had remained in the castle before
he heard these first tidings from the travelers in whom he was
so deeply interested. Melanchthon also sends him an inter
esting letter on the same day, full of the news the party heard
when they came to Augsburg. No prince is here, but some
theologians have arrived; Duke George is on the way; the
Emperor himself has probably reached Innsbruck; Cajetan
will perhaps be with him ; Eck has Theses ; Nassau has sent
a friendly letter; the Apology's Introduction is more elab
orate, and is almost ready for Luther to examine.
Melanchthon to Luther.
Original in Leipzig Stadt. Bibliothek.
C. R., II, 38 ; Erl., Br., VII, p. 323. May 4th.
To D. Martin Luther, his Extraordinarily Dear Father.
May it be well with you! While I was wishing to write you through the
messenger of Jonas, your unexpected, but welcome letter was delivered. Your
friendliness makes us happy, and we pray you, despite your being so busy, to
write often. I wrote you from Nuremberg, and have ordered this messenger to
ask for the letter, if it have not already been sent off.
In Augsburg one of Count Albrecht's youths reports that the Emperor has
left Trient; and if we are not deceived in our reckoning, he has already arrived at
Innsbruck. Count Henry of Nassau has written a friendly letter to our Prince,
admonishing him to come to the Diet early. Although various things are heard
from the people, we nevertheless still have good hope in the will of the Emperor,
yet the matter, as you know, is in God's hands; therefore you must pray, as I
know you are doing.
There is no other Prince here but ours. It is said that Duke George will be
here in three days, and will bring Cochlaus with him, whose name needs to be
altered only a letter or two to correspond to the kind of bird you wrote us about.
And Eck, whose name resembles the cry of the jackdaw, has put together a great
pile of theses.
In truth, there are going to be more jackdaws here than I can count. The
Chancellor of the Hessians, Feige, arrived yesterday, and says his Prince is on the
way. Schnepf, a very good man, and very friendly disposed toward you, came
with him; so that we have some hope that his Prince will be kept in the right

PROVIDENCE AND THE AUGUSTANA. 351
way, although he does not conceal the fact that the danger is great. He tells
what a battle he had to endure with Philip [of Hesse] concerning the Lord's Sup
per. He says the latter is being continuously flooded with letters from the Swiss,
and the Mayor Sturm stirs him up almost every month. This worries me very
much. Perhaps it would do good if you would write him to establish the heart
of Philip in the true doctrine. He often seems to take offense on slight occasion.
I have made the Introduction of our Apology a little more rhetorical
than I wrote it at Coburg. In a short time, I shall either bring it myself, or
if the Prince will not permit this, I will send it.
I have almost forgotten to number your Cajetan among the jackdaws, for it
is said the Emperor will bring this fellow. In Nuremberg I heard it was
Campeggius, but here they say it is Cajetan. I wish it would be Campeggius.
He is an experienced man in civil affairs. The other is a rough and uncouth man
with whom you can do nothing. Farewell, and write again. Wednesday after
Philip and James, 1530. Philippus.

Melanchthon has made some changes in the Apology which
he does not write about, but concerning which he feels that he
must explain to Luther personally : —
Melanchthon to Veit Dietrich.
May 4U1.
I will shortly run over to you, that I may bring to the Doctor [Luther] the
Apology which is to be offered to the Emperor, that he [Luther] may examine it.
Melanchthon knew of the presentations of Eck, but it is
doubtful whether he appreciated the seriousness of the
change in the situation at the imperial court, until after the
following Sunday. The Elector himself was doubtless hoping
that the sending of his personal Confession, showing the true
Lutheran teaching, would make all things right. The letters
to Luther were written on Thursday. Friday and Saturday
passed, and then came the first Sunday in Augsburg.
May 8th, Sunday.
The Elector had preaching in the Church of St. Catharine.
"He has preaching every day here, and large numbers at-

352 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
tend." " To offset the effect of the Protestant preaching,
the surprised Bishop of Augsburg appointed several of his
priests to the same work in the pulpit, but they were unsuc
cessful.72 In anger'3 they complained to Charles, and the
result was Charles' sharp order to stop preaching. It was
his first official word. The Romanists now told the Protes
tants that the Emperor would crush them — "Evangelicas
omnes obtriturum."

MELANCHTHON WORKING ON THE APOLOGY.
Three more days passed, and the first week at Augsburg
was gone. The tidings as to Eck's theses, and the Emperor's
more unfavorable attitude, had compelled our party to
change the plan of their religious document, and to embrace
in it their teaching on all essentials of doctrine. Despite
Luther's avowal as to them, the Elector's favorite Schwabach
Articles were fallen back tipon, and Melanchthon's pen was
most busy during this week in incorporating the new ma
terial, as we can easily imagine when we recall what it meant
to transform the Electoral Apology into a Confession contain
ing all the doctrines of faith. "I have embraced nearly all
the Articles of Faith, for Eck has put forth the most diabol
ical slanders against us."
May 11th.

By the middle of the week, May 11th, the Apology, revised
and developed into a Confession," was again completed in the
eyes of the little Electoral party at Augsburg. The Confes-

71 Taglich in den Kirchen unverstort ; dazu kommt sehr viel Volks. — C. R.,
II, 53.
K C. R., II, 86.
"Scultet., 271.
"Ib., 269.
16 Sleidanus in his seventh book calls It the Saxon Confession, and Cyprian
reports that this Saxon Apology was sent to Luther on May 11th without
. realizing what we now know as to the content of this Confession.

PROVIDENCE AND T\HE AUGUSTANA. 353
sion shows that Melanchthon, in selecting the material, had
his eye upon Eck's Articles, and that Melanchthon was par
ticularly anxious to show that the Elector was no heretic, and
had no connection with the heretics of earlier ages. Tie
Confession is not to be offered to the Emperor without first
having been forwarded to Luther, who was the final authority.
But tidings of the Emperor's coming were expected any
day. The business required haste. Melanchthon would write
a personal letter to Luther with all explanations; and the
Elector would send the document with instructions that
Luther make his emendations in the margin of the document
itself, so (doubtless) that the text would be final as it came
from Luther's hand, and perhaps, if the case should be urgent,
the paper might be handed in as revised, without the loss of
time in re-writing and incorporating Luther's corrections.
The Elector also desired an Opinion from Luther on what
proved to be the great test question Of the Diet — the one by
which, in our judgment, apart from the Confession, the Elec
tor won the cause for Protestantism.
Melanchthon to Luther at Coburg
When the Elector Sent Luther the Augsburg Confession for Revision.
Original in the Hof and Staatsbibliothek in Munich.
Printed in Mel. Epp., I, IS ; C R., II, 45.
May nth.
To D. Martin Luther, his Very Dear Father.
Greeting! Our Apology is being sent you, but. in truth it is rather a Con
fession. For the Emperor has not time to listen to lengthy disputations. '6 Yet I
have said that which I believed most useful or proper. On this ground I have
succinctly given nearly all the Articles of Faith, since Eck has circulated the most
Satanic slanders against us. Over against these, I wished to oppose a remedy.
Please give judgment on the whole writing according to your spirit.
Duke George and Margrave Joachim have gone on to meet the Emperor
Now a Diet will be held iiber unsern Hals. Therefore pray God to bring the
counsel of the heathen to nought. (Ps. 33:10.)
A question is referred to you, to which I greatly desire an answer from you.
Beyond doubt the Emperor will prohibit the Zwinglian sermons. We judge from

™ I. e., such as Eck's Theses would introduce, and we have therefore placed
our doctrine, compactly and quietly, into this Apology.

354 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
this, that under this pretence our sermons will also be forbidden, for Eisleben is
already preaching publicly in a church. Now what is your opinion ? Is not the
preaching in a public place to be given up, in case the Emperor desires this: if he
should wish this in order that the Zwinglian preaching might also be prevented
without disturbance ? I have answered: one must yield to the will of the Em
peror, in whose city we now are guests. But our old man is difficult to soften.
What therefore you think, I beg that you will write it in German on separate
paper. Please answer concerning this matter.
We reckon that the Emperor cannot arrive within fourteen days. In such a
great divergency of opinions it is not possible to judge what can be hoped for from
the deliberations of the Emperor, but we await help from Christ. Eisleben greets.
Philippus.

The Elector's letter points clearly to the "Articles of Re
ligion" drawn up at Wittenberg at the Elector's command as
the basis of the Confession : —

The Elector John at Augsburg to Luther.
Asking Luther's Opinion of the Confession Worked Over by Melanchthon.
Original in the Weimar Gesammt-Archiv.
Printed in Wittenb. ed., 1569, IX, Bl. 405 b ; C. R., II, 45, 47.
May nth.
John sc.
First of all our Greeting, Honorable, Learned and Devout [Friend] ! After
you and our other learned men at Wittenberg had, at our gracious thought and
desire, made a draught of the Articles of Religion concerning which there is now
strife, it is our wish to let you know that Melanchthon has further revised the
same, and drawn them up into a Form, which we are sending you herewith.
And it is our gracious desire that you would feel free to further consider and
revise the same Articles; and, where you deem it wise and well to take away or
to add anything, please do so in the margin. Send back the same carefully secured
and sealed, without delay, that we may be ready and prepared for the arrival of
his imperial Majesty, whom we expect in a short time.
We also desire you to know that our representatives at the imperial court at
Innsbruck have written that it is the plan to deal with us on the arrival of his im
perial Majesty, that we should not permit preaching in the churches, as we have
begun it. This you will infer from the enclosed statement. And although I have
drawn up an Opinion on this subject, yet I wish your further opinion, that we
may do right in the sight of God and our conscience. In this you will do our
gracious pleasure. . . . Wednesday after Jubilate, A. D., 1530.
To Dr. Martin.

PROVIDENCE AND THE AUGUSTANA. 355
As to the Protestant preaching, Melanchthon was eager
from first to last, that is from May 11th to June 20th, that it
cease. He was eager to please the Emperor and Rome, and
he did not realize that on this point, viz., of the Protestants'
right to clear public testimony of one's faith according to
one's conscience, the whole battle for Protestant liberty at
Augsburg would be fought. Neither did he see that com
promise on this small point meant the extinction of Protest
antism. The means he used to oppose the Elector's decision
were perhaps characteristic. There is a marked contrast be
tween his letter and that of the Elector in alluding to the
issue. Melanchthon puts his own wish into Luther's heart,
and then asks Luther to write back in German, and on a sep
arate paper, so that he can show Luther's words to "the old
man who is difficult to soften." The Elector states that he
has formed his Opinion, and does not reveal it ; but says, "I
wish your Opinion, that we may do right in the sight of God
and our conscience."

WHAT CONFESSION DID LUTHER SEE ON MAY llTH ?
What Luther received with the letters of the 11th of May
was the Elector's Confession. It contained a Preface in
praise and defence of the Elector, the Articles of Faith, re
cently introduced on account of Eck's attack, and the Articles
on Abuses. Its most striking fact is that the whole document
centres in and revolves about John of Saxony, somewhat after
the substance and form of Luther's Opinion of the preceding
year at Rotach, as to "what should be said to the Emperor."
The Elector's name is found in the first line of the Preface,
and he and what he has done are mentioned in almost every
paragraph of the Preface. The Articles of Faith are intro
duced as follows : "Now we will speak of the doctrine, and
first of all recount all the most important Articles of Faith,
that his Majesty may perceive that the Elector of Saxony
has not permitted anything unchristian to be preached in his

356 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
dominion, but has diligently held to the common pure Chris
tian faith."
The Second Part on Abuses reads as follows: — •
' "Since Electoral Saxony has not varied from the Scripture
or from the common Christian Churches in any Article of
Faith, but has simply abolished certain abuses." . . .
This Apology-Confession was by no means a Romanizing
document — unless the completed Augsburg Confession of
June 25th is to be regarded as such — though it was as irenic
and as particularistic as possible. It was the final Confes
sion "im Werden," more and more unfolding its own inner
strength, and more and more transforming itself from an
Electoral Apology to an Evangelical Confession.
Luther was a born Confessor, and, so far as we can see, his
reply to the Elector expresses his exact feelings." As the
Elector's Confession, he was very much pleased with it —
Melanchthon had expressed the Electoral situation — ; but for
his own Confession — as the Confession of a Minister of the
Gospel or of the Churches — it was treading too softly.
We base our judgment, as to what Luther saw, on the docu
ment delivered to the Nurembergers, two weeks later; for
while changes were going on in this Apology-Confession be
tween the 11th and the 25th, they could not have been of a
more or less Romanizing or particularizing character between
those two dates, nor were they other than in the line of a more
normal unfolding.
As to the difference between the Apology-Confession sent
to Luther on May 11th, known to us as of May 25th, and the
final form of June 25th, we know that Articles XX, on Faith
and Good Works, and XXI, on the Worship of the Saints,
were then yet missing; that Articles XXVII and XXVIII
had not assumed their final form ; that nothing is positively
ascertained as to the nature of the detailed changes Melanch
thon was making in the text ; that sometime after the opening

77 Cp. Kolde in Herzog-Hauck: "Despite the ironical play on Melanchthon's
well-known efforts never to give offense, . . . Luther desired in this remark
to express his complete agreement."

PROVIDENCE AND THE AUGUSTANA. 357
of the Diet on the 15th of June, Melanchthon had cast the
Confession aside as probably never to be used, until he was
compelled to take it up again the following week, and that
then his private judgment was no longer consulted as to what
should be finally altered or added.
As to Melanchthon's part in the work, we may say that his
judgment was bad, and his skill great. He was a wretched
designer and an exquisite modeler. As Kolde" says:
"Nothing un-Lutheran, much less Melanchthonian, entered
the Confession — as has been supposed — through the various
changes undertaken by Melanchthon, which would not have
been agreeable to Luther if he had been able to observe them
in detail , most of all, because he was never sympathetically
disposed toward such changes, and they assuredly greatly
concealed the antithesis,7" and there is not a little which he
would have expressed more sharply." As for the result, we
may be thankful that Melanchthon rounded out into objective
principle, and moulded into classic form the aspirated edges
of Luther's teaching, and Briick braced up the inner weak
ness of Melanchthon's principles; while, later on, the
Apology, the Schmalkald Articles and the Formula of Con
cord completed such teaching as was not thoroughly wrought
out at Augsburg.
May 12th.
THE KNIGHT MILITANT OF THE REFORMATION ARRIVES.
The post had scarcely left Augsburg with the two letters
and the Confession for Luther, before Philip of Hesse, the
Knight Militant of the Reformation, who was not expected
at this Diet, since he had no heart80 for the Emperor's plan,
and since also he had failed to unite Luther and Zwingli at

nMt. Red., p. 75.
•» " Den Gegensatz."
10 " Der weitblickende Landgraf von Hessen blieb auch Jetzt argwohnisch
tmd sehwankte." — Kolde.

358 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
Marburg, came marching into the gates of Augsburg with an
escort of one hundred and ninety horsemen.81
May 13th, Friday.
Restive Philip could not remain many hours in the im
perial city before involving himself in some sensation. And
sure enough, the next day he opened the gates of the Cathe
dral,82 and his theologian Schnepf preached the Protestant
doctrine there. Later in the season, Philip had preaching
every day in the Church of St. Ulrich.
On the same day also Duke Frederick of Saxony, Duke
George's prince, came with Prince Joachim of Anhalt and
many horsemen, while the Elector Joachim of Brandenburg,
Duke George of Saxony and Duke William of Bavaria went
on towards the Emperor to Innsbruck."
May 15th.

LUTHER TRIES TO RESPOND TO AND CONSOLE THE ELECTOR.
Meantime the two letters, and the Confession, had reached
Luther, and his reply was prompt — too prompt and brief no
doubt to please the small party at Augsburg. He had no
emendations to offer. He was pleased ; but it was not after
his style to confess so softly.
However, he did not know that the crisis now closely im
pending would rub out some of the softness, and that the
Lord Himself would bring about some emendations, before
the Confession was put forth.
Luther's Reply to the Elector, Concerning the Confession.
Original in the Weimar Gesammt-Arehiv.
Printed in Wittenb. ed. 1569, XI, Bl. 406 ; Er. LIV, 145.
May 15th.
Grace and Peace in Christ our Lord! . . . I have read over the Apology
of M. Philip. It pleases me right well, and I do not know what to improve or
81 Salig, II, 162, says, " Mit 120 cuirassiers."
82 " In the chapter of St. Moritz."  Augsb. Ev. Klrchen-chronica.
83 Salig, II, 162.

PROVIDENCE AND THE AUGUSTANA. 359
change in it; neither would it be proper, for I cannot tread so gently and quietly,
Christ our Lord help that it bear much and great fruit, as we hope and pray.
Amen. On Sunday Cantate, in the year 1530. . . .
E. K. F. G.,
Obediently, Martinus Luther.

The perilous test question of the Diet, whether the Pro
testants should preach their doctrine in "the city of Augsburg
during the Emperor's presence, had been referred to Luther
for advice, and now on this very day (May 15th), when
Luther is writing his reply, and the Elector and Melanchthon
are eagerly awaiting it, Philip of Hesse rushes them all to
the verge of ruin by commanding Cellarius, a Zwinglian, of
Augsburg, to preach in the Cathedral!
The wise Elector had seized on this liberty of preaching
as the one serious initial problem. Any utterance from the
other side, concerning it, would be the first indication of the
imperial mind as to how it intended to deal with the Evan
gelical cause, and as to whether the promises of fairness to
all parties, made in the Call, would really be redeemed. The
dispatches from the Emperor's Court were full of rumors to
the effect that the Emperor had shifted his position. Chan
cellor Briick and the Elector, recognizing the test character of
this question, and the unfavorableness of a prohibitive omen,
took a more stubborn stand against yielding the cause in
advance than did Melanchthon or Luther under the influence
of Melanchthon's suggestion. Luther, on the hypothesis of
the Emperor's guilelessness, replied on the 15th that he would
like to have his Majesty dissuaded from this prohibition and
induced to send some one to hear what is really being
preached ; but if that prove of no avail, one must allow force
to take the place of right, for Augsburg is an imperial city.
May 20th.

Luther's reply of May 15th to the Elector had been very
brief; and, on reflection, he may have felt that in this

360 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
trying hour he had not given the Elector that hearty sympa
thy and support which "the old man" truly deserved. At all
events, five days later, Luther again wrote the Elector, and
this time a longer and hearty letter of encouragement.
Chytraus puts the occasion of this letter as follows : Since
his Majesty was delaying his coming, and the Elector of
Saxony was deeply agitated not only because of his vexation
at the lengthy delay, but also because of the threatening and
the terrifying attitude of the enemies, who assured them
selves of certain victory when his Majesty arrived, Luther
wrote the Elector a comforting and lovely letter : —
Luther to the Elector.
MS. in WolfenbUttel.
Flacius Deutseher Br., Altenburg, V, 23; Erl., LIV, 146.
May 20th.
It is indeed a glorious and great honor that God has chosen His gracious
Prince, who has devoted everything to God' s service, and that His holy Word is
not only not abused, but supported and upheld. It is also immaterial that some
of us feel depressed about the situation; only let your Grace continue in the fur
therance and protection of the work in maintaining the Word.
May your princely Highness graciously receive my letter. God knows that
I speak the truth and do not dissemble; for it pains me that Satan could cause
concern and sorrow in your gracious heart. I know him well, and realize how
he tries to have me play with him.
Hence it is the duty of us all to loyally stand by his princely Highness with
prayer, comfort, love, which we always can; for when your Grace is happy we
live, but when you are sorrowful we are sick.
But may our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, Whom the Father of all grace
has so freely revealed and offered for us, send your Grace, above all my words,
His Holy Spirit, the true eternal Comforter, and uphold, strengthen and preserve
your Grace against all the poisonous fiery darts of a sour, heavy, fearful spirit.
Amen, beloved God, Amen. Given May 20th, 1530.
E. K. F. G.,
Obediently, Martin Luther,
May 12th. THE EMPEROR SETS UP COURT AT INNSBRUCK.
,. And now about a fortnight after the Elector reached Augs-

PROVIDENCE AND THE AUGUSTANA. 361
burg, the Emperor, with Ferdinand and the queens of Hun
gary and Bohemia ; the embassadors of France, England and
Portugal; with Campeggius, the Papal Legate, and other
cardinals; the Spanish nobles and many princes from Italy
and Germany, entered Innsbruck, and settled down to study
and master the religious situation in Germany.
Italian gold was freely scattered to gain the German favor.
The court was split into a Roman and a Protestant party.
The Romanists urged his Majesty to stand by the edict of
Worms and condemn the Evangelicals without a hearing."
Campeggius advised even the inquisition, confiscation of
property, and punishment with fire and sword.85
The Evangelical cause had a defender in the person of the
imperial chancellor, Mercurinus Gattinara. Although he
was ill, he had managed to follow the court of the Emperor
to Innsbruck in order to neutralize the influence of Campeg
gius. "There is nothing I desire so much," he is said to have
declared, "as to see the Elector of Saxony and his allies
persevere courageously in the profession of the Gospel, and
call for a free religious Council. If they allow themselves to
be checked by promises or threats, I hesitate myself and I
doubt of the means of salvation." 88

GEORGE AND JOACHIM AVOID AUGSBURG, AND RIDE ON TO
INNSBRUCK.
The Elector John, the chief of the princes, and the first of
them to arrive at Augsburg, had courageously begun preach
ing ; and when the Roman princes, Duke George of Saxony,
Duke William of Bavaria and the Elector Joachim, heard
that John was preaching the Evangelical faith at Augsburg,
filled with consternation, they passed Augsburg by, as we

M c. R; II, 57.
85 Instructio data Caesari dal Reverendisslmo Campeggio. — Ranke, III, 288.
"Seek., II, 57.

362 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
have seen, and proceeded direct to the court of Charles, re
porting that the Elector John had ulterior designs, and offer
ing the Emperor a guard of six thousand horse.
The false news thus brought to Innsbruck led to repeated
conferences there as to what to do. Melanchthon, alluding to
these, declared that there was a Diet now being held at Inns
bruck on the best way of getting the heads of the Evangel
icals. Mercurinus finally succeeded in persuading Charles
to remain neutral.

THE ELECTOR INVITED TO INNSBRUCK.
Yet Charles was determined to avoid the free religious
discussion he had promised for Augsburg. If the matter
could be quashed in advance, it might not be necessary for
him to enter Augsburg at all, and he could proceed direct to
Cologne and have Ferdinand crowned. What should he do ?
His first recourse was a pressing invitation to the Elector
John to come from Augsburg to Innsbruck, where he would
receive the Emperor's particular favor, and where they might
personally confer together concerning the religious situation.
It was a shrewd move to draw the Elector away from his base,
and to cut off the legal, moral, political and personal strength
that base assured him.
But Briick and the Elector instinctively realized that to
yield in this or any point would be fatal ; and sent back word
that it was not proper to discuss the business of the Diet in
any other place than that which the Emperor himself had ap
pointed, and therefore begged that his Majesty would hasten
his arrival at the city where the Diet should, ere this, have
been convened. Doltzig presented the following grounds why
John could not come: 1. Because the Elector's departure
would only awaken suspicion in those remaining. 2. Because
the harmony and mutual confidence of the other estates might

87 Seek., II, 156. Salig, following Augsb. Ev. Kirchen-Chron. , says "filled
the Emperor with all kinds of suspicion because of the early arrival of the
Elector."

PROVIDENCE AND THE AUGUSTANA. 363
thereby be disturbed. 3. Because in affairs of the realm no
valid action could be taken outside of the Diet.88 Doltzig' s
presentation was received graciously by the Emperor.
It was a bold but rightful declaration of independence from
the Emperor's shifting program of manipulation, by asserting
dependence on the Emperor's original plan and promise, and
by insisting on the stable law of the realm. The Elector's
position was sound. The situation was now in bloom, all
Augsburg was full of newly-arrived soldiers, and the flower
of the German nation, princes, nobility and warriors, were
to be seen together here in this one city.89
May 19th-22nd.
A NEW REVISION OF THE CONFESSION FOR LUTHER.
It is possible that the Confession, returned by Luther on
the 15th with his reply, arrived in Augsburg on the 19th.
On the 20th he wrote his second and longer letter to the Elec
tor; and by the 22nd Melanchthon was ready to send Luther
the Confession a second time with the changes that had been
made in the last ten days, together with various items of start
ling news from the imperial Court at Innsbruck, whence the
Emperor was not disposed to come to Augsburg.
The changes in the Confession that were made between the
10th and the 22nd, though continuous, were not material as
to doctrine. It was the Elector's personal, and not the con
fessional situation that now was uppermost. At all events,
we may be sure that Melanchthon in his letter of the 22nd
mentioned all the most important changes in the Confession.
It is maintained by some that Luther never received this let
ter, and the revised Form of Confession. This point will be
discussed a little later.

88 Salig, II, 162.
"16.

364 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
Melanchthon to Luther.
Manuscript in MS. Manlianum, p. 15.
Printed in Melanchthon's epp. lib., I, ep. 2; ed. Lond., I, ep. 2; Colestin, I, p. 44
(incomplete); C R., II, p. 59; Erl. Br.-W., VII, p. 342; German, Chytraus, Hist., p. 62 (in
part); and Wilhelm a Vallo, II, b. p. 66. May 22nd.
1. Hail! We had already hired a messenger, who was to start for your
place and thence for Wittenberg, for Jonas learned of the death of his son from
the letters of Viola. But while writing I received your letters through D. Apel's
messengers. Jonas is content since he learned that his wife is well.
2. The Emperor is not yet here, and, it appears to me, will scarce arrive
ere Pentecost. He has drawn neither the Dukes of Baiern nor the Duke of
Saxony into consultation about the religious affairs, for he wants to remain impar
tial. It is reported that there are two opinions in the Emperor's council: one,
that he should not hear the Lutherans, but have them speedily condemned in
a public decree; the other, that he should hear them regularly and remove the
abuses of the Church. This latter is said to be the opinion of the imperial chan
cellor Mercurinus, an exemplary and very reasonable man, who is reported as
saying that, in his weakness, he followed the Emperor, inasmuch as he thought
that the religious matters would end well, and consequently he would not be par
ticipating in compulsory measures. We have heard nothing here which we think
more worthy to communicate. And I myself have a special admiration for this
utterance and judgment of this very sensible man. May Christ be with us and
support us, and so rule all counsels that they may serve for peace and the general
welfare. Mercurinus has also said this: "The Diet of Worms proved that
nothing substantial can be accomplished with compulsory measures." For he was
at Worms in the Emperor's retinue and council.
All of us, the Elector too, are much concerned about your health; and have
therefore prayed God that He preserve you for the sake of His Word. We also
request that you take good care of your health. Doctor Caspar sends you,
through the Elector's messenger, different medicines which strengthen head and
heart. For he loves you much.
3. In the Apology, we daily change many things. The article on Vows,
as it was more meagre than it should be, I have removed, and supplied its place
with a complete discussion. I am now treating of the Power of the Keys. I wish
you had examined the Articles of Faith ; if you shall have found in them
nothing wanting, we will treat the remaining ones quite extensively. For we
must change them from time to time, and adapt them to the occasion.
4. The Landgrave of Hesse now publicly says that he will subscribe our
address, and it seems that he could easily be brought to our side; but to do so, it
is necessary for you to write to him. Hence I most earnestly request you to write
to the Landgrave and admonish him not to burden his conscience by defending a
false doctrine. I wish you would not write again to the younger prince; for he
now hates no one more than you, whom he formerly appeared to love more than
the apple of his eye. But his nature is/very changeable, and it does not so much
come from his tender age as much more, as I think, from nature.

PROVIDENCE AND THE AUGUSTANA. 365
Schnepf is a very good, sensible man. I wish you, to honor him, would
write him at a convenient opportunity. As far as the Friesians are concerned, the
elector has instructed Pomeraniis to find a competent man, who understands the
Saxon language, and send him to them. Upon this opinion you can answer.
I send you a painting of the fortress of the city of Wien. Through Apel' s
messengers we will write more. In the meantime, send our letter to your excel
lent wife with the messenger, for he can bring back the answer.
Keep well, and pray to Christ, our Lord, for us. Given on the Sunday,
Vocem Jucunditatis.

May 22nd.
A DISCUSSION OF MELANCHTHON'S LETTER OF THIS DATE.
This was the third Sunday for the Electoral party at Augs
burg. Just one week ago Luther had written returning the
Apology-Confession, with a note that he was pleased. It had
reached Augsburg perhaps on Friday. Meantime the occa
sion for haste in completing the document had disappeared,
since news had come that the Emperor would probably not
arrive before Pentecost, and that meanwhile Mercurinus
was championing the Protestant cause.
Melanchthon writes this news to Luther to-day, closing
with the information that the Landgrave of Hesse probably
could be brought to sign the Confession if Luther would write
him. To draw Philip away from the Reformed and bring
him to adhere to the Confession, was one of the main points
in Melanchthon's policy at the Diet.
In the midst of this news, at the least conspicuous place,
as the third out of four points touched on by the letter, Mel
anchthon reports on the Confession, which evidently has
receded from its all-absorbing importance of ten days before,
when the Emperor was expected to arrive at any day.
Melanchthon tells Luther that in the "Apology," that is,
in the Torgau Articles,™ treating of Abuses, "we are making
changes every day. I have taken out the Article on Vows,
M The Torgau Articles are found in the Beilagen to Briick's Gesch. d.
Religions -Randlungen in ISSO, in Archives at Weimar, fol. 311-323b, where
Forstemann discovered them and printed them in his Urkunden Buch, I,
68 sqq. 27

366 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
because it was too meagre, and in its place I have inserted a
more detailed explanation. I am now composing the Article
on 'The Power of the Keys.' " So mivch Melanchthon reports
as to the work he had done on the Torgau Articles since he
had sent them to Luther ten days ago. He then speaks of the
Schwabach Articles' foundation, as follows : "I wish you had
examined [or, I wish you would examine] the Articles of
Faith. If you find that there is nothing wanting in them,
we will take the remaining ones in hand as best we may. For
it is ever necessary to change something in them and adapt
one's self to the occasion."
What Melanchthon meant to say here is a problem. His
words are, "Vellem percurrisses articulos fidei, in quibus si
nihil putaveris esse vitii, relinqua utcunque tractabimus."
He opens with an unfulfilled wish ("vellem"), and yet closes
with a definite future intention ("tractabimus"), apparently
based on the fulfilment of the wish. The meaning would
be clear if Knaake's hypothesis that Luther had not yet
returned the document sent on the 11th, were true; or it
would be clear on Kolde's suggestion that M. had not yet
looked at the document, returned by Luther and coming per
haps just while M. was writing. Or, if Luther had sent
back the Apologia, and not the Articles of Faith; or if M.
were sending Luther the Confession a second time,*1 M.'s
words would be clear. They would also be clear if M. were
referring to the original Schwabach Articles, of which Luther
would have a copy in his possession, and Melanchthon was
here saying he would add such points of doctrine as they
lacked, to render them complete for Augsburg-
Whatever interpretation may be placed upon this letter,
and whether Luther ever received it or not, does not materi
ally affect the relation of Luther to the Augsburg Confession.
What Luther had in hand on the 15th was the Apology-
Confession discovered at Nuremberg by Kolde, and the
91 Krauth, Chronicle of Augsburg Confession, 26-31. Possibly Melanchthon
was elliptical. [If it be not asking too much,] I wish you would examine
the Articles of Faith [whether or not you think there is something defective
in them ; and] if you should think there is nothing wanting in them, [then] we
will elaborate the remaining ones in like manner [as we have already treated
the Articles on Abuses].

PROVIDENCE AND THE AUGUSTANA. 367
changes referred to by Melanchthon, as having been made up
to the 22nd and after the 11th, referred chiefly to several
articles in the Abuses ; whereas the far greater change, which
converted the Saxon document into our common and abid
ing testimony of historical Christianity to the content of
Christ's Gospel, was not brought about till the middle of
June. The one striking fact in this letter of the 22nd is that
Melanchthon, as in his and the Elector's letters of the 11th,
still defers absolutely to Luther as to the substance of the
doctrine to be embodied ; and that it was open and understood
between him and Luther that he was to elaborate and adapt
the mode of stating the doctrine to the situation under which
the Confession would be made.
We see no just reason for the theory that this letter failed
to be sent to Luther. It was to go by a special express
through to Wittenberg, carrying letters to Luther's wife and
others, to which allusion was made in this, and perhaps in the
other letters. We know that Luther received the painting of
Vienna which probably accompanied the letter, or of whose
coming this letter at least advises Luther. And the line of
connection which "The Conservative Reformation" has es
tablished has not been successfully broken. In it Krauth
says : —
"But the fact is that Luther did receive Melanchthon's letter of the 22nd.
The letter was not lost, but appears in all the editions of Melanchthon's letters,
entire,'2 and in the earliest histories of the Augsburg Confession, without a hint,
from the beginning up to Ruckert' s time, that it had not been received. When
we turn to Luther's letters, complaining of the silence of his friends, we find no
evidence that Melanchthon's letter had not been received. They create, on the
contrary, the strongest presumption that it had been received. As it was sent at
once (Melanchthon says that he had hired a letter-carrier before he began the
letter), it would reach Luther about May 25th.
" Luther's letter of June 1st to Jacob Probst, in Bremen,93 shows that he had
intelligence of the most recent date from Augsburg, that he was sharing in the
cares and responsibilities of what was then passing : ' Here, also, I am occupied
with business for God, and the burden of the whole empire rests upon us. ' He
then uses, in part, the very language of Melanchthon's letter of May 22nd, as to

"¦' Original Latin in C. R., II, No. 698 ; German in Walch, XVI, No. 927.
83 De Wette, Briefe, No. 1217; Buddeus, Suppl., No. 123.

368 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
the time when the Emperor would be at Augsburg.91 He quotes from that letter
Melanchthon's very words in regard to Mercurinus : — 95
' He would have nothing to do with violent councils — that it appeared at
Worms what violent councils would do. He desired the affairs of the Church to
be peacefully arranged.' He closes his account of things at Augsburg by saying :
' You have an account of matters now as they are to-day at Augsburg ' (hodie
habet). " Luther did receive Melanchthon's letter of the 22nd, and on June 1st quotes
largely from it. " 96
"Luther's letter of fune 20th, to Justus Jonas,97 gives direct evidence how
long the interruption of correspondence continued : ' Your letters have come at
last, my Jonas, after we were well fretted for three whole weeks with your
silence.' The period, therefore, did not embrace May 22nd, but only the first
three weeks in June. There is no reason whatever, therefore, for doubting that
Luther received Melanchthon's letter, and the Articles of Faith of May 22nd." 98

May 2ith. BRUCK BUSY ON THE CONFESSION.
Meantime there was another hand busy on the Augsburg
Confession, as important to the final issue as that of Melanch
thon himself. It was the hand of Chancellor Briick. On
May 24th, the Nuremberg delegates wrote home: "The
Saxon Counsel has returned from Dr. Luther ; but Dr. Briick,
the chancellor, has to recast it from beginning to end." "

M Mel. : Vix ante Pentecosten ; Luth. : Forte ad Pentecosten.
95 Mel. : Nolle se violentis consiliis interesse ; Luth. : Se nolle interesse
violentis consiliis. Mel. : Wormatiae apparuisse, quam nihil proficiant violenta
consilia ; Luth. : Wormatiae vidisset, quid efflcerent violenta consilia. Mel. : Vir
summus Mercurinus ; Luth. : Summus Mercurinus. Mel. : Res ecclesiasticae
rite constituerentur ; Luth. ; Ecclesiae res cum pace constitui.
M Con. Ref.. p. 230.
"De Wette, No. 1232 ; Buddeus, No. 127.
08 Con. Ref., p. 232.
m C. R., II, 62. — " Hinten und vorne daran zu formen habe." Perhaps this
refers to the Preface and the Conclusion : it may include the phraseology and
the line of argument of the Articles. For we know that Briick had a close
hold on the substance of the Reformation doctrine, and was on the watch lest
Melanchthon should yield in the substance ; and was determined that there
should be a square presentation, such as would afford a solid foothold for
argument, of the Evangelical doctrine, and for the preservation of civil rights.
Cp. also the report of the Nurembergers later in the Summer : " The Elector
in this business has no one more sensible than the one and only Dr. Briick,"

PROVIDENCE AND THE AUGUSTANA. 369
THE OLD MARGRAVE GEORGE OF BRANDENBURG ARRIVES.
On this day, May 24th, the Protestant forces were aug
mented by the arrival of the Margrave, who was an important
factor in the change to come over the Apology-Confession,
since he came expecting to fulfil his original intention100 of
associating himself before the Emperor with the Elector and
the city of Nuremberg.

May 2hih. THE EMPEROR SENDS AN EMBASSY TO AUGSBUEG.
While the Apology-Confession was proceeding toward com
pletion, and the Elector was seeking the advice of the theolog
ians as to the preaching, Charles made one more attempt to
settle things from Innsbruck. On May 24th, two of his im
portant officials, friendly to the Elector, the Counts of Nas
sau and of Neuenar, appeared before the Elector, with a let
ter101 of secret instructions in their pocket.
They stated that the Emperor was very sad at the thought
that religious controversies should have broken the good un
derstanding that had existed so long between the houses of
Saxony and Austria ; that he was surprised to see the Elector
rising in opposition to the Worms edict, which had been
passed' unanimously by all the imperial estates; and that his
newly-made alliance would tend to disrupt the German
nation and cause bloodshed. Last of all, the embassadors
insisted that the Elector bring the preaching to an immediate
end, else, in their judgment, there would be serious con
sequences.

wo ffSrst., I, 119 sqq.
101 A copy in the archives at Weimar. Printed in Forst., I, 220 ; Colest.,
I, 50.

370 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
Imperial Instruction, with which the Counts of Nassau and Neuenar
were Sent to Augsburg to the Elector John, to Pray that Either
He or His Son, the Prince, Should Journey to the Emperor, or
that at Least the Protestant Preaching Should be Intermitted
Until the Arrival of His Majesty.
A copy in the Archives at Weimar.
Printed in Forstemann, Urk., I, 220 ; Colestin, I, SO.
May 24th.
Carl, by the Grace of God, Roman Emperor, at all times promoter of the
Empire. First of all, they are to convey to him our kingly grace and all good, and
then to narrate how we have perceived his obedient Christian and faithful tender.
He is to be reminded that he shall remember the close relations between
the houses of Austria and Saxony ; and he knows how the troublesome affairs of
our holy Christian faith originated, out of which so much dissension has grown.
He also knows that those who have separated themselves in this matter from us
and the other five electors of our holy Empire, have ignored and despised the
edict ; and that we and all six electors and other princes and estates of the holy
Empire did unanimously resolve on what is for the best, which, together with the
error and dissension touched on above (despite the highest disgrace I as a Roman
emperor have thereby suffered), has brought the holy Empire and almost all
Christendom to such a condition that it can not again be easily restored.
And, further, that he has made and still maintains a special understanding
and compact with those who have been disobedient and obstinate toward us in
this matter, against us and our edict ; and that he as the head of the opposition
is still supporting it.
So far as the shedding of blood is concerned in the past, as also in the future,
he knows that we will spare no diligence that it shall not occur.
THE SECOND IMPERIAL COMMAND TO SILENCE THE GOSPEL.
The Elector had already declined to put a stop to his
preachers' sermons ; but this embassy more persistently than
ever urged that the preaching cease. The Elector was taken
by surprise, and exclaimed: "If the Emperor forbids the
preaching of the Gospel, I shall immediately return home." ira
Though the full significance of his position may not have
been clear to him at this time, the whole Confessional question
at Augsburg was wrapped up in his right and duty as to this
one thing.
He was standing here on the edict of 1526, as over against
M3C. R., II, 88.

PROVIDENCE AND THE AUGUSTANA. 371
that of 1529. In 1521 Luther, at Worms, was asked to re
cant, while in 1530 the Elector at Augsburg was asked to
refrain from giving testimony to that which he believed. The
guise of propriety as to a disputed question was assumed by
the Eoman demand made through the Emperor, but without
any guarantee that the right, once lost, would be restored by
a fair investigation. If confession in the pulpit could be
shut off ahead of trial, then confession in the Diet could
similarly be suppressed without trial. The importance of the
principle of preaching became more and more clear as the
days passed. It was really the basal question of the hour.
Put in general terms it amounted to this : Are the German
nation and the Lutheran Faith standing to-day on the Diet
of Spires or on the Diet of Worms ?
The Elector's firmness was admirable, and all the more
so because his theologians — even Luther — had yielded.105
We do not believe that this point has been given considera
tion, as a key, in the attempted unraveling of the mystery of
the silence between Augsburg and Luther for the coming
month, and of the independent diplomacy of Melanchthon
during part of the same period. Is it not possible that some
of Melanchthon's agony was due to the Elector's loss of con
fidence in him as a counsellor ? And is it not possible that
the disappointing advice of Melanchthon and Luther, in the
present emergency, had caused "the old man" to confide more
fully in the common-sense wisdom and faith of Briick and to
seek less counsel from Luther — who in his isolation had not
discerned the import of the Roman imperial pressure — , and
from Melanchthon — who was willing to yield the greater
part of the cause, to keep the peace ?
Melanchthon, on May 22nd, does not write to Luther as an
inner counsellor of the Elector; and it is to be noted that,

103 Luther's reasoning expressed in his letter of May 15th, based on the fact
that Augsburg was an imperial city, is more than counterbalanced by the
fact that the city, the Diet and the Emperor himself were on German soil.
Any weight that this latter fact might have on the day of the reading of the
Confession, applied with equal force to the preaching ; and the Elector, and
Briick, realized it. Besides, preaching is testimony for God's Gospel, and Caesar
is not lord of God's Gospel.

372 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
excepting his letter of June 1st, we know of no other letter of
the Elector to Luther during the rest of May and the whole
of June. The Elector was disappointed in the yielding of his
theologians : he was now keeping his own counsels. Melanch
thon was frightened; and, having been approached by the
German Catholic party before the Emperor arrived, and by
the Imperial party on June 15th or 16th, was going his own
dangerous way.
Melanchthon had appealed to Luther's favorite civil doc
trine of obedience to authority ; and Luther, still trusting the
Emperor, and not knowing that the civil authority was
warped on this point by Roman ecclesiasticism, nor realizing
that the question of conscience in confessing the Gospel and
of liberty in worship was at stake, had given the exact reply
that Melanchthon desired, — on a separate sheet of paper,
which could be shown the Elector.
While it is true that a month later, on June 19th, at the
last moment, the act of preaching was temporarily suspended,
and that this concession on the part of the Protestants made
the peaceful reading of the Augsburg Confession to the Diet
possible ; yet by that time, the action of the Elector had res
cued the question from compromise. The suspension was
now a j'udicial one, pending a decision. It affected both
parties equally, infringed on no liberty of conscience, and
permanently yielded no rights of testimony. But his theo
logians had advised an unconditional surrender of this posi
tion at the start, and the Elector shook his head.
" Our old man is intractable," wrote Melanchthon to
Luther. Briick and the Elector, the two laymen, were a
unit against the theologians. They were determined not to
compromise. Said Briick: "The Emperor's demand is but
a suitable beginning to bring about the destruction of the
Gospel.1" If we give in now, they will crush us hereafter.
Let us humbly beg his Majesty to permit the sermons to
continue."

104 " Ein fiigsamer Anfang der Niederbringung des Evangelii." — C. R., II, 76.

PROVIDENCE AND THE AUGUSTANA. 373
May 31st.
Seven days after the embassadors of Charles appeared
the Elector sent in his written reply : —
" It is not true," he said, " that the edict of Worms was agreed to by all the
electors. How could my brother and myself, by approving it, have placed our
selves in opposition to the everlasting Word of God?. Moreover, succeeding
Diets have declared this edict to be impossible of execution. As for my friendly
understandings, their only aim is to protect me against acts of violence. Let my
accusers lay before the eyes of his Majesty the alliances they have made. I am
ready to disclose mine; and the Emperor shall decide between us.
"Last of all — in respect to the preaching — nothing is proclaimed in it but
the glorious truth of God, and never was it so necessary to us. We cannot,
therefore, do without it!"
This was the brave Elector's bold ultimatum ; and it would
work its share in bringing the Emperor speedily to Augsburg.
Six days later, his Majesty had not only received the
Elector's answer, but had already started on his way to
Augsburg.
May 29th.
DISUNITED LUTHERANS NOT PREPARED FOR THE DIET.
The Lutheran estates, since the Elector kept himself
aloof, were at a loss and felt themselves to be without leader
ship. The Landgrave had no Confession, for he had been
opposed to deciding the religious question at a Diet. As
early as May 22nd, he had been making efforts to be allowed
to participate in the Confession of the Elector, for Melanch
thon then wrote : " Nunc Macedo agit ut orationi nostrum
subscribat." 105 The Margrave had no Confession, for he had
intended as early as March 24th to cast in his lot with the
Elector. Nuremberg had an " Opinion," but the delegates
were instructed to remain in close touch with the Saxons.
Ansbach and Reutlingen doubtless also desired to unite with
the Elector.

105 c. R., II, 60.

374 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
But, despite his danger in disobeying the instructions of the
Emperor, "the old man" did not wish to be bound up with
or be interfered with by the others. The Emperor was ad
dressing him alone, was making him responsible, and was
charging him with disloyal alliances. He would not give
the Emperor cause for such charges, but would continue
loyally on the line he had originally followed, and insisted on,
in accepting the Call to the Diet. Luther was opposed to all
alliances. The Elector therefore sent Nuremberg word
through Briick, in a very Luther-like utterance, that, "His
electoral Grace did not like many counsellors in such an
affair, for the devil was fond of too much counsel !"
Nevertheless Nuremberg requested at least a copy of his
Apology-Confession, and received it very promptly. Eor
the interview with the embassadors, Nassau and Neuenar,
had convinced the Elector that the Emperor was hostile, and
that the Protestants needed each other's strength. The arrival
of the Margrave George without a Confession on that very
day, and the position of the Margrave's Chancellor Vogler,
with the agitation of Philip of Hesse, led, we believe, to an
examination of the Confessions of the other Estates, and to a
consideration of the opinions of the other theologians on the
Augsburg Confession.106 Nuremberg had such a "Rath-
schlag;" 1W and so had Reutlingen.108 The old accounts of the
reading and use of these Confessions by Cyprian and by
Salig, and especially the statement made by Melanchthon
himself, in his account of the origin and presentation of the
Augsburg Confession, a few months before his death, in 1560,
should, we believe, be taken as applicatory in summing up
the general situation between May 24th and June 25th, with
the details referring at times to the earlier and at times to
the later date.

™ Salig, II, 168.
107 Cp. W. Moller, Osiander, Elberfeld, 1840, p. 128 sqq.
1M Gayler, Hist. Denkwiirdigkeiten der Reichstadt Reutlingen, 1840, p. 350
sqq.

PROVIDENCE AND THE AU GU ST AN A. 375
COMPOSING AND REVISING THE CONFESSION.
The story of Melanchthon, which has been analyzed ex
haustively by Dr. Krauth,* begins with the Emperor Charles,
as follows:
"On his return to Germany, 1530, he called the Princes
to Augsburg [these, the Elector and Princes and cities] that
a Confession should there be presented. Of this a narrative
ought to be given, inasmuch as it. is necessary that posterity
should know that our Confession was neither written of indi
vidual purpose, nor thrust upon the Emperor not demanding
it [this Confession which was delivered to the Emperor in
the Diet, 1530]. But either some Confession had to be pre
sented, or it would have to be shown by dissembling, that the
doctrine which had already been received, had been aban
doned, and there were also some at that time who wished to
avoid the perils of Confession. But others, the Princes and
Officials (Gubernatores), whose names follow the Confession
[the Elector and Princes and cities], believed that the Con
fession should be offered as evidence that they had not acted
in levity, or impelled by any unlawful desire, but that for
the glory of God and the salvation of their own souls, and
the souls of many, they had embraced the purer doctrine. I
brought together, therefore, in singleness of purpose, the
principal points of the Confession, which is extant, embrac
ing pretty nearly the sum of the doctrine of our Churches
[this Confession, as God had ordained and given it, was
drawn together by me]. I assumed nothing to myself, for
in the presence of the Princes and Officials [the Elector, and
Princes and Legates, who subscribed it] and of the preachers
[with their Counselors and preachers who were there], it
was discussed and determined upon [diligently pondered],
in regular course, sentence by sentence [all the Articles].
The complete form of the Confession was subsequently sent
to Luther, who wrote to the Princes that he had both read
this Confession and approved it. That these things are so,
*v A Chronicle of the Augsburg Confession, 1878, pp. 54-61, pp. 83-86.
V. also First Lutheran Diet, 1877, pp. 238, 242. v. also Con. Ref. pp. 232, 233.

376 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
the Princes, and other honest and learned men yet living,
will remember [gracious Princes and Counts, and other hon
orable men, who by God's grace are yet living, can testify].
Salig says: "We now come to the composition of the Augsburg Confession
itself. That the Seventeen Articles composed by Luther form its basis has
already been alluded to several times. But Melanchthon now was obliged to
elaborate them further, and, as he possessed a beautiful, perspicuous style, to
form the Confession out of them. He had already made the beginning at Coburg.
And at Augsburg there was more time to work upon it. But he did nothing by
himself in so important an affair, concerning as it did the Faith of the whole
Lutheran Church. To give over to a single man so important a work showed
that there was the greatest confidence in his suitability.
"Nevertheless the fact that this work was to pass through the experienced
hands of many other people demanded the foresight and watchful care of all the
Protestant estates. Melanchthon handed over his writing from article to article
to the censorship of the estates, their counsellors and theologians (Der Leipzi-
schen Theologen Historie der Augsp, confession oder des Sacraments Streits, p.
109) ; as then D. Erhard Schnepf, who himself was present at the deliberations,
writes in his confession issued in 1655 (ib. f. 109) ; and as Melanchthon testifies
in the preface of the first volume of his complete works, that he had done nothing
at all by himself, but had- received the opinions [Gutachten] of other theologians
concerning all the articles." 109
"The pious Elector John was particularly concerned for the Tenth Article,
which treats of the Holy Communion, that the same might be composed and com
pleted in the most accurate and faithful manner, since among all the disputed
points of doctrine, it was the chief article that marked the difference of the
Lutheran from the Swiss and Highland doctrine. When now the confession was
completed, the Elector sent it with a letter of his own to Luther, etc."110
In weighing the testimony of Salig, it should be borne in
mind that he lacked the knowledge gained by the method of
critical research from the days of Weber down; but, on the
other hand, that he cannot be accused of favoring the ultra-
Lutheran position, since he was a pietist, whose natural
judgment would be regarded as favorable to Melanchthon.
Kolde's estimate of Salig as an authority is just.
Cyprian also rests on solid sources and a sound judgment.
He says:
"After the Emperor had assured the evangelical estates in his Call that he
would gracionsly hear their Opinion of Religion at Augsburg, all who did not
wish simply to lean upon the Elector had their theologians draw up a short Outline
of the Doctrine which was then in use in the churches of his territories, and
brought it along to Augsburg. This was a very easy matter, since now for the

'"Salig, II, 168.
"" Ib.

PROVIDENCE AND THE AU GU ST AN A. 377
past thirteen years everything had been pretty well cleared up and deliberated on
through the various propositions, books and doctrinal documents ; and since the
Seventeen Articles which the Elector John and the Margrave George of Branden
burg had laid before the assembly of the Protestants, were in their hands 'Muller,
c. 1., p. 302.) Of these outlines brought to Augsburg, Camerarius in his Life
of Philipp, p. rn., 124, says: 'There were very many descriptions set forth,
some of them verbose. For those who were being associated in this cause had
each ordered their own theologians to compose something in writing. These had
to be read and known by Philipp.'
" In Augsburg, the Saxon and other theologians conferred as to their views
on the Outline of Doctrine, and at last completed the confession of faith : with
Melanchthon putting it on paper (jwobey Melanchthon die Feder fuhrete). The
Seventeen Articles, shortly before delivered at Torgau, as is evident, and as the
Elector himself testifies, were made the basis.
"Not only the theologians, but also the civil counsellors, considered the
Confession, even to the smallest points, as the word ' truly ' in the Tenth Article
can give evidence. Of this Erhard Schnepf, the theologian of the Langrave of
Hesse, who was of use in these transactions, gives the following information, in
the beginning of his Bekantnis vom Abcndmahl, edited in the year 1555 :
" ' Now it is known to all who were present at that Augustana deliberation in
the year 1530 in which the Confession was written, that before it was offered to
the Roman Emperor Charles V., it was subjected to the censure of the theologians
of the princes, and of those also who were the counsellors to our princes, and of
the legates of the two cities, on account of which it was at that time determined
to use only the adverb truly, although ambiguous as then discussed by many;
since no one then of all those who were committed to the Augsburg Confession
and who had been admitted to this meeting of deliberation was of the same view
with the Zwinglians. For I was present and . . . this work was dangerous,
very important, and for many reasons, especially so far as concerned the point of
the power of the bishops, very delicate ; for it went straight to the heart of those
heads of benefices and the bishops who were almost all of them worldly princes, and
were present in great splendor, and who could besides place a large army in the
field against the Evangelicals, and who were weaponed by the doctrine of purga
tory and the mass, of oral Confession, by the superstition of the people, by the
indulgence, by the interdict, and by the Pope." — Cyprian, pp. 55-56.
Cyprian claims co-operation from the beginning:
" In one sense of the word it was a matter of good fortune that the Emperor
had delayed, which delay was falsely ascribed to the honors shown to him in the
Venetian, Tyrol and Bavarian regions. For the estates could consult confidentially
with each other, and the theologians who discussed the articles anew and worked
them over with all brotherly freedom, became more and more certain in the
points of teaching out of God's Word, and could draw up their sentences carefully.
Melanchthon made his daily changes with the advice of the others. Camerarius vita
Philippi, pp. 1 23 ; Post diligentissimam consideralionem compssitum est scriptum
etc.— Cyprian, p. 57. [ Vid. also Mel.'s Pref. to C. j?.]
Yet we are in doubt to-day as to how far the estates partici
pated in the framing of the Saxon Confession prior to the
15th of June and the crisis at Corpus Christi. Melanch
thon probably had gone through all the Confessional docu-

378 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
ments, and gained hints for his daily changes. Cyprian,
largely quoting ex diario gives us the following succinct infor
mation : —
" Already on the 16th of May the Elector announced to his
Mittverwandten at Augsburg that the Confession was then
just completed, but not yet finally decided on; but had been
sent to Dr. Luther for examination.
" On the 31st of May, the Confession was communicated,
in Latin, but without Preface and Conclusion, to the delegates
of the cities. Eor Melanchthon had composed it in the name
of the Elector alone.
"On June 8th, the chancellor of the Margrave an
nounced to the representatives of the cities : —
" 'His preacher and his counsellors had gone over the
Articles of Eaith which the Saxons had composed, but they
found just that lack which others had already remarked : that
they were written in the name of the Elector alone — they
must be composed in the names of all the princes and cities
who were in unity on the Articles of Faith.'
" On June 14th, the representatives of the cities received
the Saxon Outline of the Faith in German, in which Philip
had already made a change, namely, where it had been stated
in Latin that this or that was preached and held in the
electorate of Saxony. In the German, he had omitted the
electorate of Saxony and used a common word that might be
taken to denote all the estates. (Ex diario.)
" According to this, through all these days, the work was
given the best possible consideration. They labored in com
mon counsel upon the Confession, and it was composed in
the names of all the Evangelical estates." — Cyprian, p. 179.
However this may be, it is at least certain that during this
week (June 23rd), two days before the delivery, all the estates
were called in and all doctrinal matters were decided on con
jointly. Melanchthon, with the discredit of his private
negotiations upon him, stood more in the background.
Frightened by Valdes, he softened expressions wherever he

PROVIDENCE AND THE AUGUSTANA. 379
could, and unsuccessfully attempted to retain the jurisdic
tion of the Roman bishops ; but he had the satisfaction of see
ing the Tenth Article retained in its strength and the Swiss
thrown out (Kolde). Neither he nor any of the theologians
— except Jonas — were present at the delivery of the Con
fession, nor were they allowed to sign it. The matter was
in the firmer hands of the Princes and their counsellors,
who were unwilling to give up the solid public rights on
which they stood from previous Diets, and particularly from
the imperial Call; and who insisted that the Confession must
be delivered to the Emperor in the Latin and in the German
language. After the delivery of the Confession, which Melanchthon
regarded as a temporary widening of the breach, he, instead
of standing on the positions taken, insisted on going back to
his old hope of compromise and in bringing forward the
question, "How much was to be yielded to the Romanists." 110a
In the Committees of Compromise that were appointed after
the Confutation came in, he became more and more dicta
torial, and all feared to withstand him. The Nurem-
bergers reported111 that " The other Saxon theologians dare
not speak openly against Philip, for he has gone so far
recently as to say against the Liineburg chancellor: 'He
who dares assert that the recent concessions made [to the
Romanists] are not Christian, lies like a villain.' "
They reported that the pious Vogler was much maligned,
after he left Augsburg, for having been unwilling to com
promise, and continue: "The Elector in this business has
no one more sensible than the one and only Dr. Briick ; but
•they have brought him to the point where he now also grows
anxious in business, since there is not a soul to give him any
support."

uo» To be fully just to Melanchthon, we point out that, for this, Luther's
" Admonition " and other declarations at the start might be looked upon
as affording some precedent.
m Salig, II, 332.

380 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
But we have greatly anticipated the course of events, and
must return to the end of May and the first day of June.
May 3 Id.
THE OLDEST REDACTION.
The Nuremberg delegates received the Latin Version of
the Apology-Confession, and sent it home on June 3rd. This
was the document which has been termed by Kolde, " The
Oldest Redaction of the Augsburg Confession." In it, we
find Melanchthon still manifesting complete confidence in
the Emperor, praising him in the article on the Marriage
of the Priests, and upholding his authority in spiritual
things and his power to decide for the Church. It was a
royalist and a Romanistic document conceding, for the sake
of apparent unity, those Germanic qualities of right and
liberty, which finally gave substantial basis to Protestantism
in the real Augsburg Confession. The weakness of " step
ping softly " can be studied to advantage in this proposed
Confession of Melanchthon. Its study as a step in the de
velopment of confessional doctrine is also most instructive.
We see how the development originally was attempted on
the basis of the Apostles' Creed, how clear and apt and full
some of the doctrinal confessions were before having been
filed down into our present Confession, and how Zwingli
was condemned at the end of the short article on the Mass.
On the same day the Confession was made known to the
other states, who demanded that it should be presented in
common in the name of them all.111* But at the same time
Philip's plan of appeal to a council gained strength. " We
appeal to a Council. We will not receive the Emperor as
our judge ; the Ecclesiastical Constitutions themselves forbid
him to pronounce in spiritual matters.1'1'' Moses declares

lu" " In gemein in aller Fiirsten und Stadte Nahmen." — C. R., II, 88.
nib " Die Constitutiones canonicae den Kaysern verbieten zu richten und
sprechen in geistlichen Sachen." — 16., 66.

PROVIDENCE AND THE AUGUSTANA. 381
that it is not the civil magistrate who decides, but the sons
of Levi. St. Paul also says (1 Cor. 14), 'let the others
judge,' which cannot be understood except of an entire
Christian assembly; and the Saviour Himself gives us this
commandment : ' Tell it unto the Church.' "

THE SILENT INFLUENCE OF LUTHER.
Luther did not realize that his silent influence, as the
watchman on the mountain, as Moses stretching out his arm
over the field of battle that the issue might be on the side
of the Lord, was of more weight than his words, and per
haps than his personal presence in the mighty contest.
Had he come to the Diet, the Augsburg Confession would
not have been delivered, and Protestantism would have paid
for his presence with his life, or with bloody war. Had he
remained teaching in Wittenberg, Melanchthon would before
the Summer was over have betrayed the whole cause into the
hands of the Romanists. Providence had placed him, the
invisible prophet, on the Mount, and within the mighty For
tress where his prayers arose uninterruptedly. Yet he could
feel that he was of no use!

Luther to Link
Wolf btitt. Cod. Helmst., 108, f. 30b.
CBlest., I, 37; Erl. Br. W., VII, 345. May 28th.
. . . I also know very well that I am entirely useless on this trip, and
would perhaps have accomplished much more at home by teaching, but I could
not withstand him who summoned me.
I fear very much that Germany, especially the Upper, deserves from God a
severe judgment on account of the abominations, murders, deceptions and other
outrages against God's Word which daily increase ; and the Turk puts on his
armor not in vain. God have mercy upon us.
The 28th of May, 1530. Your Martin Luther,
28

382 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
June 1st.

A few days later, in the beginning of June, the Elector
sums up the situation briefly and admirably in a letter to
Luther : — John to Luther.
Chytraus Hist., p. 11. June ist.
Our greeting, Reverend and Learned, Dearly Devoted. We received your
last letter, and interpreted the Christian consolation you addressed to us to our great
satisfaction. It shall also, if God will, be highly consoling in these very impor
tant transactions. We wish to inform you confidentially that his imperial Majesty has here
served upon us an Instruction in which we are sharply taken to task respecting
his Majesty's edict 112 and certain other things.
Likewise (although mildly) there is therein also demanded of us that we
shall discontinue preaching until his imperial Majesty will arrive and restore order
in these matters. But we have given his Majesty an answer to this, from which
his Majesty must graciously realize that we, as we have determined, cannot yield
in this matter. What may happen in consequence thereof, we will, God willing,
endure. The report is that his imperial Majesty left Innsbruck, is moving to Munich,
and will thence come here after Pentecost.
Dated Augsburg, on the first of June, Anno 1530.
We wonder how Luther, who had yielded to Melanchthon
and to his regard for imperial authority, felt when he read
this letter from John the Steadfast, who could not spare the
preaching of the Word, and who said " It would be terrible
to give up God's Word and truth." Concerning Luther's
and Melanchthon's advice on the preaching the Elector is re
ported to have remarked, " I do not know whether I or my
learned ones are becoming foolish."
Without the Word of God and prayer, Luther would have
been sad and lonely enough at Coburg, even before the
period from May 26th to June 19th, in which letters failed
to arrive. On May 29th, his aged father died. On June
1st, he sends Probst a resume based on Melanchthon's letter

,u Tie Edict of Spires, 1529,

PROVIDENCE AND THE AUGUSTANA. 3S3
to him of May 22nd, of the situation at Augsburg as he then
understood it. Luther to Jacob Probst.
Wolfb., Cod. Helmst., 108, f. 112.
Colest. Hist. Com. Aug., I, f. 54 ; Erl. Br. W., VII, 352.
fune ist.
To-day, on the first day of June, the Emperor is still at Innsbruck, and will
perhaps get to Augsburg towards Pentecost.
We have great hopes that the Emperor will act graciously, and he has in fact
up to the present113 written two or three times to our princes in a kindly way,, as
others of his court also have done, particularly Henry, duke of Nassau. He has
also revealed this token of his gracious feeling that, when the dukes of Bavaria,
Duke George and Margrave Joachim, had passed Augsburg by, and hastened to
Innsbruck to the Emperor, that they might win the Emperor, and, by gaining his
ear in advance, enrage him against our princes, the Emperor was unwilling to
yield to them, since he wished to remain impartial to the others. And the
highest Chancellor Mercurinus did openly say that he would not participate in
compulsory measures, because he had sufficiently experienced at Worms what
such action would accomplish. He wished that the difficulties of the Church
would be peaceably settled. This Naaman (2 Kings 5) God has perhaps raised
up for us.114 Let us only pray. Our praying has begun to be heard, and we will
not discontinue it.
There is great scarcity at Augsburg, so that our Elector pays one hundred
florins every week for bread alone, and expends weekly two thousand florins.
This Diet will not continue long. Eck has distributed Forty Theses against
us, which are full of the devil, and he offers himself to dispute with everybody
except himself. We deride the fury of this person ; there will now be no chance
to dispute after the enemy has killed so many ; neither will there be, for this
purpose, any time at Augsburg.
I tarry upon the border of the Saxon territory, halfway between Wittenberg
and Augsburg. For it was not safe to take me along to Augsburg.
Thus you have very nearly the whole matter, as it just now presents itself at
Augsburg. Philippus, Jonas, Spalatin and Agricola went with the Elector to
Augsburg. By the next day Luther is more pessimistic, and less
hopeful of the Diet, despite the temper of Gattinara and
the Emperor. Visitors, unbidden, had been trespassing upon
his time. He did not wish to hold public court at Coburg,
and he seems to have felt that the news of his presence there

"a He had not yet heard of the Nassau embassy of May 24th.
114 He died three days after this letter was penned by Luther.

384 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
had leaked out through the traveling messengers. He re
quests his friends at Augsburg to write less openly, but lo!
they do not write any more at all !
Luther to Melanchthon
Wolfb., Cod. Helmst., 108, f., 22b.
Ciilest. I, fol. 60b; Erl. Br. W., VII, 361.
June 2nd.
Grace and peace in Christ! Hans Reynick, of Mansfeld, and George Romer
were with me yesterday, and Argula von Staufen to-day. But as I see that this
place will be visited all too much, I have resolved, following the example of your
Stromer, to travel elsewhere, either apparently or really, in order that it may be
rumored that I am not keeping myself here any longer.
I beg of you, and the others with you, in future to speak and write so that
no one will seek me here any longer. This I am announcing to you in a Jonas
like hurry, for I wish to remain concealed, and to have you, at the same time,
to keep me concealed, both in your words and letters.
Here they begin to make us believe that your Diet will achieve nothing; and
that the Emperor will, through the deceit and skilful manipulation of the bishops,
be detained, until you shall have spent all, and will be obliged to return home.
For it is not thought that the archbishop of Treves and the elector of the Palatinate
will be present; and that the Emperor, induced through the skill of the papists,
will seek reasons to be prevented from coming to Augsburg. These matters and
utterances cause me to have curious thoughts. But the messenger is in haste. Be
well in Christ. June 2nd, 1530. Your Martin Luther,
June 2nd.

MELANCHTHON FLATTERED BY THE ROMANISTS.
At Augsburg, meanwhile, Melanchthon was tampered
with by the chaplain of Duke George, Cochlaeus, who sent
Philip a private note (Colestin, I, 55), expressing a desire
to speak with him alone in the presence of Arnoldo Wesa-
liensi.115 Melanchthon, who felt himself cut off and solitary
at Augsburg,"0 was softened by this approach, and felt that
the negotiations should be conducted as mildly as possible.
He asked the Elector to refrain from the use of meat on fast

""Salig, II, 175.
1,0 Nos non minus sumus monachi quam vos in ilia arce vestra. — C. R„ II, 46.

PROVIDENCE AND THE AUGUSTANA. 385
days in his court, because the Romanists were speaking about
it. But the Elector did not yield.
Just before the Emperor left Innsbruck, Melanchthon
entered into a secret correspondence with the other side as rep
resented by Albrecht, archbishop and cardinal of Maintz, who
proved somewhat more friendly than the other cardinals.
All that is known as yet of this strange transaction is to
be found in a sentence in a letter of John Rurer, the
court preacher of Ansbach, who was at Augsburg on the
Evangelical side with Andreas Altheimer. The letter1" is
dated June 4th. The following is the sentence: Scripsit
Philippus litteras ad Archiepiscopum Moguntinum, quibus
petit, quo operam det ne res ad arma deducatur, quid is
responderit, aliquando cognosces, nondum Philippus respon-
sionem sed solas suas literas nobis communicavit.
June Lth-6th.

THE HAND OF ROME SHOWN IN PREPARATIONS FOR THE DIET.
We already have seen that the Emperor^s policy was de
lay, and an atttempt to persuade the Elector to settle things
privately at Innsbruck. But the Elector's declaration of
independence, and his refusal to treat except at Augsburg,
together with a letter sent the Emperor by the estates im
patiently awaiting him at Augsburg, brought his Majesty on
at once toward the gates of the city. In the letter just al
luded to, the estates said: —
"Since, in accordance with your Majesty's Call, we have most obediently
come here with other Princes and Estates of the realm, and some of us have now
been lying here a long while, under great difficulty and expense, we most obediently
beseech your imperial Majesty to make haste to get here as soon as possible, con
sidering that the importance of the case and necessity itself highly demand it, so
that there be no failure in meeting you at your entry, and your Majesty be not
delayed for » long time in the country, but everything proceed in good order as
befits the occasion."

' The letter is printed in the Appendix of Kolde, Alt. Red., p. 107.

386 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
His Majesty responded to this, and was coming now —
but under Roman control; for Gattinara on June 4th had
succumbed to death, leaving not one person- in the imperial
train to advocate the Evangelical cause. The delegation
which was sent forward to arrange for the imperial arrival de
clared that, as an Emperor crowned at Rome,11" Charles would
settle religious controversies at the Diet; and would neces
sarily admit the papal legate in his full character and com
mission, with precedence over all other embassadors. Hence
the civ.il Electors should precede the Emperor in the entry,
the cardinals, archbishops and bishops should ride along
side of him, and the papal legate should enter with the
Emperor and King Ferdinand and beneath the same
canopy."8 The Electors remonstrated against this order, as an in
fringement on the privileges granted to them in the Golden
Bull. Still this matter could be settled ; but as the Emperor
was coming to celebrate the festival of Corpus Christi with all
the estates according to the usual papistic ceremonies, the
far more important question arose, whether the Protestants,
if the Emperor should command them to do so, could partici
pate in the procession with a good conscience. The Saxon
theologians on request prepared the following Opinion: — "*
" It would be the safest to withdraw entirely from the procession, and upon
the way consider how best to excuse themselves to the Emperor, with the acknowl-

ina The Pope and the Emperor at Bologna.
" Herod and Pilate soon became friends, when Christ and His Word were
to be attacked. The Emperor desired to be crowned and had thenceforth to
live to please the Pope. Bologna was chosen as the spot where this solemnity
was to take place. . . . The Pope arrived first, but the Emperor made his
entry on Nov. 5th, 1529, and remained there four whole months, and lived
in one palace with the Pope. The Emperor took up the subject of religion
with the Pope, and desired a free General Council." — Salig, II, 154.
" At Bologna the Emperor attended a congregation of the Pope and the
Cardinals, and also used this opportunity to consider his mild methods,
selected from many others, of bringing about religious peace." — Ib.
The Pope persisted until the Emperor was obliged to promise that he would
first bring the Lutherans to obedience to the Papal chair in a gracious way ;
and if this proved fruitless, he would compel them to it by force of arms.
To this end the Emperor, on the 21st of January, wrote a Call to a Diet to
be held at Augsburg on the 8th of April." — 76., 156.
1,8 Colestin, I, E8b sqq. ; Miiller, III, 521 sqq.
118 Colestin, I, c. 67.

PROVIDENCE AND THE AUGUSTANA. 387
edgment that however they did not despise the most honored sacrament ; for, first,
such processional misuses are against the Scripture and the command of God ; and,
second, the sacrament was not ordained for the purpose of praying to it. If they
should accompany these processions, the abuses against which they were teaching
would be countenanced by them.
June 1+th.
GATTINARA DIES; THE EMPEROR LEAVES INNSBRUCK.
Mercurinus Gattinara, the imperial chancellor and the
gtaunch friend of the Evangelical cause, who had kept Cam
peggius and the Romanists in check up to this time, and who,
though ill, had accompanied the Court of Charles to Inns
bruck, died to-day. Luther had just compared him to a
Naaman " raised up for us in the Court of the King of
Syria." At every step the chancellor120 had resisted the
Pope. The Emperor would bring to him the papal proposi
tions, and the chancellor would say, "Remember that you are
master!" But with his death, on the 4th of June, the last
advocate of the Elector vanished from the papal court, and
henceforth the Romanists alone had the ear of the Emperor.
Two days after his death the Emperor was already on
his way to Augsburg; and when, on the Emperor's arrival,
the Elector learned that Mercurinus was dead, his eyes
were opened to the necessity of giving up all hopes of a fair
hearing for his personal Confession, and of uniting with the
other Lutheran estates to form a Protestant party.
June 6th, Monday.
To-day the Emperor and his court broke up at Innsbruck,
and on the following Friday121 arrived at Munich. Here it
was planned by the enemies of the Protestants that the
Emperor should reach Augsburg on the very eve of Corpus
Christi day."2
220 Cyprian briefly describes this influence, and the consequent mildness of
Charles, on pp. 7 and 8 of the Introduction to his Historia.
™Salig, II, 177.
222 lb., 181.

388 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
June 7th.

LUTHER STIRS AUGSBURG WITH HIS PERSONAL CONFESSION.
The Emperor would be here in a week, but Augsburg was
to experience a great sensation previous to his arrival.
Luther's personal Confession — his " Admonition to the
Catholic clergy of the Diet " — reached Augsburg in print
on the 7th of June. It surely added oil to the flame. It was
immediately sent to the imperial Court and Charles in a'
command to the magistrate prohibited it from being offered
for sale in Augsburg.123 Luther had told Melanchthon as
early as the 12th of May that the copy had been sent to
Wittenberg to be printed.
It was Luther's wish to appear at the Diet in this writing,
since he could not be there in person. His personal presence,
he felt, would be of no value. He still sees a day of salvation
in the Diet, which God offers. He Avill pray, beg and advise
the clergy there assembled that they do not use the day
thus given in vain.
Though everlastingly set against those who ridicule Evan
gelical preachers for their family life, while they themselves
lived in sins, he says : " Give us the doctrine of the Gospel
free, to comfort pious consciences, and we will not disturb
you in your property and your jurisdiction."
It will be well to present an abstract of parts of this
vigorous document, which reached Augsburg just ahead of
the Emperor: —

Admonition to the Clergy Assembled at the Diet at Augsburg.
" Et nunc, reges, intelligite, erudimini, judices terra." — Ps 2 : 10.
Grace and peace in God, our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ ! Since it is
not fitting that I appear at this Diet, and if I did, I could not be of service there,
as I am not adapted to pomp and formalities, I have undertaken to be among you
with my spiritual presence (which I shall prove by diligent petitions to my God)
and through this my feeble message.

1:8 Jacob Sturm at once sent it to the Reformed at Strasburg.

PROVIDENCE AND THE AUGUSTANA. 389
My conscience compels me to admonish you, in a friendly way, not to misuse
this Diet. God has given you great opportunity, through our most gracious Lord
Charles, to accomplish much good. Now is the accepted time and the day of
salvation for you. The hearts of all the people are waiting with great expectancy
that this Diet prove good.
But should it dissolve without deeds, since all the world has for a long time
been pinning its hope to diets and councils, despair would result. For things can
not exist any longer as they are. This you know and feel better than I can tell you.
Some will say I have intruded. Yet the foolish man oft gives better
advice than many wise. It is the wise men who have done the greatest harm
upon earth, especially when they have depended upon their wisdom, and have not
dealt in the fear of God.
Of this all history, in and out of the Scriptures, is full ; and if there were no
other example, look at your own case. For almost ten years you have tried your
wisdom in so many diets, so many propositions, so much diplomacy, with force
and anger, with murder and punishment, that I have wondered at you ; and yet
nothing has come of it.
This is the result of wisdom without humble prayer. You are not willing to
fear God and to humble yourselves. If you still attempt to threaten and do not
beg God for help, you shall not now accomplish anything, though you be as wise
as Solomon. But I am praying diligently for God's grace. My prayers are
heard, which, I fear, is not the case with you.
God grant that you do not oppose Him, and that my prayers may not be lost
on you, for I see that the devil wishes to be on the ground, together with the
Turk, and is stirring up one faction against another, and would rejoice to ruin
everything. Do not try to save me. For though I should be set in the midst of Turks
and Tartars, the Pope or the devil, my cause is sure ; so that I know where I
shall finally abide, according to Romans 8 : 28, "All things work together for
good to them who are called according to his purpose." This has been confirmed
by the blood and martyrdom of many pious people.
But for you and the poor, ignorant people I have concern, and would gladly
aid with prayer and admonition, for I fear you have forgotten humility toward
God, and that you key your strings too hard, whereby some disturbance may arise,
so that both we and you will fall into deep need, as has before occurred. For
you know how all the world was looking and waiting with hope^for the Diet at
Spires. Your proposals there were so wise ! Then immediately came the rod,
namely, Miinzer, and from his harmful tumults we have not yet recovered. This
is what it means to attain everything by force and self-will.
Therefore, at Worms, our dear Emperor Carl was obliged to do what you
wished, and to condemn me with my whole teaching, which you have, neverthe
less, yourselves accepted and used secretly in many parts. And your preachers
would have nothing to preach now if it were not for Luther's books; for they
let their sermon-book lie under the bench, and begin to preach against us
about faith and good works. Meanwhile you forced an edict to put Lutherans to
death, which was so terrible that you yourselves could not endure it, and it had
to be altered at the Diet at Nurnberg.
I am not telling this to ridicule you, but to admonish you to learn from

390 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
experience to discontinue the use of threatening, and act toward God in fear and
humility. Truly the problems are too great for human wisdom and power. God
must help, or else the evil will grow worse. The spirit of Miinzer will live, and
I fear more powerfully than before.
You know how faithfully I held the ground against all fanatics, and have
protected you. Some will say, " This is all the fruit of your teaching," but there
are many pious persons among you who know it is not true. Have you forgotten
what the German nobility at Worms said to his imperial Majesty, and have you
forgotten how at first my doctrine was preached by nearly all of you ? At the
time, Luther was a fine teacher, aptly attacking the indulgence. Afterwards I
attacked the cloister-life, and the monks became fewer; but I never, not to this
day, heard of a bishop or priest who wept on that account. There is now scarcely
a soul at Augsburg who would elevate the monks to their former position. The
bishops will no longer endure such bedbugs and lice in their furs, but are glad
that I have freed them.
If our Gospel had done nothing but relieve the conscience from idolatry of
the indulgence, it should be recognized as the Word and power of God. Who is
there among you who has repented of his great sin? Now you wish to come to
Augsburg and tell us that the Holy Ghost is with you, that you think you never
did any harm to Christianity, that you accomplished great things, whereas you
have desolated the Church.
[Here Luther goes on to describe the Confessional, the Beicht, Penance, the
Kaufmesse, Excommunication, both forms of the Sacrament, and Celibacy. ]
The points which are necessary to be taken up in the true and right Christian
Church, if we are to continue therein, are these: What a Lie is, what the Gospel
is, what Sin is, what Grace is, what a Gift of the Spirit is, what right Repentance
is, how one Confesses aright, what Faith is, what the Forgiveness of sins is, what
Christian Liberty is, what Free Will is, what Love is, what the Cross is, what
Hope is, what Baptism is, what the Masses are, what the Church is, what the
Bishop is, what the Office of Preaching is ; what the right Catechism, namely, the
Ten Commandments and Lord's Prayer and Faith; the right Prayer, the Litany;
Reading and Exposition of the Scriptures; what Good Works are; Instruction for
the Married; for Children; for Man and Maid Servants; to Honor Authority; to
Visit the Sick; to Care for the Poor and for Hospitals; to Instruct the Dying.
These points have never been thoroughly handled and taught by any of you.
But that w,e old fools should go about in bishops' hoods and priestly raiment,
as though externals were articles of faith, that is the devil himself. You know
full well that Pope Adrian through his legates at Nurnberg admitted that the
Roman Church was the cause of much woe, and offered to make it better. Why
are you ashamed to acknowledge this ? Why do you stand fast in your pride ?
You cannot spare the prayers of the Lutherans, the pious heretics, if you are
to effect anything of value. But if you carry matters through by force, your blood
be upon your own head. We are and desire to remain in unison. We have faith
fully admonished you to repentance, and have said we desire nothing but the pure
Gospel. But the God of peace and consolation give you His Spirit, Who will
show and lead you to all knowledge, through our Lord Jesus Christ, to Whom be
praise and thanks for His unspeakable grace throughout eternity. Amen.

PROVIDENCE AND THE AUGUSTANA. 391
Wednesday, June 8th, to Wednesday, June 15th.
While the public were filled with the sensation created by
Luther's Admonition, and the news of the Emperor's ap
proach, the Protestant princes were busy considering what
position they should take at the Diet so close at hand.
Melanchthon was in favor of leaving all to the Emperor's
good will — even though no Confession should be forthcoming.
Philip of Hesse was opposed to dealing with the question
of religion in a political Diet, and wished to unite the
Lutherans and the Reformed in a common appeal to a Coun
cil. The Elector was averse to uniting with anyone (he was
the chief offender in the Emperor's eye), and, until recently
at least, had hoped to be able to present his Saxon Apology-
Confession in defense of himself and Lutheran doctrine. The
other estates were perplexed. On June 8th, the Margrave
of Brandenburg's Chancellor, Vogler, had a talk with Kress,
one of the Nuremberg delegates, in which he pointed out the
defect of the Saxon Apology-Confession, viz., that it was
made only in the name of the Elector of Saxony, while the
Margrave thought it ought be offered in the name of " all the
princes and cities that are in unity on the Articles of Faith,"
so as to be the common Confession of the Evangelical estates
of Germany. He said that, " the Introduction might
separately specify, where it could not be done in common,
what every prince or estate had done for his imperial
Majesty." For the Call had specified that each estate
should prepare its own Statement, and, according to Cyprian,
every one of them who did not simply lean upon the Elector
had ready a short outline of the doctrine which was taught
in his lands.121 Camerarius says, "Those who were joined
together in this cause had ordered their own theologians also
to compose something, which was read by Philip." 125 " This
was not a difficult task," says Miiller.128

124 Hist., p. 55.
125 Vita, 124.
128 c. I., p. 302.

392 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
But to return to the situation before us. During the period
between Wednesday, June 8th, and the following Monday,
the 13th, Nuremberg and Brandenburg appear to have been
agitating for this change in the Preface of the Apology-Con
fession, in which all the estates should be recognized.
Between Saturday, the 11th, and Monday, the 13th, Philip
of Hesse seems to have become very active again, especially
with the Margrave, in opposing the intention of submitting
the religious question to the Diet. He once more was agitat
ing for a confederation with the Zwinglians, and the post
ponement of the religious question to a Council. Meantime
Melanchthon probably was changing the Confession in ac
cordance with the enlarged- horizon gained in the Protestant
negotiations, although it still stood as a Saxon document.
On Monday, the 13th, Melanchthon had a conversation
with the Roman Henry of Brunswick.127 The Landgrave
Philip was pressing for confederation, but Henry told Mel
anchthon that the Landgrave was a plotter ; and Melanchthon
expressed himself as opposed to Protestant confederation,
and as willing to harmonize with the Romanists if, as the
Duke said, the twofold form of the sacrament, the marriage
of priests, monastic liberty, abolishment of paid masses and
freedom of foods were not condemned.
On this very day, June 13th, Melanchthon wrote to
Luther128 his opinion, gained from the Elector's correspond
ence, that Charles would make peace with the Elector, pro
vided that he kept himself free from alliances.
Here then was Melanchthon's dilemma : he wanted Philip
to unite with the Lutherans, else he might join the Zwingli
ans; but he wanted the Elector to have., no allies, that the
Emperor might be pleased and settle the matter. Which
horn should Melanchthon take ? He wrote to Luther : Paene
consumor miserimis curis ; and a few days later he took the
plan of acting on his own responsibility, and negotiating
secretly with the officers of the Emperor!
127 Jonas to Luther, Enders, VII, 380.
128 lb., VIII, 383.

PROVIDENCE AND THE AUGUSTANA. 393
June 12th, Pentecost.
WHITSUNTIDE, JUST PRIOR TO THE DIET.
The Emperor is spending this day at Munich, while at
Augsburg the Elector is attending the preaching of Urbanus
Rhegius in the church of St. Catharine.129
June 13th.

On Whitmonday the Emperor broke up at Innsbruck, and
traveled slowly toward Augsburg, the seat of the coming
conflict.
June 15th-25th.

II. Period of Activity and Suspense.
June 15th, Wednesday. RECEIVING THE EMPEROR.
ACCOUNT OF THE MEETING AT THE BRIDGE OF THE LECH, AND
OF THE PROCESSION.13"
This was the day on which the Emperor would come. For
the past week his baggage trains131 had been making a din in
the waiting city — the home of the Welsers and Fuggers, the
great capitalists of Europe, and the great trading centre be
tween Italy and the Levant, and the towns of Northern
Europe. At five o'clock132 on the morning of the 15th, the Elector
and the princes assembled in the town hall. At one in the
afternoon, they went forth on horseback to meet his Majesty,
and stood ready for his coming at the bridge of the Lech.

122 Salig, II, 163.
320 " Des Allerdurchlauchtigsten, Grosmachtigsten Fiirsten und Herrn, Hrn.
Carolen, Romischen Kaysers, etc., am Nahman des V., einreitend auf den
Reichstag zu Augspurg, an Mittwochen, St. Veits Tag, der da war der 15.
Tag im Brachmonat. Ann. 1530." — Hardts, aut. Luth., I, 267. Cp. Cyprian
Beilagen z. Hist. d. Augs. Conf., p. 60 ; Colestin, hist, comit. Aug., I, p. 68 ;
Schirrmacher, Briefe u. Aden, 54 to 57.
121 C. R., II, 90.
™ Forst., I, 263.

394 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
After some hours waiting, clouds of dust and much noise
on the other side of the bridge heralded the approach of the
Emperor's soldiery. The Electors and princes were recog
nized by Charles with an amiable smile, and he very gra
ciously shook hands with each. He had no sooner alighted
from his horse for the greeting, than he expressed the desire
to the Elector that he cause the preaching to cease.
The archbishop of Maintz delivered the address of wel
come. Apart from the group, on a little elevation,134 sat the
Roman Legate in purple, supported by two cardinals, the
archbishop of Salsburg, and the bishop of Trent. When
Campeggius the Legate saw the Emperor and the princes
dismounted and greeting each other, he lifted up his hands
and blessed them. They, with the Spaniards, Italians, Neth-
erlanders and Germans in the train, fell on their knees ; but
the Elector John and his fellow-Protestants stood bolt upright
and refused the papal benediction.
The magnificent procession, eclipsing135 anything heretofore
seen in the empire, now entered138 the city, with the soldiers
of the six electors in advance. After the princes and electors,
came John of Saxony bearing the glittering naked imperial
sword before the Emperor, on whose right was Maintz and
on whose left was Koln, with King Ferdinand and the Papal
legate Campeggius137 immediately following.
The procession w wended its way to the Cathedral, where
the bishop of Augsburg and his white-robed clergy struck up

J33 This was practically his first word to the Protestants. The Elector him
self tells the story in his letter to Luther' of June 25th. He says : ''So soon
as his imperial Majesty came here to Augsburg and alighted from his horse,
he desired from us, and those with us, that we cease the preaching." — Colest.,
I, 139. The account of Chytraeus confirms this scene and its request as
having taken place on the banks of the Lech. — Hist. Augsp. Conf., p. 54b.
124 Forst., I, 256.
125Secfe., II, 160.
136 Melanchthon says it was 8 P. M. when the entry was made, and that the
procession moved very slowly. Vid. Melanchthon to Luther, about June 20th.
337 It is recornea that when the procession started, the legate made an at
tempt, frustrated by the Electors, who told the Emperor to ride alone, to move
forward under the same canopy with the Emperor. — Salig, II, 178.
138 For a list of the bishops, etc., who participated, and were present at the
Diet, see Colest., IV, p. 121b.

PROVIDENCE AND THE AUGUSTANA. 395
the Advenisti desirabilis. The Emperor entered the Cathe
dral and knelt before the altar with hands extended to heaven.
During the Te ergo quaesimus, he again knelt on the bare
stones, and all the assembly with him. But the Elector and
the Landgrave remained standing. Campeggius pronounced
the benediction, and the procession resumed its march to the
bishop's palace, which had been prepared for the Emperor's
use, and reached there after ten o'clock at night.133

THE NOCTURNAL INTERVIEW IN THE PALACE.
From five o'clock in the morning until ten at night the old
Elector had been kept on his feet, and now the surprise of
the day was to be sprung — "the nocturns of treason were
about to begin." "° Charles had dealt with the Protestants
with great personal grace ; but, after waiting till evening for
his appearance, they had been hurried along into the cere
monies of state under the auspices of the Church. It was
almost impossible to distinguish between civil and religious
duty. To-morrow the Emperor must celebrate Corpus
"'Salig (II, 179, 180) says: "For it is doubtless undeniable that scarce
any Diet was held in Germany which compared with this Diet in multitude
of people, splendeur and other advantages. The Augsburg Confession was
given the honor by God of being heard by Emperor, Kings and Princes, by
embassadors from all the lands in Europe, and of being read by an indescrib
able multitude of people. Hitherto God's Word had lain concealed beneath
the bench, and was unknown to Princes and Lords, to clergy and laity. Now
it resounded in the whole' world ... so that at a Diet, the like of which
Germany never saw before, and probably also will never see again, it sounded
in all ears, and became the sensation of the hour. The Word of Christ (Matt.
10:26, 27), was perfectly fulfilled: 'There is nothing concealed, that shall not
be revealed. What I say unto you in darkness, that speak in light ; and what
you hear in your ear, that preach from the house-tops.' . . At Nice the
Emperor Constantine the Great was present with 318 bishops. Chalcedon
shone with a splendor of 630 bishops. But at Augsburg there was an Em
peror, a King, and the flower of the Princes of the German nation. At the
earlier Councils, innocence was at times suppressed, and the truth darkened ;
and results dwindled down into a war of words. At Augsburg great Electors
and Princes themselves were the confessors of divine truth, and bore the Holy
Word to the ears of all men.
" Where then is there a Council which can be compared with this Diet?
At the Diet at Worms the truth was still greatly oppressed, and Luther stood
there alone and confessed it. But within only a few years the Gospel had
been so blessed that now the greatest Princes in Germany confessed it, and the
kingdom of Heaven was now like a grain of mustard seed, which a man took
and sowed in a field."
140 Spalatin.

39G THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
Christi ; and the procession of the holy sacrament was even
then being arranged. The Lutherans were to be given no
time to think, to consult, or to appeal, but were to be involved
by the swiftness of events, the exigencies of their civil posi
tions, the personal favor and grace of the Emperor, in such a
way that later on they would not consistently be able to take
a stand against the Church.
Charles had made several attempts at a distance to get them
to yield, now he would meet them on the spot, and try his
diplomacy face to face. After the Cathedral service the
princes entered the palace with the Emperor. Then the
Romanists were told to depart, and Charles invited the Elec
tor, George of Brandenburg, Philip the Landgrave, the Prince
of Anhalt and the Duke of Liineburg to follow him into his
private apartments.1" King Ferdinand accompanied the
party as interpreter.
The reader should notice an important historical fact at
this point, and one that has a vital bearing on the most im
portant change in the Augsburg Confession. Up to this
moment, the Emperor had dealt with his beloved uncle, the
old Elector, as a person apart from the other Protestants. He
had promised the Elector special favor if he would keep
himself free from all alliances. The worthy and faithful old
prince had endeavored punctiliously to live up to this under
standing. Even his Augsburg Confession was to have been
only that of the Elector of Saxony.
But on this night the Emperor was unconsciously or de
liberately sweeping all the past away. He was not dealing
with the Elector in person, but he singled out a party of Pro
testants, brought them into his own house, and dealt with
them together. That act released John; it actually placed
him — whether he would or no — on a level with all the other
Protestant princes. The Emperor himself made the Protes
tant princes co-defenders : he united them ; and his act, con
sidered as an external act — not the Elector's, nor Melanch-

111 C. R., II, 106, 114.

PROVIDENCE AND THE AUGUSTANA. 397
thon's — took the taint of Saxon particularity out of the Con
fession, and lifted it to an oecumenical height.
Behind closed doors, Charles through Ferdinand "requested
of their electoral and princely Graces that they henceforth
should not permit preaching in Augsburg" 142 during the sit
ting of the Diet. So this meeting, instead of manifesting the
imperial favor, promised in the "Call" and looked and hoped
for ever since, was only to reopen the one throbbing sore
spot.1' The Elector and the Margrave turned pale. There
was silence. " Die beede alte Fiirsten zum hochsten
entsetz."144 The Margrave spoke up: "We beg your Ma
jesty not to insist on your request," he said, " for we preach
only God's pure Word, as did Augustine, Hilary and the
ancient doctors. Of this your Majesty may convince him
self. We cannot do without the food of God's Word, or deny
the Gospel with a good conscience." 145
When Ferdinand told Charles how old George had quoted
the ancient doctors, the Emperor flashed up in anger, and
insisted on his demand. "But," said Hessian Philip, "the
conscience of his imperial Majesty is not the lord and ruler
over our conscience." Twice was the request repeated ; twice
was it refused. Then Ferdinand said, "The Emperor will
not withdraw his demand." Turning to Charles, the old Mar
grave of Brandenburg exclaimed : "Before I would deny my
God and His Gospel, I would kneel down here at your Ma
jesty's feet and have my head struck off."
This was the climax that night. It was the great confes
sion at Augsburg that it is better to die than to compromise ;
and it foiled the Emperor for a moment. He directed the

142 Chytraeus, p. 40.
148 "'When we came to the Emperor's lodging, the very first point was that
the preaching should be stopped. This matter was disputed over for three
successive days. For our side would by no means agree to demit the preach
ing, until, after a lengthy conflict, it came to the point that the Emperor de
prived both parties of the sermons. He himself had someone to read the
Gospel and Epistle without explanation." — Melanchthon to Luther, about June
20th. "» C. R., II, 106, 114.
"'Ib. 115.
29

398 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
princes to transmit in writing the reason why they were un
willing to dispense with the preaching.146 Old George's "short
and rugged speech, though eminently respectful, ended with
words which flew over Germany, kindling hearts as fire lights
flax." But Ferdinand was ready with the second trap. "Since
his Majesty," said he, "is unable to stop your preaching, he
asks that you will at least observe the custom of accompanying
him in the procession of the sacrament."
The princes refused unconditionally. "Christ," said they,
"did not institute His sacrament to be worshipped." Charles
persisted in this demand, and the Protestants persisted with
equal tenacity in their refusal.1" Finally the Emperor de
clared that he would not accept their reply, and that they
should think the matter over during the night, and be pre
pared to reply early the next morning.148
This day and night of June 15th settled the future of
Protestantism and the fate of the Augsburg Confession in
the mind of the Elector. The death of Mercurinus at Inns
bruck ten days earlier, had already been a note of warning
as to the danger in which they stood ; and this night convinced
the Elector that there was nothing to hope for from the Em
peror, though Melanchthon still put his trust in him. Already
earlier in the day, the Elector and his advisers had adopted
the principle of admitting the other Estates to the Confession,
and a German text, sent to Nuremberg, now already contained
the phrase, "A common word which can be applied to all
Estates," I49 at the places where the Latin text still confined
the Confession to Saxony. No doubt the admission of the
other Estates would have been consummated at once, if it had
not been for the embarrassment and confusion this caused the
Elector respecting Melanchthon's Introduction to the Con
fession, which would then have had to be given up.150
148 Chytraeus.
142 C. R., II, 115.
'm Salig, II, 182, says, "Six o'clock."
149 C. R., II, 105.
150 16.

PROVIDENCE AND THE AUGUSTANA. 399
The princes left the Emperor's palace that night deeply
stirred in soul, and the Emperor was almost beside himself
with rage,151 which Campeggius endeavored to fan into more
lurid flame. Seckendorf162 narrates that the Emperor, too
impatient to await the Protestant answer, sent to the Elector
for the decision during the middle of the night. "At the
present moment we need sleep," exclaimed the Elector ; " to
morrow we will advise you of our decision."1™
A DEMAND FOR COPIES OF THE PROPOSED CONFESSION.
Quite naturally, as all the princes were now co-operating,
and as Vogler proposed to at once hand the doctrinal articles
to the Emperor, there- arose an unusual demand for the Con
fession just at this time. It is natural, too, that the copies
made and placed in the hands of the princes, should be re
tained by them for consultation during the Diet, and should
afterwards be taken home. And as a matter of fact all the
copies of the Confession that are extant from the time before
its presentation, including Spalatin's written in his own
hand, do go back to this very period.
Thursday, June 16th.

REFUSING- THE IMPERIAL REQUEST ON THE MORNING OF
CORPUS CHRISTI.
It was no wonder that the poor Elector, now thoroughly
worn out, became ill during the night, and could not mount
his horse next morning at seven154 o'clock, with the princes
and the counsellors who went back to the Emperor's palace.
It is little wonder that the restless Landgrave of Hesse was
as deeply stirred as the Emperor. As soon as he reached home
181 c. R., II, 116.
132 II, 161.
133 About June 20th, the Elector wrote to Luther : "We plead with his
Majesty the same evening, also the following day, respectfully, but giving many
good reasons. But we were not able to succeed." — Colestin, I, 139.
says they were to be on hand at " Six o'clock,"

400 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
that night, he sent his adviser to wake up the Nuremberg
delegates and let them know all that had occurred.1" The
demand of Charles had that night yet been placed before the
Lutheran theologians, and Spalatin wrote out the Protestant
Opinion before morning. It said: "The sacrament was not
instituted to be worshipped like the brazen serpent of the
Jews. We are here to confess the truth, and not to confirm
abuses." When the little party arrived at the Emperor's palace the
next morning, George, the old Margrave, was their spokes
man, the Elector being represented by his son. Said George
to the Emperor: "My ancestors and I have always sup
ported you ; but in the things of God, the commands of God
compel me to put aside the command of man. If, as- we are
told, death is to be the fate of those who persevere in the true
doctrine, I am ready to suffer it." Offering the Emperor the
Opinion156 of the Protestants, he said : "We will not coun
tenance these human traditions, opposed to the Word of God,
with our presence ; on the contrary, we declare unitedly that
we must expel them from the Church, lest those of its mem
bers that are still sound should be affected with this deadly
,, 157
poison. To this Ferdinand replied : "If the love of God will not
impel you to go with the Emperor, then do so for the love of
the Emperor, and as vassals and princes of the Empire. His
Majesty commands you. He begs you." The Princes re
plied : "This is an act of worship, and our conscience forbids
it." The Emperor had taken his last step and exhausted his
last resource ; and now, after all the planning from Innsbruck
down, had lost the cause. Saying, "We wish to see whether
you will obey his Majesty or not," 16S Ferdinand, with the
Emperor, left the room, and the princes, instead of following,
returned to their quarters.

133 C. R., II, 106.
133 The Document is found in Colestin, I, 82.
157 16., 84 ; Chytraeus, p. 41.
138 C. R., II, 108.

PROVIDENCE AND THE AUGUSTANA. 401
That day at noon, behind the host, carried by the Arch
bishop of Maintz, the Emperor marched alone with his head
bare, and a taper in his hand, with scarcely one hundred citi
zens of Augsburg following him in the procession of Corpus
Christi. So irritated was he on his return to the palace that
he threatened that he would dismiss the Lutherans to their
homes with a safe-conduct next day,139 and the Diet would
uphold the Church and the empire without them. But the
German Catholic princes saw that this would lead to terrible
war, and they supplicated his Majesty, asking him to wait
till his anger should cool.100

MELANCHTHON S SHORT-CUT.
In this crisis, with that sad and unconscious lack of a sense
of public loyalty to those who were near him, between Corpus
Christi day and the following Saturday, that is between the
l'6th and the 19th of June, when the princes in the contest
with the Emperor were staking their very lives for the Truth,
Philip Melanchthon, who was always terrified at the mere
thought of war, went privately, on his own responsibility,
and without the knowledge of the Elector, into negotiations
of his own161 with the Spanish imperial secretary, Alphonso
Valdes, and through him with the Emperor, for the express
purpose of convincing the Emperor and the legate of the Pope
that the Protestants were not as bad as they looked, and of
arranging a way in which a public Confession of the Luth
eran Church might be avoided and the whole Church brought
back into the bosom of Rome.162

132 Cochlaens, 193.
280 lb.
131 "In his anxiety he sought to gain touch with the imperial secretaries,
immediately after the arrival of the Emperor. For Melanchthon's initiative
against Maurenbrecher, Kath. Ref., p. 284, see my information in M. Luther,
II, 592." — Kolde.
132 The details of this secret movement are described in the Chapter on
"Melanchthon's Unsuccessful Attempts as a Diplomatist." Vid. also Kolde,
Luther, II, 343 ; Virck, Mel. polit. Stellung auf d. Reichstage zu Augsburg,
Z. K. S.. IX (1888), pp. 92 sq.

402 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
The terrible clash of the night of the 15th, with the Em
peror's attempt to force the hand of the Evangelical party by
a cessation of preaching and a participation in the feast of
Corpus Christi, had impressed the fearful Melanchthon so
deeply that he was consumed with the desire to settle the
matter himself and as soon as possible. He had sought to get
into touch with both the imperial secretaries. With the
Flemish secretary, Cornelius Schepper, he had held his first
conversation the next day, June 16th, but Schepper was
reticent and gave him to understand that the Emperor
was determined to move against the Lutherans.1"3 Though
Melanchthon was told there was no hope for peace, as, since
the death of Mercurinus, no one of authority in the imperial
court leaned their way, he took the one last recourse. After
Schepper's rebuff, he went to the Spanish secretary, Valdes,164
and succeeded in making him feel that the main points for
which the Lutherans would contend were only the twofold
form of the sacrament, the marriage of the priests, and the
abolishment of private masses.

Thursday, June 16th (Continued).
THE PROTESTANTS NOW FORM A CLOSED PARTY.
From this day on, the Evangelical princes act together as
a common party. The night before they had together deter
mined not to omit the preaching, and refused to participate
in to-day's procession.165 That they regarded themselves as a
closed party166 may be seen from the title of the document

132 " Aneas Silvius himself," said Schepper, " before he became Pope, had
written*: The Roman Court gives nothing without money : even the gifts of
the Holy Ghost are being sold.' " — Epist. 66, Ed. 1496. Noribergae publicata
per Antonium Koberger. Vid. Cyprian, p. 8.
'" C. R., II, 118 sq., 122.
163 16., 106.
1C0 Forstemann, I, 215.

PROVIDENCE AND THE AUGUSTANA. 403
which the Margrave of Brandenburg's Chancellor, Vogler,
presented at their common meeting to-day. The title reads :
"Certain considerations why my clement lord, the Elector of
Saxony, Margrave George of Brandenburg, Duke Ernest and
Duke Francis of Brunswick and Liineburg, Philip, Landgrave
of Hesse, and Wolfgang, Prince of Anhalt, has given con
sent to set aside the party of his electoral, the present Grace."
Vogler actually proposed that the Evangelical Party at
once hand over the doctrinal articles of the Confession to the
Emperor so as to convince him that their party was really
orthodox. But the old Elector, who had now had experience
after experience with the Emperor, and who possibly recalled
how little his own effort in this direction had accomplished
when he sent up the Schwabach Articles to the Emperor,
negatived the proposition.

THE QUESTION OF PREACHING ONCE MORE.
Thus had passed the feast of Corpus Christi. The Protes
tants did not celebrate. But the preaching in the churches
was a more serious matter, for it continued every day, and
was creating excitement among the public. Some of the
Zwinglian sermons were very bold in their veiled allusion to
present events. On the night of June 15th, the Emperor had
insisted on a written reply to his demand. The Princes, at
their meeting of June 16th, determined not to omit the
preaching, and that on the following day they would deliver
a written explanation to his imperial Majesty.161

Friday, June 17th.
Accordingly, on the morning of June 17th, before break
fast, and doubtless after the Landgrave of Hesse had trans
mitted to them his explanation to the Lutheran position to be

m Report of the Nurembergers, June 16th, C. R., II, 108.

404 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
given to Charles on the matter of preaching, the Princes
handed in their reply, written by Briick, to the Emperor : —
The Answer of the Protestant Elector and Princes to the Request
of His Roman Imperial Majesty that his Electoral and Princely
Grace Should not Allow Preaching During the Diet.
Original in Archives at Weimar.
Printed in Forst , I, 283; Chytr., 88.
1. Most excellent, mighty and invincible Emperor, most gracious Lord.
Since your Majesty to-day gave us an instruction that we should transmit our
conclusion in writing, for your further consideration: in obedience thereunto we
now announce and repeat in this our writing, that your Majesty should graciously
note, that if we find our preachers proclaiming new things, and teaching what is
not grounded in the Holy Scripture or is contradictory to our holy Faith, we shall
not willingly permit it, but will array ourselves against it. We wish them to
preach and explain the Gospel clearly and purely, and even as it was preached
and taught by the worthiest and most faithful Fathers in the holy Christian
Church, as your imperial decree, at your Majesty's Diet in Nurnberg, in 1523,
publicly declared should be the case.
If now such preaching of the holy Gospel were discontinued, as though it
were false doctrine, it would be terrible. It would'stand before God (Who does
not want His holy Word bound) as a sin against the Holy Ghost.
We also, as poor sinful people, need such preaching and proclaiming of
God's Word, to console our conscience, and to find help therein from God in our
daily necessities and obligations.. As little as we can forbid the daily food of the
body, so much less can we be without the sermon and proclamation of the Divine
Word, since man Iiveth not by bread alone but by every word that proceedeth out
of the mouth of God. As we also declared to your brother, King Ferdinand, and
the appointed commissioners, four years ago at your imperial Majesty's called Diet
of Spires. 2. And even if the preaching were different, yet your imperial Majesty and
everybody knows that there is a dissension in doctrine. Wherefore and for
other reasons your Majesty called this Diet, that each one's opinion and meaning
should here be heard, and, if error be found, it should on both sides be settled and
brought into Christian unity.
3. On this account we ask your Majesty to graciously consider how our con
sciences could be satisfied if, while there was other preaching elsewhere, we had
none, and could hear only the other preaching.
4. This would compel us, against our conscience, if we consented to it, to
adjudge our doctrine as wrong, and the opposite as right, before, according to
your Call to this Diet, the matters not right on both sides were adjusted. For
it must follow, if we give up our preaching and hear another, that we are in
essence and in effect compelled to acknowledge that our doctrine, since it is done
away with, would be erroneous ; and the other, since we are hearing and accept
ing it, would be right.
5. For what is done away with must, according to your own Call and all
human reason, be wrong at that time, and that which is ordained must be right.

PROVIDENCE AND THE AUGUSTANA. 405
And if there should be, as we can well judge, little further done in these most
weighty matters relating to our salvation, it would be directly against your own
Call, which so clearly involves that each one shall be heard first, and then that
which has not been done right on both sides, on the other no less than on this,
and not only on our side, shall be done away with.
6. If your Majesty should be informed by anyone that we preach novelties,
it is our judgment, as we yesterday declared, that the clear Gospel is preached and
explained by us as it was by the most worthy and prominent fathers of the Church
according to the Scripture, and that neither anything else, nor any novelty is being
preached. 7. And suppose there were novelties or abuses in our preaching, your
Majesty nevertheless knows what terrible novelties in doctrines, customs and life
have been introduced against Scripture and the Fathers, on the other side, and
are still being practised, so that the whole world, and the pious before our age,
have lamented and complained, and do so to-day. Let your Majesty recall what
remarkable abuses were brought before you at the first Diet at Worms, which are
unchanged to this day.
8. And we state all this simply to indicate to your Majesty what partial and
unequal treatment the opposite party expects and demands from you.
9. We know that our preachers give no offense to the conscience. But, as
we said yesterday, if there be any one whose conscience has been given offense,
we will require a report of our preachers concerning it.
10. But what offense would we not give to our neighbor's faith and love, if
the report went out that we were willing to cease preaching the Gospel, and thus
in essence condemn our own doctrine as wrong ? How could we give answer to
God our Judge ?
11. We have also admonished our preachers and people, after the sermon,
to pray diligently for grace for your Majesty as the divinely ordained authority,
and for the Electors, princes and estates that the business transacted at this Diet
would eventuate, to the praise of God, in Christian peace and Christian unity.
12. The people are also faithfully instructed against certain doctrines con
cerning the Sacrament, which would be much more dangerous if our preachers
were silent.
13. If we should cease preaching, we would be condemned by our own
consciences, as being responsible for the ruin of those who were thus misled. For
these disputed matters have been discussed for some years past; and at both the
Diets of Spires the doctrine of the Gospel was preached openly and in an orderly
way, with which it was impossible to find fault.
14. To this all, we did not take it that the edict of the Diet of Spires of one
year ago required that we should now agree to the cessation of the preaching of
the Gospel. 15. It has also been the free and undisputed right of your ancestors, and of
those of the Electors and Princes (except that at both the last Diets of Spires the
churches were denied us for the free preaching of the Gospel), that each one
might order his preacher to preach the divine Word publicly in the Church before
him and all others who should attend.
16. If we should yield to the abolishment of the preaching, this would be
understood by many that your Majesty had decided against us unheard, after your

406 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
Call has been published throughout the Empire, and every one, no matter of
which estate, is looking toward God and yourself in the hope that these most
serious matters will be disposed of aright and according to God's unchangeable
truth. We also are assured that your Majesty will act in no other manner than
your Majesty has announced in his Call. We therefore most humbly pray your
Majesty, as we have done the past two days, that you would graciously regard
this explanation as coming from obedient and well-meaning hearts, and wouid
venture to spare us from the intended prohibition of our preaching, and would
permit us, as at Spires and here up to the present, to let our preachers preach.
All the more will we confess ourselves, in matters that pertain to our body,
property and means, as your obedient electors and princes.
Datum, Friday after Corpus Christi (June 17th), year, etc., 1530.
John, Duke of Saxony Elector,
George, Margrave of Brandenburg,
Ernest, Duke of Brunswick and Liineburg,
Philipp, Landgrave of Hesse,
Wolf, Prince of Anhalt.

THE ASSEMBLY ON FRIDAY, JUNE 17tH.
This was the morning of Friday, the 17th. Charles at
once convened the electors and princes to deliberate concern
ing this answer. They assembled after noon,168 and remained
in session until evening. The Emperor was very much stirred
against the Evangelicals at this meeting, and seemed deter
mined to repeat and enforce his command against the preach
ing. For, contrary to the judgment of the milder ones of
our party — who had advised that the preaching be held off
for one day longer, in anticipation of the imperial reply —
that very morning the preacher of the margrave George,
whose turn it was, had preached before the Evangelicals in
the Church of St. Catharine.16" This so incensed the Em
peror that the Diet would probably have come to nothing, had
not several Princes leaped into the breach to make matters
right.

188 Chytr., 42 ; Seek., 165 ; C. R., II, 113. Salig, II, 183, says " forenoon,"
but the two statements are reconcilable.
139 Salig, II, 183, 184.

PROVIDENCE AND THE AUGUSTANA. 407
" At last the mediators chose a committee "° from among
themselves which came"1 to our princes on Saturday noon,
and urgently begged them to yield to his Majesty and silence
the preaching. For his Majesty desired this from the oppo
site party also /" and if both parties would cease from preach
ing, his Majesty himself would undertake to handle the affair
in accordance with the Call." "°
It was proposed that Charles himself appoint persons who
would read nothing but the text of the Gospels and Epistles,
and a general confession of sins. " Our party," says Chytra
us, " emphasized their Christian need, as rendering them un
able to assent; but since his Majesty has given notice that
he is in authority in this city, and the decree of the first Diet
of Spires decided that every authority should decide in this
matter as they would be able to give answer to God and his
Majesty, and since our princes are outside their domain, they
would not oppose his Majesty, although they were not willing
to do without preaching, but had to do and suffer his Ma
jesty's affairs.1"
Friday, June 17 th. ,
A PRIVATE PROTESTANT SEANCE.
While the stately, discriminate and enduring reply of the
Lutheran princes was being given to the Emperor, and de
voted old Duke George of Brunswick was again offering to

m The Committee was composed of the Archbishop of Maintz (according to
Colestin, p. 89; Miiller makes it the Elector of Cologne, p. 548), the younger
Margrave Joachim of Brandenburg, the Electoral Palatine, Master of the Court
Lud. v. Fleckstein, Duke George of Saxony, Albert of Mecklenburg, and Ludwig
of Bavaria.
1,1 For a difference on this point, and for a clear, detailed description of
these negotiations, vid. Salig, II, 184, 185. But Salig's date on p. 185 is a
typographical error, and should read June 17th, not 10th.
us To "the opposite party" it was not a great hardship, since Rome does not
lay stress on preaching.
m Chytr., 44-45.
171 lb., 45. Chytraeus adds that the Duke of Brunswick and the Arch
bishop of Maintz were unusually well-disposed in this matter — more so than
could have been expected.

408 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
die for his faith, Valdes came1'5 hurrying to a private seance
with the Emperor, bearing a tale, concerning the Lutherans,
of a different kind. He reported that the Elector's leading
theologian had approached him privately on behalf of the
Protestants with a way of bringing the whole trouble to a
close, if the Romanists would but yield on a few points.
Such an offer was most opportune for the Emperor, and he
promptly grasped it. The presentation of Melanchthon was
transmitted to the papal legate Campeggius for consideration.
Saturday, June 18th.
MELANCHTHON HEARS FROM VALDES, AND THE ELECTOR
HEARS FROM THE EMPEROR.
Valdes' negotiations move swiftly. He has seen the Em
peror and Campeggius, and the Emperor again, and this
morning has a message from Melanchthon; for the Nurem-
bergers write home, " Above-mentioned Alphonse undertook
to deliver said report, and on Saturday invited Philippus
again." And Melanchthon himself wrote to Luther, prob
ably on June 20th, in his usual tone, in corresponding with
Luther, of disarming suspicion: "A certain Spanish con
fidential secretary has also promised everything good, and
has just held a conference with the Emperor and Campeg
gius concerning my Opinion ; but everything lies with God."
Philip is told by Valdes that the Emperor had long been
desirous of effecting harmony without extended discussion;
that the Emperor is pleased and the Papal Legate looks with
favor on his private proposition ; and, that they may come at
once to a definite transaction, the Emperor commands him
to present the points of controversy in briefest form, "in
order to be able to consider the matter if possible in all
privacy and quiet."

1,5 There is no proof positive that Valdes' interview with the Emperor took
place on the 17th, but the probability that this was the date is strong.
176 Lammer, Monumenta Vaticana, 43 sq. ; Schirrmacher, 71 sq.

PROVIDENCE AND THE AUGUSTANA. 409
Report of the Dealing of Valdes with Philip Melanchthon.
From an old anonymous Report of June 18th, ascribed by Walch to Spalatin.
Wittg,, IX, 409b sqq.; Leipz., XX, 202 sqq.
Alfonso, his Majesty's Spanish chancellor, also Cornelius, have held several
friendly conversations with Philip, have shown him that the Spaniards are per
suaded that the Lutherans do not believe in God [etc.].
On Saturday evening Al fonso sent for Philip and announced to him that he
had been with his Majesty that morning, and for a long time had not had a more
comfortable time and place to speak with his Majesty ; that he had given his
Majesty instruction concerning all the Lutheran Articles; and that they do not
believe anything against the church. His Majesty then said, " Quid volunt de
monachis ? " and ordered Alfonso to tell Philip that he should transmit a very
brief description to his Majesty. This Philip accordingly did, and therefore he
also ordered Alfonso to go to the Legate and to come to agreement with him con
cerning the matter. This also happened, and the hitch is by all odds the greatest
in the matter of the mass. God be praised, there is good hope. The Emperor
would gladly help in the matter, and God has also given him means thereto.
So Melanchthon's eye is filled with a brilliant rainbow of
peace which he has spanned between Wittenberg and Rome,
and looks to see the dark bosom of the cloud dissolve, even
though his own Electoral superiors are madly persisting on
this very day in their refusal to desist from preaching in the
Emperor's city.

AT PROTESTANT HEADQUARTERS.
And the skies seem to brighten. By noon a Committee of
German Catholics appointed by the Emperor arrives and
offers to forbid the Roman preaching during the Diet, if
the Lutherans will agree to cease theirs. The proposition
does not suit the Elector: as a spiritual man he needs his
preaching, and now more than ever; but as a judicial offer
of the common ruler, it is fair. What shall be done ? Mel
anchthon is ready with an Opinion1" in five brief points,
showing why the temporary cessation should be agreed to;
and in the end the Elector and the Lutheran princes yield
to the committee. There is to be no preaching at all in the

177 Colestin, I, 89 ; C. R., II, 111.

410 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
churches of Augsburg to-morrow; This does not mean com
promise with Rome, but respect for pending judicial process.
His Majesty acted with celerity ; and in a few hours he had
appointed preachers, with fixed instructions to only read the
service. That evening heralds went through all the streets
and cried"8 that no one should preach in Augsburg except
those appointed by the Emperor, under penalty of corporal
punishment." This created a great sensation, and all were eager to know
what would happen on Sunday.180
At the Lutheran headquarters, meantime, the Elector and
the Margrave were promising to receive the Nurembergers
into the Confession ; but Jonas, who knew from Melanchthon
of the latter's conversation of two days ago with Valdes, sat
down and was reporting it to Luther.
The Emperor had become deeply concerned in the situa
tion ; and when, on Saturday evening, the Augsburg Chapter
came to him with the customary gift, he not only received
them in person, but requested them to pray God for him a
poor sinner, that he might be guided by the Holy Ghost to
establish one common Christian order, and not anger God.
"Wobei ihm die Augen iibergangen." m

Sunday, June 19th.

NO PREACHING IN AUGSBURG.

The churches were filled, and the Roman sermon was gone
through without preaching, according to agreement. The

1,8 " Hear, hear, hear what his Roman imperial Majesty commands : No
preacher here at Augsburg, be he who he may, shall hereafter preach, except
those appointed by his Majesty, to avoid his Majesty's greatest punishment and
disfavor." — (German) Seek., p. 1039.
1,9 Chytr., p. 45. The Elector, in agreeing to the measure reluctantly, had
remarked that he expected to hear preaching in his own quarters when he so
desired. — C. R., II, 113. The prohibition was to have been only temporary,
but it continued throughout the Diet. — Salig, II, 185.
180 Omnes hunc avidissime expectant. — C. R., II, 116.
181 Chytr., p. 46 ; Salig, II, 186.

PROVIDENCE AND THE AUGUSTANA. 411
people were moved to laughter.182 After the sermon, the mass
was celebrated. The Emperor was strictly obeyed, and most
of the Protestant preachers had left the city to preach where
they were wanted.183
The Elector was downcast without the preaching of God's
Word. "Silence is imposed on the Word of God itself," he
said. When Luther heard185 of these proceedings, his favorable
opinion of the Emperor was somewhat modified at last, and
on June 30th he wrote: —
Luther to Agricola. /
Cod. Jen. B. 24, n. fol. 163'; DeWette, IV, p. 57; Buddeus.p. 119.
My thought of the situation is thus: that the end of the Diet will be that the
Emperor will try and compel the Elector to renounce the whole doctrine. That
is my opinion, and it will be the severest result of this Diet. Admonish Philip
that he moderate the offering of an anxious spirit, so that at least he may not be
lacking in that wherewith to offer. It is no doubt a great comfort to know that
he is worrying himself in a good cause and for God's sake, since he cannot doubt
that it pleases God as a sweet incense. But moderation is good in all things:
sacrifice pleases God, but not grieving one's self to death. For God takes no
pleasure in our destruction. To think so comes from Satan.
For to put hope in the Emperor's good will amounts to nothing. ,e6 In my
belief the Pope and the bishops have influenced the Emperor, so to hear the case,
that, after our reply is made, they can still conclude what they desire, and never
theless preserve the reputation of having given us a gracious hearing. Thus they
will be able to complain more plausibly of our obstinacy, as though we had been
patiently heard on our side, but in the end were unwilling to hear the Emperor.
. . . In very truth, you have not to do with men at Augsburg, but with the

182 C. R., II, 117.
183 One Roman priest, for breaking the rule in the Church of the Holy Cross,
was placed in prison by Charles (and then allowed to escape).
,MSecfc., II, 165.
185 The Elector himself wrote to Luther, on June 25th, as follows : "At last
it was announced to us that his Majesty would forbid preaching on both sides,
and appoint preachers who should preach the Gospel pure and clear, so that
no one would be in want of spiritual nourishment ; and his brother, the King,
should also not let Paber preach. . . . Now we are informed that the ap
pointed preachers usually speak no more than the text of the Gospel ; what
they teach in addition is said to be childish. So our Lord God must keep
silence at this Diet. We do not blame the Emperor, but rather our enemies
and those unfavorable to the Gospel." — Colestin, I, 139.
186 About June 20th, Melanchthon wrote to Luther : "At the same time, in
the whole court there is no one more mild or gracious than the Emperor him
self, since he, as Henry the Duke of Brunswick tells me, is toning down the
bitter attacks of the princes. We have only two princes who are concerned
about our danger, the Archbishop of Maintz and the Duke of Brunswick. The
Elector of the Palatinate and the Margrave of Baden are not present."

412 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
gates of Hell itself. . . . But God blinds the wicked spirits in their rage,
and they dash themselves against the wisdom of God and deceive themselves in
their prudence. Amen. Amen.
The Lord Jesus Who has sent you all thither to be his confessors and servants,
for Whom you are also offering your necks, be with you and give you with His
Spirit a sure witness, that you know surely, and do not doubt, that you are His
Confessors. This faith will fill you with life, and will comfort you, for you are
Embassadors of a great King. This is His true Word. Amen.

luther's LETTERS OF THE 19th.
Luther, up to the 19th, had still hoped well of the friendly
Emperor. He had heard no more than that his Majesty had
reached Augsburg, and that of all the Romanists he seemed
to be the mildest toward the Protestants. Luther up to now
saw no human help except in the Emperor,181 but he feels his
lack of knowledge. To-day he writes to Cordatus : —
June igth.
We have no news from Augsburg. Our friends at Augsburg write us none.
And the same thing to Zwilling: —
June 19th.
You will, perhaps, get the news from Bernhardt, for our friends have not
answered our letters through the whole month.
The next day, however, June 20th, the silence was broken.
He hears from Jonas : —
Luther to Justus Jonas.
June 20th.
Your letters have come at last, my Jonas, after we were well fretted for
three whole weeks with your silence.
We have already alluded to this mystery. What was there
to say ? The Elector was pursuing his own plan as to the

187 On this day Luther writes from Coburg the celebrated letter on Heaven
to his little son.

PROVIDENCE AND THE AUGUSTANA. 413
maintenance of the preaching, and Melanchthon his own plan
as to the abandonment of the Confession. Neither were in
touch with Luther, and Luther himself had written in the
beginning of June that letters should not be sent him too
freely and openly. The status at Augsburg was changing
hourly. Consultation had followed consultation. All were
weary. The Emperor had been present a week — nothing had
been accomplished — who knew what the morrow would bring
forth? The spirit does not move to correspondence under
such circumstances.188
And yet Melanchthon had visitors and correspondence to
attend to on this 19th of June. To the Nuremberg delegates
he now reports the result of the meeting he yesterday had
with Valdes, and informs them that it would probably not be
necessary to present the Confession. The Nurembergers the
same day write: — June 19th.
"For, as Philippus Melanchthon reports, the matter will perhaps not be
carried so far, but will probably be narrowed down to a few points, and written
and treated more briefly. Whatever action shall be taken, whether the former
(scil. Confession) be completed or a new one drawn up, shall be reported by us
to your worthies."!89
To his intimate friend, Camerarius, he writes : —
June 19th.
I got hold of the Spanish Secretary, who promises faithfully and has already
spoken concerning my view to the Emperor and Campeggius.190
To Myconius, Melanchthon disclosed: —
June 19th.
Ego pertentavi unius, atque alterius ex Hispanicis scribis animum ; quantum
proficiam videro.

188 Vid. June 30th, for the further discussion of this subject.
,8» C. R., II, 112 sq.
100 lb., 118 sq. : " Nactus sum Hispanum secretarium, qui benigne pollicetur,
et jam de mea sententia cum Cesare et Campegio collocutus est."
30

414 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
Sunday, June 19th.
PRELIMINARY TO THE DIET.
Early on the morning of Sunday, the 19th, about seven
o'clock, the princes appeared at the palace and escorted the
Emperor191 to the Cathedral, where he received the sacrament.
After the close of the service, the princes went to the Rath-
haus where Erederick of the Palatinate read off the Propo
sitions of the Diet, which in the afternoon were dictated to
the secretaries of the estates.182
The Emperor called all the princes to him in the afternoon,
and, at the instigation of the Papal Legate, ordered the Elec
tor, as marshal of the Empire, to carry the sword198 before him
in all the ceremonies of the Diet, and particularly at the mass
of the Holy Ghost which would open the session on the mor
row. The Elector received this message and called together
his theologians. He could scarcely refuse, neither could he
obey, without dishonoring the Gospel. But the theologians
said : "This is a ceremony of the Empire, and you are sum
moned as court marshal. The Word of God itself, in the
case of Naaman, affords you precedent." 1M
Monday, June 20th. THE OPENING OF THE DIET.""'
The Emperor and his brother, together with the electors
and princes, entered the cathedral and took their seats on the
right side of the choir. Opposite them were placed the

mi ¦• The Emperor is said to have prayed very faithfully these days " [i. e.,
before he took Communion on June 19th]. — Cyprian; 64.
m Ib.
193 Non gratiae missae, sed officii, quod gladium Csesari praeferre ad lpsum
pertinet.— Comment, rerum August. Vindelicar, II, cap. 65.
1W Seek., II, 167.
JM Schirrmacher, Briefe und Acten; Forstemann, Urkundenbuch zu der
Oeschichte des Reichstags zu Augsburg, 2 vols. (Halle, 1833-1835) ; and
Archiv fiir die Geschichte der kirchi. Reforma-tion (Halle, 1831) ; Moritz
Facius, Geschichte des Reichstags zu Augsburg (Leipzig, 1830).

PROVIDENCE AND THE AUGUSTANA. 415
Legate, the archbishops and the bishops. The ambassadors
were in the middle. The Landgrave of Hesse and other
Protestants, to abstain from the adoration of the Host, were
in a gallery that overlooked the choir.186 The Elector bore the
sword before the Emperor, but remained standing at the
moment of adoration.
The Archbishop of Salerno preached the sermon, first
.against the Turks, and then against the Germans, whom he
described as in some respects worse than the Turks. "They
tear the seamless coat of Christ : they abolish the sacred doc
trines and substitute for them buffoonery." 187 Turning to
ward the Emperor and his brother the preacher said,
"Sharpen your swords against these perverse disturbers, and
bring them back into the fold of the church.188 Germany will
have no peace so long as this heresy ia not eradicated by the
sword. St. Peter, open the stony hearts of these people with
your keys. St. Paul, if they become too rebellious, cut their
hardness of heart into pieces with your sword." The sermon
did not please the Germans. Even the Archbishop of Maintz
was offended. But the words of the preacher did not reach
the body of the building, and were inaudible to the people.
The Emperor now proceeded to the town hall in his car
riage, and sat down on a throne covered with gold. In front
of him was Ferdinand, on a bench. Round about him were
the electors, forty-two princes, the delegates from the cities,
the bishops and embassadors. The Diet was formally opened
by a "Speech," or "Proposition," from the throne, in which
the Diet was informed (through Count Palatine) that the
business was in two parts, first the armament against the
Turks, and second that his Majesty desired by fair and gentle
means to end the religious differences which were distracting
Germany. The Emperor declared that if the edict of Worms had been
observed, the religious difficulties of the realm would not

198 Seek., II, 119.
161 Pallavicini, Hist. Trid. C, I, 23.
199 C. R-, II, 120.

416 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
have taken on such large proportions; but that he wished
careful consideration to be given to the matter now. In
form, he adhered to the plan laid down in his Call, but sub
stantially he was at the mercy of the Romanists.
Referring to the result of the edict of Worms, he asserted
that it had led not only to the contempt of the Emperor him
self, but also of Almighty God, to a decline of divinely or
dained authority, to the great disadvantage of the estates
themselves, and which would result in conflagration, war, and
death, as has shown itself in various ways in the German
nation, especially in the Peasants' War, and in the disorders
of the Anabaptists.
Therefore the Emperor, who perceived these conditions with
great sorrow, undertook, in his native goodness and grace,
and in accordance with the Call, to guide all things into a
better way. Accordingly his Majesty is willing to take up
this matter and to deliberate and conclude how both the inva
sion of the Turk and also the errors and divisions in the Holy
Eaith may best be handled. In a very friendly and gracious
way he now earnestly desires that the electors, princes, and
the common estates, in so far as each one of them is con
cerned, may now present in writing in the Latin and in the
German language their opinion and view concerning the
error, division, and abuses, in whatsoever the clergy may
have grievances against the civil power or the civil power
against the clergy or among themselves, in order' that the
conditons may be harmonized and compared and brought into
Christian unity.
After the Speech, the Diet was free for the day. The
Elector called a meeting of the Protestant party — its mem
bers were excited by the speech — and told them not to turn
aside, and exhorted them to be intrepid in maintaining the
cause of God.1* They then made the necessary agreement.*"
Thus ended the first day of the Diet, on Monday night.

"• Seek., II, 108.
200 " N ahmen die nothige Abrede." — Cyprian, p. 65.

PROVIDENCE AND THE AUGUSTANA. 417
Tuesday, June 21st.
THE ELECTOR PREPARES FOR THE GREAT EVENT. MELANCH
THONIS DISCLOSURE REJECTED.
The Elector arose early this morning and sought spiritual
strength in the Word and in fervent prayer to God.201 He
then took up the imperial "Proposition" of the day before
for consideration, with his son, Briick and Melanchthon, and
came to the conclusion that the Diet ought to attack the
religious issue first of all.
"In the afternoon he called his brethren in the faith — the
Protestant allies — and consulted with them as to his idea
that it was necessary to give the matter of religion precedence
in the Diet. He asked them to bring him their views " 2°2 the
next day.
Melanchthon must have felt uneasy at this interview. He
had laid his underground line to the heart of the enemies'
country — yea, to Rome itself — for the purpose of obviating
the very crisis which the Elector and his counsellors had now
decided to bring about, viz. : an open Confession and an
immediate public discussion in the Diet. He had thrown the
Confession aside, and was even not prepared to furnish a
copy of it. In consequence of his secret negotiations, the
imperial Secretary, the Emperor, and the Papal Legate
were now expecting that any public disturbance would be
hushed up, and that a settlement would be made in private.
In truth Melanchthon was at this moment under imperial
instructions to write out a draft containing the maximum of
Lutheran differences for the Elector to sign, and after secur
ing the signature was to hand it, with the approval and con
sent of the princes, to Valdes, the Spanish secretary.
To carry through such a plan, it was imperative, without
an hour's delay, to convince the Elector and the chancellor
that the discussion on the subject of religion, and the delivery

201 Seek., II, 169.
203 Cyprian, p. 65.

418 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
of a Protestant Confession at Augsburg should be given up,
and that a settlement ought to be made in private, as the
Emperor requested. The moment had come when Melanch
thon must speak.
How Melanchthon broached the subject does not appear.
But after hearing the project, Briick waved it aside, if for
no other reason than that the abandonment of a public pro
cedure to which they had gained undisputed right, for a
private and unguaranteed procedure, might imperil their
whole standing before the Diet, and consequently their cause,
their churches, and their faith. The strength of their po
sition lay in strict obedience to the Call.203 This summary
rejection of Melanchthon's plan put an immediate end to the
private imperial negotiation.
But there was another important matter to consider this
morning. It was what the Protestants should do in view of
the evidently unfavorable tone of the imperial "Proposition"
of yesterday. The Evangelicals decided that it was necessary
for them to deny the right of the Diet to come to a final de
cision on a matter of religion ; and to insist that the possibil
ity of appeal to a General Council of the Church must be
left clear and open.
In addition to these two points, it was, further, decided to
complete a common Confession for the whole Lutheran party,
and to draw the counsellors and theologians of the separate
Lutheran estates into consultation. And since the Confes
sion was to be that of the whole Church, it was now necessary
to lay aside Melanchthon's long Introduction, which he had
elaborated so rhetorically, and to substitute a German preface
which embodied the relations of all the estates toward the
Emperor, written by Chancellor Briick, and translated into
German by Jonas.2"

203 The Nuremberg Rath therefore declared that it was necessary to insist on
the delivery of the Confession in the German and Latin languages. — C. R., II,
123 sq. ; Vogt, 18, cited by Kolde.
304 Forst., I, 460. No copies were made of this translation. Kolde estimates
Briick's Preface (which Weber derides) thus : It was composed with much
skill, and recapitulated the transactions of the previous decade.

PROVIDENCE AND THE AUGUSTANA. 419
The meeting of the Protestants on this 21st of June,
despite the thrilling scenes through which they had already
passed, must have been most memorable. With the plan for
the future now firmly mapped out, and with the revelation of
what Melanchthon had been trying to do during the past
week, it left a deep impression on the minds of the estates
newly admitted to the consultation. The Nuremberg dele
gates immediately wrote home and sent a long report of the
negotiations that had taken place between Melanchthon and
Valdes. Kress had first reported that Melanchthon would
"to-day converse" with Briick. But later, in the postscript
to this letter, he stated that he had just been called into the
hotel of the Elector, where in the presence of the counsellors
of Saxony, Brandenburg, Hesse, and Liineberg, he was in
formed that they were on the point of "revising, writing, and
completing the Articles." Thus the laymen once more set the
confessional situation in the centre as the real thing, and
went to work immediately to put the Elector's document into
such shape that it would become a common and permanent
Confession of their Eaith.
At this meeting, then, the Emperor's original plan of set
tling the religious difficulty in the Diet was dropped; Me
lanchthon's plan of placing it into the hands of the clement
Emperor was providentially frustrated ; and the Landgrave's
plan of appealing to a General Council, together with the
completion of a common Confession which set forth the
Lutheran teaching, and which should contain the appeal, was
adopted. To harmonize their position with that of the Diet
at Spires, on which they had fallen back, the attacks that
Melanchthon had made in the Confession upon the "Sacra-*
mentarians," and the expressions concerning the "Jurisdic
tion of the Bishops," were also dropped ; but the Landgrave
was unsuccessful in gaining a reconsideration of the Tenth
Article on the "Mass."

420 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
Wednesday, June 22nd.
THE CONFESSION CALLED FOR UNEXPECTEDLY.
The private negotiations, which the Emperor favored so
highly, had fallen through. All that Melanchthon was al
lowed to do was to show Valdes the Confession that had been
drawn up for public presentation. Since the Protestants
would not take his way, the Emperor would surprise them
by calling on them very suddenly for their own way. This
was what happened.
To-day the Emperor ordered that the Elector and his
party should have their Confession ready by day after to
morrow, Friday. In accordance with the plan of his orig
inal Call, the Roman party also were invited to present a
Confession, but the Romanists told the Emperor that it was
not necessary : they were satisfied with the edict of Worms.2™
Not since the 11th of May, when Luther was asked to re
turn the Confession with all haste, had there been such pres
sure put upon the Protestants. During the interim between
the negotiations of Melanchthon and the imperial secretary,
it had lain neglected. Only yesterday the German Intro
duction was submitted; and other changes were made. The
whole document, and especially the beginning and the ending,
were lacking in definite form. Perhaps the archbishop of
Maintz20' could secure for them one day more in which to
properly complete it, but this was refused.207
So what was left of Wednesday and Wednesday night was
given to completing, correcting, and transcribing the Con
fession.

205 Wednesday, June 22nd. " The Romanists declared they had no Confession
to hand over. The Evangelicals pointed out that in the Call it was made the
duty of both sides to offer a statement on the matter of religion ; but the
Romanists by no means and in no way would yield to this." — Cyprian, p. 65.
208 When the Elector of Maintz was asked to gain one day's delay, he replied
that there was nothing to be asked for, since the Emperor was already disposed
to hear the papal legate, Campeggius, and the Evangelicals on that day. —
lb., p. 66.
2" C. R., II, 127.

PROVIDENCE AND THE AUGUSTANA. 421
THE VERDICT OF VALDES.
Undoubtedly when Melanchthon showed the Confession to
Valdes, V. not only declared it too bitter, but reported to the
Emperor that the Protestants were going to stand for a
Council; and reported the whole Protestant position to
Campeggius, who sent it to Rome, where it was discussed by
the consistory on July 6th as "The Articles of Melanchthon."
The verdict of Valdes served to bring Melanchthon back to
work on the document with redoubled zeal, and up to the last
moment, in order to smooth out every trace of unnecessary
roughness.Thursday, June 23rd.
REVISING AND SIGNING THE DOCUMENT.
To-day the last reading and the final fixation of the text
was undertaken. Bright and early the Lutheran princes,
counsellors and theologians assembled at the Elector's hotel.
" On Thursday, the 23rd of June, the representatives of Nuremberg and
Reitlingen were requested to come to Saxony, Hesse, Margrave George and
Liineburg; and there the specified Instruction concerning the Faith was read,
heard and deliberated on before all the Princes, their counsellors and theologians,
whose theologians were twelve, without the other learned men and doctors.
The same was to be ordered to be read to-morrow afternoon to his imperial
Majesty before the Diet."208
The whole Confession, with the new German Preface was
read in German and revised. The Epilogue probably was
added at this final revision. According to a later communi
cation of Melanchthon the single articles were discussed in
order. "Nihil mihi sumpsi. Praesentibus Principibus et
aliis gubernatoribus et concionatoribus disputatum est ordine
de singulis sententiis." "'
As Melanchthon wrote to Camerarius on June 26th, he

2ra (Ea; diario f. 31b) Cyprian, p. 179.
209 Mel. in the Vorrede zur Sammlung s. Reden,

422 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
was changing and improving much on the Confession to the
last, and was putting things more mildly because he had
learned from Valdes, to whom he had shown it, that it was
much too bitter. He says to Camerarius: "I would also
have made more changes, if our advisers had permitted. So
far from thinking it was written too gently, I am, on the con
trary, worried lest some might take offense at our freedom."
Finally the whole document was once more discussed and re
viewed. All concurred in it except the Landgrave of Hesse
and the delegates from Strasburg, who wished the article on
the Lord's Supper changed. The princes would not concede
this. The moment was at hand when the document was to be
signed. The Elector was about to put his name down, when
Melanchthon interposed, and said that the teachers and
theologians, as representatives of the Church, should sign the
document; but the Elector persisted that his faith was more
precious to him than his earthly authority. "I will confess
my Christ," said he. Thus John the Steadfast attached his
name to the Confession.210 Sign he would, and did.211
John Frederick signed next, but only the Latin text. He
was followed by the Margrave George, Duke Ernst, Franz
of Liineburg (the Latin text only). The pen was handed to
the Landgrave, who, after some objection, signed, but said
to himself at the same time that he was not satisfied with the
statement of the article on the sacrament.212
The Prince of Anhalt, and the cities of Nuremberg and
Reutlingen attached their signatures. " The representatives
of Hailspron, Kemten, Winszheim, and Weiszenburg were
willing also to confess along side of Nuremberg and the
representative of Reitlingen, in the delivered Instruction of

210 Charles, later, refused to invest John with his Electoral dignities in the
usual feudal fashion ; and his entourage whispered that if the Elector was not
amenable to the Emperor's arguments, he might find the electorate taken
from him and bestowed on the kindred House of Ducal Saxony, which in the
person of Duke George so stoutly supported the old religion. The threat is
recorded in Archiv fiir Schweizerische Geschichte und Landeskunde, I, 278.
211 Camer., p. 120.
212 C. R., II, 155.

PROVIDENCE AND THE AUGUSTANA. 423
Faith of the Elector and the other Princes, and they were
also ready to sign it; but after taking counsel among them
selves, they asked permission for several days' delay." 21S
This small but determined party of Protestant Confessors,
who knew that they might be laying down their property,
their lands and their lives for their faith; and who would
be obliged to appear as an insignificant minority before the
combination of the Roman Church and the greatest civil
power in Europe, but who desired nothing so much as an
open vindication of the truth, their faith, and their honorable
name, now determined that they would petition as a conces
sion from the Emperor, that the Confession should be recited
forth in public.214
Thus these Lutheran laymen, standing squarely for their
liberties and their faith, pushed aside the milder plan, and
left the Melanchthonian advisers in the background, while
they went before the Diet and stood their ground in the sense
and spirit of Luther, and not in the sense and the timidity of
Melanchthon. When we are told that the Augsburg Confes
sion is not Luther's Confession, and that he was rather its
unfriendly critic than its creator; let us at that moment re
member that Melanchthon had abandoned it, that he never
signed it — was not permitted to become one of the signatories
— that, though miles nearer than Luther, he was not present
with that little party of heroes on the 25th of June in the
bishop's palace when it was given to the world, and is not
therefore numbered among its primal Confessors.
Friday, June 24th.
PREPARED, BUT PUT OFF FOR ONE DAT MORE.
The Lutherans came to the Diet to-day ready with their
complete "Statement of Grievances and Opinions" relating
to the Faith, but they were not permitted to read it, the
218 (Ex diario I. 31b) Cyprian, p. 180.
214 Seek., II, 169.

424 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
Romanists seeming to have taken measures to try to crowd
it out. First of all, the sitting of the Diet did not begin until
three o'clock in the afternoon. The Papal Legate was then
announced, and the Emperor went to the top of the staircase
to meet him. Taking his seat in front of the Emperor, Cam
peggius arose to speak. "Never before," said he, "has the ship
of St. Peter been so violently tossed in the waves." Then
addressing the Emperor, he implored his Majesty to get rid
of the Protestant errors, to deliver Germany, and to save
Christendom. The Archbishop of Maintz replied to him,
and the Legate left the Diet.
Now the Evangelical princes arose to plead their cause, but
delegates from other countries who were present were given
a hearing. At last the princes arose again,216 and Chancellor
Briick declared that his party was accused of supporting
heresy, their good name was compromised, and their souls
were in danger, and he therefore begged his Majesty to hear
what the doctrines are which they profess. The Emperor
declared that the hour was too late,21' and they should be
satisfied to have their Confession delivered in writing. They
declared that their souls and their honor were at stake.218
They were accused publicly and they ought to answer pub
licly. Charles seemed ready to yield, but Ferdinand218 pre
vented him.
Then, for the third time, the Elector and his party ve
hemently and persistently demanded that they should be
allowed to read their Confession for the love of God, and
declared that no person was insulted in it. The Emperor
was surrounded with a great number of guardians and eccle
siastics f° but he finally granted their request, yet said that

215 Seek., II, 169.
Ms " Although evening was already breaking in, they persistently petitioned
that their Confession should be heard." — Cyprian, p. 67.
2,7 "After counsel had been taken with the King and the other Catholia
estates." — Ib.
218 C. R., II, 128.
2"Seck., II, 169.
210 Ib. .

PROVIDENCE AND THE AUGUSTANA. 425
as it was now too late, they should send him the written
document, and that the next day at two o'clock the Diet
would hear it privately in his own palace/21
The princes refused to give up the Confession on the
ground that the work had been done in great haste, and that,
before formally giving over the document, it needed revision,
which they would undertake during the night.223 The Em
peror yielded, and the Protestants left the Diet with a thank
ful heart.

Saturday, June 25th.
PRESENTATION AND READING OF THE CONFESSION.
The presentation of the Confession took place in a small
chapel, but a great crowd thronged the court without.223 Only
those officially concerned and their attendants were ad
mitted.221 It was in the afternoon. There sat his imperial Majesty
upon the throne, flanked on either side by the electors, princes
and states of the empire. Some of the dignitaries of the
Church were there. The scene was impressive.
The Emperor requested the. Confession to be read in
Latin.228 "We are Germans," said the Elector of Saxony,
"and on German soil; I hope therefore your Majesty will
allow us to speak in German". His Majesty acquiesced in
his Grace's request. And then Dr. Beyer, one of the Elec-

221 C. R., II, 124.
222 " But all this was refused, and the immediate delivery was insisted on ;
but at last, after much deliberating, the Emperor agreed to hear the Con
fession the following afternoon. — Cyprian, p. 67.
» C. R., II, 157.
224 " On Saturday, June 25th, the Emperor, the King, and all the estates,
betook themselves, in the afternoon about four o'clock, to the corbeled hall in
the court garden, of the Bishop of Augsburg, where his Majesty was accustomed
to hold the service. ... No one but the estates and counsellors were per
mitted to remain. The Evangelical princes arose, to make their Confession
standing, but were prevailed on by the Emperor to sit down. The two Electoral
Saxon Chancellors then stepped into the middle of the room." — Cyprian, p. 68.
221 Seek., II, 170.

426 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
tor's chancellors, read the Confession so loudly and distinctly
that the multitude gathered around the outside of the build
ing heard every word.226 The eyes of many a Roman Catholic
were opened. The bishop of the city said, "What has here
been read is the pure and unadulterated truth; we cannot
gainsay it." m The Legate had absented himself, lest his
presence be interpreted as authorizing the reading of the
Confession ;228 and many others of the Roman clergy did not
attend for fear their Church would be sharply criticised.
Charles V. accepted of Chancellor Briick the two copies,
handing the German one to the Elector of Maintz and
keeping the Latin for himself.229 The reading had consumed
about two hours. The Lutherans rejoiced in having been
able to make a good confession before many witnesses. The
Emperor's reply was that he would further consider the
matter.230 y
The Emperor extended his hand to the Elector and said
tenderly, " Uncle, I would not have expected this from you ;"
and silently the Elector bowed and, with his eyes full of tears,
left the Diet with the Duke of Liineburg and the Prince of
Anhalt. The Emperor departed dissatisfied and resolved to
bring the Protestants to obedience both by law and force of
arms. Before parting the Emperor descended his throne, ap
proached the Protestant princes, and earnestly requested them
in a low tone not to publish the Confession.231

2=6 Chytraeus, Hist. Augs. Conf., p. 56.
227 C. R., II, 154.
228 Sarpi, Hist. Council Trent, I, 101.
229 Neither of them have as yet ever come to light again.
280 " After the reading of the Confession, which continued for almost two
hours, the Emperor, through" Frederick Count Palatine, announced to the
Evangelicals, in the full Diet, that he would take this important matter into
consideration. Hereupon the Evangelicals thanked most obediently for the
hearing, the chancellor Briick wished to hand over the German and Latin
copies of the Confession to the Imperial Secretary, Alexander Schweisz, that
he might place it into the hands of the Elector of Maintz, as the Chancellor
of the realm : but the Emperor reached out for them himself, and took both
copies, and gave the German to the Chancellor of the realm, but kept the
Latin copy for himself." — Spalatin, Annal. Luth., p. 139 ; Mutter, p. 587 ;
Cyprian, p. 71.
281 C. R., II, 143.

PROVIDENCE AND THE AUGUSTANA. 427
THE TOWERING SUMMIT.
The good fight was made, the faith was kept. The Pro
testants had completed their Evangelical Confession before
the Holy Roman Empire. They had stood for truth against
the world. The united power of this world's Church and
State had failed to move them. Their Confession was the
immutable Rock. It was a finality that might be added to,
but not taken from. It was a broad and sure foundation to
build upon. It was not the building, but the Rock; it was
not the full-blown tree but the germ. It was Lutheranism
brought to a minimum upon which, when Providence pro
vided a season for inner development, should rise Lutheran
ism brought to a maximum. Anything less was not the
Lutheran Faith ; anything more in the line of legitimate de
velopment, whether it were an Apology or a Formula, would
be the Lutheran Faith more highly unfolded.
The real power in the Augsburg Confession lay not in its
writing, whether the pen employed were that of counsellor or
theologian, but in its content. Its power was not the power
of its subjects or phrases, but the power of its truth. Its
content was made effective and final by its delivery. It thus
became testimony, which could not be afterward modified or
changed even by the authors, except upon a recantation from
conviction of former mistake, or from treachery to the truth
brought about by the pressure of practical considerations.
He who allows practical considerations to modify the testi
mony of his conscience is not a confessor of the truth.
The Augsburg Confession was the truth. It was for
mally and solemnly subscribed. It was delivered, by that
heroic electoral group, at the peril of position, popularity
and life, because it was the truth. Any subsequent yielding
in the men to the terrors of Roman pressure could not alter
the testimony to the truth. Nothing done later ever changed
it ; and even if the mediating efforts of Melanchthon and his
committee, in subsequent negotiations, should have modified
or overthrown it, its testimony would have towered trium-

428 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
phantly above the succeeding waves of variation stirred up
by its unstable confessors; and it would have remained an
oecumenical monument of the Gospel Faith of the great
Reformation, buried or washed, defaced, scarred, spurned,
betrayed; but not injured nor torn from its Scripture
pedestal, by those who, like Peter of old, had been so moved
by their surroundings as to deny their Faith and their Lord.

IGNORING THE IDEAL IN HISTORY.
As is the case with every other noble work of God and
every other noble product of time, it is possible to write down
the Augsburg Confession to the level of a mere historical
document, transient and temporary, and filled with the im
perfections, the lower motives, and the ambiguities of its
occasion. But this attempt, like that of all similar effort to
weaken and disfigure the great and authoritative monuments
and abiding instruments of the race, such instruments as the
Magna Charta, the American Declaration of Independence,
by overlooking the permanency and overestimating the occa
sional character of their causes, is a historical perversion.
The attempt to drag down and cheapen the great Confes
sional standards of our faith, by pointing out and emphasiz
ing the human passions and motives that may have animated
the men who were active in their formation, by elaborating
and laying stress on the incidental occasions, which, in the
hand of Providence, are often slight and minor or even un
worthy, instead of upon the real underlying cause; and by
surrounding the real standard of Truth attained and con
fessed, with the great multitude of inferior, unfinished and
unsuccessful propositions, and the counterfeits, which nearly
always swarm round about a genuine and great work of truth,
is not a worthy one, and is not writing history in the true
sense of the term.
This attempt has been made against every standard of his-

PROVIDENCE AND THE AUGUSTANA. 429
torical greatness. In our own country, George Washington
has been written down to the level of a common, coarse, and
unworthy humanity. Cheap side-lights thrown upon the
framing of the Declaration of Independence and the Con
stitution of the United States often have set these instru
ments in the glare of an unworthy and common-place coloring.
The attempt has been made to reduce the divinity'of our Lord
to an elevated humanity by gathering round about Him great
men, e. g., the religious founders of a hoary orient, who ap
parently stand forth as His equals. The same attempt has
been made to write down the history of Israel and its religion
to the level of the other ethnic communities around it. The
Sermon on the Mount itself, has, according to these depreda
tors, been proven to be no more than a chrestomathy of the
choicest sayings of pagan antiquity.
In any sphere, it is nearly always possible, by judicious
selection, to raise up a multitude of the second best and the
counterfeit productions of a people or a religion in such a
way as to disparage, and apparently to take away the supre
macy of the original. For the original, despite its greatness,
its truth and its purity, cannot escape, so long as it is in this
world, showing some contact with the sin and weakness of
human nature.
But the great question in deciding on the real merits of an
acknowledged standard is not how far it can be weakened
down, or how near it comes in certain points to its inferiors.
To attempt to show this is not in accord with a true historical
method, but is essentially the method of skepticism, used for
purposes of undermining faith in that which is really good.
The question is not whether the foundation is covered with
the shifting sands of time, or is strewn with the defective
spawls and rejected boulders of the workshop, but the question
is whether, beneath all these, the real solid rock is still stand
ing. The effort to level and destroy men's faith in the Word
of God, in miracle, in the Person of Christ, in the Lord's
Supper, in the great and wholesome political, historical, or
31

430 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
Confessional foundations of the past, is at the very least
pessimistic, and owes its origin to something outside of
genuine Faith.
If the comparative method is to be applied to the Augsburg
Confession and the Symbols of the Church, let it bring forth
the clear distinction between the genuine Confession and the
defective compromises that were constantly being put forth
by wavering confessors within the Church.
He is a poor interpreter of pure art who would set up the
perfectly chiseled and immortal statue amid the partly hewn
and rejected blocks that had been its companions previous to
its completion; and would strew it over with the chips and
the dust which had fallen from it in the sculptor's shop, and
would say to us: See, it is no more and no better than the
varied and motley stones from which it has sprung.

THE TWO PERSONALITIES OF THE REFORMATION.
The unpartisan historian, the unprejudiced Lutheran and
the true Church will recognize that there are virtues and
faults in both of the leading historical characters of the Refor
mation. They will seek to appreciate and appropriate the
virtues, and not to combine and propagate the faults of both.
Luther's sound and uncompromising confessional faith, his
complete subjection to God's Word, his deeply spiritual and
peaceful spirit, his reliance on prayer rather than on human
propositions and combinations in time of crisis and danger;
united with Melanchthon's moderation and inoffensiveness
in public statement, and his veneration for the catholic past,
will develop for us the Lutheran Church at its best. On the
other hand, to combine Melanchthon's spirit of compromise in
faith, his evasiveness and use of ambiguous forms in confes
sion, his desire to be with the stronger party and his wish for
external union, with the violence, heated zeal and spirit of
personal attack of Luther is to give us a church with all the
faults and without the virtues of both Reformers.

PROVIDENCE AND THE AUGUSTANA. 431
The Lutheran Church has suffered much by making of her
Confessional question a case of credit in authorship, rather
than a case of Confession of truth. Individuals do not figure
here. In the last analysis, temperaments, accidents of his
tory, and elements underlying a human situation, turn out to
be but instruments of Providence for the establishment of
God's immutable purpose. In the establishment of the
Lutheran Confession, let each man have his credit, but let
it not be forgotten that Providence overruled the weakness of
every man, and overcame the human probabilities of every
situation, and that nowhere in history does the glory belong
more clearly to God alone.
Luther was not a narrow-minded man. He prized the
powers of Melanchthon above his own. It was he who said :
" All the Jeromes, Hilarys, and Macariuses together, are
not worthy to unloose the thong of Philip's sandal. What
have the whole of them together done which can be compared
with one year of Philip's teaching, or to his one book of
Common Places ? . . . I prefer Melanchthon's books to
my own. . . . It is my work to tear up the stumps and
dead roots, to cut away the thorns, to fill up the marshes.
I am the rough forester and pioneer. But Melanchthon
moves gently and calmly along, with his rich gifts from
God's own hand, building and planting, sowing and water-
¦ ,,232
ing." He also said: "Res et verba Philippus; verba sine re
Erasmus; res sine verbis Lutherus; nee res nee verba
Carolostadius." Such an estimate, declares Warfield, who
is not a confessional Lutheran, but a Presbyterian, " was
more than kind to Melanchthon, in so. far at least as the com
parison with Luther himself was concerned. It was to
Luther in no small measure that Melanchthon owed his
capacity for deeds; without Luther to wield the weapons
which he forged in his intellectual armory, it is to be feared
that the fires in the forge would often have gone out. He

282 Pref. to Melanchthon, Colossians.

432 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
shares from their close comradeship a large part of Luther's
fame as the herald of intellectual and religious freedom, yet,
by the temperate spirit which animated his words and acts,
escapes the hostility so often stirred by his rash and rough-
spoken leader." m
Plitt puts the situation more pointedly. He says that
Luther was not the composer of the Confession, but in full
justice he can be called ' the father of the Confession,' and
Melanchthon himself, ' the composer of the phraseology.' "*
" Looking at it in this light, the view now current, which has
desired to speak of a Melanchthonian character of the con
fession," says Plitt, "in order thereby to depreciate its Luth
eran character, is thoroughly unhistorical and groundless."

THE HAND OF PROVIDENCE.
When we come to sum up the creation of the Augsburg
Confession, with its question of authorship, we can scarcely
fail to see that rarely in the history of the world or the
Church has the Hand of Providence guided the principals
in a great act of testimony so evidently, and so apart from
their original intention, and so completely eliminated that
which was partial and unfit and retained that which was the
clear, full and objective truth of God, as has been the case
in the elaboration of the Augsburg Confession.
The Emperor was the impelling cause of its origin. He
ordered the Elector to prepare an irenical statement of his
differences in religious faith and usages, in writing, and in

283 Pres. and Ref. Rev., 29. 1.
284 This is also the phrase used by Lindsay, Hist, of the German Reforma
tion. We do not, ourselves, believe that this phrase does Melanchthon proper
justice. While felicity and objectivity of statement were Melanchthon's forte,
and his creative power was weak, he nevertheless was the prince of diplomatists
and adjusters. In addition to the phraseology, to Melanchthon belongs the
credit of the effective disposition, and even of the partial selection of material ;
of the general spirit of moderation and breadth, the entire absence of personal
stiing, and the perfect adaptation — except a number of egregious failures where
he was checked by Briick and the other counsellors — to the situation.
But to orate as the illuminated rational critic Weber does, in behalf of the
Melanchthonian authorship of the Augsburg Confession betrays a bias in a
professedly impartial investigator which is only surpassed in that prince of

PROVIDENCE AND THE AUGUSTANA. 433
two documents, the one in the Latin and the other in the
German language.
The Elector was its executive and directive source. He
decided that Luther and the other theologians should furnish
the material. He decided that he would stand all alone
in this matter, and he perhaps decided that it should be an
Electoral Apology, and not a common Protestant Confession.
He also decided for reasons previously given that Luther
should remain at Coburg, and that Melanchthon should ac
company him to the scene of the Confession. He was op
posed to admitting Philip of Hesse and the Bavarians, and
still more so the Zwinglians, to his Apology.
Luther was the substantial cause and author of the Con
fession, not merely in the sense that the Lutheran doctrine
was his, but that he was the chief personality in the com
position of both the Schwabach and the Torgau Articles,
which constitute the substance of the Augsburg Confession.
Melanchthon was the framing and adaptive author. He
was not the mere scribe or secretary of the Elector, but he
had the serious constructive responsibility of taking the cue
from the situation, of eliminating polemic, temporal and
subjective elements from both the faith and the situation, and
bringing them face to face at the right point of contact. His
higher and independent work, however, was a failure and
had to be rejected ; and the Confession ultimately reverted to
the old foundation of Luther.
John Eck and the Roman enemies of Protestantism were,
in the hand of God, directly responsible for turning the

partisan Confessional historians, Dr. Johannes Wigand, Bishop of Pomesan in
Prussia (.Historia de Augustana Confessione, breviter recitata in Academia
Regiomontana) (1574). For instance, Weber says, "When did it ever occur
to anyone to derogate from La Fontaine or from Racine or from Corneille,
because they borrowed their material, the one from fables, the others from
history? Tet this is just the tone which so many older and newer theologians
have struck since the exaltation of 'the Bergian Book of Concord.' All sorts
of grounds have been suggested to detract from Melanchthon's work and to
turn it into the service of a secretary. Thus Melanchthon is supposed simply
to have put the Confession into a certain form from the Seventeen Articles,
which the highly illumined man bf God, Mr. Luther, had composed before
hand. . . . I _ account it as one of the consequences of the Bergian Book of
Concord, that men, since its day, have attempted to make Melanchthon's part
in the Augsburg Confession smaller and smaller, and to derogate from it."

434 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
Apology as a mere explanation of ecclesiastical customs and
a plea for imperial grace into a full-orbed Confession of the
Lutheran faith. Philip of Hesse and the other Protestant
estates contributed their important share to the confession in
changing it from a private Electoral document into a Com
mon Confession of the Lutheran Churches, against the Elec
tor's will and against Melanchthon's desire and judgment.
The Chancellor Briick was the author of the policy of the
Confession, and its revising editor. He was the man who
insisted on giving it full and independent standing as a Con
fession of faith, and who would not yield to Melanchthon's
desire to abandon the public Confession and commit, in a
private manner, the future into the Emperor's hands. Thus
was the Emperor's original plan as to the document which
after a friendly comparison was to bring back Protestantism
into the Roman Church, and which gained the sympathy and
approval of Melanchthon, offset by Luther and by the sturdy
Elector. Thus also were Luther's personal and polemic tone
(Vid. the Admonition) and lack of judicial attitude offset by
the Elector; while the Elector's narrowness and isolation, as
well as Melanchthon's unwillingness to openly confess re
gardless of consequences, were checked by the Emperor's
passion stirred by Eck and Wimpina; and by the firmness
and insistency of the Protestant Estates thrown together into
a common danger.
" He who in all this," says Cyprian,235 after shoeing that
the Confession was prepared by the aid and participation of
all the estates, " does not recognize any Divine working,
support and encouragement, must if he be acquainted with
the history, surely be setting himself against the testimony
of his own conscience."
It is clear as day that Providence, in the course of events,
eliminated the imperfections in the mind and plan of every
one of the principal parties, and allowed that which was
true, sound and catholic in their purpose to abide. We may
2s*Hist., 57.

PROVIDENCE AND THE AUGUSTANA. 435
thank the Emperor, as the instrument of God, for the Con
fession; and the Lord Himself for its unyielding inde
pendence. We may thank the Elector for the fidelity of the
Confession, and the Lord for its universality. We may
thank Luther for the sound Faith of the Confession, and
the Lord for its impersonal objectivity. We may thank Me
lanchthon for the selection and adaptation of material, and
for the perfect and abiding form of the Augustana, and for
its exclusion of the Reformed teaching, and the Lord that
Melanchthon was not left to his own judgment on any point
connected therewith. We may thank Briick for keeping the
Confession out of imperial politics; and Philip of Hesse
for making it a common Lutheran document. And no matter
how we approach the Augsburg Confession, the quarrels as
to individualities sink into insignificance before the great
Confessional fact itself, and the Hand that guided it through
dangers on every side to a triumphant completion far above
the expectation of participating friend or foe. This is the
Lord's doing, and it is marvelous in our eyes.

CHAPTER XX.
THE LUTHERAN CONFESSION.
THE AUGSBURG CONFESSION PRESERVED UN
ALTERED.
Melanchthon in Tears: Their Cause — Luther in Peace: Its Cause; Ready to
Stand by the Confession even to Martyrdom — Was Melanchthon Open-
hearted to Luther? — The Correspondence between Augsburg and Luther
from June 25th to July 1st, and Luther's Attempt to Counteract Melanch
thon's Lack of Faith — The Diet — The Course of Events to the Confutation —
The Attempts at Compromise under Melanchthon — Their Failure, and the
Departure of the Elector.
Ill Period. The Summer at Augsburg."
THE MYSTERY OF MELANCHTHON* S TEARS.
THE Confession was delivered. The Protestant cause
had triumphed. One might suppose that above all
others, Philip Melanchthon would have been exultant in
spirit, and would have shared in the universal rejoicing.
But it was not so. Strangely enough he was plunged into the
deepest woe, and his eyes were fountains of tears.11.
Anyone who ponders this phenomenon, will gain an in
sight into the character of Melanchthon, which will go far
to explain much that occurred in the history of the Lutheran
Church for the next thirty years, that is until the death of
Philip. In the first place, we find here the situation of a man who
is the unwilling author of an immortal work, and who would
have prevented its appearance if he could. Not only had
he thrown aside the Confession during the last ten days, but

1 For the three periods, vid., p. 342.
i» Melanchthon to Luther, June 26th. 436

JUNE 25th — SEPTEMBER 23rd. 437
from the very start he had preferred not to have an open
Confession of differences, and was hoping against hope for
a return of Lutheranism into the bosom of Rome.
Further, we see here a man sought out by the Romanists
shortly after his arrival at Augsburg, and he had all these
days been cultivating relations with them, and from him they
had gained the impression that only a few changes were
necessary in order to restore harmony and unity. His repu
tation for insight as a prophet, and his character as a man
of influence among his own people, were, so to say, at stake
before the other side, from the Emperor and the papal Legate
at the head, all the way down. While his gifted and balanced
mind was revealed in the Confession, his heart was outside
of it, so far as it was a document to be adhered to in practical
life. Like other pragmatists or theologians of expediency, he
did not see the inconsistency between officially confessing one
set of truths, and practically tolerating another. As he
had made the effort of his life to prevent its appearance, he
would not rejoice at its delivery, on which occasion he was
not present, as he intimates in one of his letters to Camera
rius. But above all, it was his fear lest an open statement of the
truth bring about war, for which he had a mortal terror, and
his thought that the Protestants were few and in the minor
ity, and his party despised at court, that caused him anxiety.
To this, fourthly, must be added the fact that the poor man
was nervous and worn to the last extreme. Every effort and
every change of tactics had burned its way through his soul :
for he was in theology and letters the leader of his party.
He had been carrying on a double policy, one private and the
other public, each contradictory of the other, at one and the
same time. Now, against his will, the Confession was made,
and to him it looked as though the Protestants might fall into
great straits. He was fatally possessed of the idea that the
two parties in the church must get together.
In order to do this, however reluctant, he was willing to

438 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
pay the price, to sacrifice some truth. He knew that Luther
was not willing, and this increased his difficulty. To him a
united church, that is union with Rome, was of more account,
under the pressure of political emergency, than mere theoreti
cal principle. When it came to the question between break
ing the peace or sacrificing the doctrine he was ready,
in order to gain the former, to bargain for a compromise
which would hold on to as much of the latter as possible.
With him a platform on which the Protestants might stand
was something to negotiate for, and was not purely a testi
mony of conscience. The Confession was something to be
adhered to abstractly, but which, for the sake of unity, could
be modified in actual practice. Thus he prefigured that ele
ment in the Lutheran Church, which, in order to preserve
peace and a visible ecclesiastical unity, is ambiguous in its
Confessional principle, and does not regard the Lutheran
Confession as a testimony of conscience.
Since the peace to be secured was a matter of bargaining
in doctrine and usage, and the question was how great a price
the Protestants were willing to offer, his very first in
quiry of Luther was, what Luther would be willing to give
up in the Confession which had just been made, for the sake
of peace with Rome. This inquiry went forth at the time
of the delivery of the Confession, and four days later, as soon
as Luther received it, he hurried the reply back to Melanch
thon," "So far as I am concerned, more than enough has been
yielded in that Apology. ... I am more and more
confirmed in the purpose that I will yield nothing more, come
what may."
As to the further course of the Confessional struggle it
self, Melanchthon had reason to be troubled. This was a
fifth cause for despondency. The Romanists would give an
swer; and who would there be at Augsburg to prepare a
theological defense but poor Melanchthon? His intuition
proved to be correct : for he quickly resumed further negotia
tions, and on his weary shoulders fell the burden of preparing

JUNE 25th — SEPTEMBER 23rd. 439
an Apology to the Confutation ; and thus when the cause, as
a matter of testimony, had triumphed on June 25th, Melanch
thon was but entering the crisis out of which, by the grace of
God, there arose the crowning work of his life.
Another important fact is this, that Melanchthon was
much concerned for the immediate visible future and for
posterity. He was one of those mortals who seem to feel
that the world will go to ruin unless things are decided in
accord with their judgment. Luther wrote to Jonas that
he should try to dissuade Melanchthon from the thought that
he was the regent of the whole world. Nowhere does the
distinction between Luther and Melanchthon loom up more
clearly than in a great crisis. Luther gave himself with all
his soul to communion with the Lord : Melanchthon gave him
self to innumerable consultations, plans, policies, and ar
rangements for turning the tide of events in accord with the
methods of men. As a result, Luther was mighty in the
strength of God in every critical moment : Melanchthon was
weak, careworn, unsettled, and unnerved, fearful lest the
plans he had laid would miscarry, and the worst would befall.
Round about the soul of Luther there swayed the atmosphere
of Heavenly peace. luther's satisfaction.
Luther cared little for the political' adjustment and de
fense of his cause. Consequently he had taken so slight an in
terest in the Electoral Apology, and in the Diet itself. With
him faith was a question of conscience, and he did not want
it to be hampered or adjusted by imperial politics. He was
overjoyed therefore when he heard the tidings of a public and
uncompromised delivery of the full Evangelical Confession
of Faith. "I am exceedingly happy," he wrote to Cordatus/
"to have lived to this hour, in which Christ has been preached
through His valiant confessors, in such open manner and
in so great an Assembly, by means of this really extraordinary
2 Luther to Cordatus, July 6th.

440 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
beautiful Confession, and the word is fulfilled : 'I will speak
of thy testimony before kings ;' also this is fulfilled : 'I was
not put to shame.' For 'Whosoever shall confess me before
men, him will I confess before my Father which is in
Heaven.' "
Just as he would not and could not recant at Worms, so a
step backward would be impossible at Augsburg. "Our Con
fession," he said, "will penetrate into every court, and the
sound thereof will spread through the whole earth." '
Though Luther, if it had been his own, would have set the
Confession in a different frame, and would not have brought
down the Evangelical doctrine to a minimum, now that the
Confession was accepted by him, and had become history, he
held it as the final answer of Protestantism to the Roman
Emperor. He was the one of all others who saw that the
work was done. In his eyes it was not merely final, but
glorious. There was nothing more to be said, nothing to be
added, and nothing to be taken away.
Above all other things, his clear insight told him that there
was nothing to be negotiated. He knew that the Romanists,
even if they were beaten in diplomacy, would not do more
than pretend to yield. He saw that the break must come.
He wanted it to come before the conscience of Protestantism
was defiled by insincerity.
He was ready for martyrdom or war as the case might be.
With far-sighted intuition, he pressed it into the soul of his
party at Augsburg that this was not a time for parley.
Melanchthon's first words to him, in conveying the tidings
that the Confession had been delivered, revealed the fatal
misconception that was swaying the mild but head-strong
Prseceptor. If Melanchthon were allowed to remain at the
Diet, he would continue to exercise his fatal propensity for
diplomacy, and would yield compromise after compromise.

3 Copies of the Confession were sent by the Emperor to all the Courts of
Europe, and he himself had it translated into Italian and French (C. R., II,
155). It was also translated into Spanish and Portuguese, and, later, In
1536, by Taverner, into English, American ed. edited by Jacobs.

JUNE 25th — SEPTEMBER 2Srd. 441
There was only one thing to be done, and that was to get the
electoral party away from Augsburg. "I absolve you from
this Diet in the name of the Lord," he wrote them. "Come
back home. I want to be the sacrifice of this newest Council
as John Huss was at Constance." He foresaw that Melanch
thon, in his present temper, and with his dread of war,
would give up everything for the sake of peace.
Already on June 29th he wrote Melanchthon, " so far as
I am concerned, more than enough has been yielded in that
Apology, which if they refuse, I see nothing more which I
can yield, unless they furnish clearer reasons and Scripture
proofs than I have yet seen. Day and night I am occupied
with the matter, thinking over it, revolving it in my mind,
arguing, searching the entire Scriptures, and there grows
upon me constantly that fulness of assurance in our Doctrine,
and I am more and more confirmed in the purpose, that I
will yield nothing more, come what may. . . .
The next day, on June 30th, he wrote Brentz that he was
afraid that Brentz too would weaken, under the influence of
Melanchthon in the presence of the Diet.
Luther has no dread of martyrdom: "God will rule the
world better when I am dead than if I should continue to
live, since I am hindering Him by my life." On the same
day he wrote Agricola : —
"I judge that the Diet will have a bad end. The Emperor will ask the
Elector to give up the whole doctrine, as they gave up the preaching ; if he refuses,
there will be an interdict against the doctrine. This will bring on the real crisis
of the Diet. For it is quite certain that the papists, who are under the control of
the devils, are furious. ... I believe that they have incited the Emperor to
grant us a hearing, so that after .they have heard our defense they can carry out
what they please, under the excuse that they had given us fair enough chance.
You have to do at Augsburg not with men but with the gates of hell itself."
To the Elector he wrote on the same day, "I admonish you
not to be stirred by their wicked assaults." On June 30th, he
writes, "I am filled with joy and rejoice exceedingly at the
extraordinary and great gift of God, in that our Prince is

442 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
so steadfast and composed in his disposition, for I regard my
prayers offered for him as having been pleasing to God and
prophesy that they will be heard in other things."
To Jonas he wrote of the Roman party, "There is no hope
that they can be changed. I am glad that they are growing
more obstinate. Let us only remain bold in Christ. He
lives, and we shall also live, even though we shall be dead.
He will care for the children and wives of those who are
martyred. If I am called, I will surely come." This was
on June 30th, immediately after he had received the tidings
of the delivery of the Confession. But Melanchthon, while
he felt that he was being martyred daily, as he expressed it,
had no desire or taste for the real sacrifice which a heroic
faith is willing to make. In his heart there rose a reign of
terror, and in times such as these, he felt it almost impossible
to sustain himself without leaning on the stronger faith of
Luther. was melanchthon frank toward luther in his reports
of the diet?
Was Melanchthon frank toward Luther during the month
of June? Did he have a good conscience as to the advices
he had sent Luther?
Whether he sought to conceal his plans from the Elector,
"the old man," — of whom he writes disrespectfully, "who
is hard to soften," — and whether his private policy by which
he entered into an understanding with the Emperor and the
papal legate were marked by duplicity, does not clearly
appear. He did take Jonas into confidence, and the Pro
testant party was acquainted with his ideas, and possibly
his actions, to some extent. The question is, to what
extent? But we do know that Luther was not dealt with
squarely in this matter. A careful examination of Mel
anchthon's letters to Luther will show that Melanchthon was
accustomed to understate or discount his own desire and plan
as much as. possible, so that, although his plan was quite

JUNE 25th — SEPTEMBER 23rd. 443
contrary to Luther's nature, yet, in his account of it, it
was made to seem to be harmless; and Luther was pressed
to grant permission or give approval by return post on
insufficient knowledge of the case. A study of Melanch
thon's method of communicating information to Luther will
repay the reader, and will doubtless satisfy his mind as to
whether Melanchthon's reports of the situation were unbiased
and open.
So far as we know, no one has ever questioned the open
ness and the thorough veracity of Luther ; but Luther himself
seems, at last, to disbelieve the statements that Melanchthon
was making to him respecting the misunderstandings con
nected with the mysterious difficulties of correspondence
that occurred several weeks before and during the meeting
of the Diet. How could Melanchthon write to Luther with
a good conscience when he was intriguing with Rome, and
when he was trying to hush up the truth concerning which
Luther was so eager to testify ? When it comes to the unpleas
ant need of falling back upon the rock at Coburg, when
Luther is to write and influence others, or when his permis
sion on any point is to be gained, then Melanchthon ap
proaches Luther with evaluated statements, and places the
answer he wants from Luther into Luther's mouth.
The break in correspondence during the month of June is
a mystery. Some wrongly have supposed that Briick or the
Elector prevented the delivery of letters between Luther and
Melanchthon during this interval. We have pointed out
physical causes for the delay, and among these are to be
reckoned the great amount of work which fell upon Melanch
thon during this time ; but after all, there is something ad
ditional, as Luther surmises, and from which Melanchthon
tries to defend himself.
It is natural that at the close of the Delivery of the Augs
burg Confession, the party in Augsburg should wish to com
municate the fact to their friends, and we find more letters
written in the several days following the Delivery of the

444 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
Confession than had passed between Coburg and Augsburg
during the whole month of June.
The letters of Jonas disclose the fact, that, if those of the
Protestant party who were afraid of the danger could have
been convinced, Luther might have been called to the Diet
by a special herald, and that Luther was holding himself in
readiness to come. It was probably his sense of obedience
to his civil ruler, protector, and friend, who had placed him
at Coburg, that held him back from a sudden appearance in
the midst of the danger. While the appearance of Luther
would have acted as a bomb to Melanchthon's plans, yet it
is not likely, even if Melanchthon and the Elector had been
willing to bring him, that the Emperor could have been per
suaded to admit his presence. Luther would have gone the
way of Huss. He was prepared for this, but Melanchthon
shrank from it.
A charitable view of Melanchthon's case is that expressed
by Luther himself in the letter to Jonas on June 30th : " It
is Philip's philosophy and nothing else that gives him trouble.
For the matter is in the hand of Him Who is able to say
to the proudest : 'No one shall pluck them out of my hand.' "
June 25th. THE FLOOD OF CORRESPONDENCE.
Let us attempt to follow the correspondence as it flowed
out from Augsburg on the glorious 25th of June. First of
all in the morning, Jonas, the favorite correspondent of
Luther, had written him a full running account of events of
the day before, and of what would probably to-day come
to pass. Listen to his warm-hearted narrative : —
Jonas to Luther.
Colestin, I, 135. June 25th, 1530.
Yesterday [June 24th] the Emperor met with the electors and estates of the
realm in the town hall and heard Cardinal Campeggius speak. His address was

JUNE 25th — SEPTEMBER 23rd. 445
not long. He admonished the Germans to peace, and that they should fight the
Turks. He did not allow anything adverse to the Lutherans to enter his speech.
Just about this time an embassy from Austria appeared showing how their property
and families were placed in peril of their life every moment through the Turk.
Their complaint was read while Ferdinand was sitting by.
This day had also been set apart for our princes that they might bring in the
articles of their Confession; and they have subscribed it: our Elector, the young
princes, then the Margrave George, Duke Ernst of Liineburg, the prince of Hesse,
the prince and lord of Annhalt, the council of Nuremberg and the council of
Reutlingen. The Landgrave insisted strongly that the articles should be read loud and
clearly before his Majesty and the estates, but King Ferdinand, during the session,
brought first this and then that item upon the tapis. He whispered into the ears
of others, and did not cease until the reading was hindered for this day.
Nevertheless this afternoon at two o'clock, when the meeting will not be
largely attended, our articles are to be read before some of the princes in the
imperial chamber. ,
We still hope, if bis Majesty will graciously investigate the matter, although
I do not know whether it will happen, since he has so many cardinals about him;
yet we still hope that you, dearest father, will be summoned hither by a herald. I
cannot say how many words of fleshly prudence are being used, as though-you would
not be safe here from secret violence; but as God has already done great wonders
we will now not let our courage sink. Although 1 myself would not like to cause
you suffering in such a difficult affair and* to undertake the dangerous journey, but
the Lord will rule everything.
There are six cardinals here, and many theologians and Spanish bishops.
The cardinal and bishop of Trient and Salzburg, the cardinal of Maintz, the
bishop and cardinal of Rasano, the Pope's legate to King Ferdinand: these all
are in the Emperor's palace every day, and besides these there is a whole swarm
of clergy who encircle his Majesty like bees and are daily enkindled with new
hatred against us and you, and do nothing else but burn like fire among the thorns.
At exactly the same time, viz., on the 25th, before the de
livery of the Confession, the Elector informed Luther of
events up to the hour of writing, as follows : —
The Elector to Luther.
Chytraeus, p. 54 ; Colestin, I, 139.
June 25th.
We were ordered to deliver our Opinion and Confession of Faith in common
with the other princes and estates. The opposite party, it is reported, will not
deliver a Confession, but will announce their intention to abide by the Edict, and
by the faith which they have inherited from their fathers. But if the Pope or his
legate, together with his Majesty, should ask them to accept a new faith, very
graciously would they be willing to do so.
33

446 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
Accordingly we appeared on the day of John the Baptist with ours before
the Emperor and the King in open audience, and offered our Articles in Latin
and German, the German to be read publicly.
In spite of our persistent appeal, we could not attain to the point of having
the Articles read openly. The King and the other party most actively opposed
us, but we gained so much, that his Majesty will hear these same Articles in his
palace. This is arranged thus to prevent the presence of a multitude.
Almighty God, grant us Thy grace, that matters will result to Thy honor.
Pray God diligently for us.
We will let you know further how matters develope, for we are most favorably
disposed toward you. Datum, Augsburg, June 25th, 1530.

June 26th.

WHY LUTHER FELT HURT.
i
The day after the reading of the Confession was Sunday.
But it brought no peace to poor Melanchthon. It was a day
of woe. - For he learned that Luther was seriously offended at
him — so stirred in fact that he would not even glance at
the letter which Melanchthon had written him a week ago.
Dietrich had sent this news down from Coburg.4
Luther had his reasons for feeling hurt. Matters at
Augsburg were approaching a crisis, but during all these days
Melanchthon had proceeded according to his own judgment,
and, instead of advising with Luther, had observed absolute
silence.1 It was now the 26th of June. Melanchthon had
written him on the 22nd of May.6
Luther had received this letter, but no more. When
Apel's express drew up at Coburg en route for Wittenberg,
Luther found not a line for himself, "Do you bring no
letters ?" -the messenger was asked. "No," said he. "How

4 C. R., II, 140 SQ.
¦On Melanchthon's behalf it should be said that the situation changed so
rapidly, that advice from a distance would only add to the confusion ; and
this would be an adequate explanation if Melanchthon had fairly reported
and discussed the greater questions which did not change so quickly.
6 C. R., II, 59. This letter went to Coburg by special through-express to
Wittenberg. — Kolde, Analecta, p. 126. Luther had received it, and referred
to It in his letter to Probst of June 1st, already given. See footnote on the
Luther-Mel. correspondence for the letter Melanchthon wrote Luther on June
13th.

JUNE 25th — SEPTEMBER 23rd. 447
are the men at Augsburg ?" said Luther. "Well," ' said
the messenger. Then Luther sat down on the 2nd of June
and wrote Melanchthon that he was receiving too many
visitors, and that their Augsburg friends should keep quiet
about him in their letters.
The next day, June 3rd, he wrote Melanchthon again, but
not a line came in from Augsburg. One day there came rid
ing in an "express on horseback whose destination was
Torgau. He brought a letter from the Prince, and was
asked —
" 'Did you bring letters ?' He answered, 'No.' 'How are
the men?' 'Well.' Then, as a wagon with venison left
here, I again wrote to Philip. The man returned likewise
without an answer.
"Now I began to entertain sad thoughts, and supposed
that you wished to conceal from me something evil.
" In the fourth place, came Jobst Nymptzen. When asked,
'Did you bring letters?' he answered, 'No.' 'How are the
men?' He answered, 'Well.' I told him how our laborer
here received letters from his brother, the Marshall of Falk-
enstein, while we in the meantime hungered and thirsted over
three weeks during your kind silence. Out of this laborer's
letters we were obliged to gather such information as we could
when we wished to know anything of affairs at Augsburg." "
On the 18th or 19th, Melanchthon did at last get off a
letter to Luther. It was four days after the imperial entry,

' Thus Luther himself to Spalatin, June 30th.
8 The quixotic supposition of Ruckert and others that some of the letters
of Melanchthon to Luther were intercepted by Briick, is groundless. (See
Kolde, Ztschr. f. h. Th., 1874 H. 3). Melanchthon had really neglected writ
ing from May 22nd to June 13th (compare also his own admission, C. R., IV,
1008). Ruckert has entirely overlooked this letter of June 13th ; and the
assertions of Jonas (Kolde Anal., 139). Melanchthon's neglect is to be ex
plained by his being overworked and driven from post to pillar. How he
could say on June 25th, that he had written singulis septimanis, has been
explained. That he had not written for some time before June 13th, he
overlooked in thinking of the letter of the 13th, which he believed to be in
the hands of the nevertheless angry Luther, and probably he could not exactly
recall the dates of the earlier letters. Moreover Briick, who was so often
offended at Melanchthon's wavering attitude, would be the last man in the
world to intercept a correspondence that would brace up Melanchthon as did
the letters of Luther. — Kostlin, Martin Luther, II, 656.

448 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
which Melanchthon pictured, with the three days' disputation
on the preaching and its result, and the 'unfavorable complex
ion of the Diet. He closed with the statement, " that a
certain Spanish confidential secretary has promised every
thing good, and has already held a conference with the
Emperor and Campeggius concerning my Opinion. Every
thing depends on God. Keep well."
This was the letter that Luther refused to open and read,
which fact reported by Dietrich reached Melanchthon on
June 25th, and which caused him to turn to Luther in tears.
Melanchthon's misery appears more clearly in his letter,
which we append, than we are able to describe it : —
Melanchthon to Luther.
Calestin, II, 196. Sunday, June 26th.
We are here in the greatest distress, and must constantly shed tears; and
to-day, in addition, our spirits were cast down to the deepest extreme, for we have
read the letters of M. Veit, in which he gave us to understand that you are so
angry at us that you are unwilling to read our letters.
Now my dear father, I will not still further increase my pain with words, but I
beg you to consider in what place we are, and by what dangers we are surrounded,
and that without your encouragement we can have no source of strength. The
sophists and monks are running about every day and try to prejudice the Emperor
against us. The bishops with one accord hate us awfully. Those who were on
our side before, are so no more, and we are swaying in endless dangers, altogether
forsaken and despised.
I therefore beg you that you will have regard for us, who follow your judg
ment in such weighty matters, or for the common good, and will read and answer
our letters, so that you may support us with good advice, and uphold us with
encouragement. We have handed our Defence over to the Emperor, and I am sending it
herewith for you to read. So far as I can see, it has been made sufficiently sharp;
for you will note that I have painted the monks in living colors.
But now the point is, as I believe, how lo reach a decision, before our
antagonists answer it, as to what we are willing to yield in the matter of two
forms, of marriage, of private mass. The whole transaction will probably turn
upon these points. Answer concerning this, and particularly concerning the
private mass, as it probably will not be allowed to drop out of sight.
I have sent off this messenger at my own expense, and not long ago I sent a
special one, but he came back again empty. Our antagonists are al' eady taking
counsel as to what they will answer. Therfore everything is uncertain. Sunday.
Philippus.

JUNE 25th — SEPTEMBER 23rd. 449
FROM COBURG TO CAMERARIUS.
There was urgent need of writing this letter. It bears
the new Confession delivered the day before, and with it, in
the same breath, a request to answer as to "what we are will
ing to yield" in the two forms of the sacrament, as to the mar
riage of priests, and as to the celebrating of private masses.
In writing to Camerarius that day Melanchthon had a
more congenial task, and" we feel that the letter, though anx
ious, is in a different tone. It reads as follows: —
Melanchthon to Camerarius.
Printed in Mel. Kpist. ad. Camerarius, p. 139; C. K., II, 140.
June 26th.
Yesterday by the grace of God our Confession was delivered to the Emperor,
and was read openly ; and it is said that there was an unexpected silence and
attention among the princes. I was changing and improving it much every day,
and I would also have made still more changes, if our counsellors had allowed it ;
and so little do I think that it has been written too mildly that I am much more
concerned lest some will take offense at our liberty; for before we delivered it, the
imperial secretary of Valdes saw it and pronounced the judgment that it was much
too bitter and biting for the opposite side to be able to endure.
My soul is filled with great and terrible anxiety, not concerning our affair,
but concerning the absence of concern in our people. Only do not be anxious as
to me, for I have commended myself to 'God.
But there is something peculiar that has given me much to think about; but
of which I can only speak to you by word of mouth. I wish you could get our
Apology to read, but the Emperor forbids that it be printed. Again commending
you to God. Philip.
June 27th. A STUNNING SURPRISE.
The next day, June 27th, Monday, Melanchthon had
another stunning surprise. In an interview with Schepper,
the German Secretary, he learned that the intentions of the
imperial court were to deal sternly with the Evangelical
party, and to grant no concessions at all. It had a crushing

450 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
effect on him. Jonas tells the whole story just as it oc
curred : — Jonas to Luther.
Enders, VII, 387.
Recently the cardinal of Salzburg summoned Philip to a confidential inter
view, through Wolfesgang Stromer of Nuremberg ; and when Philip came back
from him in a very much heated condition he told us, although it was at two
o'clock in the morning, what they had spoken of to each other. "I have,"
said Philip, " heard the most extreme threats, and everything but * sentence of
death. . . . The Emperor will not tolerate us, the disturbers of the common
peace. They are as sure as though there were no God. It is surprising how
they trust to human might, and how we are nothing but ants in their eyes."
Philip and I were with Cornelius Schepper, who is now the imperial secre
tary, who said : If you have money, it will be easy for you to buy from the Italians
whatever religion you like; but if your coffers are empty, your cause is lost. He
also said : It is impossible that the Emperor, who is now surrounded by cardinals
and bishops, would accept any other religion, or content himself with any other
than that of the Pope. So thoroughly has the old faith been drilled into his head.
Melanchthon had written Luther on the 26th, but un
easy at the attitude of Luther, he follows it up with two
others on the 27th. The one he sends with Hornung (who
was off to Coburg), feeling that the latter might perhaps
reach Coburg ahead of the messenger who had started the
day before. It reiterates the feelings of the day before, and
is enclosed in a letter to Dietrich, so that Luther may be
stirred to read it. It runs as follows : —
Melanchthon to Luther.
Melanch.,Ep., I, 9; Colest. 11,196; Chytr., Lat., 139,— Qer., 228; C. R., II, 145; Cyprian,
Beilag., 182. June 2jth.
I cannot express the great grief into which we are plunged by M. Veit's
letter, who has informed us how violently angered you are because up to this time
we shall not have written often enough. Never have we been in greater need of
your counsel and comfort than now, since up to the present we have, in all the
most dangerous matters, followed you as our leader.
Therefore I pray you for the sake of the honor of the Gospel that you will
interest yourself in us for the sake of the common good, which, unless you sit at
the helm, apparently must endure very severe storms. Christ allowed Himself to

JUNE 25th — SEPTEMBER 23rd. 451
be awakened in the ship which was in danger. We are verily in much greater
danger, in which nothing more painful could happen against us than if you would
forsake us.
I dare not complain about this to D. Briick so as not to make him feel worse.
Up to the present matters have been in such a state that we have spent much time
in weeping. Hence you must not think that we, as though we were Ulysses'
associates, had willingly forgotten you; and we have also often written, which we
can truly prove. Philippus.
The hopelessness of the tenor of Melanchthon's mind is
pictured in a second letter to Luther written the same day : —

Melanchthon to Luther.
Colest. II, 197; C. R., 11,144. June 27th.
Our Confession was delivered last Saturday evening. Now the opponents
are counselling as to what their answer shall be: they congregate, labor in united
effort, and incite the princes, who previously were sufficiently prejudiced
against us.
Eck9 spares no pains in dissuading the archbishop from further investigation,
since the matter is already condemned.
Our party is small; the number of those contrary-minded, on the other hand,
is incomparably greater. The archbishop of Mayence, 10 the bishop of Augsburg11
and the duke of Brunswick 12 avail for us, although they do not fight valiantly
enough. It is rumored that the dukes13 of Baiern, since they have heard the Con
fession, have become more lenient; at the same time, however, they are not
deserting duke George14 and margrave Joachim.15 These are the shrewdest
leaders of the other party.
The Emperor has written to Erasmus16 and called him to the Diet. I cannot
perceive what good we have to expect from the very bitter hatred of our enemies.
Not sure of the demagogues to whose perverted judgment we are subject, we
must take our refuge in God and expect help from Him. Only pray to Him for
us that He may direct our cause and grant us peace.
At Altenburg 17 there was for three days a terrible electrical storm. The
lightning struck two towers, those of the fortress and the church, whereupon a
great flood followed. It terrified me very much.

But let us turn to Luther in his lonely fortress on this
Monday, June 27th. He had received Melanchthon's letter
of the 19th, and sits down to pen a reply, the first one he
0-16 a picture of the German leadership of the age.
" Twenty-four miles from Leipzig.

452 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
had written to Melanchthon since the beginning of June. It
is a mighty epistle : —
LUTHER EXHORTS, ENCOURAGES AND WARNS.
He tries to draw the fangs out from Satan's mouth for the
sake of comforting the terrified Melanchthon. He says: —

Luther to Melanchthon.
MS. Cod. Jen. b. fol. 110.
Colest., II, 198 ; Chytr., 135. June 2/lh.
Grace and Peace in Christ! In Christ, I say, not in the world. Amen.
Concerning the excuse for your silence, another time, my dear Philip. Tbe
messenger can scarcely wait till I write.
I very much hate your exceeding solicitude, by which, as you write, you are
being consumed. That these cares so rule your heart is not due to the greatness
of the cause, but to the greatness of our unbelief. For the very same cause was
still greater in the time of John Huss and many others.
It is not our cause. Why do you thus torture yourself without end? If
the cause be false, then we wish to renounce it; but if it be true, why do we,
with ?o great promises, make Him a liar Who commands us to have a confident
and intrepid heart [Ps. 55:23]: "Cast your burden upon the Lord." The
Lord is near those who are broken-hearted [Ps. 34 : 19], who call on Him.
Does He, then, speak this to the wind, or cast it before beasts ?
I am also sometimes cast down, but not always. Your philosophy worries
you so, it is not theology. And your Joachim seems to me to be gnawed by
the same care. As if you could really accomplish anything by your taking
anxious thought. What in the name of sense can the devil do more than
strangle us ? What more ? I beg you — who in all other things are ready for the
fray — to take a stand against yourself, your greatest enemy, since you furnish
Satan with so many weapons against you.
Christ died once for sin; but for righteousness and truth He will not die,
since He lives and rules. If this is true, what is to be feared for the truth ?
But if you fear, the very truth will come to nought, through God's anger. . . .
He Who has become our Father, will also be such, for our children. I
indeed pray diligently for you; and I regret that your obstinate anxiety renders
my prayers ineffectual. I for my part am, so far as the cause is concerned, not
very much disturbed — yes, of better hope than I had expected. God is able to
raise the dead. He is also able to sustain His cause when it wavers; when it has
fallen, to raise it up again; when it stands, to further it. Should we prove not
to be worthy, let others be to blame for it For if we are not strengthened by
His promises, I pray you, who then are the other people in the whole world to
whom they really apply ?

JUNE 25th — SEPTEMBER 23rd. 453
But about this more another time. I am, at any rate, only carrying water
into the sea.
Your letters concerning the Emperor's arrival went to Wittenberg yesterday.
For they too are very much worried at your silence, as you will discover from the
letters of Pomeranus. It is not the fault of the messenger, whom Jonas blames,
but altogether yours, and yours alone. Christ comfort you all through His Spirit
and strengthen and instruct you. Amen.
If I should hear that affairs and the cause are in a bad way, and that they
will be in danger, I will come in a hurry to see the terrible teeth of Satan eager
to snap their prey, as the Scripture. says (Job 41 : 5).
Meanwhile greetings to all. We shall send other letters as soon as possible.
Martin Luther.
This is a perfect letter, considerate, consoling and full of
comfort ; yet filled with warning and blame, and threatening
that he would come to Augsburg himself and face the teeth
of Satan that were throwing everybody there into consterna
tion.June 29th. A RED-LETTER DAY AT COBURG.
More Admonition for Melanchthon
Wednesday, June 29th, was a red-letter day at Coburg
for lonely Luther. First of all he received the messages
that Jonas and Melanchthon had sent him on the 26th. He,
further, received letters from Brentz, Spalatin, Agricola, and
John Frederick. Melanchthon's letter sent by special mes
senger, because Dietrich had told him Luther was angry,
also came in. How should Luther answer it? It was an
important missive, and betrayed Melanchthon's lack of Con
fessional spirit. Luther sat down and wrote the following
words of admonition and comfort: —
Luther's Letter of Comfort to Melanchthon.
MS. in Cod. Closs. ; Cod. Jen. B. fol. 117.
June 29th.
Grace and Peace in Christ! I have read, my dear Philippus, your rhetorical

454 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
letter, which wears the garb of innocency concerning your silence. But mean
while I have twice written letters to you, in which I have sufficiently (at least in
the second letter, which the messenger will bring, who has been sent by our
laborer to the princes) presented the reason for my silence.
To-day your latest letters have been delivered to me, in which you remind
me of your labors, dangers and tears in such a manner, that I appear to have
afflicted you unjustly with grief upon grief through my silence, as if I had not
known your troubles; or was sitting here in the midst of roses and was not bear
ing with you any of the cares.
And yet would to God that my cause were such as would permit tears to
flow. Yes, I also had resolved to send a messenger to learn whether you were
dead or alive. M. Veit will testify to this; and nevertheless I believe all your
letters were delivered to me. For the letters, which finally arrived late, concern
ing the arrival and entrance of the Emperor, came almost simultaneously. But
this may have been the "Ate," or any other satan, "and let him have what he
deserves. ' '
I have received your Confession (Apology) and am wondering what you
might like to have changed, since you are raising such a question as, What
and how much should be conceded to the Papists. With reference to the
Prince, that is another question — what he could concede, if danger threatened
him. So far as I am concerned, more than enough has been yielded in that
Apology, which if they refuse, I see nothing more which I can yield, unless they
furnish clearer reasons and Scripture proofs than I have yet seen. Day and
night I am occupied with the matter, thinking over it, revolving it in my mind,
arguing, searching the entire Scriptures, and there grows upon me constantly that
fulness of assurance in our Doctrine, and I am more and more confirmed
in the purpose that I will yield nothing more, come what may. . .
I am offended at your writing, that you are following my authority in this
cause. I will not be, nor be called, author in this cause. If it is not equally
your cause, it shall not be said that it is mine, and was imposed on you. If it be
my cause alone, I will manage it alone. . . . If we be not the Church,
or a part of the Church, where is the Church ? If we have not the Word of God,
who has it? . . . I have consoled you in the last letter. May God at least
grant that He is not death-dealing but life-giving. What further can I do ?
The end and the result of the matter worry you, because you cannot grasp
it with your hands. But if you could apprehend it, I would not wish that I
had anything to do with it, much less be its originator. God has comprehended
this matter in a certain general doctrinal article, which you do not have in your
rhetoric, nor in your philosophy: and which is called Faith.
In this article of doctrine everything is contained which man does not see
and which is not visible to the eye [Heb. II : 1, 3]. If anyone attempt to make
it apparent to the eye and comprehensible, as you do, he will receive for his
effort cares and tears, as you have received them. "The Lord hath spoken, He
desireth to dwell in darkness" [1 Kings 8 : 12], and " He hath made the dark
ness for his habitation" [2 Sam. 22: 12]. "He who so wills, changes it."
Had Moses resolved first to understand the end, how he might withstand the host

JUNE 25th — SEPTEMBER 23rd. 455
of Pharaoh, Israel might to-day yet be in Egypt. The Lord increase your and
the faith of us all.
If one has this, what can Satan and the whole world accomplish? If we
ourselves have no faith, why do we not at least comfort ourselves through
another's faith ? For there are others who believe in our stead, unless it be that
there is not any more a Church on earth, and that Christ will discontinue His
presence among us before the end of the world. For if He is not with us, I
pray where then in the whole world is He ? If we are not the Church, or at
least a part of it, where then is the Church ?
Or are, perchance, the dukes of Baiern, Ferdinand, the Pope, the Turks,
and the like, the Church ? If we have not the Word of God, who then are the
people who do have it? If, therefore, God be with us, who can be against us?
Our sinfulness and ungratefulness do not make Him a liar. But you will not
listen to this — so discouraged and weak does Satan make you. May Christ heal
you. For this I pray earnestly and continuously. Amen.
Greet all, for I also cannot write the latest to everyone. I wish opportunity
would be given me to come to you, indeed I have great desire to come without
being commanded or summoned. The grace of God be with you and you all.
Amen. On St. Peter and St. Paul Day [the 29th of June], Anno 1530.
Martin Luther.
Postscript. After I had finished the letter the thought occurred to me that it might per
haps appear that I had given too little attention to your question, how much and
• how far one could concede to the opponents; but you have also asked too little.
You have not indicated what and what kind of concession you think would be
required of us.
As I have always written, so I now write, I am ready to concede to them
everything, provided only that the Gospel be left free to us. But that which
conflicts with the Gospel I cannot concede. What else can I answer?

Luther always has faith and peace, and comfort from the
Scripture. He shows Melanchthon kindly that he under
stands the latter's duplicity, and reveals that Melanchthon
would have yielded up much more to Rome in the Augsburg
Confession, if he had been permitted to do so. Most clearly
does the contrast come out between Luther the strong confes
sor, and Melanchthon the timid temporizer. The situation
in the letter opens to us the nobility, devoutness and manly
honor of the Lutheran principle, and the effeminate, crafty
and complaining traits of the Melanchthon principle.

456 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
June 30th.
ANSWERING THE FLOOD OF LETTERS.
Thursday, June 30th, was a full day for Luther. He had
grave replies to make to the remaining letters of yesterday —
to Spalatin, Brentz, Agricola, John Frederick, and Jonas.
To Spalatin he tells the full story of the letters that never
came to Coburg. He shows his joy that the Romanists have
become bitter, and regards it as a good sign. He asks
Spalatin to hold Melanchthon's pride in check.
Luther to Spalatin.
Colestin, II, p. 200; Chytraeus, Lat., p. 142— Ger., p. 233.
June jolh.
To Mr. George Spalatin, my brother in Christ.
Grace and peace in the Lord! You say, my dear Spalatin, that I am unwil-
ing to be considered negligent in corresponding; but you are the same. For of
Dr. Jonas' messenger, through whom you promised to write copiously to us, and
to the Wittenbergers, by Apel, so that we had anticipated forests of letters and
feared that you might become more noisy than our jays [we have received not
one letter]. When Apel's messenger came with only Jonas' letters for Wittenberg, he was
asked, " Do you bring me no letters ? " He answered, "No." " How are the
men?" "Well." Concerning this first disappointment I at once made com
plaint against Philip. Afterwards there came a messenger on horseback who was
dispatched to Torgau, who brought me a letter from the princes themselves, and
was asked, "Do you bring letters?" He answered, "No." "How are the
men?" "Well." Then, as a wagon with venison left here, I again wrote to
Philip. The man returned without an answer.
Now I began to entertain sad thoughts, and supposed that you wished to
conceal from me something evil. In the fourth place, came Jobst Nymptzen.
When asked, "Do you bring letters ? " he answered, "No." "How are the
men ? " He answered, " Well." I communicated how our laborer here received
letters from his brother, the marshall of Falkenstein, while we in the meantime
were hungering and thirsting for more than three weeks, during your kind silence;
out of which letters we were obliged to gather information when we wished to
know anything.
Would you not say I were negligent, if you had such an experience with me ?
I admit I was moved with anger and fear, as I learned of Philip's cares and the
Prince's trials. Yet I was relieved of my fear when I heard you were well, but I
could not fully believe it. But enough of this.

JUNE 25th — SEPTEMBER 23rd. 457
That the kings and princes are raging against the Lord's Anointed, I con
sider a good omen, much better than if they were dissimilating. For Ps. 2 says,
"He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh." Since our Prince laughs, I see not
why we should weep: we also can comfortably laugh at their vain resolves.
Faith only is necessary.
He Who began this work, has begun it without our counsel. He has also
sustained and ruled it. And it is He Who will perfect and execute it without
and beyond our counsel.
I know and am sure Whom I have believed, for He is mighty to accomplish
above what we petition and understand, although Philip thinks and wishes to be
doing it according to his own counsel, so that he may gloriously exclaim: " Surely,
so it had to happen, so have I made it. " —
No, it must not be said: " So I." Admonish Philip constantly not to become
God, but to fight against what is inborn in him; for this is not for our good. It
drove Adam out of paradise, and only disturbs us, and robs us of our peace. We
want to be men, not God. On the last of June, 1530. Your Martin Luther.
To Brentz, Luther appeals and begs that Briick or some
one else will, like an angel from Heaven, take Melanchthon
in charge, and guard him from the mistakes of his weak
nature. He says: — Luther to Brentz.
MSS. in Cod. Closs.; in Cod. Jen. b, fol. 133.
Cblestin, II, 201. June jolh.
Grace and peace in Christ ! I learn, my dear Brentz, that you likewise are
being worried in that Assembly of the gods. It is Philip's example that is mov
ing you. He is zealously concerned for the public peace and for posterity, but
his zeal is not wise; — as though our ancestors, by their anxiety and care, had
brought it to pass that we are what we are, and this had not come about only
through God's wisdom, Who will continue to be God after we are gone. For He
will not die with us. . . .
I am writing this in order that Gregorius Briick or some one else among you
may speak to Philip and get him to cease being regent of the world, that is, may
cease making a martyr of himself. . . . God will rule the world better when
I am dead than if I should continue to live, since I am hindering Him by my life
Try to see whether Philip cannot be persuaded through you, — of whom he
must believe that you are men of God, — though he is not moved by my words.
He is not so perverted that, if God should command him by an angel from
Heaven to be of good cheer, he would despise the command. He will not
despise us, if we all admonish him thus. . . . The grace of God be with
you. The last of June, 1530. Your Martin Luther.

458 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
The agony of Melanchthon has become a matter of public
knowledge, and Lusher, on the same day (June 30th), asks
Agricola to admonish and encourage Philip. He also praises
the Elector's steadfastness, and predicts that the Diet will
come to an unhappy termination.
Luther to John Agricola.
Cod. Jen., Bl. 24. June joth.
Admonish Philip that he moderate the offer of an anxious spirit, so that at
last he may not be lacking in that wherewith to offer.
It is indeed a consolation to know that he is troubled in spirit for the sake of
the cause ; we cannot doubt that it is pleasing to God as an exceedingly pleasant
savor. But in these matters there must be temperance. While the offering of self is
acceptable, self-destruction is not ; and God does not wish that souls be led to
ruin. This is an additional Article from the Devil. For to put one's hope in
the grace of the Emperor, is idle. Your Martin Luther.
John Frederick is evidently deeply stirred by the violence
and treachery of Duke George and the German Catholic
Princes, and Luther, with the same masterly hand with
which he consoles and establishes the weak in greater deter
mination, now moderates the wrath of his superior, and
counsels quiet strength and patience. He says : —
Luther to Duke John Frederick.
Colestin I., 202; Erlangen 54. 157. June joth.
Grace and peace in Christ ! Your Grace now sees right before your own eye
what kind of a master the devil is, who leads such wise great people captive in
his service, and undertakes all that he does in swift deceit.
And although I know that your Grace — praise God ! — is well fitted out
against it, and can understand and pass judgment on all their machinations, yet I
respectfully admonish you not to allow yourself to be stirred by the wicked assaults
against you made by your nearest blood relatives. When the devil is defeated, he
still works to stir up our heart to bitter feeling. For this the Thirty-seventh
Psalm is a good medicine.
The Emperor is a pious soul, worthy of all honor personally, but good God !
what can one man do against so many devils, unless God bring him mighty help.

JUNE 25th — SEPTEMBER 23rd. 459
It vexes even me that your blood relatives carry on so obstinately ; but I
must restrain myself, else I would be wishing them this and that. I can easily
believe how much more this vexes and moves your Grace. But for God and the
dear Emperor's sake, your Grace will have patience, and will also pray with us
for the wretched people.
If I have made a mistake in saying that your Grace is vexed at the deceitful-
ness of friends, I am glad, for from my heart I mean it well. I am commending
your Grace to God. Amen.
Coburg, the last day of June, 1530. Your Obedient Martin Luther.

Luther to Jonas.
Colest., 1, 136 ; Chytraeus, 141. June 30th.
Grace and peace in Christ ! At last your letters have arrived, my dear Jonas,
after you have worried us for three full weeks by your silence. . . . Time of
prayer left me no opportunity for anger. But I have been busy giving you a bad.
name for this silence, especially at Wittenberg.
It does no goGd to complain against the messengers. They have delivered
the letters faithfully, especially the one you hired. From the time he delivered
your letter I received nothing except this last one concerning the arrival and the
entry of the Emperor, and yesterday the one with your complaints, but I will
avenge this in due time.
I am filled with joy and rejoice exceedingly at the extraordinary and great
gift of God, in that our Prince is so steadfast and composed in his disposition, for
I regard my prayers offered for him as having been pleasing to God and prophesy
that they will be heard in other things. This joy of mine has been increased in
that I recognize that you are very reliable in the Lord against this raging of Satan.
Philip is worried by his philosophy, and by nothing else; for the cause is in
the hand of Him who dare say to the very proudest: "No one shall pluck them
out of my hand. ' ' Those things that I have been able to take out of my own
hands and cast upon Him, have been preserved by Him safe and sure, for "God
is our refuge and strength."
I am glad the Pope has received a new sign. He will have something by
which to despise God still more, and will go to ruin all the more quickly.
I cannot cease wondering that Ferdinand has forgotten the Turk and the
wretchedness of his people. If I were responsible for so much destruction of
human life, I would die in an hour, especially if my conscience added that my
neglect had been the cause of it.
Our bishops will surely be destroyed. As there is no hope of changing
them, I am glad that they are growing more obstinate.
Let us only remain bold in Christ. He lives, and we also shall live, even
though we shall be martyred, and He will care for the children and wives of those
who have died. He rules, and we shall rule, yes, we rule already.

4G0 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
If I be called to Augsburg, I will surely come, for Christ wishes it so, and
indeed I am filled with the desire to come unsummoned and undemanded.
The grace of God be with you. Out of the wilderness, on June 30th, 1530.
Your Martin Luther.
Finally, on this last busy day of June, although it was only
yesterday that he had braced up Melanchthon, Luther feels
constrained to write him one more letter, and this time to
speak more plainly than ever as to the need of firmness and
faith in Confession.
When we recall that it was only five days ago to-day, that
the Confession was delivered, the greater part of which inter
val was consumed in getting the news to Coburg, and when
we think how Luther immediately sits down and in these two
days sends back a whole "forest" (his own term) of letters,
in everyone of which extreme efforts are made to hold
Melanchthon firm and true, we see not only that Luther
recognizes that the great Confessional moment had arrived
for the Church ; but that he also fears that the summit Avhich
had been attained, would again be lost by the ecclesiastical
manoeuverings of Melanchthon who could never be pinned
down to the immutable truth, but was ever modifying it
under considerations of worldly prudence. How well
Luther knew Melanchthon — how near the Church came to
being totally wrecked, despite the glorious Confession of
June, by the concession of Melanchthon in July and August
— and how wonderfully Luther forecast this outcome, as soon
as the glad tidings of June 25th were brought to Coburg —
the following history of the Diet will show.
We turn now to his last strenuous appeal to Melanchthon :
Luther to Melanchthon.
A contemporary copy in Weim. Archiv.; Cod. Jen. b., fol. III.
June joth.
Grace and peace in Christ ! What first of all to write you, my dear Phil
ippus, I positively do not know. For my thoughts rush and surge at your exceed
ingly wicked and perfectly useless cares, and I know that I am telling a story

JUNE 25th — SEPTEMBER 23rd. 461
to one who is deaf. The reason for this is that the only one you have faith in
is yourself. You have no faith in me, and, unfortunately, not in others.
In personal conflicts I am weaker, but you stronger ; on the other hand, you
are in public as I am in personal matters, and I in public as you in personal
matters (if in truth that can be called a private affair which takes place between
Satan and myself). For you despise your life, and your fear is for the general
cause ; as far as the general cause is concerned, my spirit is strong and undisturbed,
for I assuredly know that it is righteous and true, yea, also the cause of Christ,
which will not fail. Hence I am a very safe spectator, and can disregard the
furious and threatening Papists.
If we fall, Christ will fall with us, and He is the great Ruler of the whole
world. And if it were possible for Him to fall, yet I would rather fall with
Christ than stand with the Emperor. But there is little use in my writing this,
for you will continue to run these affairs as a rationalist, and in accordance with
your philosophy. You will continue, that is, as the saying goes, "with reason,
to be irrational." You are killing yourself and utterly fail to see that the matter
lies beyond the power of your hand and counsel, and that it will be carried on
regardless of any concern which you may feel. And my prayer is that Christ
may prevent it from coming into your hand or counsel, although you are
so obstinate in desiring to control it. For if you did succeed in getting your .
hand upon the lever, we would go down to ruin beautifully indeed and with one
crash. I pray for you, have prayed, and will pray, and I doubt not that I am heard,
for I feel the Amen in my heart. Your Martin Luther.
June 26th-30th.

THE SITUATION AT AUGSBURG.
While this voluminous and animated correspondence was
flowing between Luther and the little party at Augsburg, the
Emperor was trying to recover from the effects of the De
livery of the Confession, and to decide what should be
done. The next morning, before breakfast," he gathered the
weaker Protestants, the representatives of the cities, to hiss
ante-chamber and sought to gain their submission to the Diet
of Spires; but they sent word on Monday that they could
not adhere to the Recess of Spires "without compromising
their conscience before God.""

18 C. R., II, 143.
"Forst., Urk., II, 6.
33

462 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
Though it was Sunday, he also summoned the Roman Es
tates and Princes, and asked them what reply should be
made to the Confession. The strict Papists said : Execute
the Edict of Worms by force. The Princes said: Submit
the Confession to impartial judges and let the Emperor
finally decide. A third party said: Let a Confutation be
composed by the Roman doctors.
George of Saxony and Joachim of Brandenburg were vio
lent in denouncing the Protestants; but the archbishop of
Maintz, the bishop of Augsburg and the Duke of Brunswick
were favorable to them.
July lst-6th.

THE CRISIS OF THE DIET  ROME WINS.
The Emperor wished the Romanists to offer their Con
fession in accordance with the terms of the Call ; or, if not,
that they bring, in accusation against the Protestants. But
they refused to be regarded as a party, or to have the Em
peror judge between them and the others. That there was
nothing to arbitrate, was their claim. The question, they
said, was one of crushing persons in rebellion. The Em
peror was obliged to accede to this view, and, thereafter, in
stead of assuming an impartial attitude, to range himself
on their side. This, diplomatically, was the crisis of the
Diet. By. this step the Pope won, and the Emperor lost,
everything. Rome again was in complete ascendency, and
the Emperor was her servant and vassal. The whole inde
pendent attitude of Charles, supported by Mercurinus, and
the corresponding basis of the Diet proclaimed in the Call,
were obliterated. ISTot only had Rome prevented a Council
but it had conquered a Diet. The Archbishop of Maintz was
so disgusted that he did not come to the meeting.2"
Twenty of the most violent enemies of the Reformation

' C. R., II, 175.

JUNE 25th — SEPTEMBER 23rd. 463
were selected to confute the Confession in the name of the
Emperor and Rome. They are said to have understood their
work to be not a matter " of refuting the Confession, but of
branding it."

COULD THE EMPEROR BE JUDGE F
Ostensibly still impartial, the Emperor asked each party
whether the Diet and he himself possessed the right of pro
nouncing in this matter of religion.21 The Elector consulted
Luther. Luther answered: —
" The Emperor should be held to his Call. For if he decide without a
hearing, no Diet would have been necessary, but he might have settled the affair
in Spain. He cannot be accepted as judge, unless he does not judge anything
against the Scripture, or the clear Word of God. For no Emperor and no
earthly judge can be set above God. If the Emperor should receive this ungra
ciously, as though we were not recognizing him as a Christian Prince, he can be
reminded of God's command that we are not to put our trust in princes and in
human beings. Judgment and condemnation without Scripture, are like a lord
without a country, a kingdom without money, a learned man without an art.
" Let the Elector only be full of confidence. For Christ is here, Who will
confess him before His Heavenly Father, even as he has now confessed Christ
before this wicked generation."
The Romanists unreservedly accorded the Emperor the
right to proceed, as Roman Emperor and Guardian, Advo
cate and Sovereign Defender of the Church,22 since he was
definitely ranged on their side.

July 9th-12th.
HAVE THE PROTESTANTS ANY MORE PROTESTS IN RESERVE ?
On the ninth of July the Lutherans were asked whether
they had presented their whole Confession, or whether they

"Forst., Vrk., II, 9.
» Id., 10.

464 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
were not holding some articles in reserve. "I perceive what
they mean by this question," wrote Luther to Jonas. " The
Devil has noticed that your Apology, the Soft-Stepper, has
kept silence on the Articles of Purgatory, the Worship of
Saints, and on the Pope the Anti-Christ."
On July 10th, the Protestants made reply to the Em
peror's question in one of the most open, truthful, logical,
noble and courageous documents ever presented to an earthly
ruler. It seems to have been drawn up by Briick, is duly
signed by the Princes, and speaks as plainly, yet respectfully,
to an Emperor as was ever ventured by loyal subjects,
intimating that the Emperor had better hurry on to the
proper business of the Diet, and permit the estates to return
home; but that if it is the Romanists who wish to raise the
question of Papal Abuses, the Protestants are ready to give
them all the answer they desire. We do not believe that the
document, which again emphasizes the rights and the good
faith and persistency of the Lutherans in adhering to the Em
peror's own Call, and which convicts him of having broken his
own word under the influence of the Romanists, has been suf
ficiently emphasized by historians. While its positive effects
were not perhaps so visible, it served to render the stand
taken in the Confession permanent. It reads as follows: —

The Explanation of the Protesting Estates that no More
Articles Will be Handed In.
Colest., II, 118 ; Forst., Ur£., II, 17.
Chytraus, Ger., 196 ; C. R., II, 184.
July loth, ijjo.
Prince of Noble Birth and Dear Uncle, etc.
Since you bore his Majesty's command to us, yesterday at seven o'clock, that
we tell whether we intended to hand in more Articles or whether those already
delivered would be allowed to suffice ; we present this friendly reply: —
Whereas it is notorious that there are many great and serious Abuses in the
Church, relating to doctrine and the spiritual rule, which have given cause to us
and many others to preach against them for the edification of consciences burdened
to tbe imperiling of their salvation.

JUNE 25th — SEPTEMBER 23rd. 465
And inasmuch as his Majesty has graciously given assurance, in his Call, that
these matters of religion should be taken up among ourselves in love and good
will, and be settled in accordance with the truth (which indeed is God's pure
Word alone), as is now taking place in a Christian and proper manner ; therefore,
1. We did not specifically mention all the Abuses in the writing you allude to, but
we delivered over a Common Confession and Testimony, in which is summed up
about all the doctrine preached among us as useful to salvation, in order that his
Majesty may fully know that no unchristian doctrine is taught among us.
We have deemed it needful rather to emphasize those Abuses concerning
which the consciences of our people were burdened, than other Abuses, relating to
the walk of the clergy, for which they must in any event themselves give account
to God. 2. In order that this matter might be dealt with in charity and be resolved
with God's Word by the truth, and that the most prominent parts in which a
change has occurred, and the reasons therefor, might be recognized more clearly,
we have avoided the attempt to catalogue each and every Abuse.
3. In these Articles we hoped to have refuted such uncertain and unrighteous
doctrine together with the Abuses antagonistic to it, and therefore we deem it un
necessary to bring in more Articles.
4. But if the opposite party raises the question of further Abuses as its
"opinion and meaning", in virtue of his Majesty's Call and the resulting presen
tation, or undertakes to attack our Confession, or advance any new position, we
are ready herewith to give further report on the same, according to God's Word,
as indeed we offered to do at the end of the Confession already delivered.
5. And therefore we most respectfully urge, as we came here to Augs
burg in good season, in obedience to his Majesty, and have been burdened with
heavy expenses now for a long time, that his Majesty would arrange to proceed in
accordance with and live up to his Majesty's Call, as touched on above, without
further delay, as there has been no falling short on our part, and also, if God will,
shall be none in the future.
Actum, Augsburg, 10th day of July, 1530.
By God's Grace,
John, Duke of Saxony, and Elector,
George, Margrave of Brandenburg,
Ernest, Duke of Brunswick and
Liineburg,
Philipp, Landgrave of Hesse,
Wolfgang, Prince of Anhalt, together
with those Associated with us.
July lst-6th.
LUTHER SPREADING THE NEWS OF THE CONFESSION.
Meanwhile, in these first days of July, Luther was still
living over again the heroic moments of the delivery of the

466 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
Confession, and describing the important scene to his friends.
He criticised one point in it, viz., that it left open the possi
bility that such confirmed enemies of Christ as the Roman
ists who made the Pope their corner-stone and who were to be
compared with the Jews that rejected our Lord, might after
all be confessors of the pure doctrine. He says: —
Luther to Melanchthon.
Ciilestin, II, 204. July 3rd.
Grace and peace in Christ !
My dearest Philip: —
Yesterday I most carefully read through your Confession. I am much
pleased with it. But it errs in one point, in which it is contrary to Scripture,
since Christ predicts of Himself (Luke 19 : 14), " We will not have this man to
reign over us;" and it collides with the judgment (Psalm 118 : 22); " The stone,
which the builders have rejected." What can you expect in so great blindness
and obstinacy, but that it would be rejected ?
They do not grant us the name of builders. We should glory in being
counted with the wicked, as that stone itself was counted with thieves and con
demned with them.
Therefore we have hope for salvation only with the Lord; and He will
not forsake this stone, as it says: " It has become the head of the corner." But
this is the Lord's doing and not ours. Therefore it is marvelous before our eyes.
Christ strengthen you with us, and comfort you with His Spirit, and deal with us
according to all His wonderful powers. Amen. July 3rd, 1530.
Your Martin Luther.
To the heroic Cordatus, Luther describes the Confession
and the scene of its delivery as follows: —
Luther to Cordatus.
CSlestin, II, 207. July 6th.
Grace and peace in Christ! . . . Jonas writes that he was among the audi
tors, when our Confession was read by Dr. Christian for two whole hours, and he
saw the features of all that listened, concerning which he has promised to tell me
by word of mouth. I have a copy of this Confession here, but must hold it sub
ject to order. Our antagonists surely have used every effort to prevent the Em
peror from hearing it. . . . On order of the Emperor it was read before the
whole Diet, that is before the Princes and Estates of the Empire.
I am exceedingly happy to have lived to this hour, in which Christ has
been preached through His so great Confessors publicly in so great an Assem
bly by means of this really extraordinarily noble Confession, and the word

JUNE 25th — SEPTEMBER 23rd. 467
(Psalm 119 : 46, Vulg. ) is fulfiled: " I will speak of thy testimony before kings;"
also this is fulfiled: " I was not put to shame." For (Matthew 10 : 32) "Who
soever shall confess me before men (so He speaks Who does not lie), him will I
confess before my Father which is in heaven."
I believe you already have heard everything else from the others. The
splendor of the imperial entry has been set forth in print. . . . Continue to pray,
and urge all to pray, particularly for the excellent Emperor, the young man who
is worthy of the love of God and man; also for our not less excellent Prince, who
carries a very heavy cross, and for Philip, who is making a martyr of himself,
with cares, in a most deplorable way. If I should be called [to the Diet] I shall
also call you. Do not doubt this. The Lord be with you. Amen. Out of the
wilderness on the 6th of July, 1530. Your Martin Luther.
To Melanchthon, on July 5th, he writes: —
Luther to Melanchthon.
calestiu, n, 206. July 5th.
Grace and peace in Christ! . . . We are, thanks be to God, in good hopes,
not because of your Diet or your deliberations, but because of the power and
presence of Christ, to use the word of Peter. They write from Wittenberg that
they are praying there in the churches so earnestly that I am convinced that some
thing good will be accomplished at this Diet. Greet Jonas, Agricola, Spalatin,
Briick, Dr. Caspar, and all that are ours. July 5th, 1530. Your Martin Luther.
On July 6th, Luther described the Diet to Hausman, and
" our Confession which our Philip has prepared." On the
same date, having heard how ill-pleased the most powerful
Catholic ecclesiastic in Germany was with the fiasco in which
Charles had surrendered to Rome, and having been told it
might be well to address the Archbishop, Luther writes the
following letter, which quickly appeared in print at Nurem
berg, and was circulated freely : —
Luther to Cardinal Albert, Archbishop of Mentz, Primate of
Germany.
Printed at Nuremberg, 1530 ; Erl. XLIV 159.
July 6th.
Your Highness, as well as the other orders of the empire, has doubtless read
the Confession, delivered by ours, which is so composed, that with joyous lips it

468 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
may say: " If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil; but if well, why
smitest thou me?" It shuns not the light, and can sing with the Psalmist: "I
will speak of thy testimonies before kings, and will not be ashamed."
But I can well conceive that our adversaries will by no means accept the doc
trine, yet much less are they able to confute it. I have no hope whatever that we
can agree in doctrine; for their cause cannot bear the light. Such is their bitter
ness, with such hatred are they kindled, that they would endure hell itself, rather
than yield to us and relinquish their new wisdom. I know that our doctrine is
true and grounded in the holy Scriptures. By this Confession we clearly testify
and demonstrate that we have not taught wrongly or falsely.
July 9th.
After two days, July 9th, Luther wrote a strengthening let
ter to the Elector in reply to the Elector's letter of July 4th,
which he had not received until the 9th. "God knows," says
he, "he is writing the Elector only because he fears Satan
may overcloud the Elector's heart."
Luther to Duke John, Elector of Saxony.
Erl. XLIV, 169. July 9th.
Our adversaries thought they had gained a great point in having the preach
ing interdicted by the Emperor, but the infatuated men did not see that by this
written Confession, which was offered to the Emperor, this doctrine was more
preached, and more widely propagated, than ten preachers could have done it.
It was a fine point that our preachers were silenced, but in their stead came forth
the Elector of Saxony and other princes and lords, with the written Confession,
and preached freely in sight of all, before the Emperor and the whole empire.
Christ surely was not silenced at the Diet, and mad as they were, they were
compelled to hear more from the Confession, than they would have heard from
the preachers in a year. Paul's declaration was fulfiled: "The word of God is
not bound." Silenced in the pulpit, it was heard in the palace ; the poor
preachers were not allowed to open their lips, but great princes and Lords spoke
it forth. Luther then answers the Elector's question as to whether
the Emperor had the right to decide the matter before the
Diet. We already have set forth his words. Luther con
tinues : —
Let your Grace be assured, Christ is here ; and He will confess your Grace
again before His Father as your Grace has confessed Him before this wicked gen-

JUNE 25th — SEPTEMBER 23rd. 469
eration, as He says : Them that honor me, will I honor. — 1 Sam. 2 : 30. The
Lord Who has begun this matter will undoubtedly complete it. I am praying
earnestly and diligently for your Grace. If I could do more, I would, for I owe
it to you. God's grace be with you, as hitherto, and increasingly. Amen. Sat
urday, July 9th, 1530. Your obedient Martin Luther.
On the same day Luther replies to Jonas, and tells him, as
he told Melanchthon the day before, that Rome never will
agree with the Evangelical Eaith. He says: —
Luther to Jonas.
Cod. Closs.; in Cod. Jen. b, fol. 130.
Printed in De Wette, IV, 85. July gth.
Grace and peace in Christ ! In these days we have received very many let
ters from you, dearest Jonas, and since that time of silence we have answered four
times, yes five times. This we are now writing for the sixth time. Your letters
have been exceedingly satisfactory to me.
I see, indeed, that now after the argument, the prologue of the Diet is being
recited. The act itself, and the crisis will follow ; but they [the Romanists] have
a sad finale to look to, we a joyous one.
Not indeed that unison in doctrine ever will be restored, for how can anyone
hope that Belial will come into concord with Christ? Except that perhaps mar
riage, and both forms of the Sacrament may be yielded by them — perhaps ! — but
I wish and almost hope that "the difference in doctrine may be reconciled, and a
political unity may be made possible.'"3 If this should come to pass through the
grace of Christ, more than enough will have been accomplished at this Diet.
For first, and greatest at this Diet, Christ has been proclaimed in a public and
glorious Confession. He has been confessed in the light, and to their face, so that
they cannot boast that we fled, or that we feared, or concealed our faith.
My only unfulfilled desire is that I could not be present at this noble Confes
sion. I am like the generals who could take no part in defending Vienna from
the Turks. But it is my joy and solace that meanwhile my Vienna was defended
by others. It is certain that we have always sought peace. If we now can reach the
point of dissolving the Diet and separating in peace, we shall clearly have
triumphed over Satan this year. For there is no hope that the enemies will do any
good. What can I hope from the Emperor, good as he may always be, since he
is possessed? Christ lives and sits at the right hand, not of the Emperor (for then
should we have gone to destruction long ago), but at the right hand of God. This
is something incredibly great. But I am drawn to this incredible truth, and am
a The reader should note that this is the original basis of the Diet as found
in the language of the Emperor's Call.

470 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
willing to die upon it, and why should I not therefore also be willing to live upon
it ? Would God that Philip would believe this at least with my faith, if he has no
other. . . . Your Martin Luther.
July 8th-12th. THE MELANCHTHONIAN SIN AGAIN.
But during these early days of July, there was one man at
Augsburg who was filled with fears, and who was again ready
to attempt a negotiation which would undo the good work
accomplished, and betray and bring back the Protestant
party to Rome.
JSTot that Melanchthon thought of yielding in doctrine, or
of changing the first part of the Confession at this time. But
as customs and institutions were matters of Christian liberty,
he thought much could be yielded in the matter of Abuses,
and that thus the opposite party might be conciliated.
There seem to be men in the Church in every age so eager
for peace and unity that without actually meaning to be
disloyal, they take the supposed salvation of the whole ecclesi
astical situation into their hands and make ambiguous
advances to the enemy without realizing all the painful conse
quences that are thus brought on the Church indirectly and
gradually, and from which she often must suffer in subse
quent generations and perhaps to the end of time.
Melanchthon had been deceived once by the Romanists, on
the 19th of June. Now he remained without hope and be
lieved the threats of the Romanists. Luther had all along
taken the position that, despite what the Emperor might
perhaps try to do on the Protestant behalf, Rome would ad
mit nothing. " You are waiting for the answer of Rome,"
he wrote. "It is already written: Patres, Patres, Patres;
Ecclesia, Ecclesia; usus, consuetudo, praeterea e Scriptura
nihil.2* The Emperor on the strength of this testimony will
pronounce against you."

"Lutheri Epp., IV, 96.

JUNE 25th — SEPTEMBER 23rd. 471
But Melanchthon was seized with gloomy desperation. He
could not sleep. He saw no more hope,20 except in God. As
we already have found, he had, from the very Delivery of
the Confession, set his heart on making further concessions.
After the Emperor was exerting all manner of threats and
promises to cause the individual Evangelical leaders to aban
don the Confession, Melanchthon came to the Elector and
begged him to yield on all the Abuses, and go back to Roman
customs and the jurisdiction of the bishops, provided that
Rome would grant the two forms of the Sacrament and the
marriage of priests. He argued this at length with the
Elector,2* and finally seems to have secured his permission to
present the matter to Campeggius.27
Melanchthon, asking for an interview with Campeggius,2*
says, "We have no dogma which is diverse from that of the
Roman Church. . . We venerate the authority of the Roman
Pope, and are ready to obey him, if he does not reject us, and
if he will pardon or approve certain small matters which we
cannot change. Will you reject those who come before you as
suppliants? Will you pursue them with fire and sword?
Nothing brings so much hatred to us in Germany as the firm
ness with which we maintain the doctrines of the Roman
Church. But with the aid of God, we will remain faithful,
even unto death, to Christ and the Roman Church, although
you should reject us."
This humble and obsequious letter seems to be almost
beyond the bound of credibility, and its authenticity has been
questioned, but we believe without good reason. Well does
a Reformed historian comment on this passage: "Thus did
Melanchthon humble himself. God permitted this fall, that
future ages might clearly see how low the Reformation was
willing to descend in order to maintain unity, and that no one

* c. B., II, 145.
»C. R., II, 162.
57 " Principes nostri miserunt nos." — C. R., II, 171.
"C. R., II, 168.

472 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
might doubt that the schism had come from Rome ; but also,
assuredly, that they might learn how great, in every impor
tant work, is the weakness of the noblest instruments."
We must, however, be just to Melanchthon. He was sur
rounded by most bitter enemies, and threatened with the
wrath of the Emperor and his most powerful princes ; and in
his interview with Campeggius, he had declared, "We cannot
yield nor be unfaithful to the truth. We commit our cause
to the Lord God."
This interview, for which Melanchthon had begged, took
place on July 8th. Melanchthon thought that he had received
assurance that the Legate would yield to the celebration of the
Sacrament in two kinds and to the marriage of priests. If
the Legate had yielded to him, Melanchthon would thus have
changed the whole history of the Church, and, thanks to
Melanchthon, Lutherans might to-day be safe back in the
bosom of Rome. But the- Legate humiliated Melanchthon,
and said that he would not be able to make concessions with
out the consent of the German princes.2'
On this 8th of July Melanchthon wrote to Luther, saying
that he would tell him briefly what was going on at Augsburg.
He then describes the three opinions that prevailed among
the Romanists and declares that the Emperor reserves the
right of deciding the matter according to his judgment, in the
failure of which everything would be brought back to the
old situation until the calling of a Council.
"This last view has not been made known openly. We have not yet been
answered. But I hope that it will be proclaimed on the coming Monday. I am
waiting for it with great desire for I have learned by experience how the Legate
Campeggi is disposed. When the archbishop of Maintz saw that he could not ac
complish anything by much controversy, he remained away from the meeting the
n^xt day.
I have now given you not only the transactions up to date, but also told you
what is still to be expected, without any addition of my own. For I see in ad
vance, what a sad tragedy the intention of our opponents will occasion. The

'C. R., II, 174.

JUNE 25th — SEPTEMBER 23rd. 473
farmer (Duke George) whom you know, is at the head of the play, and is incited
by certain hypocrites among the theologians. I cannot write more. Keep your
self well and pray for us."
July 13th. LUTHEE WHITES STRONG TO AUGSBUEG.
Despite the meagre information that Luther received from
Melanchthon, whose want of frankness seems incredible at
this distance, Luther from now on floods Augsburg with let
ters, begging the men there to remain true to the cause.
To Jonas he writes: —

Luther to Justus Jonas.
Colestin, II, 228. July 13th.
Who does not see that the Emperor is being driven and led. If you now
stand firm, and yield in no point, you will compel them to change their pres
ent propositions into wrath. . . . You long already have had other plans,
and what you have written me is already old. But I hope that my letters (for I
have written at least five times, — to Philip I have written that often) have been
delivered. The Lord Jesus Himself, our salvation and life, our love and trust, be
with you, as I hope. Amen. Your Martin Luther.
To Philip he speaks most plainly. This letter of his comes
from the heart of a hero, and shines with confidence in the
Confession of the truth: —
Luther to Melanchthon.
Buddeus, 49, from the Jena MS.
Calest., II, 229b; Chytr., 105b. July 13th.
Doctor Martinus Luther, to the faithful disciple and witness of Christ, M. Philipps
Melanchthon, his brother.
Grace and true peace of Christ 1 I believe, my dear Philipps, that you in
many ways now realize from experience that Belial can in no manner be united
with Christ, and that one can entertain no hope of concord, so far as the doctrine
is concerned. I wrote about this to the princes that our cause cannot be left to
the Emperor as judge. And now we perceive the purpose of the writing that
contains the so-gracious Call. But, perhaps, the matter had already progressed too

474 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
far before my letter arrived. But at least for myself I will not yield A HAIR's-
BREADTH,30 nor allow that the matter be again brought into the former situation
[restitui] ; I will rather await all external danger, since they proceed so deter
minedly. The Emperor may do what he can. But I wish to know what you have
done. I wish that you would not permit yourself to be disturbed on account of
the victory and boastfulness of the enemies, but that you would establish yourself
against it through the power and strength and might of Him Who raised Christ
from the dead and will quicken us with Him and raise us. Martin Luther.

THE CONFUTATION FINISHED.
On the 13th of July, the Roman Confutation was com
pleted. " Eck with his band," S1 said Melanchthon, " trans
mitted it to the Emperor." It was found, by all, to be con
fused, violent, thirsting for blood.82 The Emperor turned
from such an impossible document, to the plan of sending
delegations to visit each of the Protestant leaders alone and
subdue them singly by threats.
July 15th-20th. THE PEOTESTANT PEINCES THEEATENED.
The Margrave was approached by his two cousins, the arch
bishop of Maintz and the Elector of Brandenburg, and by his
two brothers, but without effect. Another delegation waited
on the Elector John and attempted to compel him to re
nounce the heresy of Luther with many threats. He was ac
cused of being in league with the Swiss (whose Confessions
were just at this time being laid before the Emperor) . He
was threatened with a refusal to confirm his son's marriage
and with the loss of the electorate, and that Duke George of
Saxony would be made elector in his place. The Elector
*° Ne pilum quidem cedam.
»' C. R., II, 193.
22 Adeo confusa, incondita, violenta, sanguinolenta et crudells ut puduerint. — ¦
lb., 198.

JUNE 25lh — SEPTEMBER 23rd. 475
wrote a brief and calm note to Luther on this day, simply say
ing that they were still waiting to hear from the Romanists,
who are not in unity with each other. On this day Melanch
thon also wrote to Luther as follows : —

Melanchthon to Luther.
Colest., II., 233; Chytr., Ger., 215. July 15th.
I have written to you that new plans are frequently undertaken. Yesterday
it was decided in the electoral and princely counsels, that the Emperor should
again be petitioned to bring about a Council for the whole German empire.33 To
this it was added that the purpose should be made that the peace should not be
broken. Our people were not in unison as to including the second point, although
they have decided on this, and have given certain reasons. The reasons do not
particularly please me. We desire to seem to be too prudent.
I am sending you a list of the writings which our enemies have delivered to his
imperial Majesty. You will see there that they have appended some contradictory
articles to the Confutation with a bad design, namely, that they may embitter his
Majesty's gentle heart against us. Such stabs in the dark these wicked ones make
against us. If it comes to answering them, I shall indeed repay these wild blood
hounds. I have several times visited the intimate companions of our enemy Eck. It is
impossible to say how deeply embittered that pharisaic hatred is which I have
noticed in them. They are doing and thinking of nothing else than of stirring up
the Princes against us, and of causing the pious Emperor to enter into a godless
work against us. Pray for us. Friday, July 15th.

113 " The Emperor wanted a Council, and even the Catholic Princes thought
a General Council necessary," Campeggi wrote to Rome. In the imperial
Instruction given to the commissioners at the Diet of Spires in 1526, it had
been expressly stated that " His Majesty would not decide at the Diet any
matters of religion, but would continue to petition the Pope for a Council." In
the Preface to the Augsburg Confession in 1530, the stand was taken that at
the Regensburg Diet in 1527, a Council was appealed to, with the approval of
the Emperor. Although the document is no longer in existence, it cannot be
doubted, since nearly all the men who had been present at Regensburg three
years earlier were still living and most of them were present at the Diet of
Augsburg. Moreover Cardinal Campeggius himself wrote to Clement VII.
from Augsburg in 1530, that all the Catholic Princes at the Diet at Augsburg
maintained that a Council was necessary. — Raynaldus, an., 1530, n. 171.
Raynaldus further writes of the Pope, that, although he had been petitioned
by the German assemblies of the Nation, and hy the Emperor himself in the
year 1529, yet he had an antipathy to the Council. — An., 1529, n. 48 ; Cyprian,
pp. 42-43.

476 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
On July 14th Melanchthon had also written to Luther a
letter as follows: —

Melanchthon to Luther.
Colest., II, 288; Chytr., 161. July jfth.
Yesterday I received two letters from you. You write more frequently and
of more pleasant matters than we. Nothing has been decided in our affair up to
now. At present deliberations are being held daily. Christ grant that they may
bring about peace. Eck has handed in a Confutation of our Confession. It is not
yet come to light, but I hear from good friends that it is a long document full of
libel. Zwingli has sent a printed Confession here. People are ready to swear that
he is entirely insane. In dealing with Original Sin and the use of Sacraments he
revamps the old errors. As to Ceremonies he talks like a barbarian, and would
have them all put aside. He insists on his [erroneous] teaching on the Lord's
Supper. He also wants to root out all Bishops. I will send you a copy of the
writing when I receive it.
I am sending you the Questions concerning Traditions, and asking you to
write in full regarding them, for nothing in all our disputations gives us more
trouble than that which seems the easiest. And indeed it is a small matter. The
doctrines of men are but traps for the conscience, whether they are adhered to, or
whether they are abolished. We have a sure foundation in Justification ; but
that in the other Article of Liberty — that one must also maintain external liberty —
gives much offense. I am naming Liberty, as even Paul adhered to the Law
among the Jews. I have set down many of the causes of human Traditions, how
they originate, so that you may better see what is the matter with me.
In the matter of the Mass and in the first draft of the Articles of Faith, I
think I have been careful enough ; but in the matter of Traditions, I am not yet
satisfied with myself in this writing [the Confession]. I believe also that our
enemies will make a great noise concerning the spiritual orders. Keep well,
July 14th, 1530.

With this came five Causes ©f churchly Traditions, and
Melanchthon says: "Answer me whether it is necessary to
adhere to Traditions because of the power and word of
authority, and whether such Traditions bind the conscience".
Luther replies to Melanchthon in an extended treatise of
July 21st, which he closes as follows: —

JUNE 25th — SEPTEMBER 23rd. 477
LUTHEE TO MELANCHTHON.
"But these things you despise as coming from a mere coarse
farmer. Nevertheless they are worth a good deal in answer
to your precocious and useless questions. You see this, that
those Romanists do not want any less, and can want nothing
less, than that they may rule over the churches according to
their worldly right, and only so that they are regarded as
Princes of the world. They want to be Bishops, and if they
did not want to be that, what would they be ? What would
they remain?
" Therefore, I wish you were of a little quieter disposition.
You worry even me with your vain anxiety. It almost vexes
me to write to you, when I see that I am accomplishing
nothing with my words. Though I be rude in speech, yet I
am not in knowledge. II Cor. 11 :6. Christ be with you.
Amen. July 21st. Your Martin Luther."
Meantime, on July 16th, the Count Palatine Frederick
and Count Henry of Nassau came to the Elector and declared
that the Emperor would probably not grant him the investi
ture to the electorate." To this the Elector made reply on
July 21st.35 The reply touches, first, the question of the in-
vesture ; second, the question of faith ; and third, the question
of the league with other Protestants.
In the letter written to Niclas von Ende on July 28th,M the
Elector says that he had received no answer from the Em
peror up to date although to-day or to-morrow it would be
five weeks since he had answered the Emperor, that he had
requested that he be invested with the electorate, and that
this was declined. That he had asked for the investiture a
second time, and had not yet received any answer. He con
cludes that the Emperor is offended at him, and that his own

" The document Is found in Miiller, Historie, III, p. 671.
85 Found in Colest., II, 245 ; Chytr., Lat., 125.
"Miiller, Hist., Ill, p. 685.
34

478 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
friends (blood-relatives) have caused this "for his imperial
Majesty has not yet vouchsafed us one word. So we wait
here at great expense. We have to-day with us one hundred
and fifty horses, and have consumed a great amount of
money, and have had to borrow 12,000 gulden here."
Everywhere it was said that George would be proclaimed
Elector instead of John. On the 28th of July many princes
were invested with their dignities, but the Elector was
excluded. Before long he even was informed that, if he did
not yield, the Emperor would expel him from his estates and
inflict the severest punishment on him.3' It was a dreadful
ordeal for the faithful man, but the Elector finally made the
right choice. He declared that he intended to confess his
Saviour. On the 21st of July he replied to Charles' arguments. He
proved that the Emperor could not refuse him the investiture,
and that the Diet of Worms had secured it for him. As to
faith, he said that in the Confession he was not merely adher
ing to what his theologians said, but that he himself recog
nized that God's Word was not based on Rome's teaching,
and that here and now he once more confessed all the articles
of the Confession, and he entreated the Emperor to permit
him and his to be accountable to God only in matters per
taining to the salvation of their souls.38
August 3rd. CONFUTATION EEAD IN THE DIET.
At last, on the 3rd of August, the new Confutation was
read before the Diet. It approved some articles of the Con
fession and condemned others. It declared that the doctrines,
on the Trinity, on Christ, on Baptism, on eternal punish
ment, on the origin of evil, and the assertion that faith was

37 Miiller, Gesch., d. Protestation.
38 Forst, Urk., pp. 80-119.

JUNE 25th — SEPTEMBER, 23rd. 479
necessary in the sacrament, in the Protestant Confession,
were right.
Camerarius, concealed in the chapel of the palace, heard
the Confutation read and reported verbally to Melanchthon.
Melanchthon was still very much frightened and once again
interviewed the papal Legate on August the 4th, asking him
to grant the two points of the mass and marriage, and de
clared that then the Lutheran pastors would return to the
government of the Roman bishops.
Melanchthon had an idea that if the Protestant Church
were returned to the Roman Bishops, it would nevertheless
not be subject to the old Roman usages, just as little as the
New Testament, as St. Paul says, was subject to the Old
Testament ordinances. This clever notion assumed great
importance in Melanchthon's mind, and he persisted in thus
attempting to point out the solution, especially in his corre
spondence with Luther. The letters of July 27th, August
3rd and 4th, and others, between the two men, are occupied
with this discussion.

July 19th-August 4th.

Melanchthon is a reed shaken by the wind, which Luther
must steady. Luther to Melanchthon.
CBlestin, II, Bl. 231 b. July 19th.
Grace and peace in Christ ! You do not write, my Dear Philip, but I do.
The matter tends toward an outcome similar to that at Worms, viz., that the
Emperor is to be the judge. So far as I see, the other side offers nothing but
mere threats, threats against the Lord and His anointed. David, the victor of
Goliath, calls threats vain. He who dies because of threatening, shall surely be
brought to the grave. You are not conquered by others, but by yourself. Though
we constantly hear threats, threats are nothing but stubble and reed, which the
Lord knows and perceives. .

480 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
But grant that war and violence should follow ; it has not actually begun ; and
meanwhile something may happen ; and even when it begins in fact, it has not yet
had a continuation, and if it should have a continuation, it has not yet triumphed.
Do be strong in the Lord. Amen.
July 19th, 1530. Your Martin Luther.

Luther to Melanchthon.
July 20th.
It was a great affliction for me that I could not be present with you in person at
that most beautiful and holy Confession of Christ {pulcherrima el sanctissima).

But though he had a warm heart of praise for Melanch
thon, Luther's wisdom and word always struck at the main
root of things. The Papacy had been passed by in silence in
the Augsburg Confession, with the result of saving up the
Thirty Years' War for the next century. Luther believed
in dealing with the Pope straight from the shoulder. He
mentions the matter to Jonas at this time: —

Luther to Justus Jonas.
MS. in Wolfbut., Cod. Helmst. 108, fol. 67; Cod. Jen. b. fol. 194.
Colest., II, 233 b ; Erl., VIII, 133. July 2ist.
Grace and peace in Christ ! At last you have awakened. Philip is very
skillful in excusing you, but it is easy to deceive a man like myself, who is neither
a rhetorician nor a dialectician, with these arts.
But I am deceived in my hope, as I thought you would come, struck long ago
by an Edict of the Emperor.
Satan still lives, and has observed that your Apology, treading softly, has
passed over the Article of Purgatory, of the Worship of Saints, and most of all of
the Pope as Antichrist.
Unhappy Emperor, if he proposes to give up the Diet to listening to Confuta
tions of Luther, as if the present Apology did not give them enough to answer !

As to the bold Reformed Confessions that had come in,
and which Melanchthon and Jonas deplored because they

JUNE 25th — SEPTEMBER 23rd. 481
stirred up the Emperor and the Romanists to enmity, Luther
writes : — Luther to Jonas.
July 21st.
I really like Zwingli and Bucer ! Thus also shall God bring them forward at
that day ! Indeed, we might now enter into a brotherhood with these persons !
But after the departure of the Emperor, they will again be different people. If
you are not satiated with the Diet, then I am astounded : I am tired. I desire to
be the sacrifice of this last Council, as John Huss at Constance was the sacrifice of
the last papal triumph. Your Martin Luther.

Six days later, Luther wrote to Agricola urging loyalty
and steadfastness. This strong letter runs as follows: —

To John Agricola, Eisleben.
2V. by Currie. July 27th.
It is an old device of Satan that when he is beaten by the truth he diverts
people's attention to secondary matters, so preventing them attending to the main
thing. Let us therefore cleave to our cause and not yield.
I am sure their eyes are shut, for I regard them as devils incarnate.
No more senseless demand has ever been made than that everything should
remain as it was and their ideas be accepted, while ours are cast aside, especially
as they themselves admit that we are right in many respects. For this is tanta
mount to expecting that our Apology, which even they praised, should be dis
avowed by us before the whole world. Martin Luther.
July 27th-August J+th.
MELANCHTHON PUSHES HIS PLAN.
Melanchthon Inquires Concerning Rites and Ordinances.
Colest., II, 291 ; Chytr., Ger., 261 ; C. R., II, 229.
July 27th.
1. The Confutation is being shorn of its abusive expressions, and to-day I un
derstood from Campeggius that it would be forthcoming in a few days. When it

482 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
appears, we can approximately decide the time of our departure. If they agree
to our answering it, we will not stay much longer.
2. Erasmus has again written to the Emperor, and he is evidently pleased with
our cause so far as the marriage of the priests, vows and the two-fold mode is con
cerned. For he specially mentioned these Articles.
3. It appears to me that you are somewhat stirred up in your answers concern
ing human ordinances. But I pray that you will approve viy Disputation.
These are great matters, and those who are here give me little help. I am of the
full assurance that the bishops dare not encumber the Church with their ordi
nances, and I also have thus written in the Confession, and will not alter the
same. At Augsburg, July 27th, 1530.

Luther to Melanchthon.
MS. : Aurifaber's imprinted Collection, III, Bl. 72.
July 30th.
To Philip Melanchthon, the faithful confessor of Christ, and genuine witness:
Grace and peace in our Lord !
I am thinking that you have battled sharply with the bad spirits this week. . . .
I am with you in faith and spirit as much as I can be ; but I believe that a very
weak faith in Christ is with you more. I am praying Him in sobs and words
which He Himself has commanded and given.
The Lord grant that you abide steadfast in the cause, and do not allow
yourself to be drawn into a war of accusations. I believe that the opponents
are aiming at that very thing since they are not fully sure of their cause.
But what will the end be, if you begin lo excuse and cover over the
abomination of the Pope against God and the civil rule? By God's grace
you will know better how to avoid this.
If I cannot read and write, I am able nevertheless to think and pray, and thus
in this way work powerfully against him.
My dear Philip, see to it that you do not torture yourself in this affair, which is
not in your hand but in the hand of Him Who is greater than the world, and out
of Whose hand no one can tear it away.
Your Martin Luther.

Luther to Melanchthon.
Jenaer MS. : Flacius, Lat., Briefsam.
Colest., II, 292 ; Chytr., 168. August 3rd.
To his exceedingly dear Brother : —
Grace and peace ! Now you are writing me already for the third or fourth
time concerning the Ordinances, my dear Philippus. Either I do not understand

JUNE 25th— SEPTEMBER 23rd. 483
you, or you argue about an impossible thing. ... I could not at this time com
prehend your words otherwise. . . . May the Lord soon transform you into such
persons who will return. The grace of God be with you all. Amen.
The 3rd of August, 1530. Martin Luther.

Luther to Melanchthon.
MS. in Rhedig. Brief, in Breslau ; Cod. Jen. b, fol. 76.
Colest., II, 293. August 4th.
Perhaps I am so distracted through" other thoughts that I do not properly com
prehend yours. I am astonished why you should inquire after such matters as
though you did not know them, while I nevertheless know that you most thor
oughly understand everything pertaining to our cause. ... So that among ours
at Augsburg, viz., Philippus and Jonas and the whole society (Collegium), there
are great disturbances.

THE CONFUTATION BEAD.
But before Melanchthon was fully informed, it seems, as
to the acerbity of the situation from a political point of
view in the Diet, on this 6th day of August he sat down and
wrote the following account of events to Luther : —
Melanchthon to Luther.
Colest., m, 25 ; Chytr., 216 (Ger.), 317.
August 6th.
1. At last, on August 3rd, we heard the Confutation, together with the Empe
ror's Declaration, which was quite severe. For before the reading of the Confuta
tion, the Emperor had said he wished to continue in his recorded Opinion, and
desired that our princes would unitedly reconcile themselves with him therein. If
not, then he, as a Protector of the Church, would no longer suffer such a division
in Germany. 2. This is the summary of the address. While this sounded very severe, yet
we were all very happy after the reading of the Confutation. For it is childish
and silly. Concerning the two kinds, Faber applies the history of the sons of Eli,
that they asked of the priest a little bread, and shows from it that the laity shall
receive only the form of bread. The Mass is justified in a particularly lame and
deceitful manner.
When Joachim returned after the reading of the Confutation (for I was not
there), he said, It is a great mistake that I concern myself so much about the dif-

484 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
ferent arguments as to human Tradition. For such thoughts never entered into
their head.
3. Our party requested a copy of the Confutation, but the imperial Majesty
took it under advisement, and on the following day again admonished our princes
that they unite and reconcile themselves with him on the basis of this document
His imperial Majesty is willing to permit the writing to be delivered to them,
but on condition that it be not printed nor copied. About this there was much
debate, until finally the archbishop of Maintz, and his brother, the elector of
Brandenburg, and the duke of Brunswick coincided with our princes, and requested
that they should not any further insist on their position, so that tbe imperial Ma
jesty might not be more intensely moved. They desired to think out more agree
able means and ways, how the whole matter might be considered and conducted
in a friendly manner. Thus we could not yet see tbe Confutation, and to-day
shall be present (to learn) what means the princes will propose. Here you have
all our news.
4. All good and considerate persons are now much more hearty and friendly,
since they have heard the childishly framed Confutation. [Melanchthon did not
yet realize that the intervention of the German princes at this moment had brought
back better feeling. He apparently had heard the account of only one informant,
like himself interested chiefly in the Confutation.] Our princes could more
easily attain peace, if they would assiduously approach and faithfully
petition the Emperor himself and certain sensible princes in the matter;
but they are entirely negligent in this and, as things appear to me, it
inwardly angers me that they do not do this.
The whole matter stands in God's will, and will not be governed through
human flesh. Meanwhile 7" become impatient about our negligence ; I think
that God withholds from us this human help so that we will not confide in our
selves. Hence you will diligently pray that God may sustain and protect and
grant us universal peace : The Landgrave keeps himself under perfect
control. He explicitly told me that he too would, for the sake of peace, accept
very burdensome conditions, in so far only as they can be borne without any re
proach and disadvantage to the Gospel.
Herewith commended to God. The 6th of August, 1530.

Luther to Melanchthon.
Jen. MS.
Colest. , III, 28 b; De Wette, IV, 133.
August /jth.
I praise God, who has permitted the Confutation of the opponents to take such
a stupid course. Now then, for a strong pull through to the end ! Having read
Eisleben' s letter, which treats of disturbances and devils, I had been fearing that
dreadful things would happen. Martin Luther.

JUNE 25th — SEPTEMBER 23rd. 485
August 6th.
THE LUTHEBANs' DAEKEST HOUE.
On August 6th, as Melanchthon narrates just above, the
Lutherans were offered a copy of the Confutation on con
dition that they agree with the Emperor, and refrain from
printing the document. They declined the offer. The re
fusal of the Lutherans to receive the Confutation on the im
perial terms, their appeal to God and to his Majesty "
brought on a scene of excitement and confusion. The
Romanist Princes, especially George of Saxony, declared
that this reply was rebellion, and it seemed for a time as if
war would begin on the very floor of the Diet." The Papal
Legate, spurred on by tidings he had received from Rome,
urged Charles to seize fire and sword and take possession of
the property of the heretics, and put the heretical University
of Wittenberg under the ban.41
The Lutheran party held their peace, though filled with
indignation.42 Melanchthon, in great fear, fell back on
Luther's prayers.
But Luther himself was full of faith and courage.
Already on August 5th he had written his famous letter con
cerning the two miracles he saw at his window, the one
of the stars in the magnificent firmament whose immense
vault the Lord supported by his power, and yet the heavens
did not fall ;~ and the other of the great cloud hanging over
our heads, which was not suspended by cords, and yet did
not collapse. He wrote to Augsburg : " God will choose the
way and the time of deliverance, and He will not tarry.
What the men of blood have commenced, they cannot finish.
Our rainbow is very faint, and their clouds are very threat-

" Forst., XJrk., II, 181 : " Dass sie es gott und S. majestat befehlen
musten." 10 lb., C. R., II, 254.
" Instructio data Caesari a reverendissimo Campeggi In dleta Augustana,
1530. 12 C. R., II, 254.

486 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
ening, but ours will be the victory. No matter if Luther
perishes, Christ will be the conqueror. And then Luther will
also be conqueror." 43
It is said that when at the meeting the Emperor called
upon the Protestants to submit to the Confutation, and then
looked knowingly at his sword, the Elector of Saxony took
him up at his own meaning and replied, " The straight line
is the shortest road." It might surely have been war, if the
archbishop of Maintz, the Elector of Brandenburg, and other
German Catholic Princes, who knew the strength of the
Protestants and were fearful of an invasion of their own
dominions, or who sympathized with them in their position,
had not interyened and offered themselves to the Lutherans
to mediate their cause. The Elector declared that it was
not the Emperor with whom the Lutheran quarrel lay.
They had come in response to his Call, and they were ready
to have unity of faith restored on the basis of that Call.4*
This was the position the Lutherans had taken all along, and
with this in view the Augsburg Confession was framed, viz.,
the possibility of a purification of the old church in doc
trine and abuses ; but not a unification at the expense of any
point of the Gospel doctrine.
The Emperor accepted the offer of these Princes, and
consequently sixteen German Catholics were appointed as
mediators between the Romanists and the Protestants. This
was still the morning of August 6th, and the mediators met
immediately. The morning they spent in internal strug
gles and disputes, the bishop of Augsburg speaking in favor
of the Lutherans, and the archbishop of Salsburg against
them. These Catholic Princes met in the afternoon again,
but instead of mediating between others, almost came to
blows " among themselves.

" MS. in Cod. Jen. b. fol. 306. Chytr., 96 b ; Erl., 54 : 183 ; Colest, II, 275.
"C. R., II, 254.
"Chytr., Ger. 215; Salig, I, 277.

JUNE 25th — SEPTEMBER 23rd. 487
HEEOISM of the LUTHEEAN eefusal.
This refusal of the Lutherans to accept the Confutation
and return to the Roman Church was one of the boldest of
the many perilous acts of these heroes on behalf of their
Faith. Up to now, Melanchthon (who from the very start
was averse to a frank and open Confession, and who seemed
as one possessed with the demon of negotiation and com
promise rather than with the spirit of Confession) alone
excepted, all the princes and theologians had stood squarely
on the Confession, deliberately preferring to take the con
sequences of excommunication from the Catholic Church,
loss of position, loss of property, loss of life, and open war
itself, rather than yield one point of the pure doctrine.
They stood for their rights under the Call, and they had hope
in the Emperor as one who felt the power of the truth.
To paint them, — even in the darkest days of this dark
month of August, when under the fearful, if not perfidious,
•leadership of Melanchthon, they came near making ship
wreck of the whole cause for which they had sacrificed so
much, — as willing to secure peace at any price, as being
unable to endure the idea of parting from the Roman Church,
or to go to the still more untruthful extreme of intimating
that they were worried by the fear that there was " no sal
vation for them outside of the Roman Church," is not only
a perversion of the facts, but is an injustice to men who were
literally giving their life for the cause.
Of the Lutheran part of the Committee that subsequently
brought the doctrine into compromise, the old Margrave,
who had offered his head at the block eight weeks earlier
rather than give up his faith ; the timid Heller ; with Schnepf,
the theologian of Philip of Hesse, and a sound man; Brentz
and Melanchthon, were members. We believe it can be
shown that the plan, the method, the stubborn insistence
on compromise, and the results, were, under the manipulation
of Rome, those of Melanchthon; and that of all the party —

488 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
the Elector, Briick, Schnepf, the Margrave and the Nu-
rembergers, — he was the only one who was really willing to
wreck any part of the doctrine of Luther for the sake of
remaining with Rome. And he had even tried to justify
the compromise to his own conscience. As he made Luther
weary by the constant proposal of Roman approximations,
which were not however put squarely, in the actual his
torical form in which he intended to avail himself of them,
so by dint of persistent dictation and assumption of authority
he brought down the situation here, as he did years later
in the Leipzig Interim, to a surrender of Justification by
Eaith, the great Article of the standing or falling church.
Eor anyone, in face of the persistent evidence of the con
stant leaven of the Melanchthonian principle of compromise
of doctrine before the Confession, after the Confession, in
the Variata, and during the whole generation of Melanch
thon's leadership, to say that this was the position of Lu
ther, or of the Elector, or of Briick, or of the Electoral party
at Augsburg, or to represent these men as being willing to
secure peace from Rome at any price, is to cover the shame
and to attribute the principles and motives of one union-
istic Lutheran to men who all their life stood firm against
union of any character at the expense of doctrine. If any
one thing is revealed clearly in Melanchthon's correspond
ence, it is that he finds little sympathy (outside of Jonas),
in the Electoral party for his views and plans."
August 7th. A DAY OF SENSATION FOE BOTH SIDES.
The Lutheran Princes were still asleep the next morning

10 To cite only two instances : Mel. to Luther, July 27th : " Those who are
here help me little ; " Aug. 6th, Mel. to Luther : " Our princes could secure
peace much more readily, ... if they diligently begged for it ; but they are
altogether pegleetful as to this, and as it looks to me, secretly irritated, so
that they do not undertake this." Here we have Melanchthon's own testimony
not only to the fact that the princes are of little help to him and out of sym
pathy with his plans ; but that, while he is eager for peace, the princes are
apathetic. What further proof is needed as to the difference in attitude be
tween himself and the Electoral party !

JUNE 25th — SEPTEMBER 23rd. 489
when they were ordered to come immediately to the chap
ter hall.4' They arrived at eight o'clock. The mediators
appointed on August 6th met with them and demanded that
they give up their false doctrine, and come back to the
bosom of the church. The Elector of Saxony asked for time.
Then Joachim turned upon him savagely and said that un
less he gave up the doctrine of Luther, the Emperor would
use force against him and subjugate him, deposing him from
his position, despoiling his possessions, laying waste his
country, and taking away his life, and would force his
subjects back to the old faith. Turning toward the Elector,
he said: "All will be torn from you, swift ruin will de
scend upon your subjects, and even upon their wives and
children." The Elector showed no sign of movement. His friends
now saw why it was that the guards of the Emperor occu
pied the gates of the city : 4S the Emperor intended violence.4'
The Elector was stunned as by a thunder-bolt, and returned
home in distress.50 Those historians who fail to present
the whole truth, and make it appear that this distress was a
sign of yielding, are not to be trusted. However terrifying
the threats, the Elector and his party stood firm, and did
not recede one step. " Sed hae minae nihil commoverunt :
perstant in sententia, nee vel tantillum recedunt." a On
that same afternoon Briick prepared a firm answer to these
dreadful demands. This answer stated that the Lutherans
could not yield to the proposals made by the Catholic com
missioners, that their side had not been properly heard, as
the Emperor had promised it would be in the Call, that
they had not received a copy of the Confutation, and that

" C. R., II, 254 ; Briick, Apol., t. 79.
"Ib., 277.
"Ib. 50 Colest, III, 26b.
" C. R., II, 277.

490 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
the Emperor had promised to call a national Council to
take up these matters.12
But it proved to be not necessary to read their answer that
day in the Diet. A tremendous sensation had occurred.
The evening before, on August 6th, at eight o'clock, Philip
of Hesse had succeeded in leaving Augsburg in disguise,
and in escaping to his dominions. He had said, " I shall
fight for the Word of God, at the risk of my goods, my
estates, my subjects, and my life." The news travelled
through the city like the report of a volcano. The Em
peror was shaken to the bottom of his heart.63 The Elector
and his firm but down-hearted band of heroes were as much
astonished as the Romanists themselves. Luther, as soon
as he heard it, highly approved of the Landgrave's departure,
and exclaimed, " Such delay and indignity are enough to tire
more than one Landgrave."

August 8th to 15th.
THE EOMANISTS CONCILIATE AND ASK FOE A COMMISSION.
The effect on the Diet of the Landgrave's departure was
instantaneous. The German Catholic Princes thought
they already saw him at the head of an army and feared lest
their territories would immediately be invaded by the bold
knight. All threatenings in the Diet against the Luther
ans ceased, and they were treated with respect. As the cry
had a day ago been violence and war, it now was compromise
and peace. So great was the reaction, so full of anxiety was
the Emperor, so meek was the Papal party, that, though
Briick had handed in his defiant answer, subscribed by
eight Princes and six cities on the 9th of August, and the
Elector Joachim had replied to it as the spokesman of the
K C. R., II, 266 ; Chytr., Lat., 221,
"2Seck., II, 172.

JUNE 25th — SEPTEMBER 23rd. 491
Catholic commisson on the 11th of August," when, on the
13th of August, the Protestant Princes made their counter
reply, — and declared that they were willing to go as far as
was consistent with God's Word, and to unite with others
so far as their consciences would permit, if the method
originally proposed by the Emperor in the Call were fol
lowed, and a small number of commissioners were chosen
(not from the Catholic side exclusively as had been done
but) from both sides, who would consider the articles in dis
pute and endeaver to bring about an agreement, as the Call
intended, — the Romanists were only too glad to adopt the
method originally proposed by the emperor, and, wonder of
wonders ! to make the Augsburg Confession itself the basis
of consideration.58
On the next day, the Emperor appointed a commission of
an equal number of representatives from both sides. The
reader should note that all three of the theologians repre
senting the Catholic side were the most bitter and venom
ous enemies of the Lutherans, viz., John Eck, Conrad Wim
pina and John Cochlaeus. He will also see, if he studies
the situation, that the Romanists suddenly became wolves in
sheep's clothing, that the commission would proceed on its
downward path under the leadership of Eck on the one
side, and the still once again miserably deceived Melanch
thon on the Protestant side. He will see too that the pro-
testant theologians were not our leaders in the true sense of
the word. Eck knew in advance that Melanchthon could be
gained over to the Roman side, and knew that the Princes
did not sympathize with Melanchthon on this point; and,
therefore, he said as early as the 14th of August that, " They
did not want any Princes on the commission ; for the Princes

64 Even Joachim had wound up his reply by saying that "for the present it
would be wiser to propose means and ways for concord ! " "
55 Chytr., 222 sqq.
55 For this counter reply of the Protestants, see Chytr., (Ger.) 130, (Lat.)
225; Salig, I, 282-284.

492 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
are self-conceited fools," " The Lutherans were appointed
by the Emperor.
Already on August 15th the Lutheran theologians had
presented to their Princes an Opinion on the subject of
" concord," which reproduces, word for word, and almost
clause for clause, the favorite thought of Melanchthon; and
in which he has evidently embraced the opportunity to chas
tise and warn the Princes against supposed apathy toward
war. In this Opinion, in which Melanchthon tries to train
and school the more sturdy princes to his own more timid
views, as being those of the Word of God, by arguments
which he has been attempting also to force upon Luther in his
correspondence with him, perhaps the most remarkable of all
the Melanchthonian statements is this : " Therefore we most
humbly beg the princes, for the sake of God and for their
own good, to try to make peace, and to see to it, that if the
enemy should become too severe, our consciences should
become more easy." Thus does the unionistic theologian
graduate his conscience, not according to the teaching of the
Word of God, but inversely according to the severity of the
enmity. No wonder that pure Lutheran doctrine was in
danger of being sacrificed under a theologian animated by
this principle.58
August 16th. GREAT CONCESSIONS PEOPOSED.
On August 16th the commission consisting of two princes,
two lawyers, and two theologians from each side went to
work. The Protestant theologians were Melanchthon, Brentz,
and Schnepf. The Evangelical Confession was taken as the
basis of discussion. Of the twenty-one articles, the Roman
ists finally objected only to penance, invocation of saints, and
justification by faith. Rome could not yield on this latter
K c. JR., II, 279.
5» lb., 281 sqq. ; Chytr., Lat., 236 sqq.

JUNE 25th — SEPTEMBER 23rd. 493
point: it must maintain the meritorious influence of works.
As to government, ordinances, and abuses, the Protestants, on
their part, went so far in their concessions as to agree to re
store the bishops, and even to agree to acknowledge the Pope,5'
while the Romanists yielded the marriage of priests until
the next Council. But Brentz wrote, "we cannot acknowl
edge the Pope, because we say he is Antichrist " ; " and, two
days later, when the others seemed on the point of yielding,
Briick wrote on the margin of the document, " We cannot
acknowledge the Pope because we say he is Antichrist, and
because he claims primacy by divine right." a We have
reason to believe that of the six Protestant commissioners,
Briick, Brentz and Schnepf protested and were unwilling.
Melanchthon was able to manage the brave old Margrave
and the timid Heller. The committee not only agreed to
go back to the jurisdiction of the Pope and the bishops, but
also to return to the Roman customs and ceremonies. How
astonishing it is that sixteen years later, as soon as Luther
was dead, Melanchthon again put the Church into this very
position ; though meantime he had been veering and temporiz
ing toward the Reformed position.
On August the 18th, the commissioners issued an " Ex
planation" of the articles to which both commissions had
agreed. This " Explanation " raised a storm outside the
committee. The lay Protestants were disgusted with the the
ologians. We are told that all Augsburg a declared, " It
is better to die with Christ, than to gain the favor of the
whole world without Him."

59 AU this was in accordance with Melanchthon's program of concession, made
before even he knew there would be an opportunity to concede. This put his
informal concessions to the Legate into fixed shape. He had been preparing
for it in the correspondence on Ordinances of which Luther grew weary, and
Luther had been unable to shake him in this purpose. The discussion in the
Commission on the Protestant side proves all this. Thus, they said, " Al
though the pope is Anti-Christ, we may be under his government, as the Jews
were under Pharaoh, and in later days under Caiaphas." " Only," said the
Lutheran theologians, " let sound doctrine be fully accorded to us."
60 Forst., Urk., II, 249.
"low?., 247.
* " Die ganze Stadt sagt." — C. R., II, 297.
35

494 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
It was indeed a great Melanchthonian treachery, in which
Melanchthon had involved his commission. The theolo
gians with him were Heller, Brentz, and Schnepf. Schnepf,
according to certain accounts, seems to have remained stead
fast, and Brentz seems to have become confused.
To make these men the representatives of the whole Lu
theran party at Augsburg, is not to write history. They
had been appointed by the Emperor: they had been dic
tated to by Melanchthon. His fear of war, his desire not
to break with Rome, his lack of faith, his respect for worldly
power, and all the worse sides of his mental character en
tered in as the controlling element. In the article on the
Lord's Supper, — just as later on, he had in his 'Loci' and
in the ' Variata ' of the Augsburg Confession used ambig
uous language, — he was now using ambiguous language
to cover both the doctrine of transubstantiation and the
Lutheran doctrine of the sacrament.
For any historian to conclude, after all that Luther had
been writing since 1527 on the Sacrament of the Altar, after
the severe examination of the doctrine of the mass during
the struggles of the Sacramentarians, that the Lutherans
themselves at this time maintained a view of the sacrament
which could be harmonized with the Roman teaching of
transubstantiation, is an insult to the early reformers. Me
lanchthon understood Eck's meaning in the statement which
he here accepted, but he, for the sake of peace, and with
that inability to appreciate the immutableness of the teaching
of the Word of God, was willing to gloss over a fundamental
difference in this doctrine with Rome, just as he afterwards
was willing to gloss it over in connection with the teaching of
Bucer and Calvin. There was the same inconsistency on' his
part as to Protestant concession in the doctrine of Private
Confession. Eck had managed things so wonderfully that he had suc
ceeded in gaining from Melanchthon almost every point
vital to the Romanists. As to justification, Cochlaeus re-

JUNE 25th — SEPTEMBER 23rd. 495
ported thus : " The Lutherans of their own accord gave up
and renounced this word Sola, and no longer said that we
are justified by faith alone. Hence, a short statement of
Concord was at once drawn up in the briefest possible form
of words, and, unless my memory fails me, it was written
by Philip himself, namely, that justification or the remis
sion of sins takes place " per gratiam gratum f acientem et
fidem formaliter, per verbum vero et sacramentum instru-
mentaliter." e3
But great bomb-shells, as we shall see, were soon dropped,
by Luther, into this beautiful peace, mediated by Melanch
thonian treachery. MELANCHTHON AND HIS COMPEOMISE.
That Melanchthon has been recognized in history as re
sponsible for thus attempting to strangle the Lutheran
Church, the report of the proceedings of this Commission
given by even such a mild, tolerant, pietistic, and moderate
historian as Salig64 will show. Salig excuses himself at the
start by saying, " Whether Melanchthon was to blame or
not, I shall not say at this time. Luther at least praised his
transactions and freed him from blame." He then tells the
following story, put together from Vita Phil. Mel., Coe-
lestin, Chytrasus, Mueller, Sleidanus and other early his
torians : —
"At that time Melanchthon was under very great pres
sure and subject to many criticisms from his party. Came
rarius reports that frequently he saw Melanchthon sobbing
and crying,65 and had heard many complaints. The causes
of the adverse remarks were chiefly these : —
" (1) That in all things he caused himself to appear too
mild and fearful.

"Plitt, Apologie der Augustana, p. 49.
"SaUg, I, 318.
" Melanchthon wrote to Camerarius : *' Not a day passes in which I do not
wish that I might leave this world."

496 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
" (2) That he wrote letters that were too humble, to the
cardinals, the legates, and other bishops, such as Luettlich, and
Augsburg, and to the Venetian orator, Nicholas Teupolus.61 M
That his letters were now being carried around in print at
Augsburg to the greatest shame and reproach of Melanch
thon, which were not a little increased by a letter of Luther
in which this softness of Melanchthon was chastised in
caustic words.
" (3) That he would have been glad to give back their
jurisdiction into the hands of the papal bishops, and there
fore had yielded more than could properly be done without
injury to the Confession, although he had at the same time
laid down the condition that the bishops should leave the
pure Gospel free. Yes, one of the Evangelicals went so
far as to speak these hard words of Melanchthon: If Mel
anchthon had been hired at the price of a great sum of money
by the Papists, to defend their cause, he could not have gone
about it in a better way. Melanchthon was to be held, not
as a patron of the Evangelicals, but of the Papists.
"Melanchthon complained to Camerarius, that many Evan
gelical representatives were angry at him on this account,
and that others had charged him of these things in bitter
words. Luther wrote,66 September 2nd: It is not possible
to say how much he was hated by the Nurembergers, because
he had again yielded the power to the bishops.
" (4) For the Nuremberg Theologians had diligently re
ported the opinions and actions of Melanchthon back home.
The Council at Nuremberg passed a special resolution with
respect to the inconceivable reply of the Protestants.
" The instrument drawn up seemed to have yielded very
much, and to have given into the hands of the Papists that
which was either injurious to the conscience, which could
not be maintained with Scripture, or burdensome and offen
sive -to those who up to now had confessed Christ and his
Gospel.

66 Colestin, III, 63. mX Not a Letter, but a Conversation, v. p. 216.

JUNE 25th— SEPTEMBER 23rd. 497
" (1.) In the first place, it would be a great disadvantage
to the Christian authorities to be obliged after all to allow
all Monks and Nuns and their cloisters with all their man
ners and ceremonies to continue peacefully in the old
lines. . . .
" (2.) In the second place, it would not be well to admit
to the Papists that there are three parts in repentance.
" (3.) In the third place, to say that the Sacrament should
be administered to none without previous auricular Confes
sion would not only lead to much misunderstanding of the
matter, but would also be dangerous. . . .
" (4.) The article of fasting and the eating of meats had
been so composed as to give up Christian liberty under the
appearance of peaceful unity and uniformity.
" (5.) The intercession of the saints or of angels in
Heaven is not to be proven out of the Scripture.
" (6.) The quickest way to suppress and extirpate the
Gospel was to give the bishops spiritual jurisdiction to a
much greater extent than they up to this time had dared to
ask for, and than they actually had formerly possessed.
" (7.) Further, it was a crafty stroke by which the Pa
pists had postponed all the other articles which had not been
discussed, to a future Council, and wished that this single
one alone, of the jurisdiction of the bishops, should be at
once thus accepted. They had reached a path and a method
by which they would soon be able to become masters of the
Gospel and of those who proclaimed it.
"If such articles were now accepted, the Christian Es
tates could not be acquitted of acting against the Scriptures.
Although one would do much for the sake of peace, it is
necessary, in order not to bring about war in the heart and
conscience, to do right as a Christian, and commit the seri
ous question of peace or war to God.
" Further, if the articles referred to should be adopted,
and Luther and other preachers should preach, teach, and
write against them, and they could not do otherwise, one

498 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
should stop to consider what sort of a peace had been, at
tained by such yielding up of the cause.
" In earlier days, the Christian Estates had proven them
selves so brave and steadfast, and now, without necessity,
they yielded as much as they could. . . . Moreover, in such
important affairs, one must not act in a perplexed and un
certain way, but must place everything beyond the possibility
of being disputed and doubted. No matter how it now
went with this plan of mediation, the Christian Estates
would awaken the suspicion and dislike of friend and foe,
while the Papists would be greatly strengthened in their
abuses, and would shout aloud their victory, as Cochlaeus
had already written to Nuremberg, and had praised the
yielding of the Evangelicals to the highest degree. All this
was, accordingly, to be announced by the Nuremberg rep
resentative to the Elector of Saxony.
" When the matter reached them by post, they were said
to have answered : That not only they, but their Theologians,
from whom they had secretly taken counsel, had found all
sorts of difficulty in some of the methods and articles. If
the same had been sent to them before they were delivered
to the Committee, they would have spoken out their difficul
ties to the Elector and other Princes and the honorable
Council. Therefore, they regarded the transactions of the
Committee as altogether inconceivable and invalid, and
begged that the Estates would allow the whole matter to go
to Dr. Luther, and would deliberate with him, so that noth
ing would be agreed upon to the disadvantage of the Gospel,
for if anything final should be undertaken without his
knowledge and will, and Luther should afterward preach
against it, the matter would become much more confused
than beforehand.
"If it should be a difficult matter to recall the points
which had been agreed on, the Papists could nevertheless not
demand acceptance without ratification, just as they them
selves would not accept without the approval of the Emperor

JUNE 25th — SEPTEMBER 23rd. 499
and the other Estates, anything that the Evangelical theolo
gians should bring to a final conclusion without the consent
of the Estates.
" (8.) All this was the consequence, chiefly of the mild
propositions and the wide correspondence of Melanchthon,
which however he never was willing to admit. But, in
order to understand the cause and the occasion of this Nu
remberg opinion more fully, we shall present a short ex
tract from Hieronymus Baumgartner, who was at that time
present at the Diet at Augsburg, and who wrote to Lazarus
Spengler, Secretary of the Nuremberg Council. From this
correspondence one can see how the other Theologians were
not satisfied with the mediators at the Diet.
" ' In the first letter, Baumgartner writes : I must give my
opinion of the action of this Diet in matters of faith. God
grant that in this I shall not become a true prophet !
" ' First, you know what persistent opposition there has
been against us in past transactions first by this and then by
another devil, who at times transformed themselves into
angels of light. Although the Romanist party failed to at
tain its desire, and the measures proposed on our part were
accepted, we nevertheless are finding out that even now the
idea is to place their measures in the decree at once as hav
ing been agreed to.
" ' Even if such an extreme should not happen, the Ro
manists have never entered into any dealing in vain, but
they always forced some concession from us, which we have
been obliged to grant. This yielding they always hold ready
to spring upon us and, at sometime when it is least desirable,
they will use it. But by His special grace God has ordained
that the Confession has been delivered over once for all in
full: — else our Theologians would have confessed another
one long ago, which indeed if they had been supported, they
would gladly have done, although they are not all of the
same mind.
" ' Philip has become more childish than a child. Brentz

500 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
is not only unskillful, but also rough and coarse. Heller
is full of fear, and these three have caused the pious Mar
grave to be quite distracted and discouraged, and have per
suaded him to do what they desire, although I perceive that
he would gladly do right. The pious Vogler is much abused
in his absence, as though, if he were still here [Baumgartner
writes from Augsburg], so much that is good [in their eye]
would not have been accomplished.
" ' The Elector in this business has no one more sensible
than the one and only Dr. Briick; but they have brought him
to the point where he now also grows anxious in business,
since there is not a soul to give him any support. The other
Saxon theologians dare not speak openly against Philip, for
he has gone so far as recently to assert against the Liineburg
chancellor: 'He who dares to say that the remedies last
yielded to are not Christian, lies like a villain. . . .
" ' In fine : if that rough and ungracious decree of his
imperial Majesty had not soon failed, the Romanists would
not have ceased with us until they had brought us into the
net. So greatly have we needed God's protection, and have
not received the Emperor's: for this affair has continued
constantly up to this time.
" 'As often as the princes assemble, one comes riding up to
the Elector and tells him, ' how faithful and ivell disposed
he is, etc., that he has heard this or that from the Emperor,
and if one would only yield in this or that point, the affairs
might still be adjusted.' Immediately Philip is on hand,
writes up an article, comments on it, etc. This is then car
ried bv Heller and Brentz to the Margrave. When then we
have been consulted, and we declare that the predigested
broth does not taste good, offense is given and the theologians
go about and say that we do not desire peace, as though peace
were indeed to be surely preserved by our yielding.
" ' Let us only make attack with the Landgrave, whom
they defamed most sadly in this matter. What will come of
all this at last, you can well perceive as an experienced man,

JUNE 25th — SEPTEMBER 23rd. 501
if force be used, as the Emperor intends. The effort will
be to take away the Gospel from us by violence, as we well
deserve ; and although this is very oppressive, yet it is easier
before God than that we should voluntarily enter those paths
in which it will surely be stolen from us by treachery. It is
indeed necessary to call on God continuously. . . . Schnepf
alone still has a voice to sing in a firm and Christian way,
on which account he is often mocked scurrilously by the
others. Without him we would be, as far as all the theo
logians are concerned, at one with the other side.' "

Luther to Spengler.
Wolienbiittel.Erl., 54, 188. August 2}th.
We have heard of the new committee at Augsburg and of the Landgrave's de
parture, and it is something wonderful for us to look upon. God give further
grace. Amen.

Melanchthon to Luther.
Chytr., Ger., 400. August 22nd.
Yesterday we brought the disputations to an end. Eck ridicules the word sola,
although he has not rejected the doctrine as such.
When we came to the disputation as to both forms, I could not accept the doc
trine that there is no commandment to receive it in both forms.

Spengler wrote to Luther concerning the lack of unity
and the too great mildness of the theologians at Augsburg.
Luther answered him on August 28th, saying that they should
consider how much the theologians at Augsburg had been
obliged to endure, and should not blame them for the rea
son that, despite their yielding, up to this moment the truth
had remained unharmed. Even if somewhat too much had
been yielded, which he nevertheless hoped was not the case,
yet the matter was not lost, but it was still possible to begin
a new conflict. Spengler should rest assured, that he, Lu
ther, would yield nothing pertaining to the Gospel. And if

502 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
his men at Augsburg yielded anything, it would go bad with
the Roman party.
To Jonas, Luther wrote that he had received many letters
in which it was stated that the Lutheran side had been be
trayed, and that too much had been yielded for the sake of
peace: but that he himself relied on the reaction. He said
further that he would not endure the inconceivable and im
possible Articles which the mediation committee had com
posed, even if an angel of Heaven commanded him to do so.
The Roman party would never yield a hair's breadth.
There was not much need of composing many articles. If
the Canon were yielded to Rome, the whole Gospel would be
denied. If the jurisdiction of the bishops were yielded, our
denial of the Gospel would be so much the greater. Peace
might charm with its syren tones, but God must be obeyed.
This is not a matter of prophesying war, but a matter of be
lieving and confessing. He knew Eck's intention very well.
The thing to do was to terminate matters and only come back
home again. If a war followed, it would follow. God
would deliver His people, even out of the Babylonian fur
nace of fire.
The kindliness, the patience, the unfaltering friendship,
the toleration of Luther for Melanchthon during all these
days is marvelous. He loved, he pled, he pitied, but the
words of thunder and the bolts of lightning which he hurled
so fearlessly upon the enemy did not descend upon the weary,
worn, and erring head of his disciple and follower. To the
end of his life Luther constantly overlooked the aberrations
of Melanchthon with a self-denial, a composure, and a taci
turnity that are remarkable.
Salig's opinion of Melanchthon is as follows :— "
" We will not excuse Melanchthon in all things, since it
is known that he was not indeed the most steadfast sort of a
person. But that Baumgartner perhaps wrote much from
jealousy, is also no doubt not to be denied. At least Luther
67 I, 335.

JUNE 25th — SEPTEMBER 23rd. 503
always knew how to recognize Melanchthon's great services
and his excellent adaptability, and praises him in a way he
would not have done, if he had not been satisfied with his
leadership."68 Cyprian's judgment on Melanchthon is more serious than
that of Salig. In one place he quotes an estimate by Coch
laeus, which we give, not because we believe it really char
acterizes Melanchthon, but because it so graphically depicts
the impression that men of compromise — especially if they
be theological diplomatists^-make even upon their enemies,
though the latter be their equals in negotiative craft. Cyp
rian says: —
" Therefore Cochlaeus wrote to the Emperor concerning
Melanchthon: — Your Majesty clearly understands that that
man, by his bland speech and his wolflike hypocrisy, con
ducted himself more disgracefully at the court at Augsburg
than the absent Luther did by open taunts and bitter words.
For Luther railled in his customary manner ; but he, indeed,
like a deceitful serpent, intending frauds, endeavored to
overcome not the people but the prominent men by his hy
pocrisy. By so much as Philip is more agreeable to learned
men than Luther, and by so much as he is more modest in
teaching, so much the more grievously did he harm the
Church: it was his habit to reply that they need not await
what Luther would write, but what the prince would propose
to the Emperor. How craftily he acted with the legate
(Campeggi), no one knew better than the legate himself,
who, not sufficiently trusting his tears and entreaties, at first,
ordered him to put his petition in writing, and yet was not
able to preclude all deception by this species of cunning.
For he said some time after that he could not trust him in
any respect after he had heard him." "

""This is a mistake on the part of Salig. Luther never had blame for
Melanchthon, but was silent, even where the younger disciple, by his incon
sistency, placed him in a position of great peril.
™ Cyprian, p. 107.

504 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
Even Hofstatter ** writing on the anniversary of Melanch
thon, and in his praise, admits all the facts respecting the
failings of the great Prseceptor. He says: —
" We see his failings not only in the Melanchthon of the
Variata and of the Interim, in his various attempts to
greatly weaken the original doctrine as toward Rome and
Calvin, and to again veil the truth that had become recog
nized : we also know quite well how he, to start with, lacked
competency to cope with the many works that crowded him
in ecclesiastical and governmental polity. Moreover we
realize that in the timidity of his nature, in his susceptibility
toward hierarchical power and an outward ecclesiasticism,
he did not consistently follow the Reformatory views out
to their consequences with the bold determination of a
Luther. We may perhaps also deplore the fact that such a
man of learning, and of the cathedra, was drawn so inex
tricably into the practical affairs of the Church and was so
restrained in a free scientific development of the new ideas.
But all that does not lessen his merit nor our gratitude. All
that cannot make us forget what the same Melanchthon gave
our nation and our Church."
Again Hofstatter says : —
" But now Melanchthon did not abide by it [the Augsburg
Confession]. His anxious looking to see which way the
wind blew at the imperial court, the feeling that he was
responsible for an unfortunate issue of this Diet, from which
so much was promised for the evangelical cause, led him, at
Augsburg, into many a crooked way and into much deplor
able yielding. He invites Cochlaus to dine, and negotiates
with the secretary of the Emperor. Responding to the wish
of the Emperor, he declares himself ready to settle the whole
matter privately, and not to insist upon the public discus
sion. After this he turns to the Legate of the Pope and
intends not to decline any conditions of peace that may be at

69a Die Augsburgische Konfession in ihrer Bedeutung fiir das kirchliche Leben
der Qegenwart Leipzig, 1897.

JUNE 25th — SEPTEMBER 23rd. 505
all possible. He proclaims the mildness of Rome and at
last discovers only a slight deviation in ceremonies [between
Rome and the Evangelical side]. He does not venture any
longer to demand the abolition of the mass, and while the
Romish Confutation with its groundless complaints and the
demand of the Emperor, sharpened by threats, to return to
obedience to the Church, was the very thing to strengthen
the Evangelical Princes in their Faith and to fill them with
immovable courage; while Luther who from the very start
had been moved by doctrinal and not by political considera
tions, not only failed to grieve over such a termination of
the Diet, but bluntly rebuked Melanchthon for his lack of
Faith, Melanchthon again brought up his concessions in the
presence of the Legate, and stipulated, for his part, nothing
but the marriage of priests and the cup for the laity, giving
up all the rest of the Reformation as a temerarii motus.
"It was only the Evangelical princes who at that time
preserved the Evangelical honor and faith. They courage
ously and beautifully confess: 'Better perish with Christ,
than without Him gain the favor of the whole world.' So
also it was they who declined the decree of the Diet with its
humiliating conditions ; and the cause of the Gospel was not
lost, despite the enmity of Emperor and Pope, despite the
disposition to concede and the faint-heartedness of Melanch
thon; and the Confession delivered in Augsburg remained
the Creed of the Reformation.69"
" But," says Hofstatter, " what estimate shall we then
make of Melanchthon, of him who by his anxious com
promising and yielding threatened to pour away the great
blessing that was contained in his own Confession? We
neither conceal nor palliate this. We do not even wish to
make the excuse for it that a fateful conflict in his life
caused him to be drawn to tasks for which he was not at
all fitted. Nevertheless we will not indeed forget that the

•"•Die Augsburgische Konfession in ihrer Bedeutung fiir das kirchliche Leben
der Gegenwart, p. 4-7.

506 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
hours of vexation and weakness disappeared, and that the
very days at Augsburg brought forth that other Confession,
which, free from all compromises, again defended the jewel
of the Reformation with fresh clear words, which because
of its tone and its witness soon became the symbol of the
Evangelical side and the Confession of our Church, and
which to this day remains an eloquent defense even for
Melanchthon. In addition to this, the Augustana is and
indeed remains his work, and this work praises its master."09"
Professor Loy, in his history of the Augsburg Confession,™
pronounces a just judgment on Melanchthon as follows: —
" He was a man of peace and unduly timid withal. It
is difficult to speak of the work of this commission without
censuring his weakness at a time when the occasion de
manded unflinching strength. He hesitated when he should
have stood forth as the bold confessor of eternal truth.
" The fact is undeniable that his lack of qualification for
leadership . . . threatened disaster to the whole cause of
the Reformation. He did not show the firmness against
men so resourceful in subterfuge as Eck, which was befitting
the humble disciple of Christ who bowed to the Lord's
Word, whatever might come of it. . . .
" Peace seemed secure without a distinct declaration of
the Evangelical truth. Luther who always looked at things
in the clear light of the Gospel, replied to Melanchthon:
' You write how Eck was forced to confess that we are saved
alone by grace; would to God that you had forced him to
quit lying/

Mo Die Augsburgische Konfession in ihrer Bedeutung fiir das kirchliche
Leben der Gegemcart, p. 7.
Hoffstatter errs in supposing that Melanchthon, if not restrained and hemmed
In, would have been more free and scientific in the development of the Church's
doctrine ; and that we owe to him entirely the change in the Confession from
a mere paper on Ceremonies to an "Apology" of the most weighty articles
of faith.
'" The Augsburg Confession, p. 52-53.

JUNE 25th — SEPTEMBER 23rd. 507
" Unable in his weakness to withstand artifices, Melanch
thon was allured into concessions which were not even in ac
cord with the faith even of his soul. But God still ruled,
and He had no concessions to make. When the Papists in
sisted that the Protestants must not teach that the Holy Sup
per is administered in both kinds by divine command, Mel
anchthon's conscience overcame his love of peace, and nei
ther he nor his colleagues could be induced to make a con
cession. . . . The Lutherans declared that the people must
be taught what the Scriptures teach. The negotiations were
thus brought to a close, and the commission reported that
no agreement could be effected."
August 26th. EIEE OPENED EEOM COBUBG.
But Luther, though he was so patient with Melanchthon
and the Augsburg party, and so apologetic on their behalf
in all complaints from outside, took positive and radical
action when the tidings came to him on August 26th con
cerning the proposed compromise. He wrote no less than
five letters, one to Melanchthon, one to the Elector, one to
Spalatin, one to Jonas and one to Brentz, on the 26th, and
three more on the 28th.
So far as we recall, Luther had been kept in ignorance of
this new move. Melanchthon had not written to him from
August 8th to August 22nd. Before this letter came, Luther
had heard some rumors via Wittenberg which seemed quite
incredible, and of which he spoke ironically to Melanchthon
in a letter on the 24th. Besserer reports to Ulm on this date
that Luther already is exceedingly wrought up.
Luther to Melanchthon.
caiest.. in, 50. August 24th.
I believe you have long ago heard the latest news from Augsburg, my dear
Philip, viz., that fourteen men have been chosen anew as new mediators, all of
whose names we know, and that you, with Eck, are the principal speakers, but

508 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
Spalatin is the secretary. If this is true, it is wonderful. The Lord, who sent
you to Augsburg, make you great and glorious there ! . . What shall we
travelers do but show our skill in announcing the news, while meantime, you re
main as disposed to silence as the frogs in Seriphus.
August 22nd.
Melanchthon had written to Luther on this day," and had
told him of the happenings in the larger Commission. Lu
ther was stirred, and sat down and told Melanchthon that
the Papacy and the Gospel doctrine could not exist together,
much less be reconciled; that he had a crafty set to deal
with, whose aim was to suppress the Evangelicals; that
Melanchthon's defence of justification, and the two modes
was good, but that he could not have done worse in inviting
a severe and dangerous war by again yielding to the au
thority of the bishops, and returning to the old rites.

Cod., Jen., b. fol. 114.
Ctilest., Ill, fol. 50b.

Luther to Melanchthon.

August 26th.

I pray you, is not everything deception there ? You now have Campeggi, you
have the Saltzberger, you have the silenced monks who crossed the Rhine to
Spires. . . .
What have I ever hoped for less, and what do I now wish less, than transac
tions concerning a union in doctrine? As if we really could destroy the Pope, or
as if as long as popery remains unharmed, our doctrine could be unharmed. Of
course there can be union and compromise, in order that he may remain pope. He
will concede and allow, if we do thus. But God be praised that you have not
accepted anything from them.
You write that Eck has been forced by you to confess that we are justified by
faith ; would to God though that you had also compelled him not to lie. For Eck
confesses that righteousness comes from faith, but at the same time he defends all the
abominations of popery, kills, persecutes, and condemns those who confess this
doctrine of the faith. He is not repenting, but continues.
The whole of the Roman party does the very same thing, and with these people
you are seeking conditions of unity and worrying yourself in vain, until they shall
find something plausible by which they can destroy us. In the matter of the two
forms you have done right. . . .
It is not in our power to place or tolerate anything in God's church or in His

1 Chytr., p. 265.

JUNE 25th — SEPTEMBER 23rd. 509
service which cannot be defended by the Word of God, and I am vexed not a little
by this talk of compromise, which is a scandal to God. With this one word
"mediation" I could easily make all the laws and ordinances of God matters of
compromise. For if we admit that there is a compromise in the Word of God,
how can we defend ourselves so that not all things become compromises. . . .
As to the restoration of obedience and jurisdiction to the bishops and to the
common forms and ceremonies, as you write: " Take heed, and do not give more
than you have," so that we are not forced into a serious and dangerous war anew,
to defend the Gospel. I know that you always except the Gospel in these
dealings, but I fear that they might blame us as a faithless and unreliable people,
if we do not uphold what they desire, for they will take our admonitions in a
wide, ever wider, the widest possible sense; but give to their own a narrow, ever
narrower, the narrowest possible sense.
In short, I am thoroughly displeased with this negotiating concerning union in
doctrine, since it is utterly impossible, except the Pope wishes to put away his
power. It was enough to give account of our faith and to ask for peace. Why do
we hope to convert them to the truth ? We have come, to hear whether or not they
will assent to our Confession, and they be free to remain where they are. And we
ask whether they reject our side, or acknowledge it as right. If they reject it, of
what use is it to try to enter into harmony with enemies ? If they acknowledge it
as right, why should we retain the old abuses ? And since it is certain that our
side will be condemned by them, as they are not repenting, and are striving to
retain their side, why do we not see through the matter and recognize that all
their concessions are a lie ?
We present some further extracts from this powerful
battery that was now directed from Coburg against the
compromises at Augsburg: —
To Justus Jonas.
Tr. by Currie. August 26th or 2jth.
I got a sight of our people's opinion concerning our affairs, but what I wrote
Philip I write to you, that for Christ's honour and to please me you would believe
that Campeggius is a perfect devil.
I have been much upset through our opponents' propositions. As sure as I
live this is a trick of Campeggius and the Pope, who first tried by threats to ruin our
cause, and now by artifice. You have resisted force and withstood the Emperor's
imposing entry into Augsburg ! And now you must put up with the tricks of those
cowled monks which the Rhine conveyed to Speyer, and their arrival is closely
associated with this talk of unity of doctrine.
This is the whole secret. But He who enabled you to withstand violent meas
ures will strengthen you to overcome feebler. But more of this to Philip and the
Elector. Be valiant and concede nothing which cannot be proved from Scripture.
The Lord Jesus be with you. Amen. From my hermitage.
Martin Luther.
36

510 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
Luther to Spalatin.
Cod., Jen., b., fol. 225 b.
Aurifaber III, fol. 86.
Colest., Ill, fol. 59. August 26th.
I have heard, certainly not with pleasure, that you have begun a marvellous
work, namely, to unite the Pope and Luther. But the Pope will not desire it, and
Luther forbids it ; see to it that your pains are not in vain.
Continue to defend the doctrine of justification by faith with courage. It is the
heel of the seed of the woman that shall bruise the head of the serpent.
Martin Luther.
[And see the letter of Besserer to Ulm, of Aug. 24, in Kolde, Analecta, p. 148.]
We also have two Opinions of Luther concerning the
means of compromise by both these commissions. The first
is written for the theologians. In the doctrinal articles he
writes there is nothing to yield. Then he shows that in the
articles of abuses nothing of all that which was proposed
by the Papists can be yielded with a good conscience. (Lu
ther goes into detail on each of the abuses.) This Opinion
of Luther was as hearty as thorough, and was according to
the Word of God. Luther to Melanchthon.
Cod, Jen., b., fol. 114.
Aurifaber III, fol. 79.
DeWettelV, fol. 156. August 28th.
Grace and peace in Christ ! My dear Philip, I gave answer to these questions
yesterday. And what is this, that they undertake to aid such openly godless
affairs, when they themselves did not teach thus before. . . . You could do noth
ing more right, in my opinion, than to free yourself from these gross intrigues
by saying that you would give to God what belongs to God and to the Emperor
what belongs to the Emperor. . . . Deal in a manly way, and let your heart
be comforted. Martin Luther.
The other Opinion he wrote to the Elector John on Au
gust 26th, concerning the proposed methods of the other
party and particularly concerning private masses, com
munion in one form, and the canon. For the Elector had
written to Luther and sent him both copies of both sides
of the commission and asked his opinion on it. In it Luther

JUNE 25th — SEPTEMBER 23rd.. 511
is amazed at the Papists, that they regarded the communion
in one or both forms as a matter of indifference. If private
masses were to be continued, the Gospel must be given up,
and mere good works of man must be accepted. He decides
in the same way as to the Canon, and then concludes:
" Finally, we will suffer and yield everything that lies in our
power. But what does not lie in our power we ask that they
will not desire of us. What is not in accordance with the
Word of God, it is not in our power to accept ; and what has
been established without the Word of God, in the matter of
service, is also not in our power to accept."
THE CONFESSION TO STAND UNALTEEED.
But before Luther's latest letters could reach Wittenberg,
the Electoral party at Augsburg had decided to terminate the
Commission's negotiations. Their decision is of August
28th, and in it they declare they will adhere to the Original
Confession without any " Weiterung." The Elector said
he would depart from Augsburg, as he saw very well that
the deliberations were in vain. On August 29th Melanch
thon and certain others were commanded to prepare an
Apology to the Augsburg Confession refuting the Confu
tation." But the Emperor was determined on an agreement, and
as it was supposed that things would go better if some of the
more violent individuals, such as Duke George, were set aside,
he resolved to name a smaller body, with only Eck on the one
side and Melanchthon on the other. The two other Pro
testant members were Briick and Heller.'3 This last com
mittee was short-lived.

72 Preface to Apology.
73 On the 23rd of August the Catholic estates sent some of their counsellors
to the Elector to say that they were willing to ordain a smaller commission,
and with the prayer that the Elector should not depart. The Elector promised
to communicate this to those associated with him and to reply to the Elector
of Maintz. Although the Evangelical princes at first declined in view of the
former experience, yet to avoid trouble, it was at last yielded to. Three per
sons were appointed on each side. The following day, the 24th of August, this
conference began. The Papists sang their old song. The Lutherans replied
that further deliberations might have been spared if there was nothing new to

512 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
This new move awoke the indignation of the Nuremberg
deputies, as we saw above, and of the Landgrave Philip.
" Melanchthon," wrote the Landgrave to Zwingli, " walks
backward like a crab." To his delegates at Augsburg the
Landgrave said, " Overcome these dreadful combinations
of Melanchthon, tell the deputies to be men, and not
women." " Melanchthon endeavored to defend himself by
prophesying anarchy, and a spoliation of the church, owing
to the cupidity of the secular Princes, if the spiritual juris
diction of the bishops were withdrawn. And, in the future,
tyranny would reign worse than that of the present.
Under the new commission the Romanists yielded every
thing except the three points: penance for the remission of
the penalties of sin ; merit of good works ; and validity of the
private mass; but the Protestants would not agree, and the
negotiations came to an end on August 30th. The Roman
part of the commission reported the failure to the Emperor.

be brought forward, and referred to their former answer. The Papists then
introduced other measures, that were, however, essentially the same as the old
ones. They said they desired only to save the Abuses. They flattered the
Lutherans with the promise of a Council. They declared that as there was
no promise of unity, they understood that the Emperor would hold such a
Council as would restore a common church without any of the new doctrines
and customs. The Protestants answered that they had not broken away from
the Christian and good order of the church. On the 28th of August they
gave their final explanation.
On the 25th of August Melanchthon wrote to Luther what had happened in
the smaller commission, and since the letters of Luther referred to before
had not yet arrived, asked him again whether they could not yield to the
Catholics if they would not reject communion under the one form so that they
would again get both forms. He reported that the Papists had now ceased to
press the private masses upon the Lutherans but that they were all the more
stubborn with reference to the Canon which the Lutherans should accept with
a comfortable interpretation. He recognized the deceit that lay beneath this.
He complained that he was in bad repute because he had wished to give back
the jurisdiction to the bishops, and he sent a copy of the points that were
taken up at the last commission. In another letter he wrote that although he
was now threatened with danger, he was not afraid for his own person, but
was nevertheless anxious because of the weakness of our princes.
Luther replied that he was very sorry that he could mot be present with him
in the most beautiful and the most holy confession of Christ. He made no
question of rejecting the mass. Hezekiah broke the brazen serpent notwith
standing the fact that it had been made for the memory and praise of the
divine work. The Papists ought first of all be restored to the doctrine of
faith and works, and the church be restored to her right customs again and
then the ceremonies would take care of themselves.
In another writing he painfully awaits Melanchthon's either secret or open
return, as of a Lot in Sodom, and admonishes him to hold out since great
joys would follow his suffering. — Salig, II, 314-328.
»C. R., II, 327.

JUNE 25th — SEPTEMBER 23rd. 513
The Elector and the Margrave now determined to nego
tiate no further concerning the Confession, and asked the
Emperor's leave to depart. Charles refused, and then sought
to win the Lutherans by kindness, and later, early in Septem
ber, by threats of summary measures.
September 7th.
On this day, Wednesday, at two o'clock in the afternoon,
the Lutherans were summoned to the Emperor, and Count
Palatine told them, " That the Emperor, considering their
small number, had not expected that they would uphold new
sects against the ancient usages of the Universal Church;
but that desirous to the last of being kind, he would require
of the Pope the convocation of a Council; and that, in the
meantime, they should return into the bosom of the Catholic
Church, and restore everything to its ancient footing." re The
Protestants replied that they had supported no new sects
contrary to Scripture ; ™ that if they had failed to agree, it
was because they must remain faithful to the Word of God ;
that if the Emperor would convoke a general free and Chris
tian Council in Germany, he would be carrying out the
promise of preceding Diets; but that nothing could compel
them to again set up any ordinances in their churches that
were opposed to God's commands.
At eight o'clock in the evening, the Lutherans were again
called before the Emperor and informed of his astonishment
that after so much concession on the part of the Catholic
commission, the Protestants would yield nothing. Their
comparative significance in comparison with the church and
the Emperor were pointed out. It was said to be no more
than right that they as a minority should yield to the ma
jority. The Emperor would give them until to-morrow at
one o'clock to decide whether they would persist in refusing
further means of conciliation.

nC. R., II, 355; Forst., Urk., II, 391.
" Brack, Apol., p. 136.

'514 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
September 9th.
Another day was given for deliberation.
September 10th. THE FINAL EEPLT.
The Protestants replied to the Emperor that new efforts
at conciliation would only bring fatigue to the Emperor and
the Diet, and that all that was needed were rules for polit
ical peace until a Council should assemble."
The Emperor forbade the Elector to leave Augsburg, and
this led to personal rejoinders between the two, with great
disturbance in the city of Augsburg.
September 12th.

Prince John Frederick left Augsburg.
September 13th.
At six A. M., Briick and Melanchthon met a Roman com
mittee to settle details. The Lutherans, including Jonas
and Melanchthon, now saw the abyss into which they had
well-nigh fallen, and the reaction which Luther had proph
esied set in against the dreadful articles to which they came
so near yielding. Luther had written to them to return
from Augsburg, even if they were cursed by the Pope and
the Emperor.'8
Here comes the letter in which Luther says he will
canonize them for confessing Christ: —
Luther to Melanchthon.
MS. in Wolfenbuttel, Cod. Helmst. 108, f. 96.
Colest., HI, 87b; Erl., Br. W., VIII, 258.
September 15th.
Yesterday our young prince came, arriving suddenly. I was glad they had
fled from yonder commotion. God grant I might see you soon as one escaped, if

" Forst., Vrk., II, 410 ; Briick, Apol., p. 139.
18 Vel maledicte a Papa et Caesare.

JUNE 25th — SEPTEMBER 23rd. 515
I be not permitted to await you as one released. You have done enough and more
than enough : now the remaining time is for the Lord, that He accomplish it ;
and He will also do so. Only be a man, and hope in Him. . . .
Remember that you are one of those who are called Lot in Sodom, whose souls
are tormented day and night by godless deeds. . . .
May the Lord shortly get you loose from Augsburg.
You have confessed Christ, you have offered peace, you have obeyed the Em
peror, you have endured injuries, you have been drenched in revilings, you have
not returned evil for evil. In brief, you have worthily done God's holy work as
becometh saints.
Be glad, then, in the Lord, and exult, ye righteous. Long have ye borne wit
ness in the world, look up and lift up your heads, for your redemption draweth
nigh. I will canonize you faithful members of Christ, and what greater glory can
ye have than to have yielded Christ faithful service, and shown yourselves mem
bers worthy of Him. Your Martin Luther.

Melanchthon was already engaged, heart and soul, in de
fending the Confession. The reaction had come to his
nature. His zeal in mediating had become zeal in defense.
In a few days his "Apology" would be completed. The
Elector was deaf to all further appeals and threats of the
Emperor. He was determined to abide by the Confession,
unaltered, after all these experiences at variation, and to leave
Augsburg. There is no question in the mind of the writer that the
Augsburg Confession gained its immeasurable influence in
the whole Protestant world, as the charter of the Reforma
tion, not simply because of what it contained, but because
that which it contained both in expression, and in implica
tion, was so stubbornly fought for against the combined
civil and religious tyranny of Europe; and that the impres
sion made by this handful of contestants, for the pure Word
of God, which they would neither compromise nor change
under flattery or threats, in addition to the Faith and the
Document itself, combined to produce results accepted, but
scarcely recognized in some of their main features by all
subsequent generations.

516 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
September 15th. To Katherine, Luther's Wife.
Septetnber 15.
God's will be done, if only the Diet were at an end. We have done and con
ceded enough. The Papists will not yield a hair-breadth, but one will come who
will compel them to do so. Martin Luther.
Hieronymus Baumgartner78 to Lazarus Spengler.
In J. F. Meyers dissert, de lenitate Phil. Melanchthonis, p. 48.
Salig, II, p. 334.
C. R.,11, 372. September /jih.
It is often cast up to us openly that we are constantly taking our stand upon
our theologians and learned men, whereas it turns out that our theologians are
altogether ' schiedlich,' but we are unwilling to follow them.
Then manuscripts of Philip are shown us, which he sends to them secretly, often
unrequested, and in which he makes propositions that are not only unchristian, but
which it is also entirely impossible to take up, especially for the princes. Then he
says : Oh, if only we were away, as though they would then afterward do what
they wished. . . .
Therefore, I pray you for the sake of God and His Word that you will also do
your part and write to Dr. Martin Luther that, as to one through whom God again
restored His Word to the World for the first time, he would restrain Philip by
force, and would warn the pious princes, and especially his own lord, against
him, and admonish to steadfastness.
For at this Diet there is no human being up to the present moment who has
done the Gospel more harm than Philip, who has fallen into such presumptuousness
that he not only will not hear any one speak and advise otherwise, but bursts out
into ill-devised swearing and scolding that he may terrify every one and suppress
him with his own opinion and authority.
I do not like to write this of him, since he has always been esteemed highly by
many, and I have acquiesced in this, and at the same time have yielded much to
him against my conscience. But now the time of crisis has come, so that to me,
if God will, neither Luther nor Philip shall be so dear that I will try to please them
against God's Word.
Dated. Augsburg in haste, Thursday, September loth, 1530.
Hieronymus Baumgartner.
September 17 th.
In response to Luther's appeal, the Elector prepared to

78 On Jerome Baumgartner see article in the Deutsche Allg. Biog. II, p. 169
and Nik. Miiller, Beitr. s. Briefwechsel des alteren Hieronymus Baumgartner.
Mitt. d. Ver. f. Gesch. Niirnbergs, X (1893).

JUNE 25th — SEPTEMBER 23rd. 517
quit Augsburg on this Saturday; but the Emperor obliged
him, under various pleas and in the midst of many inter
views, to delay his departure.
September 19th.
On this Monday, Charles requested the Elector to remain
some days longer. The Elector was not sure that he was not
now a prisoner, but said he would wait till Friday; and if
nothing was done by that time, he would leave Augsburg at
once. The party felt they might be doomed to be hanged.
Luther, meantime, defends Melanchthon before outsiders,
and absolves him from having yielded too much: —
September 20th. To Philip Melanchthon.
IV. by Currie. September 20.
To the learned Philip Melanchthon, servant of the Lord.
Grace and peace in Christ ! You could not credit, my Philip, what a swarm
of verbal and written complaints I received after I got your letter, and very
specially concerning yourself. I tell you this most unwillingly, for I am tenderly
solicitous not to grieve you in the slightest, for you should receive only consolation
from me, who have always tried to do so. But now I have our people's letters
and the other party to contend with.
I defend myself thus. At first our Augsburg friends sent me very different
accounts. But I am determined rather to believe you than others, and hope you will con
ceal nothing pertaining to the cause from me.
For I am convinced that you will concede nothing which could injure the con
fession and the gospel.
But to begin with, it is not necessary to explain explicitly what the gospel and
our confession really are !
But we must abide by our old agreement — to concede everything in the inter
ests of peace which is not at variance with the gospel and our recent confession.
I have no fear for the good cause, but dreaded force and cunning on your account.
Pray write, via Nurnberg, all that has happened since I got your last letter.
For the tragic letters of our people would make us fancy that our affairs have as
sumed a serious aspect. The night before last some one mumbled something like
this before the Prince at supper, but I said, with assumed indifference, that no one
had written me about it. So I long for letters. Give me a true account to stop
their mouths. They pay no attention to me. May the Lord guide and maintain
you. Amen. From the desert. Martin Luther.

518 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
Luther to Link.
MS. in Aurifaber, III, 200.
CBlest., Ill, fol. 88b ; De Wette, IV, 167.
September 20th.
I have read your very serious complaints against my Philip, my dear Link, and if
I had not found, from the letters I received last Saturday (Sept. 17th) from our
party at Augsburg, that our case went into the hands of the Emperor [z. e., for
his final rescript], I should have been very uneasy. But I hope that meantime
you have perceived that the case is different from what you write.
If it is not, I will write pointed letters to therri. But I have already indicated
sufficiently that it is not my intention to endorse such conditions and articles.
Whether they have been influenced to decline those methods through such letters,
I do not know.
I take it that they also see how shameful, disgraceful, and dishonest toward
God, those methods are with which our enemies boastfully get the better of and
ridicule our weak little flock.
But Christ who is blinding and hardening the enemies not to believe the Gospel,
is preparing them- for the Red Sea. . . . Let them go to the bottom, if they wish
it. The Lord will be with us. Dismiss your feelings. Although Philip has per
haps made a mistake concerning some methods, yet up to now there has been no
agreement on any of them, not even on those to which he has given his consent.
But I hope that Christ has used this masque to scoff at our scoffers, and that their
iniquitous joy that we would yield will give place to their discovery that they them
selves have become the objects of ridicule. This is my interpretation ; and I am
sure that without my consent, their consent is of no value. But even if I (God
forbid !) should agree to those godless, inhumane, and faithless monstrosities, the
whole Church and the doctrine of the Gospel would not agree. But pray for me.
Martin Luther.
September 22nd. APOLOGY OFFEEED TO THE EMPEEOE.
The Emperor to-day had the Recess read to the Elector.
The Edict of Worms would be enforced: the public pros
ecutor was commissioned to put the disobedient ones under
the ban. They were to be allowed until the 15th of April
of the following year for reflection, and, meanwhile, should
not introduce any innovations, and should allow confession
and the mass in their territories. A General Council of the
Church was to be called.
Briick, in reply, maintained that the Confession of the
Lutherans was so based on the Word of God that it was im-

JUNE 25th — SEPTEMBER 23rd. 519
possible to refute it. " We consider it the very truth of God,
and hope by it to stand before the Judgment seat of Christ."
Briick then announced that they had refuted the Confu
tation and offered the Emperor the Apology, which Melanch
thon had already written by that time. The Emperor would
have received it, but Ferdinand prevented, and it was handed
back. September 22nd.
Already on his journey home, Melanchthon began to en
large and deepen his Apology. He undertook a thorough
refutation. The transactions of the Diet had demonstrated
to him that a compromise was not to be thought of. Having
no reason therefore to conciliate, he spoke the truth with a
sharpness that was wholesome and necessary.

SEVEEAL LETTEES AT THE CLOSE.

Luther to Cordatus.
MS. in Wolfenbiittel, Cod. Helmst., 103, f. 103.
CSlest., HI, 89 ; Erl. Br. W., VIII, 271.
September 23rd.
The princes are leaving one after another, but Satan, extraordinarily wicked,
is holding ours there yet tight. Martin Luther.
To Katherine, Luther's Wife.
IV. by Currie. September 24.
Grace and peace in Christ, my dear Kathie ! I hope, by God's grace, we
shall be with you in fourteen days, although I fear our cause will not remain un-
condemned. Efforts are being made towards this end. They will have difficulty
in forcing the monks and nuns to return to the cloister.
Still  has written ; he hopes all will end peacefully in Augsburg
when they disperse. It would be a mercy if God granted this, for the Turk is
determined to be at us.
I herewith commit you to God. Amen. Martin Luther.

520 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
Luther to Lazarus Spengler.
Original in Coburg Castle Erl. 54, p. 194.
September 28th.
Grace and peace in Christ. Honourable, prudent, dear sir and friend! I have
again received my letters, that I had sent to you through M. Veit. In that you
are anxious that M. Philippus should be still more careful, you are doing as a good
friend. . . . but God be praised that our dear prince is now for once freed from
hell. Let things happen as God desires. He is the author of peace and the
arbitrator of war. We have done nothing. He who does not desire peace, to
him God can make things unpeaceful enough. I will also, as you desire, write to
the pious prince, Margrave George, and will admonish and comfort. The merci
ful God strengthen our dear prince, together with you, your preachers and the
whole congregation. Amen. Martin Luther.
To the Elector John.
Original in Archives at Weimar.
Cyprian Beilage, p. 209. October 3rd, 1530.
To the High-born Elector John. Grace and peace, most gracious Lord ! I
am delighted that your Electoral Highness is emerging 'from the Augsburg hell,
and although the eye of man may be displeased with this, still we hope that God
may finish the work He has begun in us, and strengthen us more and more. You
are in God's hands, even as we are, and our enemies cannot hurt a hair of our
heads except God wills it. I have committed the matter to the Lord, who has be
gun it, and will complete it, I fully believe.
It is beyond man's power to bestow such a gospel (Lehre), so I shall watch to
see who dare defy God in these things, for "bloody and deceitful men shall not
live out half their days." They may threaten, but to carry out is not in their own
power. May your Electoral Grace be strong in the spirit of joy and steadfastness.
Amen. Martin Luther.
September 23rd.
THE ELECTOE DEPAETS FEOM AUGSBUEG.
At five o'clock in the morning, the Emperor's Rescript
was read to the Electoral party; and at eight, they saw the
Emperor, who made great threats. But in spite of all
threats, they rejected the Rescript, and parted.

JUNE 25th — SEPTEMBER 23rd. 521
At three in the afternoon, the Elector and his party left
Augsburg! Thus the mighty deed done for Truth in this ancient
city, escaped a landslide back to Rome. The pathway to the
few really great peaks of history is strewn with the boulders
of failure. Behind and beneath every towering height that
lifts itself clear into the sky — we find hundreds of smaller
and indeterminate hillocks swarming upon its shoulders. It
is a pity that many historians magnify these minor hills until
the mighty mountain fades from their vision.
The pathway up to and down from the height of the
Augsburg Confession is not important except as it exhibits
the difficulties and the dangers of the true and heroic Con
fessional undertaking. With yawning chasms on either side,
the ascent went upward until the height of Testimony had
been reached and fixed by Providence, when the pathway
again gravitated downward toward the plains of com
mingled truth and error.
The Confession was no sooner made, than Melanchthon
began writing to Luther as to what in it, in further dis
cussion, they had better concede. " Concede ! " said Luther.
" You have already conceded too much."
Through the guidance of Providence, down this slippery
pathway, all other propositions and Confessions were left
by the roadside as historical wrecks ; while the real Word of
Augsburg has continued to stand in its own native power,
until this day. It will abide forever.

CHAPTER XXI.
THE LUTHERAN CONFESSION.
THE AUGSBURG CONFESSION: THE FURTHER
HISTORY OF ITS EDITIONS AND
MANUSCRIPTS.

Kolde's Essay,
with a summaey op the afigument as it beaes on the
Confessional Question, by t. e. s.
The First Prints — The Editio Princeps — The Variata of 1540 and its Influence —
The Corpora Doctrinae — The Original Manuscripts of the Augsburg Confession.
The Lack of a Perfect Copy of the Augsburg Confession — Its Text in the Situation
of Many Historical Documents, and of the Scriptures — The Difference between a
Variant and a Variata Edition — The Attitude of Luther and of the Elector
toward the Variata — The Attitude of Eck and of Rome — The Difficulties of the
Colloquy of Worms and of the Frankfurt Recess — The Significance of the
Convention at Naumburg — The Texts of the Augsburg Confession as Related to
the Book of Concord — -The Relation of the Manuscripts and Prints to the
Augustana as a Confessional Standard.
ALTHOUGH the Emperor had prohibited the publica
tion of the Confession, to which in the middle of
July the imperial cities of Windsheim, Heilbronn,
Kemp ten and Weissenburg (in the Nordgau) acceded,1 yet
1 Compare (the Windsheim Delegate) Sebastian Hagelstein : Letters con
cerning the Diet at Augsburg. 37th Annual Report of the Historical Associa
tion of Mittelfrankford, 1869-70, p. 82 ; Duncker, Zwei Aktenstueke zur Re
formationsgeschichte Heilbronns in Zeitsehr. f. K.-G. XXV, 312f. W.
Vogt, Anteil d. Reichsstadt Weissenburg an der ref. Bewegung. Erlangen
(Dissert), 1874, p. 30f. 522

TEXTS AND VARIATA. 523
even during the Diet, as far as is known now, there appeared
six German editions and one Latin.2 Their inexactness,
which might easily cause bad repute, induced Melanchthon,
notwithstanding the imperial prohibition, to enter upon an
official publication of the Augustana immediately after his
return from Augsburg. In fact it was at once undertaken,
and, as a remark in the preface shows, according to which it
was to displace the editions published ante duos menses* it
was to be published at once. But the intention to add to it
an apology of the Confession, the completion of which was
delayed by ever renewed recasting, prevented the execution.
There is therefore no official 4 edition of the Confession alone
that appeared in the year 1530.
It was published by George Rhau, in Wittenberg, together
with the Apology, toward the end of April or beginning of
May, 1531, and that in such a manner, that since the Ger
man translation of the Apology, by Justus Jonas, was not yet
ready, the Latin text was first published alone and the Ger
man probably not until the Fall. The latter was partly
furnished to the subscribers as a supplement, and partly de
livered in the same binding with the Latin.5 The title was as
follows: CONFESSIO FIDEI / exhibit a inuic-
liss. Imp. Carolo V. I Caesari Aug. in Comicijs I
Anno I M. D. XXX. II Addita est Apologia Confessionis.
Beide, Deudsch/ Vnd Latinise h. / Psalm, up.
I Et loquebar de testimonies tuts con- 1 speclu Regum & non
confundebar. Of this so-called editio princeps at least two principal kinds
must be distinguished " that must have originated from the
fact that during the printing slight divergencies occurred in

'Bindseil C. R. XXVI, 478.
»As this no longer applied at the time of the real appearance, Melanchthon
in the second edition of 1531 substituted: " ante semestre."
•Kolde. Neue Augustanastudien, p. 729 sqo..
"Sept. 26th, Melanchthon still wrote about being busy with the correction
of the German Apology which was then in print. — C. R. II, 541 sq.
6 On this and the titles see C. B. XXVI, 235.

524 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
separate sheets, or changes were made necessary through cor
rections,' while the printer, as was frequently done during
that period, circulated copies without the corrections.
Melanchthon asserts that he drew his text from exemplari
bonae fidei, and the fact that here he does not style himself
the author, as he does in the case of the Apology, shows that
he regarded the Augustana as an official document. Never
theless, as a comparison with the copies nearest the time of
the presentation irrefutably proves he undertook so many
changes in .his edition, and in the German text even compre
hensive rewritings,8 that it presents nothing less than an au
thentic text. And also since the copies presented (of which
we shall speak below) have never been found again, we do
not really know the text actually presented, notwithstanding
all the valuable attempts to determine' it, by means of
critical methods from the extant oldest copies.
On the other hand, it must also be emphasized that the
changes apparently made in the interest of instructiveness
and clearness in the editio princeps and Melanchthon's
many explanatory additions10 are in a sense noteworthy as
the author's authentic explanations, and can hardly in any
place be regarded as actual alterations of the doctrinal sub
stance. Further, that of the evangelical estates — and theo
logians — although they might have recognized these di
vergencies very easily from the copies at hand, which must
have been much more numerous than we know, no one took

"Thus in one recension of the Summary: "vel ab Ecclesia Romana" and
" Tota dissensio est de quibusdam abusibus." This form by which Melanch
thon returned to the oldest redaction, probably gave offence, hence the first
sheets were reprinted, and the current editio princeps reads : " Vel ab
ecclesia catholica vel ab ecclesia Romana," and further : " Sed dissensio," etc.
"Less in the Latin text. Here the most imrortant changes are in the 13th
and 18th articles. That the Damnationes in the Ed. princ. were not in the
copy presented, appears from the fact, that they are not known to the Con-
futatio Pontifica. Cp. Picker, Die Confutatio des Augsburger Bekenntnisses.
Leipzig. 1891, p. 48, 60.
° P . Tschaekert. Die unverasnderte Augsburgische Conf. deutsch
u. lateinisch, etc. Leipzig, 1901. V. this also for a discussion of the most
important manuscripts.
10 Th. Kolde, Die Augsburgische Confession etc.

TEXTS AND VARIATA. 525
exception to them, and the editio princeps for decades was re
garded as the authentic edition.
While the next editions — as early as 1531 a Latin octavo
edition appeared — upon which we do not need to enter in
dividually here, where we are treating of the Augustana as
a Lutheran Confession, show only unimportant corrections
and alterations, the German octavo edition of 1533" de
serves a special significance, for it experienced various am
plifications in a series of articles, e. g., iv, v, vi, xiii, xv, and
especially xx. Thus it becomes a sort of preliminary work
to the Latin text of 1540, as Melanchthon, for the sake of
greater clearness, inserts thoughts from the Apology. It
might already be described as a kind of Variata ; but, so far
as we know, that never was done in those days, because it
does not present any alteration in the substance of the doc
trine. On the basis of several passages from letters of the year
1535, in which Melanchthon announces a revision of the
Loci and the Apology, it has been repeatedly assumed" that
a Latin Variata of the Confession appeared as early as this
year. But as such a one cannot be proven, and as Melanch
thon from 1531 understands by the Apologia nothing else
than his refutation of the Confutatio Pontifica, these an
nouncements mean nothing more than that Melanchthon in
those days, beside the revision of the Loci, was also busy
with one of the Apology, which was never published.
Neither can the objection of the Elector John Frederick
to Luther and Melanchthon of May 5th, 1537, be adduced as

21 Confessio I odder Bekentnus | des Glaubens etlicher Fiir — j sten vnd Stedte,
vber antwort | Keiserlicher Majestat auff | dem Reichstag ge — | halten
zu Augspurg, | Anno M. D. XXX. [ Apologia der Confessio, | mit vleis emen-
dirt. || The Apology which is added, shows it to be the edition of 1533 :
Apologia | der Confession | aus dem Latin | verdeudschet durch D. | Justum
Jonam | Witeberg.-^M. D. XXXIII. Gedruckt zu Wittemberg | durch
Georgen Rhaw. ||
12 Thus Bindseil C. R. XXVI, 339 : " I am printing the Apology and
the Loci, and desire truly to explain simply the principal passages." And p.
871 : " And now I am printing both the Loci Communes and the Apology." A
third passage in an undated letter to Menius, ibid,, p. 873: "My Apology
has been born again and improved in the passage concerning justification.
It is evidently of the year 1531'.
37

526 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
proof for the existence of a Variata at that time. He says
there (C. R. Ill, 366) : "It is also said that M. Philipp
undertook in several points to alter, soften and publish with
other changes the Confession made by Your Electoral High
ness and other princes and estates before his Imp. Maj. at
Augsburg." The latter evidently refers to the fact that
probably without any doings of Melanchthon, in the year
1535, a reprint of the Latin octavo edition of 1531 appeared
in Augsburg (now in the Nuremberg city library), and a
second one in Hagenau. And if the assertion that Melanch
thon altered and softened the Confession does not merely
rest on rumors brought to the Elector, we may remember
that at that time, in circles unfavorably disposed toward
Melanchthon, notice was first directed " toward the alterations
in the octavo edition of 1533.
From the beginning the Augustana served as the articles
of confederation of the Schmalkald League, and the Diet of
Schmalkald in 1535 obligated the members to be received, to
see that preaching and teaching be uniformly done according
to the Word of God and the pure doctrine of our Confession."
Still more important for the history of the Augustana and
probably also of its text was the Diet of Schmalkald of 1537.
For there, as must here be mentioned, the theologians received
the commission to revise the Augustana and the Confession
and confirm it with new arguments from the Scriptures and
the Fathers, although not contrary to its contents or the sub
stance of the Wittenberg Concordia, but only to speak some
what favorably of the papacy." This proves what we know
otherwise also M that an expansion and amplification of the
13 There is evidently no reason to doubt with Weber II, 356, and others,
that the Elector's intended representation to Melanchthon really occurred.
"Winckelmann, Strassburg's politische Korrespondenz, II, 322.
The Wittemberg doktoranden were obligated to the Augustana as early as
1533.' — F orstemann, lib. Decanorum Pacultatis Acad. Vittebergensis
Lips. 1838, pp. 152, 158. Cp. also Paul Drews, Die Ordination,
PrUfung und Lehrverpflichtung der Ordinanden in Wittenberg, 1535. Giessen
1904. Also the theologians participating in the Wittenberg Concordia ac
knowledged the Augustana and the Apology. C. R. Ill, 76.
15Kol de . A.nalecta Lutherana, 297. C. R., Ill, 267.
16 Cp. the answer of the evangelical estates to the English representatives

TEXTS AND VARIATA. 527
text of the Augustana was not regarded as excluded. Thus
the Augustana might have been altered at that time and offi
cially at that.
But, as it is said, from lack of books the task was given
up, and, beyond adopting Melanchthon's Tractatus de Po
testate Papae (see below), they were content to witness anew
to their assent to the Augustana and the Apology by their
signature. Thus the Confession — most likely on the text
of the editio princeps — was again confirmed as the common
basis of the Schmalkald League, and, materially at least, as
symbol of the ecclesiastical territories concerned. If then the
Confession was -not amplified, the supposition can at least
not be set aside, that- the desire expressed at Schmalkald to
confirm the Confession with further arguments from the
Scriptures and the Fathers and to see the Wittenberg Con
cordia acknowledged besides, may have helped to induce Mel
anchthon to undertake a revision in this sense on his own
part." *
This undoubtedly long-prepared revision is the Latin
quarto edition of 1540,18 which afterwards, on account of
the many alterations contained in it, received the name
Variata. These alterations are partly of a formal nature,
iuasmuch as the articles in the second part are placed in a
better and more logically correct order ; partly, however, they
consist of frequently comprehensive amplifications, which

at the Diet of Schmalkald in 1535 : " Let the most serene King promote the
Gospel of Christ and the sincere doctrine according to the manner by which
the princes and the confederated estates confessed it at the Diet of Augsburg
and guarded it according to the Apology, unless perhaps, in the meantime'
certain things from them by the common consent of said King and the
princes themselves, will seem to need change or correction from the Word
of God."— C. R. II, 1032.
11 This would offer a way to harmonize C. Peucer's oft-mentioned remark,
C. R. XXVI, 342 (Opera Melanchthonis Witt. 1562 praefatio), and Selnecker's
remark which probably rests upon it (Catalogus brevis praecipuorum Con-
Ciliorum, Prancof. ad Moen. 1571, p. 97), that it was written as early as
1538. But since both connect with it the assertion of Luther's approval, we
can not depend much on it.
M While the Apology, which is again connected with it, is denoted as
diligenter recognita (Cp. C. R. XXVI, 343), the author shows neither In the
title nor the preface, that the Augustana is also revised.

528 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
evidently originated from the desire of clearness and distinct
ness (while also making use of many statements in the
Apology, they aim at greater sharpness in combating the
Roman opponents and a richer Scriptural proof as had been
desired at the Schmalkald Diet) ; and, thirdly, they are real
alterations or at least softenings of a dogmatic nature. To
these must be counted the amplification of articles V and
XX, with the emphasis upon the necessity of repentance and
good works, and that of article XVIII (de libero arbitrio)
which not so much in their wording as in connection with the
changed attitude of Melanchthon in the later revisions of the
Loci Communes (since 1535) may be interpreted synergist-
ically. The special cause of offence10 later, not at once, was the
new statement of the X. article on the Lord's Supper.
Where the previous statement was : De coena Domini docent,
quod corpus et sanguis Christi vere adsint et distribuantur
vescentibus in coena domini, et improbant secus docentes;
the statement now read : De coena Domini docent, quod cum
pane et vino vere exhibeantur corpus et sanguis Christi,
vescentibus in coena Domini.
It ought never to have been denied that this implied
actual alterations. What motives impelled Melanchthon can
be determined20 neither from his own statement nor from
contemporary reports from the circle of his acquaintances. A
comparison with the Wittenberg Concordia of May, 1536
(Cum pane et vino vere et substantialiter adesse, C. R. Ill,
75), justifies the assumption that by the formula, Cum pane
et vino vere exhibeantur, he desired to yield to the actually
existing union with the Highlanders; but if at the same
time he omitted the vere et substantialiter adesse and the

M For us moderns it seems strange (though not so in the era of the Re
formation), how Melanchthon in the article on the marriage of priests so
enlarged the apostrophe to the Emperor that it actually constituted an article
of faith on the ecclesiastical rights of princes. Cf. also C. R. Ill, 240 sqq.
20 1 would not leave without mention, that it was asserted afterwards that
Melanchthon acted under the direct influence of Landgrave Philipp, of Hessen.
Thus Selnecker in his Historica narratio et oratio de D. D. Martina
Luthero, Lipsia? 1575. But no importance is to be attached to this anecdote.

TEXTS AND VARIATA. 529
improbatio, we need not harbor any doubts that with the
gradually changing conception in his mind about the Lord's
Supper he desired to leave a possibility open for himself
and others to go along with the Swiss theologians. Although
now the Elector (as reported) already in 1537 had reproved
Melanchthon's alterations in the Augustana text as a pre
sumption, and even in those days everybody in Wittenberg
anxiously watched every variation, it cannot be proven, that
the " Variata " had caused any offence when it was first
published. The oft-time repeated assertion about Luther's
condemnation of it, as it was peddled about later during the
times of the controversy by the Gnesio-Lutherans, is not
confirmed by Luther's letters and other well-authenticated21
statements of contemporaries. On the other hand, there is
certainly no foundation for the statement that Luther ap
proved of these alterations, or that they were made with his
co-operation.22 It is self-evident that Luther knew of them,
and, with his well-known character, we must assume that
he disliked Melanchthon's procedure exceedingly, but had to
suffer it, like many other things.23
If this is only a supposition, it is a fact that the new
edition was used unsuspectingly as a new edition receives

21 Explicitly and impartially examined in Kollner Symbolik I, 237.
Many things related afterwards probably rest on faint memories of the
occurrences of 1537. Kolde, Martin Luther II, 461 sqq. For the moral
appreciation of the fact (which can not be measured by modern standards),
that an author may not make any changes in a production of his own that has
become an official document, it must be said, that more freedom was granted
an author in those days. This is proven by the circumstance to which no
exception was ever taken, that Luther in the published edition of the Schmal
kald Articles, which he considered though erroneously, to be a document
formally adopted by the Evangelical estates, made amplifications (See below).
22 E. g., C. Fencer, Opera- Melanchthonis, Witteb. 1562, Vol. I, praefatio:
" But there was a later confession written at the suggestion, recognition and
approval of Luther." Thus also Selnecker, Catalogus Conciliorum.
Francof. 1571, p. 97 : "A later Augustana Confession reviewed and approved
by Luther," etc.
MHow far Luther could go in this respect, is shown among other things
by the circumstance that he speaks of the articles of union wich the English
of 3 536, which just recently have become fully known to us, and which
aside from the X. article which can be understood in a Romish sense,
moved entirely in line with the Variata, in his letter to the Elector (May 28th,
1536, De Wette IV, 683), as such "that will accord with our doctrine. Cp.
G . Mentt, Die Wittenberger Artikel von 1536, Leipzig 1905.

530 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
the preference over against the older one. And although
John Eck in the Worms Colloquium of January, 1541, ob
jected to the alteration of the original text, and this led to
discussions,24 in which Melanchthon declared that he had
" made no changes in the matter, substance and meaning,"
this attack upon him made so little impression upon him,
that when a new edition became necessary in 1542 he made
new alterations, a thing which would be utterly incompre
hensible, if he had been attacked in his own camp on account
of the alterations in the edition of 1540.
This state of affairs changed when the gradually grow
ing difference in the manner of teaching between Melanch
thon's special disciples and the later so-called Gnesio-Luther-
ans became more evident after Luther's death, and the
unfortunate period which began with the battle about the
Interim more and more fixed the gulf between both parties,
and the edition of 1540 (1542) was elevated to a party
signal by the Melanchthonians and the Highland congrega
tions which were already influenced by Calvinistic ideas.
At the Augsburg negotiations for peace in 1555, through
which the Augustana also publicly received legal standing
in a formal way, did the matter come to be discussed.
But the attempt made by the Catholics, especially Treves,
to exclude the Calvinists and grant peace only to the con
fessors of the Augustana of 1530, was at that time repulsed
by all Protestant estates.25 But after a short time, amid the
ecclesiastical confusion in Thuringia, complaints were multi
plied that all kinds of pernicious sects were entering the
Empire under the cloak of the Augsburg Confession. And
the scandalous proceedings at the colloquium of Worms in
1557, which had been called for the purpose of uniting
Catholics and Protestants, and from which the Protestant

24 C. R. IV, 34 sqq. Hortleder Von den Ursachen des Teutschen
Krieges, etc. Book I, p. 177.
25 Cp. L. Schwabe, Kursachsen u. d. Augsburger Religionsfriede in
Neues Archiv f. sachs. Geschichte. X. Bd. p. 221. G . Wolf, Der Augsburger
Religionsfriede. Stuttgart 1890, pp. 47, 61.

TEXTS AND VARIATA. 531
parties mutually strove to exclude each- other, and at which
the Jesuit Canisius, not uninfluenced by their mutual accusa
tions, already spoke of a pure and an impure Augustana "
actually forced an explanation of -the subject.
At the Naumburg Diet of Princes in 1561, which was to
prepare a new common utterance in view of the newly con
vening Tridentine Council, this question, too, was to be
settled by a new subscription to the Confession. The re
sult of the wearisome negotiations, during which the en
deavor to retain the wavering Elector Frederick III. of the
Palatinate for Lutheranism, led to many illogical acts, was
as follows: The German text of the Editio princeps was
subscribed to and the Latin of the octavo edition of 1531.
The essential reason for this incongruity lay in the fact that
in the Apology, which was bound together with the latter,
the quotations in the first edition from Vulgar ius (i. e.,
Theophylactus) which were objectionable to the Palatine
Elector and others, because they permitted an interpretation
of the X. article in the sense of Transubstantiation, were
omitted.2' At the same time the declaration was made in
a preface to the Emperor, that they would abide by the Con
fession originally presented, but by signing the edition of
1531 would not reject those of 1540 and 1542 — which lat
ter " was more explicit, so that the divine truth should the
better be brought to light, and faith and trust in the satisfac
tion and merit of Jesus Christ, with the rejection of all
human tradition and ordinance should be delivered pure and
undefiled to posterity" — especially since this edition "was
now in use among the majority of our churches and schools."
Through this declaration, which was influenced by cir
cumstances and composed by laymen, the Variata was recog
nized as another form of the Confession; but the opinion
was contradicted, according to which the attempt was being
made through it " to defend another or new and unfounded

!« C . A . Salig. Vollstandige Historie III, 308.
aR. Calinich, Der Naumburger FUrstentag. Gotha 1870. p. 165.

532 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
doctrine ;" but the question, what to do in view of the really
existing differences, was evaded.28
The result was, that the strictly Lutheran Duke Frederick
of Saxony, who had in vain demanded a mention of the
errors that had arisen against the Augustana of 1530,
seceded and wanted to abide by the original Augustana and its
own " real Christian declaration and rule," the Schmalkald
Articles. Now, almost all princes present or their counsel
lors subscribed to the above-mentioned preface; but, under
the influence of their theologians, they gradually withdrew
their signatures and united with the declarations of the
Saxon duke, with the exception of the Elector Palatine,
who, completely isolated, united with Calvinism by intro
ducing the Heidelberg Catechism.
Notwithstanding all this, the Variata for a while enjoyed
recognition in wide territories, through the Corpus Doctrinae
Philippicum, a private undertaking of the Leipzig book-
dealer, E. M. VSgelin, which appeared in 1560 in German,
and soon after in Latin.20 Beginning with a preface of
Melanchthon, dated Sept. 29th, 1559, resp. Feb. 16th, 1560
(C. B. IX, 929 and 1050 sqq.), the work contained only
the three ancient symbols, and beside them nothing but writ
ings of Melanchthon, the Augustana, the Apology, the Con
fessio Saxonica of 1551, the Loci, the Examen Ordinandorum,
the Responsio ad Articulos Bavaricae inquisitionis and the
Refutatio Serveti, to which was added in the Latin editions
the Responsio de controversia Stancari.

28 H e p p e ' s assertion (Gesch. d. deutsch. Prot. Marburg, 1852 I, 406,
and again in : Die Konfess. Entwicklung der altprot. Kirche Deutschlands.
Marburg 1854. p. 169), that the Variata was at that time recognized as an
authentic interpretation and Melanchthon's theology was exalted to front
rank, needs no further disproof. Just as erroneous is Calinich, Naum-
burger Fiirstentag, p. 175, that it was not clear to the princes, with the excep
tion of Frederick of the Palatinate and John Frederick, that there existed prin
cipal differences between the various editions. There had been negotiations
enough on that point.
29 The first German edition is entitled : Corpus Doctrinai Christiana?, d. 1.
gantze Summa der rechten waren Christlichen Lehre des heiligen Evangelii. . .
in etliche Biicher verfasset durch den ehrwiirdigen Herren Phil. Melanchthonem
etc. (the complete very long title in C. R. XXII, 35; Latin XXI, 587).

^ -' TEXTS AND VARIATA. 533
In this the German text contained the Augustana of 1533,
while the Latin edition offered a mixed text, giving with
every article the later recension of 1540 (resp. 1542) first,
and the original one after. This book of instruction, of which
a number of editions soon became necessary, was authorized
by the church authorities in Electoral Saxony (hence Corpus
Doctrinae Misnicum), in 1566, and generally used in the
schools. In Pomerania it was authorized in 1561, but in
other lands only in such a form, that Luther's Catechism and
the Schmalkald Articles were added to avoid the suspicion of
Philippism. But there was a still larger number of Corpora Doctrinae,
either framed after the Philippicum, or produced in opposi
tion to it, that rejected the Variata and beside the Invariata
authoritatively spread writings and opinions of Luther as
standards of instruction.80 And although recognized Luther
ans like Nicholas Selnecker and David Chytraeus then spoke
mildly of the edition of 1540 and thought to find in it no
variation of the essential doctrine,81 yet others attacked it all
the more violently and loudly, among which especially the so-
called Reuss or Reuss-Schonburg Confession of 1567.82 The
authors therein acknowledged " the old true unaltered Augs
burg Confession . . . which we hereby distinguish and
separate from the supposed Augsburg Confession which was
afterwards in many places changed, mutilated, misinter
preted, falsified by the Adiaphorists in words and acts, and
that simultaneously became a cothurnus, a Bundschuh, a
slipper and a Polish boot, equally good on either foot, or a
cloak or changeling skin with which the Adiaphorists, Sacra
mentarians, Antinomists, new teachers of work-righteousness

*> They are enumerated in G. Kawerau's article : Corpus Doctrinas
Prot. Realencykl. 3. Aufl. Vol. IV, 293 sqq.
81 W e b e r , II, 301 sq.
»2 Konfessionsschrift etlicher Pradikanten in den Herrschaften Greiz, Geraw,
Schonburg, etc., 1567. Cp. O . M e u s e 1 Die Reussisch oder Reuss.—
Schonb. Konfession von 1567 in Beitr. zur sachs. Kirchengesch. 14. Heft.
1899, p. 149 sqq., and Berth. Auerbach, Die Reussische Konfession
im Thuringer Kirchi. Jahrb. X. Bd. 1905, p. I, sqq.

534 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
and the like, under the semblance and name of the true Augs
burg Confession cover, adorn, defend and confirm their errors
and falsification, and assert that they, too, are adherents of
the Augsburg Confession, for this one reason that under.
its cover against hail and rain they may also enjoy the com
mon peace of the Empire, and may peddle further and spread
their errors the more freely under the semblance of friends,"
etc.*3 Such statements could find willing soil the more readily
since Calvin had repeatedly emphasized his assent to the
Augustana of 1540.34 Then came the crypto-calvinistic
disturbances in Saxony, which convinced Elector August
that the plan was to lead him and his country into Calvinism
by means of the Variata.30 The final decision for large terri
tories came through the activity of Jacob Andreae, who, as
may be seen from the history of the Formula of Concord,
thought, when all attempts to effect harmony between the
controverting parties -had failed, that union could only he
brought about if the Philippists and the Variata were sup
pressed. A sermon delivered by him in Wittenberg, in the
year 1569, was characteristic of this effort. In this — of
course, yet with the opposition of the students — he inveighed
against the Corpus Philippicum and its " knaveries and
falsifications of the Latin Augsburg Confession and Apol
ogy." "" Under these circumstances it was a matter of course
for the Formula of Concord to acknowledge the first unaltered
Augsburg Confession and for this edition to appear to the
Lutherans as the only genuine one. Hence their effort had to
be, when they compiled the Lutheran symbols, to print the
text if possible just exactly as it had been presented to the
Emperor in 1530. But where could that be found ?

"Reussisehe Konf. according to the third (and last, first paged) edition of
1699, p. 23 sq.
"Kollner, 241'.
"R . Calinich, Kampf u. Untergang des Melanchthonismus in Kur
sachsen, etc., Leipzig, 866.
36Leonhardt Hutter, Concordia Concors, Witeb. 1614, p. 410 sq.

TEXTS AND VARIATA. 535
THE ORIGINAL MANUSCRIPTS.
The old tradition that the German copy of Albrecht of
Mayence was deposited in the imperial chancery at Mayence
must be considered correct. There is documentary proof
that John Eck, when, on Dec. 4th, 1540, he demanded permis
sion to compare the Mayence copy with the Variata, was
granted the privilege.8' Probably it never returned to
Mayence and was lost at that time, for according to the re
searches of G. G. W e b e r M it may be considered established
that when, in 1545, it was necessary to send away the Augs
burg religious documents for the use of the Tridentine Coun
cil, it was no longer there. It is easy to understand that
this was not readily admitted at the imperial chancery.
Thus it happened that when Elector Joachim II., in 1566,
to obtain the genuine text had his court-preacher George
Coelestin and the counsellor of the Archbishop of Magdeburg
Andreas Zoch prepare a copy of the original manuscript sup
posed to be at Mayence, the copy of a poor copy (probably
antedating the presentation of the Augustana) was presented
them as an authentic text (likely without their knowledge).
This then was received into the Corpus Doctrinae Branden-
burgicum as authentic in 1572, and printed separately30 by
Chytraeus (1576) and again by Colestin, (1576 and 1577).
It was thought that this text must be made the foundation,
and after'Elector August of Saxony in 1576 had obtained a
new certified copy of the Mayence text, which of course
agreed essentially with the one previously obtained, this re
cension was made the basis of the German text of the Book
of Concord.
According to all this, which was only gradually deter-

37 Cp. Kolde, Neue Augustanastudien, p. 739. There also on the cir
cumstance that Eck, because he wished to compare the manuscript with the
Latin Variata, supposed the Latin manuscript to be in Mayence.
38 Kritische Gesch. d. Augsb. Konfession. II. Preface.
¦* A description and valuation of these editions in Weber I, 121 sqq.

536 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
mined *° by careful research, which need not be detailed here,
this text with its many errors, omissions and sentences warped
by transpositions has very little claim to come near the
original; but by its reception into the Book of Concord it
became the Textus receptus and has remained so to the
present day.
The Latin original, too, must be considered lost forever, and
unfortunately not one of the many copies caused to be made
by the Emperor and Cardinal Campeggi immediately after
the presentation has come to light again; but we know at
least a little more as to its whereabouts." It was in its day
deposited in the imperial archives at Brussels. There it was
examined in 1562 by William Lindanus, Bishop of Roer-
mund (-}¦ as Bishop of Ghent, Nov. 2nd, 1588), in company
with Joachim Hopper, afterward state secretary for Nether-
land affairs in Madrid, and compared with the edition of
1531. As late as 1569 it was still there in the keeping of the
highly esteemed member of the Staats-rat Viglius Zuichem.
Then King Philip of Spain, having learned of the story first
brought up by Lindanus as it appears and considered cred
ible, that the Augustana original preserved in Brussels was
written by the hand of Melanchthon,42 on Feb. 18th, 1569, gave
command to Duke Alba to seize the Book of the Confession
lest "they (the damned) consider it a Koran," to "take it
with you when by a favorable chance you return to this
country, and you shall take care lest they give you a copy for
the original, and that no copy remain, not even a trace of it,
so that such a destructive work may be destroyed for ever."
That Viglius Zuichem thereupon surrendered his precious
document to the Duke, is attested by himself in a letter to
•Weber; also the good review of the literary transactions of the 18th
Century in O. Zockler, Die Augsb. Konfession, p. 74 sqq.
41 K o 1 d e , Neue Augustanastudien, p. 740 sqq.
"William Lindanus, Apologeticum ad Germanos etc. Antverpiae
1568. Vol. Ill, p. 92. Concordia Discors etc. Coloniae 1583, p. 185.
13 The other view in Neue Augustanastudien, p. 737.
44 The Spanish original of this letter in J. Dollinger, Beitrage zur
politishen, Kirchi. u. Kulturgesch. der seohs letzten Jahrhunderte. Regensburg
1862. Vol. I, p. 648.

TEXTS AND VARIATA. 537
Joachim Hopper,40 and there is no doubt that Alba, when -he
returned to Spain in 1573, took the Latin original of the
Augustana with him, and that there the wish of the king to
have it destroyed entirely was complied with.
It is striking that although Lindanus in 1568 treated of
the treasure at Brussels, people in Germany thought they must
look in Maintz also for the Latin original, and Colestin even
claimed to have found the genuine text there. But he was
not trusted, and when Elector August, on the foundation of a
personal inquiry with Elector Daniel of Maintz, was prob
ably confirmed in his suspicion against Colestin's copy," the
compilers of the Book of Concord refrained from basing any
thing on a manuscript text. Privato et festinanti instituto
Selnecker, as he himself acknowledges,4' even because the
rather rare quarto edition could not be obtained, set up the
octavo edition of 1531 as authentic or editio princeps; but
in the second edition of the Book of Concord he replaced it
by the real editio princeps, i. e., the quarto-edition of the
spring of 1531. In this form the Latin recension has main
tained its place as normal text in all editions of the Book
of Concord up to the present.

SUMMARY AND ARGUMENT,
AS BEARING ON THE CONFESSIONAL
QUESTION.
(ESSAY BY T. E. S.)
After June 25th, 1530, the two originals of the Augsburg
Confession were in the hand of the Holy Roman Empire.
Its publication was forbidden by the same authority. Its

45 ViglM Zuichem ab Aytta epistolae ad virum Joachimum Hopperum etc.
Leonardiae 1661, p. 143. Reprinted in Neue Augustanastudien, p. 744 sq.
"Cp. Z. K. G. IV, 626.
" In the Postfatio of the edition of the Latin Book of Concord, of 1584.

538 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
authors, including Luther, laid chief stress on its vocal de
liverance as a public act of Confession, and a more perma
nent preservation or publication was not premeditated by
them. As not only their Faith, but their lives and their fortunes
seemed to be at stake, the events of the moment, the expec
tancy of a Roman Confutation, the Compromise Measures,
and the Defense, or Apology, of the Confession, with a grow
ing desire to get away from their prison-position in Augs
burg, so occupied their attention, that, as they departed one
after another, each prince took with him for future use or
preservation only such a copy of the Confession as he hap
pened to already possess, dating from the period before the
final changes, when others than the Elector were admitted to
participation in the coming Confession.
Thus the failure to supply the Lutheran Churches of the
realm and the future Lutheran Church of the world with a
standard copy, transcribed from the originals, of its birth
right charter, for which its principals had imperiled their
lives and their all in withstanding the final Rescript of the
Emperor at Augsburg, and by which they had forever de
feated his policy, and foiled the compact between Rome and
the imperial power at Bologna, rests, so far as there is any
responsibility connected with it, on the Emperor himself,
on members of the Church of Rome, and on Melanchthon.
Melanchthon's portion of the responsibility was not that
he failed to duplicate the originals in a faultless transcript
just prior to the Confession's Delivery, but it lay in two other
acts. The first of these was that he left both the Emperor
and the Legate under the impression that no Confession would
be produced. He left them under the impression that a
short private agreement, conceding almost everything to
Rome, would be arranged through himself. When then the
Emperor found that this was not the case, that he had been
deceived, and that the Lutherans would insist on producing
a Confession after all, he demanded it immediately, and

TEXTS AND VARIATA. 539
barely allowed time for even the original copies to be pre-
sentably engrossed.
The second reason why Melanchthon was responsible is
that, during the negotiations with the Legate, for a period
of a week before the Delivery of the Confession, he cast
its further preparation aside, since its presentation did
not meet with his approval and would not in his judgment
occur. When this plan was reversed by the Elector and the
Estates, he was caught so short by the Emperor's demand,
and continued to be so busy up to the last hour in making
changes of greater mildness toward Rome, that the idea of a
Lutheran official duplicate, if it occurred to him, could not
be carried out.
The Emperor's part in preventing an official copy was that
he forbade the publication of the Confession after its De
livery, and the Lutherans were so loyal to him and so busy
in the further progress of affairs that they unconsciously
or deliberately delayed the matter of publication for many
months, until the various personalities, documents, and early
transcripts centreing in their presence at the Diet had been
scattered. It was not before November that publication was provided
for, although the document had been delivered in June. The
fact is that the Evangelicals were driven to publication,
notwithstanding the imperial command, because the market
had been flooded with unauthorized and faulty prints- of the
Confession. While the Diet was in session, the German text
of the Confession had been printed, probably in Switzerland,
with many mistakes. Thus the trouble concerning the text
ual Variata arose from an act of the Highlanders. In the
course of the year, five such incorrect and unauthorized edi
tions of the German text, and one of the Latin, followed.
These were the reasons for the confusion in the early
prints of the Augustana ; and, in this situation, Melanchthon
did the right thing, when, some time in November, he super
intended the printing of an authorized edition of the Au-

540 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
gustana in Wittenberg, in the German and Latin texts, to
be followed and bound up with the Apology, and which
became the Editio Princeps of 1531.*8 The several forms
of this Editio Princeps are well accounted for by Weber.
For the relation of the Latin and German texts of this
edition, and their relation to the German text in the Book
of Concord, see Kolde earlier, and Weber later in this
chapter. The third fact responsible for the failure of the Lutheran
Church to possess a faultless copy of the original of the
Augsburg Confession is the craftiness of certain members
of the Roman Church. Rome controlled both of the orig
inals of the Confession, though both were state documents.
The German original disappeared from the chancellery at
Maintz between the time when John Eck examined it in
1541, for the purpose of comparing the original with Me
lanchthon's Variata of 1540, and the year 1545, when it was
to have been sent with other relevant documents to the
Council of Trent. The Latin original lay in the archives at
Brussels as late as 1569, and was taken subsequently by the
Duke of Alba to Spain, and doubtless destroyed.
But though the Lutheran Church is thus without a fault
less original of the Augsburg Confession, it is not without
a Textus Receptus, a standard, authorized, and approved
First Edition; and in which all agree, both the original
signers and survivors, the contemporaries, and subsequent
scholarship, that there are no changes in substance from the
original, and that whatever the variations may be, they are
textual. The existence of hundreds of variants, concern
ing which it can probably never be decided as to what pre
cisely the original contained, even though many of these
variants are found in the Textus Receptus, or Editio Prin-

48 It probably would be putting the case more exactly to say that Melanch
thon, on behalf of the Reformers, was interested in giving to the world the
Apology for the Confession, which was the official reply to the Confutation, but
which the Emperor had, at the instigation of Ferdinand, refused to receive ;
and which needed the Confession itself to appear with it as a starting-point
and a basis ; in addition to the reason given above.

TEXTS AND VARIATA. 541
ceps, itself, does not destroy the authority or the fixed char
acter of the substance and the form of the Confession itself.
The work of Tschaekert itself is subject to this principle.
The Augsburg Confession is in the situation of a great
many famous historical documents. It was not inspired,
either in origin or in preservation, and is subject to the im
mediate course of historical law. So far as a standard text
is concerned, it is not as badly off as the Holy Scripture,
which is inspired, and of which, while we admit that there
are hundreds of thousands of variants in the texts, we do not
admit that there are Variata in the versions and editions.
The original manuscripts of the Scripture have all disappeared. Many of
the Old Testament rolls were destroyed during the Jewish exiles and persecutions.
Of the later manuscripts that remain there" are no less than 1300 or 1400, and
they are mediaeval. The Greek manuscripts of the New Testament also suffered
in the early Christian persecutions, but we still have more than 125 Uncials and
2500 Cursives, the oldest of the Uncials dating back only to the Fourth Century.
The difference between a version full of variants, and a
Variata Edition, is that the mistakes in the first case were
unintentional, and that in the second case the mistakes are
not unintentional, but are intentional changes in an histor
ically accepted document. If a scholar in the Roman church
should discover a manuscript of the Vulgate full of variant
readings and publish it, it would be a variant edition; but
if he should himself make ever so small changes for the
purpose of influencing the standard in a question of disputed
doctrine, it would be a Variata Edition. The distinction be
tween the two, as can readily be seen, is not only very clear,
but also very important.
By the " text " of an historical document the total con
tents of any particular copy or family of copies of the docu
ment is meant. The ascertainment of the true text of any
great historical document, where the original no longer ex
ists, is generally attended with great difficulties so far as
details are concerned, yet it is usually accomplished so far
as the fixed form on the whole, and the complete substance
38

542 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
of the truth, are concerned. There is no special providence
which protects the documents and the printing of even the
Scriptures from variants.
Obscure letters, unintentional omissions by scribes, or the inclusion of a note
or a correction written in the margin, or undesigning insertions in a text for sup
posed completeness, an abbreviation made by the copyist because he deems it im
portant to economize space, a greater or a less realization of the worth of literal
exactness in copy, cause variations in everything that is re-written by the hand of
man. With all our modern skill applied to the securing of mechanical accuracy,
there are very few letters written to-day, and almost no books printed, which are
absolutely accurate.
But to confuse unintentional mechanical or editorial devi
ation in various editions of a work with variations which are
made under the influence of a purpose, or which result in a
deflection, however slight, from the truth of the original, is
neither historical nor just. Melanchthon himself (and other
persons mentally constituted as he was) did not see this
point. His pragmatic instincts were so great, as we are driven
to show in our discussion of the Melanchthonian tempera
ment, that he did not hesitate to interfere with and modify ob
jective standards for the purpose of "improving" them
into accordance with his own more recently gained ideas
or objects. His variations in the "Loci," which was his
own personal work of doctrine, and in the Augsburg Con
fession, which was the Church's official creation and posses
sion, went hand in hand. The strange thing is, as Melanch
thon made his changes in the Confession in all innocency,
that he did not indicate what he had done to the official
work in the title. Thus we find in the edition of 1540 that
he announces revision in his Apology, but fails to announce
it in the Confession. Kolde puts this fact very forcibly
when he says : —
" While the changes in the edition of the Augustana of
1533, as well as those undertaken in the following editions,
are of no importance dogmatically, this is not the case in the
new Latin quarto edition of 1540. Although the author in

TEXTS AND VARIATA. 543
no wise prepares the reader for it, — the Apology bound in
the same edition is characterized as diligenter recognita
(there is no such characterization in the Augustana), — this
edition, which well receives the name Variata, shows that
it is partly a new elaboration with very weighty changes." "
It is quite true that a consciousness of historical ac
curacy, judged by strict standards, was more or less dim
in the minds of all the Reformers, and that between the
years 1535 and 1540 they not only allowed but suggested
various expansions and improvements in the Augsburg Con
fession and in the Schmalkald Articles; but if their con
science was primitive in this historical technicality, it was
true and strict morally. They never contemplated any
changes of doctrinal basis or Confessional principle, but only
a more full explanation and maintenance of the same real
and identical principle.
And though Melanchthon denied before Eck, that he had
made any changes of substance in his Variata of 1540, this
denial cannot be accepted as a just and accurate judgment
of his work, for the reason that throughout his life he was
given to pragmatic formulation of statement in the interests
of the immediate object to be subserved, and was not chiefly
concerned with the exact presentation of historical fact
unfavorable to himself or to his position.
When we consider Melanchthon's persistent attempts at
variation in the Diet at Augsburg, and the lessons he had
been taught there by his sad experience in the deliberations
of the Evangelical party, and through the warnings in the
letters of Luther; and, when, futhermore, we recall the
weight with which the Tenth Article of the Augsburg Con
fession was regarded at Augsburg, so that, as Cyprian tells
us, the Elector was chiefly concerned that this article might
appear in right form, and that, despite all the threats and
pleadings of Philip of Hesse, the article was written to ex-

48 " Augsburg Confession," in Herzog-Hauck.

544 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
elude any possible participation in it by the Highlanders;
and when, further, we recall the history immediately be
hind the Augsburg Confession, of which the Schwabach and
the Marburg articles were the visible testimony, we cannot
fail to see how great was the responsibility which Melanch
thon took in giving to the Lutheran Church a Varialja
Edition, in addition to the standard edition and all the
textual variants that had hitherto obtained.50
The passing of years and the change of circumstances be
tween 1530 and 1540 had cast upon the principles of the
Augsburg Confession a changed shading and perspective,
but not a different value. It was quite natural, therefore,
that when Melanchthon sought to bring up the Confessional
document and teaching of past years to conformity with the
demands of the present age, by newly revised and improved
editions, there would be so much that seemed helpful and
instructive, especially to the rising generation, which en
joys books that are up-to-date, that the newer works of Me
lanchthon should be preferred to the older ones, which no
longer corresponded precisely to the temper of the moment;
and that even changes of substance were more or less laxly
regarded, for the time being, because of the supposed ad
vantage accruing from the newer work on the whole.
But though the majority were carried away by this point
of view, and did not think of raising objection to the
changes made in doctrine in the Variata, there were two
classes of individuals who could not fail to be affected by

a0 Plitt puts the Lutheran position strongly, as follows : " As Melanchthon
has continued to make changes in both works up to the moment of printing, so
he did not cease in new editions ; and as he thought to improve, although his
works had not indeed become public writings, this was at first allowed him, since
he always explained, and we may be sure out of an honest heart, that his
changes did not concern the meaning, but the expression. This also was to have
been the case in the change which he made in 1540, and especially in the X.
Article of the Lord's Supper. But soon others attempted to make this new
setting authoritative .in the sense of divergent teaching against the original
text and, since it was the later text, to set it up as the decisive one. This
led to a conflict concerning the Confessio Invariata (1530), and the Variata
(1540) ; and the more it appeared that the latter was to be made to serve a
widespread misuse, the more decidedly it was declared in the Lutheran
Church, and this was the natural thing, that the text of 1530 was the decisive
and official one of the Confession."

TEXTS AND VARIATA. 545
it. One of these two classes was composed of those who
had contended and suffered for the faith once delivered to
the saints, for the old principles held on to at Augsburg.
Among these, especially, were the Elector and Luther.
Luther's bearing in this matter is a credit to his patience,
to his love, and to his devotion to his great friend and co
worker Melanchthon. His attachment and sympathy for
Melanchthon seem to have been so great that he passed over
much that Melanchthon did, in silence. The whole plan of
Melanchthon of upholding the truth by conference, by an
arrangement, and by negotiation, and of seeking to combine
different parts of the church into unity where there were
differences, did not approve itself to him. He believed in
full and open Confession of the truth, and in leaving the
course of history to Providence. It was for this reason,
doubtless, that he was not entirely satisfied with the gen
tleness of the Augsburg Confession toward Rome, so that
he spoke of writing a German "Apology " himself.61 But
the universal approval which the Augsburg Confession re
ceived everywhere after its delivery and the rise of the
Schmalkald League gave matters a direction confessionally
and politically which caused .Luther to be more reticent.
Yet there seems to be little doubt that Luther was worried,
though he restrained himself marvellously, concerning the
Variata, and that for a time there was some feeling, which
did not come to words, between him and Melanchthon on this
account.52 As for the new Elector, it is admitted on all sides that
he had a keen eye for the preservation of the original Con-

slCp. Kolde, Luther, II, 382.
52 The condemnation of the Variata by Luther as circulated by the Gnesio-
Lutherans, does not find any confirmation in the letters of Luther and other
accredited deliverances of that timo (Kollner, Symbolik, I, 239). It was
even approved of by such decided Lutherans as Brentz (C. R., IV, 737).
It may seem strange that the Variata of 1540 caused no criticism on its ap
pearance. Yet we must remember the experience of 1537, when the rebuke
of the Elector John met with no success, and that the sympathies of the
whole rising generation were with their popular teacher and the great Prot
estant diplomat, Melanchthon.

546 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
fession, and that already in 1537, he suggested that Mel
anchthon be rebuked, and that he termed the alteration a pre
sumption. There is no doubt, as even Weber admits, of the
genuineness of this fact; and we question whether, in view
of the circumstantiality of the account (Kolde cites C. B.,
Ill, 366), the Elector knew of nothing more than rumors."
The statement of it is to be found in D. Gregorii Brucken
Schrifften in unterschiedlichen jahren in religionssachen
ergangen, and which bears the following title : " Furhaltung,
so Doctori Marthino und Doctori Pomerano, durch Doctor
Brucken, in beysein und in gegenwertigkait unsers gene-
digsten Herrn des churfursten zu Sachssen ic zu Witem-
bergk bescheen, Sonnabendt Nack Cantate Ano Dnj
XVXXXVij."
The old document reads as follows : — " Magister Philip
is said to have assumed the authority to alter, render milder,
and to print, with other changes, the Confession, made by
your Electoral grace, and the other princes and estates, with
out previous knowledge and consent of your Electoral grace
and the others, which it was reasonably due that he should
have received from your Electoral grace, since the Confes
sion emanates principally from your Electoral grace and
from the other estates.
" The result of this was that your Electoral grace and
the other estates connected with you were charged that you
are not sure of your doctrine, and that you also do not de
fend it consistently, at which the people then take offense.

63 Kolde says : " Neither can the objection of the Elector John Frederick to
Luther and Melanchthon of May 5th, 1537, be adduced as proof for the
existence of a Variata at that time. He says there (C. R., Ill, 366) : ' It is
also said that M. Philipp undertook in several points to alter, soften and
publish with other changes the Confession made by Your Electoral Highness
and other princes and estates before his Imp. Maj. at Augsburg.' The latter
evidently refers to the fact that probably without any doings of Melanchthon,
in the year 1535, a reprint of the Latin octavo edition of 1531 appeared in
Augsburg (now in the Nuremberg city library), and a second one in Hagenau.
And if the assertion that Melanchthon altered and softened the Confession
does not merely rest on rumors brought to the Elector, we may remember
that at that time, in circles unfavorably disposed toward Melanchthon, notice
was first directed toward the alterations in the octavo edition of 1533."

TEXTS AND VARIATA. 547
"And especially did your Electoral grace desire that
both of these confidential and necessary announcements to
Weber 1.

 , -¦¦:-.—  - — .
unb gnptiaru) flefften nad)h<t ba$3aftnm ftnbtti, mb
jeigten otjj ejnejg hrf £etW. SSeimorifchen Mrftip »er*
iMbenen ^oiMfia, bag b4«L0Mtfu|jl nirf>t <pfjt(ipp«itK
Kurd) ben often Sanger SSruif &efprecf>en, fcnbciu bag er
burd) (eineii ganger fiither un^ gcmcfano in feiner
fegetiwart einen eeym.cn SSorfjajt Oi£c fjjutt iafftt,
wetf fSMantinfero lie J. jf~^Mht it mm flejnbetf,
wnb fHcfre ojine fem %orrof£oit jum £>rucf bej£rbert
feaBen (ofje- 2(u<$ fegen fie bai -gaftum fiicbjna"tt}
betn Stesenfpurger SoOoquio in$3a&r 1541. wk ftt'rchner,
©efnccfer, ©jemnitiug unb anbeve, foiiberti 1537. mej<
clje$ aflerbiugi ber ©acfjc eine ganjanbere IHJenbmig gt'e&t.
@i$ f)at ber t»erbienf!t?o!l« fjm <pafror 6<ro6eL' mt'cft
tor eiitiaer 3eit urn treue bipfomafifdje 2lbfd>rift bicfeg
gjrotoceflg gebefesi ; unb fo fe^r tcb "mir$ rourbe ;um 2Ser*
gnuaeu «emacf)t fja&en, if>m- (jtenit jtt' bieneii , fo ronnfe
bamalc ba$ SprefocoH nicbt dufgeftmben roerbeu, rote beitn
fofcf)ft? ber .fjerr gef>etme £ofratf) &. © era vbt, ate bama*
(tgcr 51rcfji»<iriu3 beg fjieflgen •Dev.jogf. 2/i'c[)iu», fyatbt'et?-
mai uergeblicf) <M}ffiic&en fajjeu. (?nbltd) fanb fid>6 im Wiay
portaef) 3af)rg in einem Pofrtf ^ roo ntatitf tit'd>f enr-arrete.
gg frefinber fief). tit _ejflfjB gonoohtt SLcten , roefctjeg ru&jrt*
art iff: X). (Bfceejotu 2$tti&zn €5cfyrifften jtt vn*
tetfcfyieblicfyen jalyven itt religion (cdjen etgan*
gert ^), unb fw&rt <uigroe«ibta bie 2luffcf;rift:
gurbaltusig/ fo SDoctorj JTUre^trtO snt>
£>oct©cj pomwuio, butd? iDoctor 2$tu«
cUn, in beyfein »nb in gegenroettic^it vn*
fere gene&igfien ^crm Hs> djWrfmftm 3«*

548 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
your Electoral grace should be kept secret and that I should
not say anything to any one concerning it at the time."
Weber II.

efacfyffen :c 5" Xtfirembergt' befcfyeert,
©snrmbcHt't Had? C.mtrtte 2inno JDnj
(fine fpnf-rc £anb,bie att3 bcm Jeifaffer fjerritfprt,
IPO uutcr bcr Scnnunbfcbaft &!nirfur|r Slugttjlg iu.<5acfr;
fen baS Mefige .fiertoalicbe 21rcbft> inpentirt roarb b),
|>at wc-rfWienbe Sltiffcbrift fofgenbergefraft fortgeffi&rt :
jrr sreciung l?alben, 6ojjd?_3rc>ifchen gcbftdttcn beifren
ftfycdjgcrt .<m_J iiaem^onb_bi}i_bem ffbilippo tmft iDoctcr
Cl«U5lfliT Jl1 ' bere tncilg i?frcr fftlidien Sfrticf ein bet Religion
tciiVr bie ffuflfpurgifcbc (tonfcpion , raelwc £biIiP. in vie*
fen 'JJunJtcB geenbcrt rmbcit fcUe:. 3^m frelanflenb^ber
forijtcnSroeiung rreflcti ber Prieftergbe, vtmfr feerqkicben
^rr^ejnchen tuber, fcaraue bit UttiPcvfftiSt fpalmnq tmtto
•jy^ffti^ ^u ticfjrqrrin roclcbcm mueffemiricn, gr JCocj
tot Hutfrct neben Penicrano if mtraulid) frcbcnr&n an*
jejamJoUcjin. ic. ^nroenbig beainnt. bag Skotocalt , tv>clct)Cg
<tu£? 8 aeprocbtnengoiiobiattcm befleftt, mit fofgenben 2Son
"ten: fcet fyannbel foUelEoctot-i ffifottbino rmft yometan<?
ftifo"aiitumaigen feint 35a gr/pEtan bai 3?rotccoK &at a6-'
brucfeit faffen^ fo gebe ict) fjier bfog bie ©telle, bie bie
61. £. betrift, roie auct) ben 6<i>(ufj be$ §urtragf5:
60 felt flcb and? magifSet Philip fltigemaft ftafrenn,
tfucr chutfl. gn: t>nd ber anfecrti .fiirftpn t^h P^nfe,.
Confeffion , »or 3?gy. mt s» ffngeburg bcfcr/ccn , jn efts
32 licftftf
• ) Isiefe Suffcfmft tsihrt son eben ber^anb ber, fo Oat $rotocolI
gefebf if ben. •
*; ttacb «KMer« Sftmal<« b«« (Jhur.- tuib SfirfH. ftaufrt €«*fe«
€. J67 jg 6a? Strdjto opin 3ahr 157+ — 1581 insoitict
tvPtbrn.

TEXTS AND VARIATA. 549
" Seckendorf and Cyprian have shown that the Elector did
not have Philip spoken to through the old chancellor Briick,
but that he made an indirect charge through the chancellor
Weber III. . ,

Kcfeen puncten yx enbertt , tnykctn , vnb — anb&jxsit.
brucf en w kfkn , cne&uet dyurft gn. vnb bet anbttti
portoiffen Pnnb bcroiUiqung; beg et (tcb guet dnjrff. \
gn, etadjtciig > je biUig foit erttbaltcn hdbenn , jCTacb«
bem bieloiifeflion . tEuer cfturfl. gm »nnb bet anbetn
(Stenbc furttbcmlid) \%_
jEauon cuetn ctntrrl gh; tmb ben aribetn iten mituetg
'rpanbtert Stcnben auferjegt rourbe> JDdS_@ic_jtec
l$>etejnit_£cxvi$ > avid) Pnbeftenbig robeten > jDbt«»
fid? ban aud) has froIE etgett — — — —
TQtmb innfohbetheit bepherteu eUri amtfl an . bag ^ie
beybe biefe cuet chutjt gn. riotttauete fttnb notvpenbjge
Btiftaige , bey ftcb fn gebcim roolten tnrnb mematibg
frietuon id? was nod) 3»t Seit an^ftigeti
Sin ber ffuffientitifdt beg jjkfiloxoflg iff i\itit \n jjroett
fefn, t!>eil£ roeif i<i) ba$ papier, roorauf ei .gefcbriebeiv
luibbie^artb bejfen, bere3 aufgenommen > nod) rrtefyrmauJ
in Sicten attS bem bamafigeu Jeitaiter roabrgenotrtmen, 1
tbeite roeil €f>utfitffi ^obann griebtid? eigeubdnbig fSiatt.
ginatieit baft gefchritBeit a), ©leic&mte tiurt ba$ gauje SJJro*
tocoK, Wefthegmati bepm Gnpdan nacbfeljen faint, (d)h
net 2>eptrdg Jut Gtbaraf.ergefdjicbte Sfjatfurft £$o£anr»
§ricbrid)6ift/ unbuon feiner Peicbtgldubigfeif ttnb gittcf>t-'
fatnfeit t abet dud? gifer uhb £reue ffifc bit erfannte 3Saf>tt
j)eit jeuget, &»< i«boc& "<cr)t immer mit Sfugt)eit unb
QJofitif/ foltbetn jutweifen Wit ^firte^ Sntolerahj unb
. Un*
*) Goptian fagt in ber ©efdft'djte btt 8. S. @. i«i. bof attcj
©ummaritn »cn oer Span* ve« gangers 5>rucf$ carin <hhi»
'treffen. #i«hat et flcb «ber stirrt: S>tm 25rticfen$ friM
k- itait t* sicht stfnnoen.
mtmu «¦--. . .  —  — **"

550 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
to Luther and Pomeranus, in his presence, because Melanch
thon had made the Augsburg Confession milder and altered
it, and had put it in print as such without his knowledge.
They do not place the fact in the Kegensburg Colloquy after
1541, as do Kirchner, Selnecker and Chemnitz and others,
but in 1537, which gives quite another turn to the affairs."
Weber admits the authenticity of this minute, both be
cause the paper and the handwriting correspond with the
time from which they profess to emanate, and also because
the Elector John Frederick annotated the margins with his
own hand. Weber also admits that this is a fine contribution
to the history of the character of the Elector John, it tes
tifying of his " superstition and fear, but also of his zeal
and faithfulness for the recognized truth."
Here is direct testimony that Melanchthon was blamed by
the Elector for " assuming the authority to alter, render
milder, and print with other changes " a Confession that was
not his own property ; and that he had done this "without the
previous knowledge and consent " of the Elector and " the
others," among whom Luther is to be included. Weber is
interested in showing that the said interview did not take
place in 1541 ; and hence he is obliged to admit that it did
take place in 1537. It proves both an exact knowledge, and
a displeasure on the part of the Elector as early as this year.

We have seen that the one class of persons interested in
keeping the Church safely anchored on the doctrine and the
Confession which had been gained at Augsburg were the
original signers and participants in it at the Diet.
The other class of persons interested in the exact nature
of the Lutheran Confession, and waiting with eagle eye to
point out weak spots and inconsistencies in the Evangelical
Confessional principle, was the Eoman enemy. And so it
happened that the original antagonist of Luther and his
doctrine, John Eck, had the satisfaction and the honor of

TEXTS AND VARIATA. 551
pointing out to the world and of publicly awakening the
Lutheran Church to the fact that in the Variata of 1540
it was declaring a doctrine for which it had been unwilling
to stand at Augsburg. This was denied by Melanchthon,
but various elements in the Evangelical Church now began
to see that such was really the case.
This Confessional discovery came at a time when other
conflicts, some of them very bitter and unwarranted, and
others inevitable and based on the general situation, were
beginning to break out ; and when the political complications,
arising shortly after Luther's death, revealed more clearly
than it is possible for words to do, the need of a standard
Confession, and the great peril in which the Evangelical
Church was then being placed by its substitution of indefinite
and individual interpretations for the real word of Scripture.
The Confessional difficulties brought about by the intro
duction of the doctrines of the Variata, which had slum
bered for years, sprang up into the clear light at the Col
loquy of Worms in September, 1557; and all attempts at
reconciling the Confessional differences failed. The Frank
furt Eecess in March of the following year only served to
emphasize the sharp contrast that was already drawn between
the two parties. To solve the problem a proposition was
made to hold a General Synod, but Melanchthon objected
to this in May, 1559, and Brentz likewise in December of
the same year. Then the Count Palatine, Duke Christo
pher, and the Landgrave Philip made a proposition to the
Elector Augustus, to hold a common meeting of the German
princes adhering to the Augsburg Confession, together with
a few theologians, but this was also rejected."
In the midst of all this Melanchthon died on the 15th of
April, 1560. King Ferdinand was casting it up to the
Elector Augustus that the Lutheran doctrine on the basis
of the Augsburg Confession was no longer being taught

M Kallnich, p. 49 sqq.

552 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
either in his university at Wittenberg or in his university
at Leipzig. Pius IV. was expected to reopen the Council
of Trent. Threatening reports were scattered far and wide
that there would be an outbreak of a new religious war whose
object should be the forcible suppression of Protestantism.
It was openly declared that as the Protestants no longer con
fessed the original Confession, but as they tolerated all sorts
of innovations and divisions among themselves, they - no
longer possessed a right to the concessions made by the Re
ligious Peace of Augsburg.
Therefore Duke Christopher of Wiirtemberg, despite the
failure of previous efforts of his, on the 29th of June, 1560,
suggested to the Elector Frederick III. of the Palatinate and
his son-in-law Duke John Frederick of Saxony the necessity
that the Protestant princes re-confess the Augsburg Confes
sion together, and write a proper Preface and Conclusion
showing their unity in such Confession. They agreed to in
vite the remaining princes and estates to participate in this
work. All the estates of the Augsburg Confession were to
solemnly promise to remain firm and loyal to the Confession,
and not to tolerate any revolutionaries or sectarians in their
countries, and not to permit the theologians to enter into dis
graceful polemics. The newly-subscribed Confession was to
be delivered to the Emperor.
Duke John Frederick, who hitherto had been one of the
chief obstacles toward union, because he favored Flacian-
ism, not only agreed to this proposition, but expressly de
clared that " he desired a coming together of the princes ;
that theologians were not necessary at the meeting, and that
he would control his own theologians so that they should not
write and scold against each other." B!
Duke John Frederick then undertook with Count Pala
tine and Christopher to win the Landgrave Philip and the
Elector August of Saxony for the project. The Elector
Augustus said he was agreed, and remarked that the coming

» Kugler, II, 188 sqq.

TEXTS AND VARIATA. 553
assembly would be a fitting occasion to come to an under
standing concerning a unanimous Confession in view of
a future Council of the Church. At the same time he made
it a prerequisite that no other Confession should be sub
scribed than the one handed to the Emperor in 1530, which
had been used in the visitation in these countries and upon
which the former treaties of peace had been founded.
¦ Yet he connected his participation with the condition, (1)
that no political transactions should take place at this con
ference; (2) that there should be no condemnations of the
sects. The Convention at Naumburg began on the 21st of
January and lasted until the 8th pf February, twenty-one
sittings in all.
At the opening session a difference occurred between Elector Augustus and
Duke John Frederick concerning the call to the Assembly, the Elector charging
the Duke with having omitted from the invitation the clause which said that there
were to be no condemnations, and no political matters discussed at the Assembly.
Duke Christopher brought with him a memorial card concerning the setting up
once again of a unanimous Norma Doctrinaa.
At the third session, the Elector Frederick read the invitation and based upon
it four propositions : — •
(1) As the various editions of the Augsburg Confession contained many devi
ations, it would be well to compare the various editions in the presence of all the
princes and then to decide which copy was to be subscribed.
(2) A preface should be prefixed to the newly subscribed Confession in which
the occasion should be clearly explained.
(3) There should be a writing or an embassy to the Emperor which would
explain the purpose of this Diet at Naumburg.
(4) It should be considered whether and in how far the remaining estates of
the Augsburg Confession who had not yet been invited should be moved to a sub
scription. The great question was, which edition of the Augsburg
Confession should be subscribed. The Elector Palatine and
the Elector of Saxony spoke on behalf of the edition of 1540,
as this did not deviate in substance from the original edi
tion, but was composed with greater clearness and dexterity.
The other princes were against this, falling back upon the
wording of the invitation, which declared that the subscrip
tion was to be the Confession that had been delivered to the
Emperor in 1530, The Elector of Saxony also declared

554 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
that he was ready to agree to this, on the condition that in
the Preface the harmony of the later edition with the earlier
edition should be expressed.
The Elector Frederick remained in his first opinion.
Duke John Frederick, together with TTlrich of Mecklenburg
and the Count Palatine Wolfgang, now declared that the
Schmalkald Articles should also be subscribed at the same
time, but this proposition found no response with the re
maining princes.
The representatives of the absent princes were invited,
_ after deliberation, to express their view of the proposed
points. The question concerning the Confession to be sub
scribed actively busied the theologians who had followed
their princes to Naumburg. David Chytrasus,6" who had
come with Ulrich from Rostock, as well as the Saxon theo
logians Morlin and Stossel warned against the acceptance
of the later editions and the corruptions of Melanchthon.
The Jena-Lutherans also were active against the supposed
heresies of Melanchthon, and sent in an opinion against sub
scription, and against the petition for a General Synod.
In the fourth sitting the delegates of the absent Estates
said they were authorized to sign only the original Augs
burg Confession in the same form of words in which they
had been delivered to the Emperor.
Therefore the assembly now proceeded to a comparison
of the various editions that lay before them, and first of all
of the Latin text."
The comparison was made in this way: the counsellor of
the Count Palatine read the copy of 1531, the chancellor of
the Elector of Saxony repeated the corresponding article of
the edition of 1542. The Elector Frederick had the edition
of 1540 in his hand, Duke Christopher had the copy written
by the hand of Brentz. The Saxon chancellor Briick had a

"Salig, III, 669 sqq.
5' Only the Elector Frederick and the Duke Christopher, and In part Duke
John Frederick and the Count Palatine Wolfgang participated personally in
this matter : the rest were represented by their counsellors.

TEXTS AND VARIATA. 555
supposed original copy coming from Spalatin. As many
differences of form became manifest already in the first ar
ticles, it was resolved to ask counsel of some of the theolo
gians present. At the fifth sitting the comparison of the
Latin editions came to an end, and in the afternoon the Ger
man editions were collated in the same way.
In the sixth sitting five questions were set up for a discus
sion : —
(1) Whether the edition of 1531 or that of 1540 or 1542
should be adhered to.
(2) Whether the phraseology of the Tenth Article in the
edition of 1531 contained a confirmation of the Papal doc
trine of transubstantiation.
(3) Whether according to Article XXIII, it would be
permissible to dispense the sacrament in both forms.
(4) Since Article XXV said " The mass is retained
among us," the Elector Frederick said he could not sign,
since in the Palatinate the mass and all Papal ceremonies
had been abolished.
(5) Whether in the new Preface, in place of the Schmal
kald Articles, the Saxon Confession of Melanchthon, which
stood in the Corpus Doctrinae Sax., should not be mentioned,
and the articles of the sacrament, the procession and mass
should be briefly explained.
In the seventh session the question came up as to what
copy of the Augsburg Confession should be subscribed.08
The Elector Frederick voted for the subscription of the Latin and German
text of 1540 "since this according to its meaning was not only the same as that of
the Confession delivered over, but also explained it more fully ; but in the preface
certain necessary opinions were to be noted."
The Elector Augustus would likewise have been for the Confession of 1540,
as this was composed in the lifetimes of the Elector John Frederick, Luther and
Melanchthon, since it accorded with the true sense of the Confession of 1530, and
since it had been used in church, school and house without a doubt ; but as the
invitation and the instruction of the delegates limited them to the Confession of
1530 and as the religious peace was founded upon the Confession given over to the
Emperor, he was in favor of subscribing to the edition of 1531 as being of nearest

M Kluckhohn, Briefe, I, 158 sqq.

556 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
form to the original ; but in the preface the Confession of 1540 should be men
tioned as an explanation of the previous Confession.
The delegates of the Elector of Brandenberg voted in the same way.
The Duke John Frederick of Saxony would have preferred subscription to the
Latin and German texts that he had brought with him and reported to have come
from Spalatin, but as the princes and delegates did not credit any authority to it,
he was satisfied with subscribing the printed copy of the year 1531, "together with
the Apology and the Schmalkald Articles and the mention of the Locupletirten
Confessions in the preface."
For the editions of 1531 Count Palatine Wolfgang, Mecklenburg, Wiirtem-
berg, Hesse, Baden, etc., voted. The discussion was not ended.
On January 28th in the eighth sitting, although the
Elector Frederick attempted to force his demand through,
the Confession of 1531 was adhered to, but now there was
still a difference as to whether the Apology, and the Schmal
kald Articles were to be added as Christian explanations, or
whether the Saxon Confession and the Frankfurt Recess
should be added as such, and as to whether explanations
concerning the Lord's Supper and the mass should be given.
On January 28th, a compromise was arranged. The
Schmalkald Articles were withdrawn on the one side, and
the Saxon Confession and the Frankfurt Recess on the other.
Only the recognition of the Apology and of the Augsburg
Confession of 1540 should be mentioned in the preface.
The two Electors were charged with the drawing up of the
Preface, the counsellors and theologians of the three Elec
tors were to make a still more exact comparison of the Latin
and German copies which had been selected for subscrip
tion; for the German Confession the text of the quarto of
1531 was selected, for the Latin the text of the octave edi
tion of 1531, which omitted the quotations in the Apology
from Theophylact that permitted Art. X to be interpreted
in the sense of Transubstantiation.
By the morning of January 29th the collating of both edi
tions was' finished. On the afternoon of January 29th the
new Preface, which with the newly subscribed Confession,
was to be handed to the Emperor, was reported to be sub
scribed. The Estates defended themselves in this Preface

TEXTS AND VARIATA. 557
against the imputation that they had departed from the
original Augsburg Confession, or were no longer in unity in
the explanation of the same. On the contrary they had re
ferred to this Confession continually at the Diets, as well
as to the Scripture, last of all in 1559 at Augsburg, and had
again compared the same. It is true that the Confession
of 1540 and 1542 was composed in a somewhat more ex
tended manner, and was explained upon the basis of the
Holy Scriptures; yet they would abide by the Confession
of 1530, in order to show that they do not defend new or
ungrounded doctrines; at the same time they desired to
have other writings especially repeated which corresponded
with the Holy Scriptures, the Augsburg Confession, and the
Apology, for the turning away of false teachings and abuses.5*
This was signed by the Elector Frederick, the Elector
Augustus, the Count Palatine, Duke Christopher, the Mar
grave Carl, Landgrave Philip of Hesse, by their own hands,
and by delegates. The Duke John Frederick of Saxony
and Ulrich of Mecklenburg did not sign, but asked time
for thought.
On the afternoon of January 31st those who had not
signed declared that they could only do so if the errors re
jected by the Lutheran Church, especially as to the sacra
ment, were expressly condemned. There was a violent con
flict between father-in-law and son-in-law — the Elector Fred
erick and the Duke John Frederick. In the fourteenth
session on February 2d John Frederick gave a decided writ
ten protest against the Preface to be subscribed, which was
answered on the same day, and he was asked not to further
delay the highly important matter. The next morning be
tween five and six o'clock, Duke John Frederick left Naum-
burg suddenly and returned to Weimar.
On the evening of the same day, the Elector Frederick

63 Through this declaration, influenced by circumstances and composed by
laymen, the Variata was recognized as another form of the Confession : but
the question what to do In view of the really existing differences was evaded. —
Kolde. oq

558 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
in the fifteenth sitting repeated his Melanchthonian Confes
sion on the Lord's Supper with which the remaining princes
declared themselves to be satisfied. An attempt was made
to reconcile the Duke John Frederick, but he abode by his
demand for a satisfactory declaration concerning the doctrine
of the Lord's Supper, for a full explanation of the difference
between the Augsburg Confession of 1530 and 1540, for a
recognition of the Schmalkald Articles as the " real Chris
tian Declaration and Rtile of the original Augustana," and
was willing to delay the matter of the sects and the corrup
tions to a later Synod, but this reply came in too late for the
meeting. The resolutions were sent out to the remaining Protest
ants, Estates, Counts, Lords, and cities for subscription.™
Under the guidance of the theologians the princes sub
sequently withdrew their signatures and joined in the Dec
laration of the Duke, except the Elector Palatine, who be
came a Calvinist and introduced the Heidelberg Catechism.
The results of the Diet were a decided declination to
participate in the Tridentine Council and the growth of a
Protestant consciousness. Peace in the church was by no
means brought about: the division only became more open,
especially between the houses of Saxony and the Palatinate,
and between both lines of the Saxon houses. Even the
presence of a common enemy could not strengthen any feeling
of unity between the confessors of the Augsburg Confes
sion. The Naumburg Convention had only more promi
nently exposed the inability of the princes to come to a unan
imous subscription.
The ISTaumburg Convention with its discrimination, but
also its authorization, of both editions of the Augustana forms
an important epoch in the development of the confessional
and political history of German Protestantism, a connect-

B0 On the significance of this Diet at Naumburg, compare the declaration in
the Preface of the Book of Concord of 1680, together with Salig, Planck,
Heppe and Calinich. The judgment in each case is according to the con
fessional standpoint of the writers.

TEXTS AND VARIATA. 559
ing link on the one side between the Augsburg Confession
and the Book of Concord, on the other side between the
Religious Peace of Augsburg and the Peace of Westphalia.
For through this Convention at Naumburg the Invariata
of 1530 is indeed recognized as the authentic fundamental
Confession of the Lutheran Church, and through it the basis
of the Formula of Concord was won for the Lutheran Church ;
but on the other side the political equality of the con
fessors of the Variata with those of the Invariata, and thus
the extension of the benefits of religious peace to the Ger
man Reformed church were prepared for.
This Naumburg Convention, in which Melanchthonians
and stricter Lutherans participated, set the current toward
the future and established many things. The Book of Con
cord was but the execution on the sound Lutheran side of
that step which Nanmburg, which was prevailingly Mel
anchthonian, had recognized as imperatively necessary.
The repeated re-affirmation of the Formula of Concord, as
being the very Confession, " word for word " with the one
" delivered to the Emperor Charles in 1530," dates back
to Naumburg. The " Preface " and the " Conclusion "
written in the name of the Princes rather than of the the
ologians go back to the ideas of Naumburg. Naumburg
even suggested the preparation of a new Confession, and
this was ultimately undertaken in the Formula of Con
cord. It suggested the condemnation of sectarians, and
the mode of securing subscriptions for the Formula. The
Elector Augustus, so active on the Melanchthonian side at
Naumburg, afterward became the leader of the princes in
having the Formula prepared, and it is natural that he
should have used these methods (which the Melanchthonians
did not object to at JSTaumburg) to secure the completion
and adoption of the Formula later on. Naumburg is
strong testimony of the need of the Formula.
One of the very first necessities of the Lutheran church,
as we have now seen, if there was to be harmony and unity,

560 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
was an established and acknowledged standard for the Augs
burg Confession. The authors of the Formula of Concord,
to their great credit, saw the importance of getting such a
standard text, and they took sound means of securing it;
but, owing to the surreptitious removal of uhe German
original from the Maintz chancellery, with the substitution
there of a copy in its place, coupled with the declaration
that this was the authentic original, and owing to the mis
take, or possible duplicity of the ambitious Colestin, the
compilers of the Book of Concord, not being inspired, were
led into a mistake. So sure had they been of their dis
covery of the original German copy at Maintz, that even
the mild Melanchthonian Chytraeus, who would never
breathe a word against his beloved Melanchthon, writes as
follows respecting the supposed original copy that had been
rediscovered at Maintz: —

"In order that the Christian readers of this book may be sure that all the
documents and transactions occurring before, during, and after the Diet at Augs
burg in 1530 are genuine, and that no doubtful or suspicious acts are mingled
among them ; I will distinctly indicate where in the volumes of Luther and other
credible books the most important parts incorporated into this work are to be
found. " But as the Augsburg Confession of the Elector of Saxony and the Princes and
Estates then connected with him, delivered over to the Emperor, is the most im
portant part of this whole book, I will first of all report concerning it, for every
one knows that among the copies of the Augsburg Confession, which has been so
many times reprinted, enlarged and changed, there seems to be not a small degree
of dissimilarity. "But after all, these churches always undoubtedly referred and appealed to the
Confession that was delivered to the Emperor Charles at the Diet at Augsburg : I
have had the first copy of the same, as it was delivered at that time to his imperial
Majesty, word by word, and from the original that was preserved in the imperial
chancellery of the archbishop at Maintr, copied off, the one examined by Dr. Henry
Zoch, upon the order of Margrave Joachim, the Elector at Brandenberg, and have
given the same in the Kirchenordnung of the Elector of Brandenberg some years
ago. ' ' I have myself seen the examined copy in the chancellery at Maintz. Which
also corresponds entirely, word for word, with the oldest Latin quarto of the Con
fession printed by George Raw at Wittenburg : and with the written copy which
Duke Henry of Mecklenburg and certain other princes copied off and sent there
during the sessions of the Diet in 1530 : likewise with the copy written off by his

TEXTS AND VARIATA. 561
own hand of M. George Spalatin who at that time was present at Augsburg as one
of the court preachers of the Elector of Saxony and which is still in existence in
the Saxon Electoral chancellery. So that therefore there is no doubt that this is
really and truly the right and genuine first copy of the Confession, as it reads word
by word, which was delivered to his imperial Majesty at the Diet in 1530."
But the copy at the Maintz chancellery was not the Ger
man original, only a copy. Thus the German text of the
Augsburg Confession in the Book of Concord, while it is
not a Variata, and is eminently sound in the principles of
the Augsbnrg Confession, to use the worst expression that
can be employed against it, namely, that of Weber, swarms
("wimmelt") with textual errors.
The writers of the preface of the Book of Concord say : —
" Not without agitation of mind we were informed that the adversaries of the
true religion received our work in such a way, as though we were so uncertain
concerning our Confession of faith and religion, and so often have transfused it
from one formula to another, that it is no longer clear to us, or our theologians,
what is the Confession once offered to the Emperor at Augsburg.61 . . .
' 'Accordingly in order that no persons may permit themselves to be disturbed
by the charges of our adversaries . . . that there is not even agreement among
us as to what is the true and general Augsburg Confession, but that both those
who are now among the living, and posterity also may be clearly and thoroughly
taught and informed what that godly Confession is ... we emphatically testify,
that we wish to embrace the first Augsburg Confession alone which was presented
to the Emperor Charles V. in the year 1530 at the famous Diet of Augsburg
(alone we say), and no other, copies of which deposited in the archives of our
predecessors of excellent memory, who presented it in the Diet to Charles V. him
self, we caused to be compared by men worthy of confidence (lest in us something
with respect to most accurate regard for diligence, would be wanting) with the
copy which was presented to the Emperor himself, and is preserved in the archives
of the Holy Roman empire, and we are sure that our copies, both the Latin and
the German, in all things correspond to it, with like meaning."
These men were right in all points save their premise,
viz. : that the Maintz chancellery in the Eoman Church had
really preserved the fundamental Protestant charter for a
half century, and that what was there called an " Original "
was an " Original " in the real sense of the word.
Thus a German copy, with many textual variants, and

81 Jacobs, Book of Concord, I, p. 11.

562 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
not the lost German original, became the German text of
the Book of Concord. The first Latin text published in the
Book of Concord was the octave edition of 1531, because
there was haste in getting the Book out, and the quarto was
not to be had. But in the next edition of the Book of Con
cord, the quarto of Editio Princeps of 1531 was inserted,
and has been the standard ever since.
For over a century and a half the German text was sup
posed to have a superior authenticity to the Latin text, as
being an exact copy to the very letter of the German orig
inal, and was regarded with great textual reverence. But
Pfaff already at the end of the first quarter of the 18th Cen
tury had failed to find the original at Maintz, and Weber
at the end of the same century finally brought the truth to
light that there had been no original at Maintz as early as
1545. That the authors of the Formula of Concord were
deceived as to the original German text of the Augsburg
Confession, no more proves the lack of authority of the
Confession as a confessional standard, or its lack of a fixed
doctrinal and general textual form, than the fact that many
scholars of the 17th Century were deceived as to the inspira
tion of the letters and vowel points of the Hebrew manu
scripts of the Old Testament proves that the Old Testament
is thereby to be discredited, or that it is not a sufficient
standard in its own plane of authority; or that, because the
New Testament contains certain passages, which are now
regarded as spurious on the authority of the best manu
scripts, and because texts have been discovered which com
pletely change many of the readings of the old Textus Re
ceptus, it therefore is no longer to be found in standard form,
and has only a passing and changeable value for those who
believe and confess it.
This story of the German original is an old one, but has
been brought forth recently under the guise of novelty. It
is given in toto already in The Conservative Beformation, as
follows : —

TEXTS AND VARIATA. 563
" The first authorized edition, the Editio Princeps, com
ing from the hand of its composer, and presenting not only
in the nature of the case the highest guarantee for strict
accuracy, but surrounded by jealous and watchful enemies,
in the very Diet yet sitting, before which it was read, sur
rounded by men eager to mark and to exaggerate the slightest
appearance of discrepance, was received by Luther and the
whole Lutheran Church. Luther knew no other Augsburg
Confession in the German than this. It was received into
the Bodies of Doctrine of the whole Church. It appears
in the Jena edition of Luther's works, an edition which
originated in the purpose of having his writings in a per
fectly unchanged form, and was there given as the authentic
Confession in antithesis to all the editions of it in which
there were variations large or small.
" In the Conventon of the Evangelical (Lutheran) Princes
at ISTaumburg in 1561, among whom were two of the orig
inal signers, this edition was declared to be authentic, and
was again solemnly subscribed, and the seals of the signers
appended. Nothing could seem to be more certainly fixed
than that this original edition of Melanchthon presented the
Confession in its most perfect form, just as it was actually
delivered in the Diet.
" But unhappy causes, connected largely with Melanch
thon's later attempts to produce unity by skilful phrases
and skilful concealments, led to a most groundless suspicion,
that even in the original edition there might be variations
from the very letter of the Confession as actually delivered.
That there were any changes in meaning was not even in
those times of morbid jealousy pretended, but a strong anx
iety was felt to secure a copy of the Confession perfectly
corresponding in words, in letters, and in points, with the
original. The original of the Latin had been taken by Charles
with him, but the German original was still supposed to be in
the archives at Mentz. Joachim II., in 1566, directed
Coelestinus and Zochius to make a copy from the Mentz

564 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
original. Their copy was inserted in the Brandenburg
Body of Doctrine in 1572.
" In 1576, Augustus of Saxony obtained from the Elector
of Mentz a copy of the same document, and from this the
Augsburg Confession as it appears in the Book of Concord
was printed. Wherever the Book of Concord was received,
Melanchthon's original edition of the German was displaced,
though the corresponding edition of the Latin has been
retained. Thus, half a century after its universal recog
nition, the first edition of the Augsburg Confession in Ger
man gave way to what was believed to be a true transcript
of the original.
" Two hundred years after the delivery of the Confes
sion, a discovery was communicated to the theological world
by Pfaff, which has reinstated Melanchthon's original edi
tion. Pfaff discovered that the document in the archives
at Mentz was not the original, but a copy merely, and the
labors of Weber have demonstrated that this copy has no
claim to be regarded as made from the original, but is a
transcript from one of the less-finished copies of the Con
fession, made before it had assumed, under Melanchthon's
hand, the exact shape in which it was actually presented.
While, therefore, the ordinary edition of the Augsburg Con
fession, the one found in the Book of Concord, and from
which the current translations of the Confession have been
made, does not differ in meaning at all from the original
edition of Melanchthon, it is, nevertheless, not so perfect
in style, and where they differ, not so clear. The highest
critical authority, then, both German and Latin, is that of
Melanchthon's own original editions."2
" The current edition of the German, and the earlier edi
tion of Melanchthon, are verbally identical in the larger part
of the articles, both of doctrine and of abuses. The only
difference is, that Melanchthon's edition is occasionally some-

** For the facts here presented, Cp. "Weber, Krit. Oeschichte; Hase, Lib.
Symb.; Francke, do.; Kollner, Symb. d. Luther. Kirch., 342.

TEXTS AND VARIATA. 565
what fuller, especially on the abuses, is more perfectly par
allel with the Latin at a few points, and occasionally more
finished in style. When the question between them has a
practical interest, it is simply because Melanchthon's edi
tion expresses in terms, or with greater clearness, what is
simply implied, or less explicitly stated in the other." ra
In conclusion we may sum up the matter of the relation
of manuscripts and the printed editions to the Augustana
as a Confessional Standard as follows: —
(1) The Augsburg Confession was largely drawn up from
previous manuscripts, notably the Schwabach and the Tor
gau Articles. While it was still a proposed draft, and be
fore it attained its final fixed and signed form, it was re
vised incessantly, chiefly by Melanchthon, its personal com
poser, but also by the Elector, Briick, and the Estates at a
late date allowed to participate in it. Manuscript copies
were made of it, some of them used by the Princes at the
Diet, and at least one sent home by the representatives of a
municipality reporting to their fixed authorities, before it
reached its final form.
(2) As final, fixed, and signed, it existed in two manu
scripts, the German of which was read at the Diet and
which was deposited in the Maintz chancellery, whence it
disappeared, after Eck had compared the Variata of 1540
with it, before 1545 ; and the Latin original which was de
posited in Brussels until 1567 and then disappeared.
(3) The Emperor had forbidden the publication of the
document. But it was published surreptitiously in a num
ber of editions by various irresponsible parties, and Mel
anchthon was obliged to prepare a form which represented
the convictions of the Lutheran Estates. No blame can be
attached to him if the text of this Editio Princeps differed
textually in a number of ways from the originals handed
in to the Emperor and as the edition thus issued was ac-

"Con. Ref., p. 251-253.

566 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
cepted as authentic by all the original principals and signa
tories, it must, in the absence of the original, be so regarded,
not only because it was the first official text drawn Up, and
was declared by Melanchthon to have been drawn from good
authorities, but also because it was accepted by all the
parties in interest, as the Standard Edition, even though
here and there, and in many places, we may firmly believe,
from our knowledge of the private manuscripts of the
Princes, that it does not bear the exact external text of the
original document. Kolde is entirely right when he says:
" This must be emphasized, Melanchthon's edition was taken
and regarded as the authentic reproduction of the faith
confessed before the Emperor and the realm, in spite
of the fact that they had in their hands many kinds of
copies reading otherwise." M Kolde also draws attention
to the fact that in this First Edition of the Augustana,
which was bound up with and issued simultaneously with
the Apology, the book shows an official character because
Melanchthon does not call himself the composer, while he
does state in the title that he is the composer of the Apology,
because, even though in its first outline it was composed at
the request of the Evangelical Estates ; yet it was never
delivered, and was greatly enlarged by Melanchthon, and
therefore was merely a private work at that time.
(4) Even the most numerous textual variations in various
copies of the Confession would not justify us in abandoning
an edition thus received as Standard, on the ground that
it was a Variata. The corruptions of the Textus Receptus,
though they run up to over a hundred thousand, in the New
Testament would not justify us in saying that the world has
been obliged to depend upon an "Altered Bible." In this
case, the Received Text has the sanction and has enjoyed
the use of the original writers themselves, as the Standard
Copy.

"4 Article on Augsburg Confession in Heraog-Haucjc.

TEXTS AND VARIATA. 567
As to Colestin and the imperfect readings of the German
edition in the Book of Concord, it only can be said, that
later discovery destroys the claim of those who wrote the
Preface of the Book of Concord that the German text is
correct word for word, but does not invalidate the substance
of that text, and it all the more firmly establishes the Latin
text of the Editio Princeps as the standard of the Augustana
Invariata. The confirmation of the Latin Text of the Quarto of 1531
as a Standard is admitted by Weber, as the following con
clusions (I, pp. 46, 47) show: —
1. That the text of the Latin Quarto Edition of 1531 still
bears undeniable marks of recognition from the earliest
draft of the Confession. This is probably the only right
explanation why it still differs here and there, and partic
ularly in the first of the contested Articles from the manu
scripts in the archives, as well as the Maintz copy, and if you
desire to say so, also from the German Melanchthonian
Edition of 1531. I do not deem it necessary to give ex
amples. Every one can find such who takes the trouble to
compare the before-mentioned text with the Maintz copy.
2. That the text of the Latin Quarto Edition of the Augs
burg Confession of 1531 cannot be taken as a touch-stone by
which to discover the original German text ; for this did not
receive the last touches from Melanchthon's hand.
3. It is historically certain that Melanchthon elaborated
the German Confession more diligently than the Latin, and
it is probably historically certain that not all the changes
which Melanchthon introduced into the Confession from
May 22nd to June 22nd were transferred to the Latin.™
4. Weber explains that the " Written Original Confes
sion " of which a copy was sent by the Elector Daniel of
Maintz to the Elector of Saxony on the evening of August

*• " As I have shown in the preceding example on the Article of the mar
riage of priests."

568 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
19th, 1576, was a copy of the Augsburg Confession in the
already copied " Beligious Acts," which writing had already
been called the " Protocol " by Colestin. He says that in the
Maintz chancellery it was the custom to call every copy which
took the place of the original an " Original." Thus he
declares that Spalatin's manuscript of the Augsburg Con
fession which Duke John of Saxony took to the Confession
in Naumburg in 1561 was called " Original ". He believes
that the chancellery applied the word " Original " to written
documents as in contrast with printed volumes. He also
believes that the document sent to the Elector Augustus had
the signatures, and that they had been transferred to the
copy in question from the Brandenburg document.
But while Weber deprecates the authority of the German
text in the Book of Concord, he places highest value on the
Latin Editio Princeps. He says : " I do not wish to declare
that the highest authenticity is to be ascribed to Melanch
thon's first Latin Edition, i. e., looking at it critically, that
it is the same as the original writing delivered to the Em
peror. For Melanchthon himself admits that his Edition
was not—prepared in accordance with the original writing,
but according to a trust-worthy copy; and ... it may he
that Melanchthon here and there interpolated something in
his Edition." But Weber is unwilling to allow either the Fa-
bricius copy or the manuscripts in the archives to have higher
authority than Melanchthon's Latin copy, and he desires his
readers to give preference to this Latin text of the Editio
Princeps, " which the Protestant church has also ascribed to
Melanchthon in that it has taken up this his chief edition
into the Book of Concord, rather than to adhere to the text
of Fabricius and the manuscripts of the archives."
" If the editions of the Augsburg Confession," says Weber,
" are to be distinguished from one another without our fall
ing into confusion, it is necessary to give the higher authority
to the first one, which according to Melanchthon's admissions
was printed critically and according to a good and trust-

TEXTS AND VARIATA. 569
worthy copy, from the later ones which contain his further
elaborations and elucidations."
Weber also calls the Latin quarto edition of 1531 the
" Melanchthonische Haupt-Ausgabe." He says : " This in
vestigation ... at every point maintains the authenticity
of the Editio Princeps. It remains the most precious treas
ure of the Evangelical Church." "
In conclusion, we may add that the delicate accuracy of
the Invariata is that of a standard watch movement, rather
than that of an exquisitely chased watch-case. The question
of the Variata is not a question of the letter, but of sub
stance. The original letter becomes important only where
it is actually the bearer and the arbiter of original substance.

"We have quoted Weber so fully because he is the leading critical Melanch
thonian authority.

CHAPTEE XXII.
THE LUTHERAN CONFESSION.
PROTESTANTISM UNDER THE AUGSBURG CON
FESSION TO THE DEATH OF LUTHER.
The Apology and its Confessional Import— The Schmalkald League — The Princes
and Estates— The Faith Taught in the Loci— Melanchthon Waves the Olive
Branch to Bucer— The Wittenberg Concord — The Schmalkald Articles— The
Marriage of Philip of Hesse — The Variata — The Regensburg Interim — The
Reformation of Cologne — The Death of Luther.
LET us turn from the history of the Augustana manu
scripts and editions, to witness the development of
the Protestant principle, and to watch the men and move
ments under which it occurred.
On the third of August, 1530, the Roman Confutation1
of the Augustana was read before the Diet, and on the twenty-
second of September, just before the Diet adjourned, Mel
anchthon's Apology was offered to the Emperor; and now
Melanchthon spent the remainder of the year and the be
ginning of the next, to April, 1531, in making his Apology
more thorough and elaborate. In mild and flowing language,
rising at times to heights of passionate eloquence, it pours
forth treasures of Scriptural and historical learning, to de
fend and elucidate the great Protestant doctrine of justifica
tion by faith alone, without works, from every possible point
of view.
The Apology, far more ' than the Augsburg Confession,
1 Given in full, tr. by Jacobs, in our English Book of Concord II, p. 209-241.
2 The Apology is " seven times as large as the Confession itself. It Is the
most learned of the Lutheran symbols." — Schaff Creeds I, p. 244.
570

FROM 1580 TO LUTHER'S DEATH. 571
is the great Lutheran monograph on the cardinal doctrine of
Reformation, written under the actual attack of the Roman
theologians, and confessing,8 with heart and soul, this funda
mental truth of Scripture. It opened all eyes, except, per
haps, its author's, to the permanency of the gap between the
Evangelical Faith and Rome.
But the Emperor was ill-pleased with this success, and
the Protestant states felt it necessary to fqrm a league among
themselves. For it now appeared " that those who had the
pure Word of God preached in their territory, were to be
restrained by force from continuing this God-pleasing under
taking, and, since it was the duty of every Christian govern
ment to prevent its subjects from being compelled to fall
away from the pure Word of God, they, solely for the sake
of their own defence, had come to the agreement that, when
ever anyone of them was attacked on account of the Word,
or anything connected therewith, they would immediately all
come to his assistance. This alliance should not be regarded
as in opposition to the Emperor, since it was simply intended
for the protection of Christian truth and peace, as also for
defence against unlawful violence."
Thus 3* was the Schmalkald League brought into life, with

* " To one charged with the care of souls the frequent reading of the Apology,
is invaluable on account of the manner In which it solves difficulties con
nected with the most vital points in Christian experience ; while the private
Christian, although perhaps compelled to pass by some portions occupied with
learned discussions, will find in many — we may say, in most — parts what is,
In fact, a book of practical religion. The chapter ' Of Love and Fulfilling the
Law,' with the preceding more learned and technical one on Justification,
Philippi aptly remarks, hears to the entire contents of the Confessional writ
ings the same relation the Epistle to the Romans has to the entire Scriptures
their ' kern and stern,' so clearly are they grounded in Scriptural experience,
so triumphant, edifying and consoling is their development." — Jacobs, Book
of Concord II, 41.
s" They met, princes and delegates of cities, in the little upland town of
Schmalkalden, lying on the south-west frontier of Electoral Saxony, circled
by low hills which were white with snow (December 22nd-31st). They had
to face at once harassing litigation, and, after the 15th of April, the threat
that they would be stamped out by force of arms. Were they still to maintain
their doctrine of passive resistance? The question was earnestly debated.
Think of these earnest German princes and burghers, their lives and property
at stake, debating this abstract question day after day, resolute to set their
own consciences right before coming to any resolution to defend themselves !
Many towns now joined the Schmalkald League. Brunswick joined. Ham
burg and Rostock in the far north, Goslar and Giittingen in the centre,

572 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
restive and radical Philip of Hesse as the moving, and the
Elector* of Saxony as the substantial, spirit. That Fall,
Zwingli was killed upon the battlefield, and Oecolampadius
died ; and the following June, the Emperor's difficulties with
the Turks influenced him to grant the Protestants the re
ligious Peace of Nuremberg. Leonard Kaiser perished in
the flames, a Lutheran martyr; and, during that same sea
son, the Elector was stricken with apoplexy, and was suc
ceeded by his son, John Frederick.
The princes and estates were looked to as the Powers to
carry out the Reformation, each in his own territory. While
the congregations possessed the right of passing judgment on
doctrine, the princes were regarded as representative of the
congregation-at-large (Christianity), and as "prsecipua"
in it.
Thus the princes and magistrates were the official rep
resentatives of the Reformation. They became the public
defenders of the new doctrine," framed by the theologians,
but legalized only when adopted by the secular government.
This accounts for the importance attached, by all church
parties, to subscription to the Confessions legally adopted
on any territory; which has followed the State faiths of
Germany 'as an incubus, through succeeding centuries ; and
which, as underlying a State form of religious organization,
must be divorced from a consideration of the Confessions

joined. Almost all North Germany and the more important imperial towns
in the South were united in one strong confederacy by this Schmalkald League.
It became one of the European Powers. Denmark wished to join. Thomas
Cromwell was anxious that England should join. The League was necessarily
anti-Hapsburg, and the Emperor bad to reckon with it.
When the Diet met at Nurnberg in 1532, the Emperor knew that he was
unable to coerce the Lutherans, and returned to his earlier courteous way of
treating them. They were more patriotic than the German Romanists for
whom he had done so much. Luther declared roundly that the Turks must
be met and driven back, and that all Germans must support the Emperor in
repelling the invasion.— Lindsay, Hist. Ref., p. 373 sq.
* " When warned by Melanchthon of the possible effects of his signature,
the Elector John of Saxony nobly replied : ' I will do what is right, uncon
cerned about my electoral dignity ; I will confess my Lord_ whose cross I
esteem more highly than all the power of earth.' " — Schaff Creeds I, p. 226.
* First recognized in the decree of the Diet of Spires ; and receiving legal
Imperial sanction at the Peace of Augsburg.

FROM 1530 TO LUTHER'S DEATH. 573
proper. It is only a secondary matter in a country where
the legal aspects of a religious faith are not primary, and
where the legal sanctions of the State are separate and apart
from the faith and the constitution of the Church, and are
applicable only in the solution of questions pertaining to
property and disputes as to compensation of officers. " Orig
inally intended merely as testimonies or confessions of faith,
these documents became gradually binding formulas of pub
lic doctrine, and subscription to them was rigorously exacted
from all clergymen and public teachers in Lutheran State
churches." *
While the princes were defending the faith, and Luther
was witnessing to it and translating the Scriptures, Melanch
thon was at work framing the forms for its permanent em
bodiment, and passing them down to the next generation of
scholars who now sat, as students, at his feet. Luther was
the Confessor, and Melanchthon was the theologian, the
systematizer, of the evangelical doctrine. Luther found the
truth; Melanchthon harmonized it with philological, logical
and philosophical knowledge, and put it into text-book form.
Luther was not slow in declaring that " All that we know
in the arts and in philosophy, we owe to Philip. He has
only the degree of Maj ister, yet he is a doctor above all
doctors." As a true humanist, Melanchthon would have preferred
to remain in these realms of " the arts and philosophy," in
which he was the first great modern text-book maker. But
Luther insisted that he must enter the sphere of theology;
and after variotis theological lectures, he gave the Church
the first great Protestant text-book of Theology, in 1521,
which ran through no less than fifty editions during his
* " As early as 1533, a statute was enacted in Wittenberg by Luther, Jonas,
and others, which required the doctors of theology, at their promotion, to
swear to the incorrupt doctrine of the Gospel as taught in the symbols. It
was only a modification of the oath customary in the Roman Catholic Church.
After the middle of the sixteenth century, subscription began to be enforced
on pain of deposition and exile. See Kollner, Symb., 1 p. 106 seqq." —
Schaff, Creeds I, p. 222. Its introduction at this time, after the organization
of the Schmalkald League, is significant.
140

574 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
lifetime, and which brought his power of systematization,
his stores of knowledge, and his dialectic skill of statement,
to bear upon the evangelical doctrine discovered by Luther.
The "Loci" had thus become the first and, for a long time,
the only attempt at a systematic presentation of conservative
Protestant dogmatics. Luther, in his hearty way, declared
the book " invincible, worthy not only of immortality, but
of being placed in the inspired canon."
This unstinted commendation of the "Loci" was of its first
edition. It was the later editions, from 1535 and sub
sequently, in which Melanchthon made doctrinal changes in
the material of the "Loci," corresponding to the changes in
his teachings, that indicate the growing difference in doctrine
between Luther and himself.'
But the year 1532 was a peaceful one — a rainbow between
the storms — for Melanchthon; and his Commentary on
Romans appeared. It was probably the last year of real
concord and rest for the gentle Preceptor: 1533 ushered in
the gathering darkness. Luther and Melanchthon " repre
sented in their later period, which may be dated from the
year 1533, two types of Lutheranism, the one the conclusive
and exclusive, the other the expansive and unionistic type."
For Melanchthon, who had opposed the Swiss Reformed
consistently, and especially at Augsburg, in the lingering
hope of a restoration of Lutheranism to Rome, and whose
heart had clung to a visible external unity of the Church
under a uniform rule culminating in the Papacy, now became
a convert to the persuasive powers of Martin Bucer, the
most diplomatic of all the Reformers, who gave his busy
life and enormous strength to the cause of a great Protestant
Union; and who managed by sacrificing parts of his own
doctrine of the Lord's Supper to Lutheranism — which he
felt he could readily do, since, as is the case with the Re-

T " In the first edition ot the ' Loci,' Melanchthon's monerglsm is entirely
out of harmony with the synergism which our author advocates." — Jacobs on
Valentine, Christian Theology.
» Schaff, Creeds I, p. 259.

FROM 1530 TO LUTHER'S DEATH. 575
formed, it was not such a vital truth to him — not only con
vinced even Luther for a time "'that union on the doctrine of
the Sacrament was possible, but by repeated interviews and
writings to the radical Swiss held them in check in their
extreme views, and thus probably, brought Protestantism as
near together, temporarily, as it ever has been in the past,
and nearer than it ever will be in the future.
This quiet forsaking of Luther, and of the Lutheran
doctrine of the Lord's Supper,10 under the influence of Bucer,
and this coming into agreement on the sacrament with Bucer
and Calvin, was connected with and furthered by several
other developments in Melanchthon's mind. In the first
place, he had found that some of the Church Fathers, whose
authority he ever respected highly, had sanctioned the fig
urative view of the Supper ; and, in the second place, he was
just at this time filled with the delusive idea of uniting the
whole Protestant world into a visible Church, just as earlier
he had hoped for such a visible reunion under Rome. In
sympathy with Bucer, he was engaged in negotiations not
only to bring south and north Germany together into the
unity of one Protestant bond, but he was negotiating with
Francis, King of France, and Henry VIII. of England to

• In the Wittenberg Concord.
10 The Reformed, at least, claim that Melanchthon was agreed with Bucer,
and later with Calvin, on this doctrine. Schaff says : " He [Melanchthon]
gave up the peculiar features of Luther's doctrine, viz., the literal interpre
tation of the words of institution, and the oral manducation of the body of
Christ. . . . Calvin publicly declared that he and Melanchthon were insepar
ably united on this point : ' Confirmo, non magis a tne Philvppum quam a
propriis visceribus in hoc causa posse divelli ' (Admonitio ultima ad West-
phal/um, Opp. VIII, p. 687). Galle maintains that Melanchthon stood
entirely on Calvin's side (I. c. P. 445). So does Ebrard, who says: 'Melanch
thon kam. ohne auf Calvin Riicksicht zu nehmen, ja ohne von dessen Lehre
wissen zu kdnnen, auf selbstandigem Wege [But recall Bucer's previous in
fluence. — T. E. S.] zu derselben Ansicht, welche bei Calvin sich ausgebildet
hatte' (Das Dogma v. heil. Abendmahl, Vol. II, p. 437.) He also repeatedly
rejected (as, in fact, he never taught) the Lutheran dogma of the ubiquity
of Christ's body, as being inconsistent with the nature of a body and with
the fact of Christ's ascension to Heaven and sitting in Heaven, whence he
shall return to judgment. But he never became a Zwinglian ; he held fast
to a spiritual real presence of the person (rather than the body) of Christ,
and a fruition of his life and benefits by faith. In one of his last utterances,
shortly before his death, he represented the idea of a vital union and com
munion with the person of Christ as the one and only essential thing in this
sacred ordinance." — Creeds I, p. 264 sq.

576 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
the same end. Poor Melanchthon ! How little he under
stood human nature, both that of kings, of theologians and
of common people, and how much confidence he placed in
idle promises of nearer union that never were intended to
compass more than the self-interest of those that made them !
Bucer was unwearied and undaunted in his efforts to bring
the Protestants together. In 1529, he had succeeded in com
pelling the two Protestant parties to face each other at
Marburg. And though he could not, even with the aid of
Philip of Hesse, persuade the Elector and Melanchthon to
allow the Reformed to join in the Confession at Augsburg,
but was obliged to frame and hand in one representing four
Reformed cities, the Tetrapolitana, separately, to the em
peror (July 11, 1530), yet he remained undismayed; and,
before he left Augsburg, sought and gained an interview
with Luther at Coburg (Sept., 1530), in which Luther good-
naturedly promised to read a new Confession which Bucer
would prepare. As Melanchthon also seemed more disposed
to listen to him, he now undertook an extensive journey
through upper Germany and Switzerland, to make it clear
to the Reformed that they should prepare for an approach
toward the Lutherans. The political situation was such that
both the Swiss above, and Strasburg below, were most will
ing to do this, in order not to be separated from the power
ful Elector of Saxony. It was thus that Strasburg succeeded
in being admitted into the Schmalkald League. By 1534,
Bucer had pushed his life-effort at Concord so far that, in
December, the Swiss accepted a doctrinal compromise and
authorized Bucer to enter into unionistic negotiations with
Luther. Just at this juncture, in Dec, 1534, Philip of Hesse""

10» In the Spring of 1534, Philip, at the head of the Schmalkald League, had
driven Ferdinand and the imperialists out of the Duchy of Wuertemberg and
made it a Lutheran State. As a result of this Protestant victory of Philip,
Ferdinand was obliged to agree that the Imperial Court would try no Protest
ant for a matter of faith. The victory also led to the dissolution of the
Swabian League in 1536, and thus the Schmalkald League was master of the
German situation.

FROM 1530 TO LUTHER'S DEATH. 577
arranged a meeting at Cassel between Bucer and Melanch
thon — and Melanchthon came back to Wittenberg, a sup
porter of Bucer. A week or two later, on Jan. 10, 1535, we
find Melanchthon privately renouncing Luther's doctrine,
in a letter to Camerarius in which he says : " M earn senten-
tiam noli nunc requirere, fui enim nuncius aliae,,,a i. e.,
Luther's. And only two days later still, he wrote con
fidentially to Brentz, that many of the Fathers interpreted
the Supper typically. No wonder, then, that the new edition
of the "Loci," just now in press (1535), came out with its
changes not only on the doctrine of the Lord's Supper, but
also on Free Will; and that the "Variata" appeared later
with its significant changes. It becomes a question as to
how far Melanchthon was only expressing his private
opinion, and relieving a burdened conscience, in these
changes ; and in how far he was intending thus silently and
diplomatically to prepare the way, even at that day, for
Bucer's cherished scheme, furthered by himself, of uniting
the Reformed and the Lutherans on a basis acceptable to
both. At last, in 1536, Bucer's long-prepared-for scheme to unite
Reformed and Lutherans reached its head in a meet
ing at Wittenberg. Luther was sick, and at first opposed
the holding of the meeting. After Bucer's earnest efforts,
this conference between the Reformed and the Lutherans
took place in Luther's own house. Here the Wittenberg
Concord was signed by Bucer, Capito and Albert, on the
Reformed side, and by Luther, Melanchthon, Bugenhagen,
and others on the Lutheran side.12 (The Wittenberg Concord
with Bucer's Exhortation and Explanation, is to be found in
our English Book of Concord.13)
11 Corp. Reform., II, p. 822.
"Though the refusal of Luther at Marburg is always referred to by Union
ists, it is sometimes overlooked that three Reformed leaders, Bullinger,
Myconius, and Grynaeus, seceded from the Union effort of Bucer and defended
themselves in the Confessio Helvetica prior, which, in temperate manner, main
tains firmly the doctrine of Zwingli.
13 II, p. 253-260.

578 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
This Concord declares that " we must affirm that the true
body and blood of the Lord are truly given and received in
the Holy Supper," and that " Dr. Luther and his colleagues
do not teach that Christ is naturally united with the ele
ments, or offered after any mode of the present life. It is a
heavenly object and is offered after a heavenly mode."
" Since such is your position," said Luther, " we are one,
and we recognize and receive you as our dear brethren in
the Lord, so far as concerns this article."
The spirit of Luther was admirable. The Marburg Col
loquy and the Wittenberg Concord belong together, and,
with Luther firm as a rock in both, must be judged together.
Luther's love for true union in unity, his steadfastness, and
moderation ; and yet, in the end, the vindication of his Mar
burg judgment — are most remarkable.13*
At Wittenberg Bucer sacrificed Reformed doctrine; and
the inconsistency of Unionists, in professing to be willing,
on their side, to compromise on non-essentials, if they can
unite in fundamentals, has never been more strikingly shown
than is done by Schaff, who condemns Luther at Marburg
for not yielding, and yet condemns Bucer (and the whole
compromise plan), at Wittenberg, for yielding. Schaff's
words, written in describing the Reformed church, deserve
to be pondered. He says: "Bucer labored with indefatig
able zeal for an evangelical union, and hoped to attain it by

"* Luther's original view, at the end of January, 1535, of this whole
situation brought on by Bucer, Philip of Hesse and Melanchthon at Cassel, is
so sound and sensible, and so pertinent to-day yet, that we have translated a
part of it, as follows : —
" With respect to Bucer's Opinion that Magister Philip has brought from
Kassel this is my Opinion : First, since it is conveyed therein that those
who speak, wish to and shall teach according to the Apology or Confession,
I cannot and do not know to reject such a Concordia for my own person.
" Second, since they clearly confess that the Body of Christ is truly and
essentially offered in the Lord's Supper in the bread, that it is received and
eaten, etc. ; in case their heart stands as the words read ; I also this time do
not know to cast blame upon the words.
" In the third place, since nevertheless this matter has from the beginning
made a deep and wide rent, and because even at the present time, it is
scarcely believed on our side that the others mean it as purely as the words
read, and the fear is still strong that some of them are almost enemies of
our name and faith, I regard it as useful and good, that the Concordia be not
so suddenly concluded, in order that their party does not hasten too quickly

FROM 1580 TO LUTHER'S DEATH. 579
elastic compromise formulas (like the Wittenberg Concordia
of 1536), which concealed the real difference, and in the
end satisfied neither party. . . . We may regard the Stras
burg Confession as the first attempt at an evangelical union
symbol. But Bucer's love for union was an obstacle to the
success of his confession, which never took deep root. . . .
Bucer himself remained true to his creed, and reconfessed
it in his last will and testament (1548), and on his death
bed."" Because of the various alterations Melanchthon had made
in his writings, and his compromising attitude with the Re
formed, as well as the fact, no doubt, that he had not been
quite open and true to Luther, in his growing relations and
doctrinal agreement with Bucer, the years 1536-1538 were
exceedingly uncomfortable for Melanchthon, on account of
the strained relations; so that he compares himself to a
Prometheus ad Caucasum alligatus (C. R. Ill, 606), and
writes to Camerarius (Nov., 1539) : "Me dolores animi, quo
tuli toto triennio acerbissimos et continuos, et caeterae
quotidianae aerumnae ita consumserunt, ut verear me diu
vivere non posse."
By 1539 Protestantism had become mighty. Duke George
had died and his brother Henry introduced the Evangelical
faith into Sachsen, to the great joy of the people. The three
clerical Electors, the archbishop of Maintz, Koln and Treves,
were speaking of making their provinces secular and joining

and that division does not arise among ourselves. For our people also have
a right in the matter which is not my own or that of any one else alone ; but
if a more friendly manner were to arise toward each other out of the words
laid down, it would readily show itself in time, whether their meaning was
pure and right, or whether there was something more behind, in order that
such a concord would not later turn into a worse discord.
" They could meanwhile soften the suspicion and rancor for our party, and
then at last drop it ; and after the turbid water had then settled itself on both
sides, one could conclude a true and stable unity, which would be accepted
willingly and spontaneously by all, with the good of all, without suspicion,
and from the right ground, and which probably cannot, at least not easily,
come to pass without further interviews and experience." — Hist. d. Sakra
mentsstreits, 216 ; Walch, XVII, 2496 ; De Wette, IV, 589 ; Erlangen, LV, 85.
» Schaff, Creeds I, p. 526, 529.

580 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
the Protestants, thus bringing a Protestant majority into the
Imperial Electorate, so that the next Emperor would be a
Protestant. Breslau, Bavaria, Austria and Bohemia were
rapidly becoming Protestant. The Emperor Charles was'
thoroughly alarmed, and he instituted the compromise Con
ferences at Hagenau, Worms and Regensburg.
In 1539-1540 Melanchthon was still most busily engaged
in ecclesiastical work, at the convention in Frankfort, in the
introduction of the Reformation in the Duchy of Sachsen
and Meissen, at the second convention in Schmalkald, as
also with the founding of the Leipzig University.
The Schmalkald League had, some time before, requested
the theologians to confirm the Augsburg Confession with
further arguments from Scripture and from the Fathers;
and on the heels of the Wittenberg Concord, i. e., not very
long thereafter, Melanchthon made the famous alteration in
the tenth article of the Augsburg Confession. A comparison
with the Wittenberg Concord will justify the assumption
that Melanchthon desired to yield to the actually existing
union with the Highlanders ; for, as Kolde says, " if at the
same time, he omitted the vere et substantialiter adesse and
the improbatio, we need not harbor any -doubts that with
the gradually changing conception in his mind about the
Lord's Supper, he desired to leave a possibility open for
himself and others to go along with the Swiss theologians."
We have seen that the Elector disapproved Melanchthon's
alterations in 1537; but Luther remained silent, except that
the situation with respect to the Pope had called forth from
him, at the request of the Elector, the Schmalkald Articles,
in the signing of which, Melanchthon gave offence to the
other Reformers. Melanchthon's signature reads thus : " I,
Philip Melanchthon, also approve the above articles as right
and Christian. But concerning the Pope, I hold, that if he
would allow the Gospel, for the sake of the peace and general
unity of Christians who now are under him, and may be
under him hereafter, his superiority over the Bishops, which

FROM 1530 TO LUTHER'S DEATH. 581
he otherwise possesses, should also be conceded by us jure
humano."
Luther no doubt felt much grieved at the changes of
Melanchthon toward him and his teaching, and, says Schaff,
" was strongly pressed by contracted and suspicious minds
to denounce them openly ; but he was too noble and generous
to dissolve a long and invaluable friendship, which forms one
of the brightest chapters in his life and in the history of the
German Reformation." "
However, the friendship of the two Reformers was sus
pended for a time. In 1537, the chancellor, Briick, reported
to the Elector of Saxony, that " Luther seemed to be troubled
because he could not tell how Philip regarded the sacrament,
and because it looked as if Melanchthon, since his return
from Cassel, had become almost Zwinglian in his views.
Luther did not know what Philip believed in his heart, but
it seemed strange that he should recommend the giving of
the sacrament in one kind. If Melanchthon persisted in his
opinion, then the Word of God must come first. He would
pray for Philip. If, for the sake of tyrants and of the pre
servation of the peace, the sacrament might be administered
in one kind, it would be necessary, on the same principle,
to concede justification by works." " I think," added the
chancellor, " that it would do no harm if Dr. Martin should
speak earnestly and cordially with Philip."
Meantime, trouble had arisen from another source. The
doctrines of sin and grace, of faith and justification in the
Augsburg Confession, and the doctrine of the Law and the
Gospel in the Catechisms, were being menaced by Agricola
of Eisleben, who had removed to Wittenberg. Luther very
sorrowfully and unwillingly testified publicly against the
false teaching in 1538 and 1539, and published his book
against the Antinomians. Agricola abused Luther for his
utterances, but left Wittenberg before the case came to trial.

"5 Schaff, Creeds I, p. 265.

582 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
The controversy broke out again later in the middle of the
century. In the midst of many labors and travels, and terrible self-
reproaches and fears regarding the second marriage, at
which he was an unwilling guest, of his and Bucer's friend,
the restless Reformer, Philip of Hesse, Melanchthon sud
denly grew sick unto death, at Worms, but was recalled to
life by the mighty faith of Luther, and, in this same year
1540, gave to the press his "Variata." M
It would be interesting to know whether Luther's words
to Melanchthon of June 18, 1540, " Nos tecum et tu nobis-
cum, et Christus hie et ibi nobiscum," were written with or
without a knowledge of the " Variata."
The difference in Melanchthon's text was first pointed out
to the shame of the Lutherans by a Roman Catholic, in 1541.
The man who had the satisfaction of putting his finger on
this breakdown of Lutheran doctrine was no other than John
Eck, the old enemy of Luther, in the discussion with Me-

10 " Melanchthon himself materially changed the tenth article in the edition
of 1540." — Schaff Creeds I, p. 232.
" The strong opposition of Melanchthon to Zwingli's theory before 1536 or
1540, when he modified his own view on the Eucharist." — Ib.
" The explanations and modifications of Melanchthon himself in the edition
of 1540, extended, as it were, the hand of fellowship to them." — lb., p. 235.
" The altered edition of 1540 . . . represents . . . the present theological
convictions of a very large party in that [Lutheran] denomination." — lb.,
p. 242.
" The edition of 1540, which appeared in connection with an improved
edition of the Apology, differs so widely from the first that it was subsequently
called the Altered Augsburg Confession (Variata), in distinction from the
Unaltered (Invariata) of 1530 or 1531.
" It attracted little attention till after the death of Melanchthon (1560),
when it created as much trouble as the insertion of the filioque clause in the
Nicene Creed. The Altered Confession, besides a large number of valuable
additions and real improvements in style and the order of subjects, em
bodies the changes in Melanchthon's theology, which may be dated from the
new edition of his Loci Communes, 1535, and his personal contact with Bucer
and Calvin. He gave up, on the one hand, his views on absolute predestination,
and gradually adopted the synergistic theory (which brought him nearer to
the Roman Catholic system) ; while on the other hand (departing further from
Romanism and approaching nearer to the Reformed Church), he modified the
Lutheran theory of the real presence, at least so far as to allow the Re
formed doctrine the same right in the evangelical churches. . . In other
words, the article is so changed trfat Calvin could give it his hearty consent,
and even Zwingli— with the exception, perhaps, of the word truly — might have
admitted it." — 16., pp. 240, 241.

FROM 1530 TO LUTHER'S DEATH. 583
lanchthon and Bucer at Worms," which was continued at
Regensburg. The discussion was at the request of the Emperor, and
resulted finally in the Regensburg Interim, which granted
peace to all Protestants in the League, but also obligated
them (and them only) to all articles on which agreement
had been reached with the Roman Catholics. Melanchthon
was the principal theologian of the Protestants.
As Melanchthon was a dialectician in dealing with truths,
so he was a diplomat in dealing with men. Now a diplomat
looks at movements and at truth itself, pragmatically, rather
than intrinsically, that is, he looks at it for what it will yield
him in his present situation, and not for what it commands
him in every situation. A humanist who is a diplomat must
be an unswevering man of grace, if he can preserve his men
tal habit unspotted, and retain it in loyal allegiance to the
sharp corners of truth, without trying to file down and
accomodate. At Regensburg, Melanchthon was, for once, disgusted
with conciliatory diplomacy ; ls the Lutherans were dis
gusted at the compromising formula agreed on in phrasing
the cardinal principle of the Reformation ; M and the Em
peror was disgusted with the obstinacy with which Melanch
thon clung to the evangelical position in the articles of the
Sacraments (this pleased Luther), Oral Confession, and the
Church.20 By 1543, the unionistic understanding of Melanchthon
and Bucer had gone so far, that, in the Reformation of

n Melanchthon desired to base the discussion on the 'Variata' of the Augs
burg Confession. Eck objected because it was altered. Melanchthon replied
that there was no alteration in the substance, but only that language milder
and clearer had been used. Then Eck put his finger on article X.
18 " Conciliationes, quae nullae fieri possunt, nisi fucosae, sycophantias,
sophismata, quibus vel Principes ipsi vel eorum theologi insidias nobis struent"
(C. R., IV, 116).
10 " Justiflcari per fidam vivam et efficarem."
10 Melanchthon had come to Worms with the intention of defending the
doctrine of the Augsburg Confession, and of not conceding to Rome, and he
was quite successful.

584 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
Cologne, to which Melanchthon had been repeatedly in
vited,20* he prepared the articles on the Trinity, Creation,
Original Sin, Justification by Faith, the Church and Repen
tance, which were assigned to him; while Bucer — certainly
with Melanchthon's approval — wrote the articles on Baptism
and the Lord's Supper !
Luther had borne much in silence up to this time, out of
regard for the feelings and the great services of his friend;
but now he was openly provoked by the way the doctrine
of the Lord's Supper was dealt with in the Cologne Book.2'
It was Bucer's, but Melanchthon had approved it, and
Luther was indignant because of what it failed to say. He
looked in it in vain for any positive statement of the real
presence.22 Luther strongly censured Bucer from the
pulpit,28 though he did not even at this time mention
Melanchthon's name. But it was felt that his blame was for
more than one. All intercourse between the two Reformers
ceased, and Melanchthon lived in daily dread of an open
rupture. Luther soon thereafter published his " Short
Catechism Concerning the Lord's Supper," against the
Zwinglians, though it contained no word or thought against
Melanchthon. Melanchthon, on his part, privately " complained at times
of Luther's overbearing violence of temper, and thought once
(1544) seriously of leaving Wittenberg as a ' prison.' " "
But in November of this year (1544), Chancellor Briick
reported to the Elector : " I can not learn anything from
Philip, but that he and Luther are good friends." This was
Melanchthon's year of personal affliction and personal sor
row. In quick succession came the Diet at Worms, the writ-

20a By the archbishop and elector of Cologne to superintend the introduction
of the Reformation into these territories.
21 For the language itself of the Cologne Book, see Seckendorf, Hist. Luth.,
p. 446.
22 For Luther's remarks, see Luther's Letters, De Wette V, 709.
28 For Luther's utterances from the pulpit, see C. R., V, 478.
a Schaff, Creeds I, 265,

FROM 1580 TO LUTHER'S DEATH. 585
ing of the Wittenberg Reformation,8" and the Conference at
Ratisbon. Luther wished to keep Melanchthon away from
Ratisbon. " The ceaseless round of fruitless colloquies, dis
cussions, disputations, and the vain attempts at accommoda
tion or compromise in which the mild-mannered Melanch
thon, who enjoyed nothing so much as the privacy of the
study, had been engaged for the last fifteen years, were
enough to move the heart of . . . his noble minded friend
... to desire that he might at last be spared the useless
infliction. . . . The fact is that the two great champions
of the Reformation were at this time on good terms with
each other. . . . Philip frequently came as of old and
dined at Dr. Martin's table, and twice they journeyed in
each other's company to Mansfeldt." * Luther " spoke very
highly of Melanchthon's ' Loci ' in March, 1545, and in
January, 1546, he called him a true man, who must be re
tained in Wittenberg, else half the university would go off
with him." *
Tet the sky darkened on all sides. Not only was a new
generation growing up with modified views, but the Em
peror was following hard on the trail of Protestantism, the
Schmalkald League was injured and weakening, soon would
come the ban against Philip of Hesse and the Elector John
Frederick, with the treachery of Maurice and the opening
of the Schmalkald War. Luther's " dissatisfaction with the
affairs in Wittenberg (which he threatened to leave perma
nently in 1544) cast a cloud over his declining years."2'
Thus Luther died. On the day following his death (Feb- 18,
1546), Melanchthon said to his students: " Obiit auriga et

2ta This was a pamphlet prepared at the request of the Elector, and sent
to the Council of Trent as a summary of the doctrines of the Lutheran
Reformation. " Stump, Melanchthon, 183, 184.
" Schaff I, p. 265, referring to Corp. Reform., VI, p. 10 ; Gieseler IV,
pp. 432-435.
21 lb., I, 260.

586 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
currus Israel, qui rexit ecclesiam in hac ultima senecta
mundi," and added, "Amemus igitur hujus viri memoriam
et genus doctrinae ab ipso traditum, et simus modestiores et
consideremus ingentes calamitates et mutationes magnas,
quae hunc casum sunt secuturae."

CHAPTER XXIII.
THE LUTHERAN CONFESSION.
PROTESTANTISM FROM THE DEATH OF LUTHER
TO THE DEATH OF MELANCHTHON AND
TO THE DISINTEGRATION OF
LUTHERANISM.
Years of Reaction — Melanchthon Leader — Political Events, 1546-1555 — Augs
burg and Leipzig Interims, Maurice — The Papacy and the Empire in these
Events — The Controversies : — Adiaphoristic — Osiandrian — The Two Great
Parties — Majoristic — Antinomistic — Crypto-Calvinism — Eucharistic— Synergistic
— Melanchthon a Synergist — Corpus Philippicum — Partisan Warfare— Dire
Results.
THE death of Luther, on " Concordia " day, ushered in
years of reaction and internal weakness — years of
external pressure and oppression: the second generation of
Lutheranism came to the front, with waverings toward the
common foe without, and disintegrations and hardenings into
local territorial units, under the separatistic action of the
princes and their theologians.
Providence sends one great leader, but rarely continues
the succession. The work in this instance was left to
Luther's contemporaries, and their successors. Of his con
temporaries, Melanchthon was chief. The spirit of Melanch
thon was not that of a witness or confessor, but that of a
scholar and teacher, a definer, a discriminator, and a sys-
tematizer. Melanchthon was now the acknowledged head of the Re
formation. He became again involved in negotiations with
587

588 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
the Papists, to whom he made the most remarkable con
cessions. His connection with the Leipzig Interim (1548),
was the most unfortunate act of his life. Under the form
of an apparent compromise, he yielded many of the most
essential points of difference. " He was willing to tolerate
both a popedom and a hierarchy, stripped, however, of divine
rights, and deprived of all power in matters of faith. The
relation of faith to works, and the doctrine of the sacraments,
might, in his estimation, be veiled in a judicious obscurity
of phrase."
In every part of the evangelical Church the Interim was
most violently resisted, and Melanchthon's connection with it
strongly condemned. In addition to private rebukes from
Calvin and Brentius, Agricola, Flacius, and others, publicly
attacked him.
In 1550, Melanchthon published his Explanation of the
Nicene Creed; and in the succeeding year, the Confessio
Saxonica, in which he had gained courage to entirely re
pudiate the concessions of the Interim. In 1552, he was en
gaged in a controversy with Osiander, who had confounded
justification with sanctification ; in 1553, he published brief
treatises against Sehwenkfeld and Stancar; and in 1554, his
Examen Ordinandorum, a brief outline of doctrinal, ethical,
and polemical theology, for the use of candidates for the
ministry. Even during Luther's life, where the gap left by Luther's
Living Witness seemed too abrupt, Melanchthon had busied
himself, not solely with the amplification of the pure
doctrine, but also in the attempt to build bridges between it
and Roman or Reformed doctrine. Melanchthon, the har-
monizer, had an eye to connections without, especially in
times of danger, rather than an eye single for the inner
strength. More and more during Luther's later life, in
order to make connections with those without, he came near
boring holes in the side of the newly launched vessel which,
nevertheless, continued for a time to hold together after

FROM 1546 TO 1560. 589
Luther's death, through the power of the truth and of
Luther's testimony.
As the chief teacher and trainer of the rising generation,
exceedingly attractive to young men, by his learning, hi3
affection, his piety and his admirable spirit, Melanchthon
threw into the Church a race of leaders, that were not
Scriptural confessors of the faith chiefly, like Luther, but
definers of doctrines, makers of formulas, and repairers of
ravages created by disputations.
Up to the death of Luther, speaking roughly, the positive
building process, as to inner doctrinal construction, and as to
outer constitutional organization, had made progress in the
conservative Evangelical Church with the valuable help of
Melanchthon himself. The great living doctrines were being
turned into literature, into life and into praxis. The tree
was growing from its own inner sap, and was becoming all
the more hearty in standing by itself, in the healthful open
ness of wind and sun and storm, and apart from the shadows
of the surrounding forests.
But Melanchthon's mind, even at this time, like that of
conformable natures, whose instinct it is to grow by leaning
on supports, rather than by being braced up in the strength
of the life-blood within, was busy in throwing out tendrils
toward trellises and walls rising on foundations without the
pale of Lutheranism. A great exterior harmony of the
whole,' especially under political persecution, to such natures,
is more to be desired than inner solidity that slowly wins its
way through the compact growth of a self-consistent life.

THE BREAK-UP OB1 PROTESTANTISM.
From the death of Luther, the concord that had existed,
externally, in the Evangelical Lutheran Churches died away.
He had hardly closed his eyes before discord, apparently at
times a sign of coming dissolution, broke out on every hand.
The fact is that Luther himself had foreseen the arrival of
'41

590 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
this reaction.1 Schaff admits that Luther had kept down
the rising antagonism against Melanchthon " by the weight
of his personal authority, although he foresaw approaching
troubles." Luther had scarcely been dead for four months before
the Pope entered into a secret covenant with the Emperor
to exterminate Protestantism in Germany, and to forcibly
compel the Protestants to return to the allegiance of the
Pope, binding himself, on his part, to help defray the ex
penses of a resort to arms against the evangelical states.
This was in June, 1546. The Emperor also made a secret
treaty, a few days before, with Duke Maurice of Saxony,
who, to gain the electorate of Saxony, now agreed to submit
to the coming decree of Trent.
The two foremost political leaders of the Lutheran
Church, the elector John Frederick of Saxony and the
Landgrave Philip of Hesse were captured and imprisoned
as rebels and vassals. The whole of South Germany and,
except a few Protestant cities, north Germany also, was con
quered by the emperor. Thus misfortune followed mis-

1 The year after the presentation of the Confession at Augsburg (1531),
Luther, preaching on John VI and VII, had declared that " the Gospel will
abide among you for a short time only, after the heads of those who preach
it now have been laid in the dust. After our death it will not remain ; for
it is not possible that it can remain. The Gospel has its course, runs from
one city to another, is here to-day and at another spot to-morrow. Believe
it and honor it while you have it. It will not abide with you always. Tell
me again in twenty years from now, how the matter will stand. Others will
come and preach to please the devil." — Walch VII, p. 2306-2308.
When Luther was sick at Schmalkald in 1537, he told the Elector of
Saxony that after his death, discord would break out in the University of
Wittenberg, and his doctrine would be changed. — Seckendorf Com. de Luther
anismo III, 165.
Nine years later, shortly before his death in 1546, he preached at Witten
berg, saying: "Up to this time you have had the real and true Word; but
beware of your supposed prudence. The devil will light the light of reason
and lead you from the path of Faith. I see before my eyes that if God does
not give" us true preachers and servants, the devil will tear our church to
pieces by evil agitators. That is his definite object. If he cannot do it by
the hand of the Pope and the emperor, he will accomplish it through those
who are in agreement with us in doctrine. Pray earnestly that the Word
may be left to us, for things will come to a dreadful pass." Walch XII, 1534.
To Schurf Luther is reported to have declared : " After my death, none of
these theologians will remain firm." — lb., p. 1538.
2 Reserving the points, justification by faith, the cup for the laity, and
the marriage of priests, as permissible in his own domain.

FROM 1546 TO 1560. 591
fortune for the Lutheran Church, until, nine years later, the
religious Peace of Augsburg (1555) was secured against
Rome, assuring all adherents of the Augsburg Confession of
religious freedom, in which benefit the Calvinists also were
rightly included.
During this period, the Pope had proposed to win over the
Protestants, now broken in spirit and shorn of their power,
by the Augsburg Interim, in which the doctrine of justifica
tion was sacrificed, seven sacraments were recognized, the
doctrine of transubstantiation was maintained, and the
mass was interpreted as a thank offering. All the Roman
ceremonialism was retained. Most Protestant princes ac
cepted the Interim, but the faithful pastors, especially in
Southern Germany, did not, and were banished by hundreds.
Melanchthon, the surviving leader, valiantly attacked the
Interim, and in 1548 published the first public writing
against it. He also declared that if Luther had lived, this
change of doctrine would not now threaten the churches,
which are being destroyed, and the conflicts, which are now
raging, would not have arisen. But before long, Melanch
thon became terrified at the threats of the emperor's anger,
and paved the way for the Leipzig Interim, which was based,
ostensibly, on the principle that the pure doctrine of the
Gospel was to be maintained, and that concessions to Rome
were to be made only in regard to adiaphora. The effect of this
Interim was to obscure the cardinal doctrine of the Reforma
tion, viz,., that of justification by faith, and to express it in
an indefinite formula; to readmit episcopal jurisdiction,
and all Roman ceremonies and observances. Melanchthon
thus became the author of a movement which not only almost
wiped out the specific character of Protestantism in the eyes
of the people, but which at once gave rise to the adiaphoristic
and the other controversies, which the Formula of Concord
was obliged to settle. Schaff admits that Melanchthon, " not
without blamable weakness, gave his sanction to the Leipzig
Interim, and undertook to act as a mediator between the

592 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
Emperor, or his Protestant ally Maurice, and the Protestant
conscience. It was the greatest mistake of his life. . . .
The venerable man was fiercely assailed from every quarter
by friend and foe."
It is usual to attribute the dreadful controversies of these
dark days to the doctrinal extremists, and to the polemical
spirit of a more rigid Lutheranism; and to assume that if
the ways of the peace-loving Melanchthon' had been fol
lowed, the whole Lutheran Church might have lived then,
and thenceforward thereafter, in harmony and peace. The
real fact is that the peace-loving Melanchthon was partly the
victim, and partly the author not only of such theological
controversies as that of the adiaphora, but of conditions in
viting actual war; for internal weakness invites war. And
to some minds it is a question, whether, if Melanchthon's
method had ultimately prevailed, there would be any
Lutheran Church to-day; not because Melanchthon himself
would have surrendered it, but because his method was one
that leads to the destruction of Lutheranism. As it wa3,
in the Interim Melanchthon came very nearly sacrificing at
Leipzig all that had been gained in the struggle with the
papacy at the Diet of Augsburg.6
However, let us not be unjust to Melanchthon; as we ask

8 Schaff also mentions the temporal gains and incidental advantages of
Melanchthon's course. — Creeds I. p. 300.
4 For instance, Schaff, in his Creeds I, p. 266, says : " After his death
(1546), the war broke out with unrestrained violence. Melanchthon was too
modest, peaceful, and gentle for the theological leadership, which now de
volved upon him ; he kept aloof from strife as far as possible, preferring to
bear injury and insult with Christian meekness."
On this we would remark : 1st, That Melanchthon and his principles were
in large measure responsible (barring Osiander) for the internal strife of
this period, and that he failed to realize the unfitness of his own principle for
leadership ; 2d, That Luther had been a restraining influene to shield Melanch
thon for years ; 3d, That while Melanchthon did not engage in bitter strife,
he still desired to lead, and did lead, in negotiations that resulted in obscurity
and strife ; 4th, That " preferring to bear injury and insult with Christian
meekness " is often the outer attitude of men who nurse defeat in their heart,
and in private censoriously and bitterly condemn those from whom they
differ. This was not so fully the case with Melanchthon, but the Schafftan
" meekness " has its types in every age.
5Comp. Seeberg. "Melanchthon had two souls:" and Kolde (infra, p. 643),^,
"His weak conduct in tbe Interim matter and the controversies arising there
from, changed the entire state of affairs."

FROM 1546 TO 1560. 593
all others, that they be not unjust to those later leaders who
saw the necessity for another general Confession of the
Church, and who brought about the existence of the Formula
of Concord. Even the strongest men do not really uphold
and preserve the Church, and cannot spare it from meeting
its appointed testing. Sooner or later the Church must pass
through the darkness of inner and outer crisis. Like the
Confession of Augsburg, the Formula of Concord was the
result, not of men's contrivings, but of the Lord's doings,
Who enabled the -Church to work out, resume and reassert
her integrity after forty years of civil, political, and re
ligious anarchy.
We must never forget that the strong hand of the papacy
and the strong arm of the empire were unitedly arrayed
against Protestantism, which was not yet thirty years old
when Luther died. After the power of Luther's presence
was withdrawn from the field, these foes from without made
their advances on the Church, employing not only arms, but,
as is always the case with Rome, the insidious means of
theological and political diplomacy. Theological strife and
rebellion were stirred up within by the agencies of the Pope,
and imperial pressure -was put upon the Church without.
What had been stayed temporarily by the strong hand of
Luther, and by the Confession at Augsburg, now broke like
a storm over the Church in her period of weakness and re
action. Neither a rigid Lutheranism, nor a softer Melanch-
thonianism, was responsible for that part of the situation
which arose from the historically necessary unfolding and
permanent application, under outward pressure and by a
second generation, of the principles of the Augsburg Con
fession to existing theory, institutions and ecclesiastical
practice. And what came forth from this time of terrible
testing, should, in all justice, be regarded as not less precious
in result than that which came forth in the earlier struggles
culminating in Augsburg.'
6 Schaff, speaking of the Formula of Concord, admits that, " These con-

594 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
To suppose that the conditions in the Lutheran Church
after the death of Luther and prior to the internal and the
ological peace brought about by the Formula of Concord,
were the result of an over-emphasis of the Confessional
principle, whether by Luther himself, or by second-rate con
troversialists who followed him, is as far away from the truth
as it is to suppose that this mighty crisis might have been
averted and this impetuous torrent stemmed, if the Church
had followed the way of Melanchthon.
Dr. Krauth truly says, " The time of deluge had come,
the world had to- be purified ; and it was useless to send out
the dove till the waters had passed away. The era of the Re
formation could not be an era of Melanchthonian mildness.
To ask this, is to ask that war shall be peace. . . . The
war of the Formula was an internal defensive war ; yet, like
all civil wars, it left behind it inevitable wounds which did
not at once heal up. The struggle in churches or states,
which ends in a triumph over the schism of their own
children cannot for generations command the universal sym
pathy with which the overthrow of a common foe is re
garded." But, let us add, the value of the results is none the less.
The contrast between the conditions that led to the Augs
burg Confession and those that led to the Formula of Con
cord are strikingly like the contrast between the conditions
that led in our land to the Revolutionary War, and those
that led a century later to the Civil War. There may be
those who regarded the Civil War as unnecessary, and as the
result of an over-rigid and fanatical social standard, and an
over-zealous spirit, but the more we look beneath the sur
face, the more we see that it was the inevitable setting in and
culmination of a reaction in a century of freedom, within
and during which, after the pressure of external necessity

troversies were unavoidable in that age, and resulted in the consolidation and
completion of the Lutheran system of doctrine."— Creeds I, p. 259.

FROM 1546 TO 1560. 595
was removed, unsettled internal causes arose, and would not
be silenced, until a final settlement was made.
Do not those who accept the results at Augsburg as con
fessional, but deny the results brought about by the Formula
as confessional, bear some striking resemblance to Americans
who would accept the results of our war against those with
out, and who exult in our original constitution in the
Eighteenth Century ; but who deny any necessity or validity
in results brought about by the culmination of the internal
process of construction, and by the conflict from which they
issued a little more than a half century later. In both cases,
the first result seems more epochal and decisive, because the
foe is an external one, and we hear no more of his victories.
But in both cases, no matter how or by what process it may
have been reached, some settlement of the problems, some
inner reconstruction, which would at once maintain the
older principle in all its strength, but at the same time apply
it to the new conditions, was unavoidable.
The Leipzig Interim was of date of Dec. 22d, 1548, about
two years after Luther's death. So thoroughly was Melanch
thon under a cloud from his position taken as to this Interim,
that the sound doctrine which he enunciated in the Saxon
Confession, in 1551, and which was unanimously adopted by
the Wittenberg theologians, did not remove the suspicion
with which he was regarded.
THE CONTROVERSIES ARISING OUT OF THE LEIPSIG INTERIM.
The seeds of the subsequent controversies, often alluded
to. in connection with the depreciation of the Formula of Con
cord, are all to be found in the Leipzig Interim (given in full
in our English Book of Concord),' which Melanchthon and
the Wittenberg theologians announced themselves as pre
pared to accept after Luther's death. Justification by faith
is there so changed as to mean, " that man is renewed by the

II, p. 253-260. Tr. from C R. VII, 259 sqq. by Jacobs.

596 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
Holy Spirit, and can fulfil righteousness with his works, and
that God will, for His Son's sake, accept in believers this
weak beginning of obedience in this miserable frail nature." "
In the Leipzig Interim it is also asserted that " God does
not deal with a man as a log, but draws him in such way that
his own will also co-operates." '
Here we notice that the ground is Melanchthon's own
ground, that the mistake is Melanchthon's, and that the
doctrine of Luther had nothing to do with the matter except
that Luther's is the true principle. In addition to this yield
ing on justification, the proposed re-introduction of the
Romish ceremonies and restoration of the jurisdiction of the
bishops led to bitter conflict, in which many of Melanchthon's
best friends deserted him.
The great question in this controversy was whether it is
ethically proper to yield any such unessential matter as cere
monies and government, provided that the pure doctrine be
maintained. Melanchthon and his fellow- Wittenbergers de
clared it was. Flacius " upheld the principle, " Nothing is
indifferent in casu confessionis et scandali."
We have already seen that the restoration of Roman cere
monies was a part of the Leipzig Interim. It was the most
visible and striking part to the Protestant Churches. It is
no wonder then that the Adiaphoristic controversy sprang up
immediately upon the adoption of the Interim. Some months
later the Osiandrian controversy arose, and several years
later (1551) still another controversy, the Majoristic, de
veloped, while the Eucharistic controversy (1551) followed
hard upon its heels.
The personalities of those engaging in these controversies
deserve a moment's attention. Of the older friends of Luther
there were two still living, viz., Justus Jonas and Nicholas
Amsdorf. The latter was the head of the rigid Lutheran

8 Bieck 372. Das dreifache Interim, Leipsic, 1721,
'lb., 362 ff.
10 Praeger Flac., I, 142 sqq.

FROM 1546 TO 1560. 597
party which included a younger and more disputatious gen
eration, viz., Elacius, Wigand, Gallus, Judex, Morlin,
Heshus, Timann and Westphal. These men were right in
being unwilling to turn either toward Rome, on the one side,
or toward Calvinism, on the other side, and in attempting
to neutralize the weaknesses of Melanchthon in these opposite
directions; but they were wrong in the violent and partizan
manner in which they maintained their positions. The other
party, the extreme followers of Melanchthon, was composed
of Camerarius, Bugenhagen, Eber, Crell, Major, Crueiger,
Strigel, Pfeffinger, and Melanchthon's son-in-law, Peucer.
This party was termed the Philippists, and included all
those who embraced the synergism of Melanchthon, while
among them there was a smaller party who secretly held the
Calvinistic doctrine of the Lord's Supper, and were called
Crypto-Calvinists. The Philippist party was entrenched in the old centre at
Wittenberg and in the newer vicinity of Leipzig, while the
ultra-Lutheran party, often called Gnesio (that is, genuine)
Lutherans, had their seat at Jena.
In the midst between these two parties, stood those milder
men, of more judicial frame, many of them pupils of
Melanchthon, imbibing the sweetness of his spirit, and the
excellence of his method, but avoiding his error and clinging
to the doctrine of Luther, Some of these men, namely,
Andrese, Chemnitz, Selnecker and Chytraeus, later on, be
came the framers of the Formula of Concord and brought
peace to the Church. Even Schaff gives them the central
position in Lutheranism, saying that they stood mediating be
tween ultra-Lutheranism and Melanchthonianism."
The extreme Lutherans held fast to the principle of stabil
ity, and the extreme Melanchthonians clung to the principle
of change. The extreme Lutherans held to a sharp and posi
tive outline, the extreme Melanchthonians believed rather in

11 Creeds I, p. 267. Yet some writers still insist on identifying the Formula
with the extreme of Flacianism !

598 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
breadth, mildness, compromise and union. The extreme
Lutherans held to the articles of faith as complete, established
and unchangeable. The extreme Melanchthonians believed
them to be elastic and adaptable.
Melanchthon had declared good works to be necessary,
while Luther had paradoxically said that "good works are a
hindrance" to justification. George Major and others de
veloped the view of Melanchthon to the limit, and raised this
controversy — from the Melanchthon side — and in line with
the treatment of justification in the Leipzig Interim, and de
clared that good works are necessary to salvation. Major
was vigorously combatted by Nicholas von Amsdorf and bv
Flacius. Melanchthon attempted to settle the matter by
dropping the two words, " to salvation ; " but this led the
Flacian party to the extreme statement that " renewal is an
entirely separate thing from justification." 1S Both Melanch
thon and the Gnesio-Lutherans opposed the Flacian position.
Immediately out of the Majoristic controversy arose the
Antinomistic controversy, in which some of the teachings of
Agricola, who had been firmly opposed by Luther years be
fore, continued to reappear.
Meantime, that is between the death of Luther and 1552,
Calvin's doctrine of the Lord's Supper, to which Melanchthon
and his followers had become friendly, was being silently
propagated in Germany. Melanchthon possessed a kindly
feeling for Calvin. Calvin, not a contemporary of Luther,
was a member of the second generation of Reformers, who
fell heir to the mediating theology of Bucer, and was suc
cessful in planting a Calvinistic church upon German soil,
and in winning the allegiance of many Melanchthonians and
Lutherans. Ever since his change of the tenth Article of the Augsburg
Confession, and since the Wittenberg Concord, Melanchthon

12 '' Seeberg finds in this Flacian extreme position simply a logical In
ference from the Melanchthonian conception of the doctrine of justification,
to which Melanchthon himself had a corrective in his theory of the ethical
necessity of good works, but which corrective these extreme Flacians lacked."

FROM 1546 TO 1560. 599
had been teaching a different doctrine from Luther on the
Lord's Supper, somewhat approximating Calvin's, which re
jected the omnipresence of the human nature, and the com
municatio idiomatum. For years the effect of the difference
was not noticed ; but the teaching went on, and the approach
of Lutheranism, as found in Melanchthon's pupils, toward
Calvinism became nearer and nearer.
At last, in 1552, Joachim Westphal, pastor in Hamburg,
pointed out that the Calvinist teaching on the Lord's Supper
was not that held by Luther. Westphal's declaration awak
ened great excitement in Bremen, in Heidelberg, and es
pecially in Wiirttemburg. In 1559, under the leadership of
Brentz, the Church of Wurttemburg pronounced in favor of
the Lutheran doctrine. Melanchthon carefully avoided com
mitting himself on this subject. To Hardenburg in Bremen,
he wrote, — "I beg of you dissimulate" ("Multa dis-
simules " M) ; and to Brentz, — " To answer is not difficult,"
but dangerous." a This was in 1559, the year before Me
lanchthon's death.
Two years before this Eucharistic controversy had broken
out at Hamburg, Andrew Osiander put forth his new dispu
tation (1550-1552) concerning justification. Osiander was
opposed by both Philippists and Lutherans. Yet it is held
by some that he performed a service to the church " by ad-

" C. R., VIII, 736 ; Cf. IX, 960.
"16., 1034 sq.
n We quote Melanchthon to Brentz : —
Responsio Phil. Mel. ad guaeslionem de controversia Heidelbergensi (C.
R., IX, p. 961) : Non difficile, sed periculosum est respondere.
In hac controversia optimum esset retinere verba Pauli : " Panis, quern
frangimus." Et copiose de fructu Caenae discendum est, ut invitentur homines
ad amorem hujus pignoris et crebrum usum. Et vocabulum declarandum est.
Non dicit, mutari naturam panis, ut Papistae dicunt; non dicit, ut Bremenses,
pattern esse substantiate corpus Christi; non dicit, ut Heshusius, panem esse
verum corpus Christi: sed esse, hoc, quo fit consociatio cum corpore Chnsti,
quae fit in usu, et quidem non sine cogitatione, ut cum mures panem rodunt.
Adest Filius Dei in ministerio Evangelii et ibi certo est efficax in
c'redentibus, ac adest non propter panem, sed propter hominem, sicut inquit:
" Manete in me, et ego in vobis." ,
According to Heppe, Melanchthon taught the sacramental communication to
be that of the living body of the divine-human Person, resulting in a personal
communion, an indwelling of the God-man in the believer.— Heppe, Dogmatik
des deutschen Protestantismus, III, p. 150.

600 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
vocating ideas embraced in original Lutheranism as against
Melanchthonianism." This is the view of Seeberg, who
praises the broad, systematic instinct that permeates the
discussions of Osiander.16
No sooner had the controversy on Adiaphora ended than
the controversy on Synergism began, — a heresy which is al
ways with the Church, and not least in the Protestantism of
to-day. In 1555 Pfeffinger of Leipzig, a follower of Melanch
thon's teachings, put forth the doctrine that man is not
" purely passive " in his conversion, as a statue, but that he
must do his part. Thus arose a controversy full of sensations,
in which Flacius fell into heresy, and Strigel, in the very
heart of the strictest Lutheranism, suddenly became a Syner
gistic convert.
Even Schaff admits, in this connection, that Melanchthon
was a Synergist, and says, " The defect of the Synergistic
theory is the idea of a partnership between God and man, and
a corresponding division of work and merit. Synergism is
less objectionable than semi-Pelagianism, for it reduces co
operation before conversion to a minimum, but even that
minimum is incompatible with the absolute dependence of
man on God. It touched the central doctrine of Evangelical
Lutheranism, justification by faith, whether it is a mere
declaratory, forensic act of acquittal from sin and guilt, or
an actual infusion of righteousness." " Schaff terms " the
later Melanchthonian Synergism," " a refined evangelical
modification of semi-Pelagianism." This was a teaching
which threatened the fundamental doctrine of the Reforma
tion, that of salvation by grace through faith alone. In the

" Says Seeberg, " He had a general theory of Christianity such as no other
among the theologians succeeding Luther possessed, until Calvin appeared.
Among the men of second rank of the Reformation period he was perhaps
the greatest. Viewed historically, his attempt constitutes the contemporaneous
counterpoise to the doctrine of justification taught by the later Melanchthon.
Both men gave one-sided interpretations of ideas of Luther's. . . . But it
must after all be counted a blessing that the Melanchthonian and not the
Osiandrian scheme met the approval of the Church." — Hist, of Doctrines
II, pp. 372, 373.
"Schaff, Creeds I, 271.

FROM 1546 TO 1560. 601
Adiaphoristic controversy, and here also, the trouble was a
fruit of the teaching of Melanchthon.
Several qualities and motives in Melanchthon's nature, in
cluding his humanist outlook on free will, and his tendency
to emphasize the necessity of good works, contributed to in
spire him with erroneous views, when the evangelical doctrine
began to be wrought out more expansively; and led him to
find the cause for the actual variation in the working of
God's grace, in man, its object.
This subtle Synergistic spirit attacks the very foundation
of Lutheranism, flows out into almost every doctrine, and
weakens the church at every point. And it was particularly
this weakness, which the great multitude of Melanchthon's
scholars, who become the leaders of the generation of which
we are speaking, absorbed ; and which rendered it difficult to
return, finally, and after years of struggle, to the solid ground,
once more recovered in the Formula of Concord.18
A number of the Lutheran leaders, including Chemnitz
and Selnecker, who gave us the Formula of Concord, were
infected originally with the Synergistic teachings of Melanch
thon, and had by a living experience in this error, to work
their way through to more solid ground. The Synergistic
teaching, added to the indeterminateness reopened by the
changes of Melanchthon on the Lord's Supper, reduced the
inner strength of the work wrought by the Augsburg Con
fession to a minimum, and invited men of arbitrary, pas
sionate and polemical nature to enter into minor controversy
of various kinds, and thus increase the divisions and con
fusion within the conservative evangelical churches.
THE SCHOLASTIC METHOD OP MELANCHTHON.
All the efforts of poor Melanchthon to attach the Lutheran

IS Schaff fully admits this : " The 'Form of Concord' settled the controversy
by separating good works both from justification and salvation, yet declaring
them necessary as effects of justifying faith." — Creeds I, p. 277.

602 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
Church, whether to Rome or to Calvinism, proved unsuc
cessful. He was misunderstood and misrepresented. Amid
the attacks of partisan enemies, who regarded him as having
betrayed the Lutheran cause, he died, in 1560, broken
hearted. He was the great theologian of the Lutheran Reformation.
His gifts reduced the purified doctrine to a connected system,
and organized the oxitward form of the Church. His mind
was so constituted that he was accustomed to generalize his
convictions in such way as to bring them into a wider har
mony with those outside him, without loss of essence per
ceptible to himself. He declared always that he taught
Luther's doctrine and, to the end, that his faith was un
changed. His broad humanism, fostered by classical tastes and
natural amiability and timidity, rendered him unsafe as a
leader, although strong under a firmer will. It is to this
that Calvin referred when he heard of Melanchthon's death:
" O, Philip Melanchthon ! for it is upon thee whom I call,
upon thee, who now livest with Christ in God, and art waiting
for us, until we shall attain that blessed rest. A hundred
times, worn out with fatigue and overwhelmed with care,
thou hast laid thy head upon my breast and said, Would
God I might die here. And a thousand times since then I
have earnestly desired that it had been granted us to be
together. Certainly thou wouldst have been more valiant to
face danger, and stronger to despise hatred, and bolder to
disregard false accusations."
At this point we must say a word concerning one of the
strangest of paradoxes, namely, that Melanchthon's exalta
tion, as a teacher, of the doctrina Lutheri, before Luther's
death, brought on the clash with the Melanchthonian doc
trine in the controversies after Luther's death. Thus Me
lanchthon was the father of both parties in the contro
versies. The earlier, or strictly Lutheran scholars, had been
started out on the correct conception that the two marks of

FROM 1546 TO 1560. 603
the Church are the pure doctrine and the right administra
tion of the sacraments.
But to this Melanchthon added a scholastic conception of
the pure doctrine. He taught his older scholars that the
pure doctrine is the teaching of the three old church symbols,
the Augustana, and the doctrine of Luther as taught at Wit
tenberg. " Lutherus veram et necessariam doctrinam pate-
fecit." In other words, as has been said, Melanchthon dog
matized the authority of Luther, so that the young theolo
gians went forth from Wittenberg with the scholastic idea
that the Gospel is the sum of the correctly framed articles
of faith, and that the doctrine of Luther is the external au
thority, determinative of the Faith. How could anything
else be possible under such teaching than the rise, after Mel
anchthon wavered in doctrine, of the Gnesio-Lutheran school ?
When Melanchthon came finally to an openly indepen
dent development, emphasizing the facultas applicandi se
ad gratiam in the sinner, the necessity of good works in the
state of grace, and contending against the scholastic concep
tion of the " ubiquity " of Christ in the Lord's Supper,
which he had himself previously wrought into doctrine ; and
allowed the changes in the Variata to become manifest, and
in his dealing in the Interim, the avoidance of theological
conflict was evidently impossible, especially as Melanch
thon's conception of the Church required a decision of such
doctrinal differences.
Melanchthon himself had canonized the doctrine of Lu
ther, and was now departing from it. Was it any wonder
that the Gnesio-Lutherans turned back to Luther as against
the more newly manifest Melanchthon? And as they were
a party, was it any wonder that they combined the coarsest
and sternest part of Luther's personal qualities with the
most abstract and scholastic method of Melanchthon's
teaching ?
" It is unreasonable to condemn the lack of piety and the
controversial spirit of these circles. Through the Melancli-

604 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
thonian conception of the Church, suspicion appeared to be
come the most holy duty. They served God and the Church
in all earnestness as they understood it."
" Neither party was willing to give up or to diminish the
authority of Luther. The situation was really this,19 that
the majority of Churches within the Saxon Reformation at
first did really not know that there was a Melanehthonianism
being set up alongside of the doctrine of Luther, and that
later they did not wish to know it." 20 When Flacius awoke
them, they were in a great strait as to how to combine piety
toward the great Praeceptor with piety toward the Great
Confession. There was no contemporary leader on whom they could
rely, and they floundered blindly in search of a secure au
thority. " Nothing " throws clearer light upon the com
plicated situation, which it is important to understand and
to appreciate, in order to perceive the necessity and the
difficulty of establishing a final and decisive Confession, as
well as a universally acknowledged corpus doctrinse, than the
transactions of the Naumburg Fiirstentag of 1561, where,
in view of the charge made by the Roman Catholics that the
Lutherans had departed from the original Augsburg Con
fession, they confessed their adherence to the edition of 1531
with the express remark, that they did not at all mean, in
this new subscription to depart from the Confession of 1541,
which made certain articles more clear, and brought the
divine truth to light, and therefore they could as little de
part from this as from the first Confession."22 This im
possible solution is the only possible solution outside of the
Formula of Concord.
After the death of Melanchthon in 1560, came the natural

18 Calinich on The Naumburg Fiirsten Tag.
20 " Formula of Concord," Hauck Encycl.
21 Ib.
22 This naive contradiction has inhered, often with the same unconsciousness,
in Melanchthonian Lutheranism ever since, and is giving the Church her
troubles to-day.

FROM 1546 TO 1560. 605
tendency to exalt his writings (Corpus Philippicum") to
symbolical authority. The attempt, made already in 1560,
to force this Corpus upon the churches in the electorate of
Saxony aroused the deepest feeling.**
Here we have the earliest set of Symbolical Books, pro
posed as a norm, which, though more bulky than the Book
of Concord, contained not one of Luther's writings, but
was largely composed of private writings on which no official
action of the Church had been taken.
It is worthy of note that this first effort to use symbolical
Books in the Church, in order to cover the controversies since
the death of Luther, arose on the Melanchthonian and Union-
istic side, and not on the strictly Lutheran side. These
bulky Confessions first appeared among the Unionists; and
to reduce them, and bring the teaching of the Church within
a really confessional compass, was one of the great objects
of the Book of Concord.
At least twenty different Lutheran Confessions of faith,
most of them bulky, appeared between the death of Luther
and the adoption of the Formula of Concord. The best known
of these were the Philippicum (1560), just mentioned, the
Brunswick (1563), the Pomeranicum (1565), the Pruten-
icum (1567), the Thuringicum (1570), and the Branden-
burgicum. The Corpus Julium (1576) stood in a class by
itself. In 1566, the Reformed Theologians (Heidelberg) assailed
the Communicatio Idiomatum and the ubiquity in connection
with the Lord's Supper, and Brentz expecially, defended the
doctrine. In Saxony the Crypto-Calvinists " rejected the

M The Corpus Philippicum was a private undertaking of the book dealer
Vogelein in Leipzig, who in 1560 edited a collection of Melanchthon's doctrinal
writings. This was not only introduced into electoral Saxony, but into Hesse
and Pomerania, and called forth strictly Lutheran Corpora Doctrinae in op
position." — Seeberg, II., p. 380.
24 Elnleitung to Koethe's Concordia, LXXXVIII sqq. ; Proleg. to Hutter's
Explicatio Libri Chr. Concordiae, Francke's Libri Symbolici, Prol. III. v ;
Kollner, 1 524.
25 Eber, Major and Crell.
42

606 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
doctrine in 1571, and were replied to by Chemnitz.3" Thus
the controversies concerning the Lord's Supper and the Per
son of Christ were added to the previous array of theological
differences. During all this time the combination of State and Church
in one faith, and the fixation of the religion of the state
by means of dogmatic formulas, together with the customary
academic form of disputations, aided in creating the most
bitter contention. Seeberg declares that " the passion dis
played and the worship of formulas reminded of the worst
periods of the dogmatic struggles upon Byzantine terri
tory." " This was true no less of the Melanchthonians than
of the stricter Lutherans.
The attempt of the princes to restore peace in the Frank
fort Recess in 1558, with the Weimar confutation in 1559,
and the condemnation of the latter by the Philippists, the
Naumburg Diet with its unsuccessful results in 1561, the
conflict in regard to the "Invariata" and the ''Variata" edi
tions of the Augsburg Confession the same year, and now
later, the controversies upon the doctrine of the Lord's Sup
per, broke the Evangelical Lutheran confession into many
fragmentary parties.

THE PART OF POLITICS.
The political situation also contributed its full share
toward the disintegration of Lutheranism. The Protestant
victory over the Emperor and the Passau agreement of 1552,
led to the Religious Peace of Augsburg in 1555, in which
all adherents of the Augsburg Confession, Lutherans and Cal
vinists,""8 were assured religious freedom; but the further
m In his De duabus naturis in Christo.
27 In speaking of the need of the Formula of Concord, Hist, of Doctrines
II, 378.
33 " Calvin wrote to Rev. Mart. Schalling, at Ratisbon, 1557 : ' Nee vera
Augustanam Confessionem repudio, cui pridem volens ac libens subscripsi,
sicut earn auctor ipse interpretatus est' (Epp., p. 437). Similarly in his

FROM 1546 TO 1560. 607
spread of Lutheranism was checked by the reservatum eccle-
siasticum. As only one-tenth of Germany was Roman and
seven-tenths Lutheran, the results gained by this Peace were
meagre. But this signing away of a large part of Germany to
Roman Catholicism, and the closing of the possibility to
Protestantism of extending itself to a wider territory, was
not, it is agreed, the saddest part of this Religious Peace.
This was the tragedy, namely, that the Reformation scarcely
begun came to a halt, and that Lutheran Protestantism pro
ceeded no further in its work. Since outer expansion was no
longer possible, Lutherans seemed to think that the internal
work also was finished, and were satisfied to make permanent
the little that had been thus far gained. The controversies
arose, and also the state-churches (Beamptenkirchen), that
busied themselves chiefly in these controversies.'"'
Already in 1556, things had come to such a pass, that the
old Evangelical doctrine was taught openly only in a few
places, particularly in north. Germany. The Reformed Pala
tinate thanked God in her churches, that Saxony, the mother
of the Reformation, had now become Reformed ; the Jesuits
rejoiced that the Lutherans were no longer real Lutherans,
and the noble and earnest leaders of all sides, including
Melanchthon, fell into trembling and despair. Thus was the
edge of the Confession of Augsburg bent and broken; and
none can say what the result would have been, had the tide,
in the Providence of God, not once again turned back toward
the true faith.
In this chapter we have tried to follow the thread of history

Ultima Admonitio ad Joach. Westphalum, Genev., 1557. It is not quite cer
tain whether it was the Altered or the Unaltered Confession which Calvin
subscribed at Ratisbon, but probably it was the former, as he says that it
contained nothing contrary to his doctrine, and as he appealed without fear
to Melanchthon himself as the best interpreter. The Altered edition had
appeared a year before, and had been actually used at the previous Conference
at Worms, though Eck protested against it. See Kollner p. 241 ; Zockler, pp.
40, 41 ; Ebrard, Dogma vom heil. Abendmahl, II, p. 450 ; Stahelin, Joh.
Calvin, I, p. 236 ; G. v. Polentz, Geschichte des franzbsischen Calvinismus,
I. p. 577 ; II, p. 62." — Schaff, II, p. 235.
" " Formula of Concord," Hauck Encycl.

608 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
as it frayed out into controversies, and as these arose out of
each other, from Luther's death to the death of Melanchthon,
and into the following decade, where we found conflict and
disintegration. Before scanning the horizon for hope of
relief, it will be useful to take a more thorough look back
ward at the great man whose word and deed, whose person
ality and principle are interwoven as the leading figure into
every page of the history through which we have passed.

CHAPTER XXIV.
MELANCHTHON AND THE MELANCHTHONIAN
PRINCIPLE.
Luther the Confessor, not the Hero — Melanchthon's Gifts and Gracious Nature —
Luther's Loyalty to Melanchthon — Melanchthon as a Teacher and Writer —
His Philosophy and Theology — His Practical Tendency — The Lumen Naturale
— His Two Contradictory Principles — The "Loci Communes" — Its Effect on
Lutheran Seventeenth-Century Theology — His Clear Understanding of the Fun
damental Principles of the Reformation — Melanchthon's Lack of Faith in Crisis
— His Mild Rationalism — Makes Confession a Problem of Adjustment — Willing
ness to Enter Compromise — Timidity — Desire for Union — Diplomacy — Anxiety.
THE Confessional principle of the Church is the prin
ciple of Scripture. In essence it is divine. The men
who discovered or elaborated it, are not its authors; and
their words and opinions, whether in consonance or in dis
sonance with it, do not affect it.
Doubtless it will be conceded that of these men, in modern
days, Luther was chief. Drinking in the word of forgive
ness and salvation, he gave forth his confession to an
eager world, in great columns of testimony, as a gushing
geyser rises into evidence from the power and pressure of
the inner movement that sends it forth.
It would be a pleasure to set forth Luther more fully, in
the childlike simplicity and heroic trust of his rugged faith,
as bearing upon the Confessional principle. But since the
personal traits of the Reformation Elijah are so deeply
graven on every Lutheran mind, and to avoid the impres-
609

610 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
sion of a purpose on our part to exalt Luther 1 and depreciate
Melanchthon, Luther's faithful and angelic second self, we
shall confine our praises, as also, in the nature of our sub
ject, we are compelled to concentrate our analysis upon the
exquisite personality of the faithful Elisha, Luther's own
" Magister Philippus."
He was the crystal stream that dissolved the rough, mighty,
ferruginous, boulder-like rocks of the Reformation, and
held their salutary elements in its silvery body, and bore,
in sweet and gentle flow, the new invigorating waters, rich
and ruddy, charged with restorative tides of healthier life,
to the eager, thirsty souls of the youth in every niche and
corner of the great German Empire.
Melanchthon came to Wittenberg with a classic ancestry
in his veins. A humanist by nature and education, and a
Christian by grace — if we were synergistic, we should be

1 This volume has no interest in the hero-worship of Carlyle, often at
tributed — unjustly, we believe — to Lutherans of solid faith and earnest con
viction. Thus Schaff, with all his love for the Lutheran Church and desire
that they come into federative union, or, at least, brotherly fellowship, with
the Reformed, adds these words to his estimate of the "mighty genius of
Luther " : " The towering greatness of Luther is to the Lutherans a constant
temptation to hero-worship, as Napoleon's brilliant military genius is a mis
fortune and temptation to France. . . . There are not a few Lutherans who
have more liking for Luther's faults than for his virtues, and admire his
conduct at Marburg as much, if not more, than his conduct at Worms."
And again Schaff says elsewhere : " The overestimate of Luther is well
explained in the lines, — ' Gottes Wort und Luthers Lehr
Vergehet nun und nimmermehr.' "
Schaff's estimate is apparently a miscomprehension of the intent of these
classic lines. In any case, the Schaffian school should be willing to take the
judgment of the mild, moderate and admirable Melanchthon on this point.
Melanchthon said : " Luther brought to light the true and necessary doctrine "
(C. R., I, 728), and "We must hold fast to the pure doctrine, namely, the
Confessio Lutheri (C. R., XI, 272 sq. ; VIII, 49). On which Seeberg (II, 353)
remarks : " The co-ordination of ' Gottes Wort und Luthers Lehr ' is per
fectly in accord with Melanchthon's feeling." It is the doctrine of Christ,
and of justification by faith, to which the couplet refers.
The present writer is no admirer of the Napoleonic in Church or State.
To him, in this examen as to the inner nature of the Lutheran faith, and its
genuine and complete confession, the personal traits and partisan espousal of
Luther are little or nothing. Our one concern here is in and for the principle
of the real Scriptural Faith, and its Confession.
Amy stage of the investigation in this work will not therefore be justly met
by attributing to it the motive of a championship of the cause of Luther, as in
contrast with that of the more delicate and altogether lovable Melanchthon.
It may he suspected, that the pen moving on these pages is capable, on oc
casion, of volcanic outburst ; but this volume should be its own witness that the
pen is flowing, if not with the sweet and clear, yet with the quiet point anil

MELANCHTHONIAN PRINCIPLE. 611
tempted to say by temperament and grace, — his culture had
rendered him uncomfortable at Tiibingen, prior to his grand-
uncle Reuchlin's recommendation of him to Luther.2
The wonderful intellect was enveloped in a timid and
shrinking, yet gently persisting disposition; and enshrined
in a physical frame so frail that it, even in health, seemed
likely, at any moment, to give way under the strain of
thought within. Luther said of Melanchthon, after he had
reached Wittenberg : " There is but one thing I fear, namely,
that his delicate constitution will not be able to endure the
manner of life in this region."
Peculiarly tender and feminine in the perfection of his
intuitive insight, the clearness of his reasoning, the per
sistency of his inner determination, itself sufficient to make
himself and those around him miserable ' under adverse

measured scale of Melanchthon's soft and tender quill. Whatever Luther-like
eruptions may startle the tranquillity of any clear American night, from any
other .=iurces, the utterances in this work, if they offend, will probably do
so because they are sedate.
2 Reuchlin had learned to know Melanchthon as a school-boy at Pforzheim,
and took great delight in him. It was impossible not to love the lad, so
amiable, so thoughtful, and so modest. Even his stammering tongue, which
prevented him from talking freely, was no obstacle to those who knew him.
" His quick perception, retentive memory, marvelous acuteness, sagacity in
argument, purity in expression, rare and extensive knowledge, delicate and
elegant taste, commended him to every educated man. Erasmus said of him,
" He not only excels in learning and eloquence, but by a certain fatality is a
general favorite. Honest and candid men are fond of him, and even his
adversaries cannot hate him." And nearly four centuries later, the English
translator of his biography, G. F. Krotel (Life of Ph. Melanchthon, by C
F. Ledderhose, Phila., Lindsay and Blakiston, 1855), says: "Melanchthon has
been called the most amiable, the purest, and most learned of the celebrated
men of the Sixteenth Century. And he has succeeded in securing the af
fections of posterity, and more than any other one of the valiant champions
of the Reformation, is the general favorite of all evangelical Christians, and
still seems to stand as the gentle mediator between the two great divisions of
the Protestant Church formed at that time, claimed and loved by both."
3 The weight of Melanchthon's disposition was against discord and in favor
of peace. He hated the rough, the violent, the crude, the immoderate (im-
manitas horridum nimium, Postil, II, 552). Yet, as is so often the case with
very gentle people, there was an irritability, and a susceptibility to exaspera
tion in .his own nature. He himself confesses this : sozpe ex animo indignor,
scis enim me esse iracundum (ceteris sed brevis irce). — C. R., Ill, 1172. And
his friend Camerarius tells us: affectinnibus animi vehemcntibus ; graviter
ergo commovebatur, eratque in eo impetus hie repentinus, qui tamen sedabatur
celeriter. Further, Ratzeberger (92) alludes to Melanchthon's being stirred
up in his public iectures and his private teachings because " he wished to
have his rationem docendi " observed " exacte ad unguem." " Melanchthon
was gentle by nature only In the sense that he was not capable of deep and
lasting passion, and that the rising waves of anger were always brought to
calm again by his good-heartedness and his benevolent and loving disposition,"

612 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
conditions; peculiar in the charm of his personal, and the
failure of his negotiative, contacts; and peculiar also in
the almost unaccountable inability to see the necessity of
strict fidelity to an original faith or a primal understand
ing, when he functionated as the representative, of conjoint
action, and to realize that changes in public declaration of
position 4 are destructive of historical accuracy, stability and
confidence; Melanchthon, with all his genius, acted most
wisely when in a supplementary station, under the direction
of a positive guide.
Barely more than a mere lad at school was he, when he
offered the classical world a grammar of the Greek lan
guage, and an edition of Terence, which brought the com
mendation of Erasmus. Reuchlin said of him, "Among
the Germans I know of no one who excels him, except Eras
mus of Rotterdam, and he is a Hollander."
Wittenberg soon discovered that it possessed a treasure of
the most rare kind in this frail'-looking new-comer, " the
Grecian," as he had been known in earlier days by his
schoolmates. "A wonderful man, in whom everything is
well-nigh supernatural, — my most cherished and intimate
friend," wrote Luther to Reuchlin, less than four months
after Melanchthon arrived in the city of the Reformation.
Melanchthon received the degree of bachelor of divinity
in 1521, but his modesty prevented him, throughout his life,
from accepting the Doctor's degree/ though, as a teacher,
no other man of the Sixteenth Century was held in such high
honor. It is sad, indeed, to think that this delicate and
finely strung harp, this classic voice, this sensitive soul was
says Herrlinger. But he was sensitive to a point, and no wonder, in view of
the delicacy of his temperament, and of the many terrible rebuffs and. insults
he was obliged to endure. It is important to bear this peculiar temperament
of Melanchthon, — which characteristically manifests itself in peace-loving and
temperamentally unionistic theologians, — in mind.
•And still more so, changes of position itself.
5 " Titulus aliquid oneris habet. Vides meum exemplum ; nemo me perpellere
potuit, ut ilium quamlibet honorificum titulum Doctoris mihi decerni sinerent ;
nee ego gradus illos parvifacio ; sed ideo, quia judico esse magna ornamenta et
necessaria Reipublicae, verecunde petendos esse et conferendos censeo." — G. R.,
IV, 811.

MELANCHTHONIAN PRINCIPLE. 613
torn out of the professional chair, to enter the mighty con
flicts and struggles of a rude political world for which he
was not fitted; and to become the leader of the Christian
faith in trying times, when sturdy confessors and not tim
orous professors were needed to declare, cling to and stand
by the Word of God, without fear and trembling ; and when
the faith required was that in an objective reality, and not
that of a believing rationality.
That Melanchthon was not fitted to stand steady amid
the sweeping currents of religious error, was shown as early
as 1521, when the Zwickau prophets appeared in Witten
berg and he, as a theologian, was unable to control the situ
ation. On Dec. 27th, 1521, he wrote to the Elector: —
' ' I have conversed with them myself, and they declare most wonderful
things concerning themselves, viz., that God with a loud voice sent them forth to
teach, that they enjoy most intimate conversations with God, behold future events,
and that they are, in short, prophetic and apostolic men. I cannot describe how
all this moves me. That spirits possess them, seems to be established by many
reasons, concerning which no one can easily form an opinion but Martinus. If
the Gospel and the honor and peace of the Church are in any danger, it is abso
lutely necessary that these people should have an interview with Martinus, espe
cially as they appeal to him."
Melanchthon was not a man for crisis, nor for theological
utterance in the sense of declaring and establishing the Faith
in public difficulty. His examination, apprehension, esti
mation, expression, and even use of faith, in public affairs,
were of the school/ and not of the apostolic order.

' Compare Melanchthon's Preface to the third edition of the Loci : Cum
viderem res magnas et necessarias divinitus patefactas esse in nostris ecclesiis
per viros pios et doctos, duxi materias illas in variis scriptis sparsas colligendas
esse et quodam ordine explicandas, ut facilius percipi a juvenibus possent.
Hoc velut pensum debere me in hoc scholastico munere, quod gero Ecclesia?
judicabam. — C. R., XXI, 341. Melanchthon was one of those practical men
who desire to make truth clear and easy, and whose purpose as theologians
is not so much the apprehension of doctrine in its greatness, as the reduction
of doctrine to terms of easy and clear theological construction. Kahnis is
right in his remark that Melanchthon was " not a theorist but a teacher."
Speculation was entirely foreign to Melanchthon and his mode was the rea
soning of the schoolmaster, who " defines precisely, divides justly and com
bines appropriately." — C. R., XI, 654. This is one of the reasons why Melanch
thon's work is not particularly creative, but elaborates elements of knowledge
that have been handed down by another ; and why his Loci are " a sum-

614 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
The much appreciated practical character of Melanch
thon's theology — which avoided the deeper problems, and
confined itself to those quae aedificationem conducunt, quae
ad vitam accommodata sunt; and which connects Melanchthon
with the moderate theologians in the beginning of the Eigh
teenth, and the supernaturalists in the beginning of the
Nineteenth Century, and with that school in our own century
which feels that the religious rather than the theological
interests of the church should be emphasized, proved itself
to be unequal to dealing with the critical situations and the
grave problems that arose in the Church throughout Mel
anchthon's life. As Plitt says : " In place of dealing with
difficulties, Melanchthon always tried to evade them." '
It was just about the time when Melanchthon had brought
forth his first dogmatic system, the ' Loci,' that Carlstadt
came to Wittenberg; and rendered the situation so over
whelming for Melanchthon that he longed and prayed for
the return of Luther from the Wartburg.
Nevertheless this same blessed man was personally great
and honorable in adherence to conviction. When tempted,
not long afterward, with the promise of a high position
within the Roman camp, in exchange for desertion from the
Lutheran ranks, he declared to Campeggius, the papal legate
in Germany : " If I discover anything to be true, I hold it
fast, and maintain it without any regard to the consequences
to any mortal, without any regard to advantages, honor or
gain."

mary of Christian doctrine, which all men ought to know." Preface to the
German ' Loci,' C. R., XXII, 47. -j*
In this sense, it is instructive to compare the idea and method of Melanch
thon with those of Luther in his popular Catechisms. In thus narrowing his
theology to school purposes, Melanchthon seemed to be more concerned with
the careful elaboration of single points, and their defence and with the com
bination of single doctrines that belong together, than with the building up of
the whole into a system, says Herrlinger, thus leading finally, in confining
Investigation to the important needs of the situation — the great fault of
Melanchthon also in his negotiations on behalf of the Church — to a low scien
tific ideal. Hence Erasmus wrote him : In scriptis tuis, in quibus mihi multa
arrident, interdum, desidero plus circumspectionis. Frequenter enim sic leviter
capita rerum attingis, ut negligere videaris, quid arguio lectori venire possit
in mentem. — C. R., Ill, 87. Cp. Herrlinger.
' Introduction, Augustana, I, 537.

MELANCHTHONIAN PRINCIPLE. 615
But those strong, sententious words were uttered in ref
erence to his own personal character as a scholar and teacher.
So soon as the welfare of the Church was concerned in any
movement, or so soon as ties of sympathy and friendship
appealed to him from an opposite party, Melanchthon was
at sea, miserable and dejected in his own mind, and filled
with some plan to extricate the cause or the man to whom
he wished to be a friend, by the devices and diplomacy of
human reason, rather than inspired by the endeavor simply to
do the right thing, and then leave the final issue to the Lord.
In many of the Confessional movements in which Mel
anchthon was concerned, his first and foremost wish was for
tranquillity — of the Church, and of his own mind ; and his
first effort was to secure it. He was, more than a few
times, in the wretched plight of not being able either to
stem the tide of difficulty in the Church, or to persuade him
self of the desirability of betaking himself out of it. We
occasionally find men of this temperament in affairs of
state, brilliant in gifts, fertile in the conception of plans,
weak and near-sighted in execution, and yet, by some strange
fascination, unable to restrain themselves from participation
in the progress of a matter in which they are deeply in
terested. The type is also sometimes found in womanhood —
where we characterize it as weak and meddlesome, although,
strictly speaking, this is not correct; since there is in such
character a strength, or bravery, of a minor order, prone
to persist, but neither efficient to resist, nor sufficient to
conquer. Nevertheless, Luther rightly estimated the gifts, the labors
and the spirit of Melanchthon, as of the most incalculable
value. Luther recommends him to Spalatin as follows : " I
would most heartily commend to you Philip, the great Gre
cian, the thorough scholar, and most amiable man. His
lecture-room is crowded with hearers. It is owing to him,
principally, that all theologians, the first, middle, and lowest
class, are studying Greek."

616 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
And when John Eck obtruded his vainglorious learning
upon the scene, Luther again wrote to Spalatin : " I again
come to speak of Philip, whom no Eck can bring me to hate,
and whose testimony in my favour I always esteem higher
than anything else. The judgment and opinion of this sin
gle man is of more value to me than that of many thousand
worthless Ecks, and I would not be ashamed, although I
am a Master of Arts, of Philosophy and Theology, and am
adorned almost with all the titles of Eck, to leave my own
opinion, if this Grammarian could not agree with it. I
have often done this, and do it still, because of the divine
gift which God has deposited in this frail vessel. . . . Philip
I do not praise, he is a creature of God."
This opinion of Luther continued. Early in 1530, he
wrote to Jonas : " All the Jeromes, Hillarys, and Macariuses
together, are not worthy to unloose the thong of Philip's
sandal. What have the whole of them together done which
can be compared with one year of Philip's teaching, or to his
one book of Common Places ? I prefer Melanchthon's books
to my own, and would rather have them circulated than mine.
I was born to battle with conspirators and devils, therefore
my books are. more vehement and warlike. It is my work
to tear up the stumps and dead roots, to cut away the thorns,
to fill up the marshes. I am the rough forester and pioneer.
But Melanchthon moves gently and calmly along, with his
rich gifts from God's own hand, building and planting, sow
ing and watering."
Melanchthon was not a mere " Grecian," but a true and
learned Christian, having become such early from his con
stant reading of the Scriptures. The doctrine of justifica
tion by faith was his before he reached Wittenberg.
The ethical earnestness of his thoughts, the purity of his
style, and the marvelousness of his gifts of apprehension,
order, and expression, the wonderful clearness of his pre
sentation and the subtle taste of the true litterateur drew
crowds of students from all parts of the German empire.

MELANCHTHONIAN PRINCIPLE. 617
Heerbrand, in an oration to his memory, declares that Me
lanchthon had as many as two thousand pupils and hearers,
among whom were princes, counts, barons and other no
blemen.8 Melanchthon's public grasp of subject-matter even in his
more free and facile moods9 was that of epitome.10
The mind of Melanchthon was assimilative, not creative,"
judicial in the weighing of materials with painful anxiety,
illuminative, summaristic and naturally expressive. He
gathered the principles of the two great classic languages
into a simple unity; and his grammars continued to pass
through new editions from the start of his academic career
until long after his death." After receiving the degree of

" Reuchlin and Erasmus became famous by their editions and writings on
the classics, but Melanchthon attracted young men by his lectures as well as
by his writings.
9 Not so in private correspondence, when his wealth of expression and detail
of learning tempted him to unburden himself with almost unmeasured fullness.
" It would be interesting to know in how far the rejecting of the earlier
frames, and the casting of the final form of the Formula of Concord were
due to the fine, clear-cut and orderly influence of Melanchthon upon the minds
of those who wrote the Formula.
" Melanchthon was not an original spirit, drawing his strength out of the
great deeps. His nature was prevailingly receptive, and the extraordinary
versatility of this receptivity, by which he combined in himself all the elements
of culture in his day, could not, despite his undeniable effort to relate all the
sciences to theology, be favorable to that concentration of thought in the
realm of theology which is necessary for the formation of a complete and con
sistent system. But Melanchthon's receptivity is always turned first and fore
most to theology, especially to the Scripture. The doctrine of the Church
is Indeed to be a grammatica sermonis divini. And, further, Melanchthon
never conceals his theological dependence upon Luther. Cp. his words even
in his last Testament, C. R., Ill, 827 : ago gratias rev. Doctori Luthero, quia
ab eo Evangelium didici ; also VII, 479.' — Herrlinger.
22 " His Latin Grammar, prepared originally for bis private pupils, was
almost universally adopted in Europe, running through fifty-one editions, and
continuing until 1734 to be the text-book even in the Roman Catholic schools of
Saxony. His Greek Grammar also enjoyed great popularity. Of his Terence,
73 editions had been published within 106 years of its first publication. He
also published either scholia upon or expositions or paraphrases of the De
Offieiis, Laelius, De Oratore, Orator, Topicae, Epistles; and 19 Orations of
Cicero, Porcius, Latro, Sallust, the Germania of Tacitus, Pliny, Quintilian,
1. xii, six orations of Demosthenes, one of Aeschines, Lycurgus, Stobaeus, Aelian,
Lucian, Thucydides, Xenophon, Plutarch, Lysis, Ptolemaeus, selections from
Homer and Sophocles, 18 tragedies of Euripides, Aristophanes, Menander,
19th Tdyl of Theocritus, TyrtaDus, Solon, Theognis, Calimaehus, Pindar,
Empedocles, Virgil, Ovid, the Miles of Plautus, and the Theognis of Seneca,
in addition to composing 391 Latin and Greek odes. His style (genus dicendi
Philippicum), which is said, in purity of diction and correctness of classical
taste, to excel even that of Erasmus, for a time was regarded in the schools
as a model, even to the exclusion of Cicero and Quintilian." — Summary by
H. E. J„ in McClintock & Strong.

618 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
Master of Arts, he lectured chiefly on the Latin classics,
Virgil, Terence, Cicero and Livy.13
But he was interested as well in the forms of thought, as
in the art or form of expression, and in all that goes to
make up the personality of man ; and he wrote the philosoph
ical text-books of his day, — the. Epitome Philosophic Mor-
alis, the De Anima, and the De Dialectica.
For Melanchthon was not a mere stylist, but a born dia
lectician. His definition of logic as " the art of speaking
by defining, dividing, and arguing ", reveals his mind and
method in theology."
It was he, and he alone, who impressed the dialectic and
text-book stamp upon the form of Lutheran theology, from
its first beginning to the very end of its highly wrought-out
orthodox and classic period, in- the Seventeenth Century.15
The complete departure of the early and later Lutheran
theological form from the method and the more vital and
germinal insight of Luther, into the modified Aristotelian
frame of logical definition, and into a continuance of the
academic disputation of the medieval schoolmen, was me
diated, as well as simplified and modernized, by Melanch
thon. This was Melanchthon's " Rhetoric ", which Luther
and the other Reformers refer to as hindering Melanchthon's
faith."

u He began lecturing on the Scriptures during his first winter at Witten
berg, taking up Titus, Psalms, Matt, and Rom. His published lectures on
Scripture embrace Gen., Prov., Eccl., Isaiah, Jer., Lam., Dan. Hag., Zech.,
Mai., John, Rom., Cor., Col., and Tim.
" At the University of Heidelberg he had heard the garrula dialectica et
particula physices, and had worked himself with youthful enthusiasm into the
Grammatik, Rhetorik, and Dialectik of the day.
15 The tendency to reduce Theology to a philosophy, and to its humanistic
and practical value — among some of the Melanchthonian theologians in the
Twentieth Century, could probably be traced back to Melanchthon, indirectly
through the pietistic and rationalistic influences of the Eighteenth Century,
and through the mental frame and phrase of the great American Melanch
thonian, S. S. Schmucker ; but it is also due to contact with humanistic sources
in typical American religious denominations, and to contact with the in
fluence of common American Christianity.
18 Vid. the correspondence concerning the Augsburg Diet in Chapters XIX
and XX.

MELANCHTHONIAN PRINCIPLE. 619
But the Melanchthonian principle embraced more than the
logic of simplified definition, and the rhetoric of its clear and
harmonious setting forth. Unlike Luther, Melanchthon, fol
lowing the bent of his nature and his humanistic education,"
laid stress on Philosophy 1S (it was a simplified Aristotelian
type)19 — based on the lumen naturale,™ on a natural religion,
and a natural law ; which, though beclouded by sin, is a real
gift and power in human nature. In his ' locus ' on the
nature of God, for instance, he starts with the " true, per
tinent thoughts " of Plato, which are founded upon mature
reasonings, and says they " must still have added to them
the attributes which God himself has revealed." a
The lumen naturale is practically a foundation and a

K Melanchthon approached philosophy through philology.
18 To philosophy Melanchthon reckoned the formal arts, and also found
admincula for theology in the metaphysical material of philosophy. He took
from the old church philosophy, his psychological and ethical conceptions, and
sought to fill them out with an evangelical experience. In such doctrines as
those of the trinity, justification, the sacraments, he sought' to find points of
connection between the revealed, or dogmatic, and the natural, or humanistic,
idea. He regards philosophy as moderata investigatrix veritatis, but he warns
against confusing the two spheres, and places philosophy beneath the revealed
truth which is the prascipua reetrix opinionum [sic] et vitas. He was a pro
nounced Aristotelian, and successfully turned that system into a philosophia
simplex, vita: utilis. — C. R., XI, 344.
Tet Melanchthon purified his teachings from the speculative elements of
the schoolmen. He depreciates the undue ascendency of Aristotle instead of
Christ in his own day, as he also does the undue influence of Platonism in the
Ancient Church. — Loci (Plitt-Kolde), p. 37.
19 " Among his philosophical works were an Epitome of Moral Philosophy;
Elements of Ethics; Commentary on Aristotle's Politics; Elements of Rhetoric;
Logical Questions ; and- dissertations on ethical subjects, such as oaths, con
tracts, etc. For many years instruction in these works was the regular
course in ethics in most of the schools of Protestant Germany. Hallam pro
nounced them " more clear, elegant, and better arranged than those of Aristotle
himself or his commentators" (Hallam, Literature, ii, 50). He was the
author, also, of an elementary text-book of physics, and a sketch of universal
history, from the creation to the Reformation, Chronicon Carionis." — Summary
of H. E. Jacobs, in McCUntock & Strong.
20 XII, 514, 577, 648.
21 " The possession of this additional and unique revelation, of course, does
not annul or displace the data from which natural theology derives its invalu
able theistic and religious truth. These continue in their own rightful force
and validity, for full consideration in theological grounds and verifications.
The disposition, sometimes shown, to contemn and exclude from Christian
theology the data that have illuminated the way of natural theology into the
great fundamental realities of the divine existence and many of the divine
prerogatives and attributes and of the religious nature and responsibility of
man, is manifestly unjustifiable. These have lost none of their intrinsic
legitimacy by reason of the added light, and rightly form auxiliary sources
In theological determinations." — Valentine, Christian Theology, I, 22, 23,

620 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
frame — not however here in a synergistic sense "¦ — on which
theology is to be built. Theology is to be put into form and
taught — rather than to rise out of the Word into faith, and
through faith to be expressed in every act of life. We are
dealing with statements of principle, rather than with prin
ciples. The academy takes the place of the battle-field.
Reason enters theology at the lower root, and orders it ; and
ethics takes theology in the upper branch, and applies it.
In Melanchthon's use of the rational frame, we must, how
ever, remember that speculation and rational substance have
have no place.
Melanchthon is guided, throughout his long life of thought,
by two leading principles, both practical, — first, to preserve
the historical continuity of the church, i. e., the visible
church; and second, to re-frame and re-state the doctrine,
according to new light and the latest need. In these two
principles there lies concealed an antithesis or contradic
tion on which the Melanchthonian theology shatters itself.
" Historical continuity " and " unbroken visible unity " re
quire stability ; while " restatement " involves the possibil
ity of constant fluidity, breaking up, and change. We can
not have the fixed and the variable together.28 We cannot
" be firm " and " accommodate " at the same time. We
must give up either " continuity " or " changefulness." The
many seemingly contradictory theological frames and ac
tions of Melanchthon whether toward the Roman or the Re
formed extreme, are rendered intelligible when we find his
mind possessed of both these principles, the one or the other
of which is called forth by the situation immediately before
him. As a teacher of logic, and in theology — except as to form
of discussion — Melanchthon was not germinal, but reflexive
22 In Paul, Melanchthon finds the way to Justitia, that is, to perfects virtus,
qu& ex animo beat nos. Unlike Luther, Melanchthon found his inner peace
on the way of moral perfection. But he had learned from Paul that Christ
Is our righteousness, and that the power and joy of virtue follows only from
the certitude of forgiveness. — Institutio theologica of 1519. C. R., XXI, 49 sq.
28 i. e., on parallel lines.

MELANCHTHONIAN PRINCIPLE. 621
and practical, without an inner and constant principle
of organic unfolding. He was progressive in the appre
hension of philological, historical and logical investigation.
That Melanchthon was variable, or changeful, that is that
he regarded the inner principle not so much in its objective
being as in its outer form of statement, on which he con
stantly sought to " improve ", needs no demonstration. His
unreliability in the earlier stages of the Augsburg Confes
sion; his habit of apprehending truth in itself indeed, but
also in its propinquities and relations to his ecclesiastical
environment; and his free shifting of the point of view, es
pecially when and where he was not steadied, — constituted
his weakness.
The Lord's Supper, with him, for instance, was a matter
of logical conception. " For ten years neither day nor night
has passed," he wrote in 1537, " in which I have not reflected
on this subject." In 1529, he would rather die than be
contaminated by union with the Zwinglians/30 In the Au
gustana he reflected and expressed Luther's teaching. In
Augsburg, a month or two later, in his Opinion Concerning
the Foundation of the Doctrine of the Sacramentarians
(found in English Book of Concord, II, pp. 241-243) he
declared that " Bucer is wroug in contending that he agrees
with us. . . . Bucer diffuses mist. . . . We require not
only the presence of the power, but of the body. This
Bucer disguises purposely. . . . Bucer seems to me to be
preparing a plot when he says that we agree. . . . We deny
transubstantiation and that the body is locally in the bread.

23» " Cheer up about the Zwinglian ' Rotte.* I myself experienced, when
their wheelhorses were (at Marburg), that they have no Christian doctrine.
I would rather die than to hold wth them and say that the body
of Christ must and can be only at one place. Therefore only go ahead and
censure them, publicly and privately, when and where there is opportunity.
Censure this in them, that they teach nothing right of the use of the sacra
ments. There is found indeed in all the Zwinglian books not a single annunci
ation of faith, by which we become righteous before God. Even when they
mention the faith, they do not mean the faith which believes the forgiveness
of sins, and is sure that we are received into grace, heard and protected and
kept by God ; but they only mean a historical faith (which also the devils
have), a mere empty knowledge." — Melanchthon to Martin Gorlitz, about
March, 1530.
43

622 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
. . . We declare confidently that the present Christ dis
tributes his body and blood for us to eat and drink." In
the first edition of the Apology, " he at least approximated
very closely to the doctrine of transubstantiation. In
1531, he gave up the theory of ubiquity; under studies of the
Church Fathers, he more fully abandoned Luther's teach
ing, and finally in the edition of the Confession of 1540, he
approximated to that of Bucer and Calvin." *
When he came to Wittenberg, Melanchthon was filled with
the idea of a Reformation in the Church by a renaissance
of science and learning.25 Under the impetus of this hu
manistic ideal, he began his multitudinous literary labors
by lecturing on Homer, and on the epistle to Titus. Side
by side the classical and the confessional principle lived and
grew in his mind, and bore, in their union, their first fruit
in a brief statement of the Scripture doctrines in the new,
clear form, for his own private use. This statement of
doctrines he used as an introduction in lecturing on Romans,
and his students thought it so good that they published it
unrevised, and without his consent.
Then Melanchthon, though in the midst of the Zwickau
difficulties, published this first evangelical dogmatics under
the title loci communes rer. theologicarum, seu Hypotyposes
theologicw, Dec, 1521.
Luther was so pleased with the book that he called it
" liber invictus, non solum immortalitate, sed et canone eccle-
siastico dignus."
Of it, the Romish Alphonso de Zamara is said to have
declared : " It explains its doctrinal statements in such ap
propriate and accurate terms, and, by a methodical treatment,
renders them so clear and strong, that it is injuring the papal
power more than all other writings of the Lutherans."
Calvin, later, wrote, in line with Melanchthon's main
purpose, and revealing in a word or two the great difference
24 From Schaff, not strictly correct, but sufficiently so to illustrate the point.
a Plitt, Mel. loci comm. in ihrer Vrgestalt, 1864, p. 34.

• MELANCHTHONIAN PRINCIPLE. 623
between Melanchthon's life-aim as a theologian, and a truly
scientific inquiry or construction of the Christian doctrine:
" So beautiful is the proof that it affords, that the most
perfect simplicity is the noblest method of handling the
Christian doctrine."
This sudden and complete Protestant theological pedagogik
was of such value to the Reformation, and seemed to reveal
such powers in its author, that Luther tried to have Mel
anchthon relieved from his work on the classics, in order
that he might give his whole strength to theology. Melanch
thon himself objected, and intimated that if it were neces
sary to choose between the two, he would demit theology in
favor of the classics.
But he now plunged with Luther into the task of trans
lating the Scriptures, the inner basis of the Reformation;
and then came the Diets, and Conventions, and doctrinal
statements, the outer basis of the Reformation. The almost
unbearable burden of framing these many statements fell
upon the frail shoulders of our wonderful thinker and
scholar. It therefore was 1535 before a second main edition of the
' Loci ' was published, by which time the humanistic seeds
in Melanchthon's mind had so far developed into theological
substance, that the predestinarian sentence, "All things hap
pen necessarily," was removed, and room was left for the
synergistic growth,28 which the mind of Melanchthon man
ifested in the next decade.
By 1543, when the greater differences in thinking between
Luther and Melanchthon had come plainly to the surface,
and Melanchthon had been in constant communication with
the Reformed divines concerning the doctrine .of the Lord's
Supper,27 while at the same time he had advanced so far as
to lean toward Rome in the synergistic doctrine of free will
and good works ; and after the Variata of the Augsburg Con-
28 Cp. Chap. XXII.
27 lb., and also following chapters.

624 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
fession had appeared, he issued the third main edition of his
' Loci,' " in enlarged form in which he, to use the words of
Jacobs,28 " so far changed on that subject as to seem far more
in harmony with the teaching of Erasmus than that of Lu
ther." In the edition of 1548, Melanchthon went so far as
to boldly say, " Liberum arbitrium est in homine f acultas ap-
plicandi se ad gratiam." The opinion has been advanced,
and indeed with some degree of truth, that without the as
sociation with Luther, Melanchthon, in his reformation of
doctrine, " would have become or remained a second Eras
mus ", i. e., not in the worst Erasmian, but in the religious
Erasmian sense.
It was Melanchthon's contradictory principle of ecclesi
astical conservatism and intellectual change, together with
the intimacy with Bucer, the cross-field thinking of Osiander,
and the onward development of the external situation, that
introduced and prolonged the many controversies into which
he was plunged. The method, and, in part, the content of
the controversies, as well as the form of the later Lutheran
system, were furnished by Melanchthon.
Thus in a most important sense, the spirit of Melanchthon,
and not that of Luther, led to the doctrinal formularies of
the Sixteenth Century and to the ultra-orthodoxy of the
Seventeenth, after the original spirit of free investigation
had died away. Dilthey and Hartfelder have pointed out
that the theology of Melanchthon combines the articles of
faith with ancient cosmology in the scholastic style of
28 According to Chemnitz, Luther often said, that there was more solid
doctrine in the ' Loci ' than in any other book that had appeared since the
days of the Apostles.
When the changes came in the Augsburg Confession and in the 'Loci' Luther
was silent, — to avoid a personal break between his friend and himself, and a
public break in the University, the State, and the Church.
When Luther revised the German translation of the ' Loci ' by Jonas, he
suggested that " Justification " and " the Holy Supper " were not treated with
sufficient fulness.
Jacobs says, " The renowned Loci Theologici of Chemnitz is a commentary
upon Melanchthon's Loci. Similar commentaries were written by Praetorius,
Pezel, Strigel, and Fabricius ; while Spangenberg, Sohn, Mayer and Hem-
mingius have prepared abridgments. For many years it continued to be a
text-book in the Lutheran schools, until supplanted by Hutter's Compend."
28 Melanchthon in McC. & Strong.

MELANCHTHONIAN PRINCIPLE. 625
Thomas Aquinas ; 8° though, unlike Thomas, Melanchthon
does not go so far in uniting the two as to construct a system
of metaphysics, but limits himself to man's natural con
sciousness as a point of departure. Yet Seeberg is sure that
.this combination made by Melanchthon led historically to
the orthodoxy of the Seventeenth, as well as to the illumina
tion of the Eighteenth Century.
"It may be said," declares Seeberg, "that the mainte
nance and spread of ' pure doctrine ' is the great motive which
inspired Melanchthon's life-work, as a Reformer of the
church and of the universities, as a theologian, philologian,
and teacher.80*
"On the other hand, we may thus also understand his
fatal attitude toward the Interim, C. B., VII, 382 sq., 322
sq., and toward Calvin and his party; for, aside from the
deviations which had separated himself as well from Luther,
he believed himself to be in doctrinal accord with Calvin —
and everything to his mind depended upon doctrine.
" This involved again, as compared with Luther, a narrow
ing of the horizon, resulting not merely from the great im
portance attached to the ' pure doctrine ', but from the fact
that the life-giving energy of the church was attributed to
the latter. It cannot be denied that in these views are to
be found the germs of the errors of the orthodoxy of the Sev
enteenth Century." a
Seeberg is partially conscious of Melanchthon's inconsist-

ao But in simple form and with a purely practical view.
30» This explains his great severity toward heretics [e. g., Servetus] . — C. R.,
II, 18; III, 197 sq., 199, 241 sq. ; VIII, 520 sq. ; IV, 739; XII, 699;
XXIV, 375, 501.
81 Seeberg, History of Doctrines, II, pp. 355-356. Seeberg disclaims novelty
for this position, and points to Gottfried Arnold, Zierold (1700), and Ritschl
(Die Entstehung der luth. Kirche), as its earlier exponents. Cp. also p. 363 : —
" The practical application of these principles and views led to the lament
able doctrinal controversies in the period from the death of Luther to that of
Melanchthon. Both the unfortunate wavering of Melanchthon in connection
with the Interim — when the doctrine appeared to him to be sufficiently
guarded — and the bitter assaults made upon him by the so-called Gnesio-
Lutherans for his lack of firmness upon that occasion and for his doctrinal
divergencies find explanation in the one-sided character of his later con
ceptions of the church and of doctrine."

626 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
ent double principle, — pure doctrine as manifested histori
cally in the outward unfolding of the church, and pure doc
trine as mediated inwardly by the logical thought of the in
dividual investigator; but, while he emphasizes the perma
nency of Melanchthon's form, he makes no allusion to the,
contradiction in the substance of the Melanchthonian prin
ciple. The Melanchthonian nature, principle and practice, though
of such well-meant and kindly intent, operated unfortunately
throughout all the great events of the Reformation; and it
will be of great service to the ultimate purpose for which this
work has been written, if we shall be able to make a true
analysis of it, which will be appreciative at once of its ele
ments of strength, and of its disastrous elements of weakness.
In personal intellectual bravery, Melanchthon was un
flinching. His masterly defense of Luther against the Sor-
bonne, and before his old friend Erasmus, prove this fact.
His personal loyalty is also unquestionable. For many
years he clung to Luther with all his heart. He most faith
fully reproduced and elaborated the doctrine of Luther. He
was the first one "2 to understand the great service of Luther
in the historical development of Christianity; and he counts
Luther among the mighty heroes of the faith, among Isaiah,
John the Baptist, Paul and Augustine. He tells us that
" Luther brought to light the true and necessary doctrine,83
and that we must hold fast to the pure doctrine, viz., the
Confessio Lutheri."
He clearly understood and assiduously applied the car
dinal principles of the Reformation, in a mild, considerate,
courteous and admirably thoughtful way. We already have
alluded to his ' Loci/ In addition, we may cite his Work on
the Saxon Visitation, sometimes called the First Confession
of Faith of the Lutheran Church, in which he had presented
a most sound and discriminating application of Lutheran doc-
32 Seeberg, Hist, of Doctrines, II, p. 352.
MC. R., XI, 728.

MELANCHTHONIAN PRINCIPLE. 627
trine, though in such mild form that he was supposed by the
enemies of the Reformation to be yielding to Rome, and was
obliged to suffer much pain of mind in consequence." Then,
there follows his great Augsburg Confession and his great
Apology, with all the multitude of his teachings and lectures.
The first startling weakness that we come upon, in Mel
anchthon, is that on nearly every great occasion, he lacked
the strong faith of Luther; and the cautious operation of his
intellect — his distrust of the power of triumph in the right —
his apparent inability to take an age-long look, to see the
eternal view of his work — and his desire for immediately
favorable results — together with his apparent inability to
trust Providence in the midst of clouds because of a tempera
ment that went to pieces under unfavorable conditions, made
him wretched. He depended too much on the opinion of
others, and seemed to be unable to stand on his own feet no
matter what Rome says or does. So he wrote from Spires
to Myconius, " for here we are objects of scorn to the proud
spirits, and of derision to the rich " — not such a dreadful
thing for a follower of Christ, — and a Lutheran at that !
But let us proceed to a second point. Melanchthon's faith
was not firm and great, because his reason was always in
terfering with his faith — and he, in a sense, followed his
reason. His scholarly instincts were all conservative, and
his ripe judgment was ever preservative, but his prime point
of contact was rationalistic. He walked by faith indeed,
but faith that was dependent upon reason; upon sight, and
not upon insight. Hence when sight and reason wavered
or shifted, faith followed in its wake.
Melanchthon was already worrying about the doctrine of
the Lord's Supper at Spires in 1529, and wrote to his close
friend Oecolampadius : " It is very painful to me that discord
s* Melanchthon to Camerarius : " Indeed my defection is publicly reported
as a fact, because in the little book written for the Reformed Churches, I
have shown an increased degree of moderation ; and yet you perceive I have
really inserted nothing different from what Luther constantly affirms. But
because I have employed no asperity of language, these very acute men judge
that I necessarily differ from Luther."

628 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
should have arisen in this matter, ordained by Christ Him
self to establish an indissoluble love. Never has anxiety
for any matter disturbed my heart more than my anxiety in
this. And I have not only myself considered what might be
said for and against this matter, but I have also examined
the opinions of the ancients," " His faith was not firm,
because Jtis reason was busy and halting in a mystery which
it had not solved, and which it never would solve.
At Marburg, he strongly supported Luther against
Zwingli. Not only did Melanchthon88 agree with Luther
in withholding the hand of fellowship from Zwingli, a fact
which is often overlooked; but he wrote to a friend concern
ing the Zwinglians : " They seemed to be more trifling even
than they had been before this conference. They contended
very strongly that we should we call them brethren. But
look at their stupidity: when they condemn us, they yet
desire to be considered by us as brethren. We cannot give
our consent to this." "
Yet when he came under the less gross rationalistic influ
ence of Bucer, and found what seemed to be a pathway of
reason through the Sacrament, supported by some authority
of the Ancients, held by others outside of his own Church,
and more defensible along the line of the lumen naturals,
not all his respect for pure doctrine, nor all his attachment
and gratitude to Luther could keep him from lowering faith
to the plane of scholarly opinion, and from resting finally in
the most reasonable " opinion." This leads direct to the
third weakness of the Melanchthonian principle, to the great
and far-reaching mistake in all ages, of the milder ration
alism. Melanchthon's fatal error lay in the mental attitude with
which he approached the problem of Confession. He made
it a mental problem, one in which the adjustment of truth

! Krotel-Ledderhose, Life of Melanchthon, p. 82.
1 Vid. also C. R., I, 1098, 1108 ; II, 25.
' Melanchthon to Agricola, Oct. 12th, 1529.

MELANCHTHONIAN PRINCIPLE. 629
played too great a part. He had fallen into the inveterate
habit of seeking to conciliate differences in the thoughts and
actions of men, by shaving off offending edges of doctrinal
substance. He dealt with the confessional principle, not
as with a fountain of testimony, that springs, pure, clear,
and inviolate from the bed-rock of Scripture; but as an
apothecary's compound to be so skilfully composed that it
would be mediating between the different convictions, opin
ions and practices of men. In this way the intellect and the
conscience become confused, and the near and pressing ad
vantage of the politician often seem of more import than
the ultimate advantage of the pure confessor. Therefore
Melanchthon continuously exposed the Reformation and its
Confessional principle to the peril of ruin by compromise,
instead of bringing it bravely to do its duty in open utterance,
and allowing Providence to take care of the future.
The fourth peculiar propensity, on the part of Melanch
thon, which was an instinctive willingness to enter into
compromise, was due to the combination of two marked
elements in his nature. The first • of these — the love of
union88 and agreement, and the cultivation of amiable rela
tions of concord with the personalities in his present envi
ronment — over-weighed the strength of his faith in the exact
Word, which was conceived of subjectively as " doctrine "
and was mediated by rational processes.89
The other element that united with the rationalistic tes
timony to interfere with untrammeled and open confession,
was the great timidity, or cowardice, of Melanchthon — not
a personal fear, for, though he was always trembling with
apprehension, it was for the fate of the cause which he
represented, and because of his great aversion to conflict and
88 This love arose in large measure from one of the fundamental principles
or instincts discussed above, viz., the desire to preserve the visible Church
of Christ intact in his own age, and thus connect it in outward completeness
with preceding ages.
89 This same rationalism within the Word, without Melanchthon's love of
union, came to full expression in the dogmaticians in the Sixteenth Century,
and still comes to such expression in the absolute syllogisms underlying the
doctrinal elaborations of one of the Lutheran theological schools.

630 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
his horror of war. It was this particular weakness of cow
ardice, and lack of objective trust, in Melanchthon's char
acter, which is traceable ultimately to his rationalism, that
threw the unhappy man, the man of peace, who longed for
quietness and order, into continuous conflict within and
without, during the whole of his long period of public activ
ity. Unutterably pitiable is it to see a man of this gentle
and lovely temperament, thus constantly contributory, by the
imprudence and failings of his own virtues, to the growth
of the very dissensions and bitternesses which he hoped to
bring to an end.
How exceedingly tragic that his scholastic habit of re-
weighing and re-formulating the conclusions of his reason
ing; that such heavenly gift of expression in this divinely-
chosen instrument of the Reformation, which ought to have
brought more permanent stability of substance and sharper
and ever less subtle outline of form into the Confession of the
Church, — how tragic that such habit of foreboding, in such
gift of precision, should become so detrimental to the wit
ness of God's truth : as happens with men who weigh and re-
weigh all things with their reason so continuously that di
vinely-wrought faith in the Word seems secondary!
Great masters of form often come to consider it as lawful
to touch the integer of substance, and to smooth down super
fluities and excrescences, as they would say, so that the truth
may be more acceptable to the understanding; and thus —
to change the figure — polish away the very pivots, so small
and yet so essential, upon which the sphere of doctrine bears
down upon the bed-rock of its foundation, and set the ball
of teaching a-rolling down an endless groove of change.
How tragic that this restless spirit of change, so charac
teristic of Protestantism and so destructive of the only prem
ises upon which Protestantism can permanently stand, should
have entered, as a new, separate, and minor, but persistent
principle, so early, and for years so unobservedly, into the
career of the Evangelical Reformation!

MELANCHTHONIAN PRINCIPLE. 631
Thus, in the fifth place, all the qualities — and some of
them in their paradox, e. g., his love of change (rational),
and his fear of change (historical) ; his desire to be inde
pendent as a teacher and his love of dependence on author
ity ; his wish to win those without, which led him to take the
risk of offending those within, — are contributory to the
most marked and unfailing instinct of Melanchthon, viz.,
the desire for union. It is the weaker, the secondary, the
unsatisfied, the longing and changing nature that needs and
is driven to seek union.
The instinct of union was fundamental in Melanchthon's
nature. It sprang not simply from the desire for immedi
ate concord, and from the wish to avoid strife, which was
a strong trait in him, but also from the still greater desire
on his part to preserve the unity of the visible church. He
strove most valiantly in his own way to prevent the visible
church from going to pieces. On the one side he held on
to the Roman Church with almost inconceivable fidelity,
and on the other side he reached out toward the Calvinistic
Church with tenacity, though he consistently and continu
ously hated Zwinglianism (with which much modern Pro
testantism is to be compared), and would have nothing to do
with it. To this desperate effort of Melanchthon, to keep the
Christian Church united in a visible unity, many of his ap
parent sacrifices of principle in ambiguous formulas, much
of his waste of energy, and his most serious troubles are due.
Down to the very last, even subsequent to the Convention
of Worms in 1557, he hoped for a reconciling union of the
visible Church.
This consistent and continuous unionistic effort of his
was doomed to fail. He conciliated the Romanists, but of
fended the Protestants in his gentle and generally admirable
Saxon Confession, in 1527. He was obliged to change his
own position at the Diet of Spires in 1529. He came near
overturning the whole Protestant foundation by his conces
sions to Rome in connection with the Confession at Augs-

632 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
burg in 1530. In his earlier friendship with Oecolampa
dius and his later friendship with Bucer, the great mediating
theologian, he brought harm and discord into Lutheranism,
and yet did not unite even the looser and more liberal
Lutheran elements together organically with Calvinism, in the
most prominent point of separation, viz., the doctrine of the
Lord's Supper. Melanchthon's efforts toward tinionism on
this doctrine were not to develop a theory of his own, but to
find a common basis for all evangelical Christians (in which
the Zwinglians were however excluded), who held fast to the
real objective presence of Christ in the Supper, as opposed
to the Supper as a memoria hominis mortui, and a mark
merely of human fellowship (which Melanchthon always
continued to regard as Zwingli's view). Melanchthon had
no idea either of drawing all Protestant sects more closely
together, or of having fellowship in the Lord's Supper with
those who hold it as a mere memorial.
But he supposed it possible to preserve church unity by an
agreement of the more conservative Protestants, such as
was attained later through the mediation of Bucer and his
own agreement with the Swiss Reformation through the
Wittenberg Concord. Conjunctionem nostrarum ecclesia-
rum retineri volui et domeslica quaedam vulnera tegV
Both Calvin and Melanchthon made the mediaeval mis
take of presuming that such concord could be arranged by
formulas of union, whose words would cover up minor dif
ferences and limit unnecessary disputes, and thus preserve
the unity of the true doctrine. It would not however be
just to conclude, much as the words of the two men seem at
times to indicate the fact, that Melanchthon could find him
self in hearty and permanent agreement with the formulas
of Calvin, respecting the Lord's Supper. He probably
never used them."
The sixth point in our analysis of Melanchthon's prin-

" C. R., XXI, 346.
" Yet cp. Schaff in loco.

MELANCHTHONIAN PRINCIPLE. 633
ciple and character brings us to his trait of diplomacy. Is
it any wonder that a mind that worked by reason rather than
rested in faith alone; that believed it possible to eliminate
differences by the introduction of harmonic formulas; that
longed for outside attachments, and feared the public conse
quence of isolation, should, in the name of the Lord, take
a hand in the diplomacy of the day to bring about in Church
affairs that which he so ardently desired? Thus, while
Luther remains the mighty preacher, and pins his whole
faith to the Word, Melanchthon becomes the ecclesiastic, and
assists in putting the Lord's work on its feet by his own
schemes and plans.
Kolde, in several of the preceding Chapters,"* has made
clear how, at the Diet of Augsburg, while Briick and the
Elector proved themselves to be the real confessors, Mel
anchthon was engaged in politics. His conduct on this
occasion seems incomprehensible: that he should have con
tinued in such a guileless faith in the open-mindedness of
the Spanish Emperor — that, with all his experience with
Rome at previous Diets and Conventions, he should still
trust the Papal legate — that he should enter into and carry
on negotiations of greatest political import, without any
commission from the Elector, whose servant he was; and
without any consultation with the Elector's chancellor, who
was the proper official advisor — and that he should be wil
ling to modify the theological outcome without consulting
Luther, or the other theologians, in witness of which is his
persistent silence toward Luther during the period in which
he was engaged with negotiations with the Papal legate — and
that he should take into his own hands the settlement of the
future of Protestantism, in a way different from that pro
jected and planned by the body of advisers ; and thus neglect
the proper work, viz., the completion of the Confession of
the Evangelical Faith, until the last moment, when there
was barely time left to make a respectable copy of the man-

»• XV and XVI.

634 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
uscript, — are, each and all, testimony and evidence of the
peculiar and unfortunate Melanchthonian method, which
brought disastrous results to the Reformation.
Not only during the days preceding the Confession at
Augsburg, but also during the long Summer of 1530, when
weary and fruitless negotiations were being held with the
Roman Pope on the basis of the Confession, which culmi
nated, on the one side, in the Romish Confutation, and on
the other, in Melanchthon's glorious Apology; Melanch
thon's vain hopes for peace and his willingness to concede
parts of confessional substance, or, at least, to veil them in
a formula of agreement which represented verbal harmony,
but covered actual difference, were in evidence.
The seventh and last characteristic of Melanchthon's na
ture was his dreadful fear and trembling (already alluded
to under point four above), and his lack of trust and confi
dence, in the crises of the Church through which he passed.
We recall his anxiety and helplessness at Wittenberg when
the fanatics appeared during the absence of Luther. Worry
and care seem never to have lifted their clouds from his soul.
The result of the Diet of Spires, in 1529, which insisted on
the enforcement of the edict of Worms, filled the spirit of
Melanchthon with dismay. He trembled for the safety of
the evangelical cause, and felt that a more conciliatory
course would have avoided the dire result. " Perhaps the
excessive anxiety which took possession of him may account
for the unjust censure which he passed upon the conduct of
the Lutheran princes in this Diet. He vainly imagined that
the Roman Catholics would not have passed the obnoxious
decree at all, or would have annulled it again, if some minor
and unessential points had been conceded to them. But he
credited the Roman Catholics with good intentions which
they never possessed. They were bent on crushing out the
Reformation. The princes judged far more correctly than
he of the temper and spirit of their foes, and of the course
which had to be pursued in dealing with them. Yet it must

MELANCHTHONIAN PRINCIPLE. 635
be said fo Melanchthon's credit that after the^ decree of the
Diet was passed, he was as much opposed as any one to yield
ing obedience to its unholy demands, and that he advised,
as a last resort, the presentation of a formal protest against
the resolution of the Diet.
"Accordingly, on April 15th, 1529, the Lutherans pre
sented their celebrated Protest (written by Melanchthon him
self) and Appeal. On the sixth of May, Melanchthon ar
rived again at Wittenberg. Both he and Luther expected
that a religious war would follow. Melanchthon was so
troubled at the prospect that Luther wrote : ' Philip worries
hiniself so much about the Church and the general welfare,
that he is injuring his health.' " "
The same incubus followed Melanchthon to the Diet of
Augsburg, and rendered him miserable and hopeless during
the greater part of that memorable Spring and Summer. He
toiled incessantly, but always in fear and trembling and on
the edge of despair. We have described his vain hopes, and
his schemes to avert disaster, and their failure elsewhere.
But most graphically does his weakness and misery come
out in his correspondence with Luther during that Summer.
Luther was being held at Coburg. He was like a lion in
the cage, and comparatively little information reached him
as to doings in Augsburg. Melanchthon's plan was to patch
up a peace which he knew Luther would frown upon, and
he stopped writing to Luther and then complained that
Luther did not write to him.
After passing the Melanchthonian principle and tempera
ment under such searching review, we cannot avoid asking
the question, Is this the proper principle and temper for
the Lutheran Church to assume in our day ? Was the Mel
anehthonianism of the sixteenth century, or of the eighteenth
century in Europe, or that of the nineteenth century in
Europe or in America, promotive of the peace, the strength,

12 Stump, Life of Melanchthon, p. 89.

636 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
and the life of the church ? In the sixteenth century, it, first,
had its trial, and, after a generation, brought the church to
the verge of shipwreck. We believe it has done this in later
days, and will always do so. The Melanchthonian principle
left to itself will merge a weak Lutheranism into a common
Protestantism, which the Lutheran essence will not leaven,
but in which it will, as Schaff intimates, be swallowed up of
the Reformed principle. The operation of this principle
in the sixteenth century Schaff describes as follows: —
" The Melanchthonians . . . maintained, with less force
of will and conviction, but with more liberality and catho
licity of spirit, the right of progressive development in the
ology, and sought to enlarge the doctrinal basis of Luther
anism for a final reconciliation of Christendom, or at least
for a union of the evangelical churches." a
Even the genially discriminative Kahnis has said,
" There have been those who lamented that it was not con
ceded to Philippism to speak the final word. But before a
tendency can impart character, it must have character, and
this was wanting in Philippism. Nothing but a positive
Lutheranism had the theological potencies, the firmness and
definiteness of doctrine, the energy of witness, and principles
on which established Churches alone can rest, which was the
problem to be solved." "

13 Creeds of Christendom, I, p. 267.
** Kahnis, Innere Gang., I, pp. 54, 55.

CHAPTER XXV-
THE LUTHERAN CONFESSION.
THE NEED OF A CONCORDIA REALIZED, AND
ITS ORIGIN ATTEMPTED.
Four Periods of Development — The Variata Insufficient— The Situation 1560-
1576 — The Statements of Andrese in 1569 — The Six Sermons sent to Chemnitz
in 1573 — The Commission of Augustus — The Torgau Book — The Bergen
Book — The Calvinistic Protests.
LOOKING backward, from that point in the history
of the Sixteenth Century to which we now have at
tained, we find the Lutheran Confession1 to have passed
through four periods of development. The first period com
prises its birth and youth, 1517-1530. The second period
embraces the years in which the Confession was publicly es
tablished and regularly taught to the rising generation as a
system of doctrine, 1530-1546. The third period includes
those dark years between the death of Luther (and the Leip
zig Interim) and the Peace of Augsburg, during which the
Lutheran doctrine suffered much from oppression, curtail
ment and schism (1546-1555). And the fourth period rep
resents the results of schism in separating and widening the
breach between the external units, and embraces the unsuc
cessful Diets of the Princes, and the introduction of the
Corpora Doctrinae, whose common Confession was the Evan
gelical Lutheran Faith -(1555-1560-1567).
The events from 1555 to the death of Melanchthon have

1 i. e., the Catholic Confession with the errors of Rome expurgated.
637
44

638 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
already been treated. Those from 1560 to 1567 and later,
the rise of the Corpora Doctrinae, the subsidence of the Ma-
joristic, Synergistic and Osiandrian Controversies, and other
movements, will be alluded to and discussed in various sub
sequent chapters in their relation to our examination of the
Formula of Concord.
The true Lutherans who remained steadfast throughout
these years of darkness, and who were not so narrow and so
embittered as to prefer their own little party or their own
personal liberty, and a continuance in conflict, to a knitting
together of the whole evangelical Church of the clear
Augsburg Confession upon its sound, complete, normal and
original basis; gradually came to the conclusion, in view of
the shadows, obscurities and uncertainties that had gathered
about the Lutheran Confession during the generation of
Melanchthonian activity, because it was Variate, and because
of the strains imposed upon it and the liberties taken in
diverse development, that the only way to bring the Church
back to the whole Faith, and anchor it on a truly catholic
basis, able to meet the catholic claim of Rome, was to re
affirm all the earlier Confessions of the Catholic Christian
Faith, with the Augsburg Confession, and to unfold the full
Faith of these Confessions more fully under the guidance of
God's Word at any points which had become obscured and
contorted during this period.
The first of the theologians to attempt this work was a
pupil of John Brentz, one of the original Confessors and pro
fessor of Theology of Tuebingen/ In 1569 he wrote a
Confession in five statements,8 one on Justification, one on
Good Works, one on Free Will, one on Adiaphora, and one
on the Lord's Supper, each of which had been the subject
of a controversy, and doctrines of which had been obscured ; '
and sent them around to other theologians in other parts of
Germany, asking whether these statements would not be
2 For a fuller account of Andrese, vid. chap XXX.
"For title, etc., vid. ib.,

ORIGIN OF CONCORDIA. 639
suitable as a Confession, to set Lutheran doctrine in the
clear, and bring peace to the troubled Church.
Many theologians were ready to accept these statements
of Andreae, but some saw that they were not sufficiently dis
tinctive and complete, and that they probably would be sub
scribed by men who would continue to hold false views pri
vately,' but who would recognize the prudence of outwardly
accepting the new Confession.* In journeying through north
Germany, Andreae happened to meet the theologian Chem
nitz, who was superintendent in Braunschweig, of whom the
Romanists later said, " You Lutherans have had two Mar
tins (Martin Luther and Martin Chemnitz) ; if the second
one had not come, the first one would not have remained
standing." As a result of the interview between Andreae and Chem
nitz, Chemnitz drew up and circulated a form of Confession
of those articles in the Augsburg Confession that had been
falsified. This was to be added to the Confession of Luther.
Following this, in 1573, Andreae sent Chemnitz six ser
mons concerning the divisions that had arisen in the Church
of the Augsburg Confession between 1548 and 1573 ; and sub
sequently prepared the eleven Swabian articles, which were
endorsed in Wiirttemberg, and which Chemnitz and Chy
traeus corrected and worked over.6 Then the eyes of the
Elector Augustus of Saxony were opened, and he called a
Conference of twelve theologians, praying that the Lord
would enlighten their hearts with his Spirit, and thus bring
them to the truth, and to godly unity.
The decision of this Conference was, first, that all bad feel
ings arising in past controversies should be forgiven and for
gotten ; second, that no one was bound any longer to the Cor
pus Doctrinae of Melanchthon; third, that men like Chem
nitz, Andreae and Chytraeus should be commissioned to

'¦Vid. chap. XXX.
5 For a fuller account of the Swabian Concordia and what followed, vid.
chap. XXVI.

640 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
compose an explanation of all doctrines that had arisen, which
were contrary to the Augsburg Confession.
This commission after much deliberation produced the
Torgau Book, which became the Bergen Book, or Formula
of Concord. Chemnitz, who had been doubtful of the re
sult, said at the end of the deliberations, that the whole mat
ter seemed to him like a dream, since everything that had
happened had been so far above his hope and expectation;
and the news went throughout all Germany that, after so
long a time, the confusion and division had given way to
unity. As a result of" these, tidings the Elector of Saxony received
many letters of protest ffoai^Calvinistic princes and from
Crypto-Calvinistic sources ; and ^ven-^Queen Elizabeth of
England sent over a deputation in the interests~-ofJI)alvinisin
not to allow this book to be promulgated. Many Reformed
proposed that a common Reformed Confession should be set
up over against the Formula of Concord, and that the Re
formed should withdraw from their acceptance of the Augs
burg Confession; but TJrsinus, the author of the Heidelberg
Catechism, wrote to Beza to the effect that it would he
better to continue to accept the Augsburg Confession (and
to agitate against the Formula).
Thus the Formula originated. It came forth after many
efforts, as the work of a larger number of men, of more rep
resentatives of the Church as a whole, than the Augsburg
Confession. It was the triumph of Luther over Eck and Erasmus,
of Protestantism in stable equilibrium over Protestantism in
strife, of Faith over reason, of divine Reality over the human
idea, of Grace over legality, of consistency over expediency,
of honesty over evasion, of principle over politics, of the
golden mean over its two extremes, of Christ in His real
presence over Christ's image in a spiritual imagination, of
the Gospel as a power, over the gospel as a philosophical
doctrine.

CHAPTER XXVI.
THE LUTHERAN CONFESSION.
THE FORMULA OF CONCORD.— ITS ORIGIN,
BASED ON KOLDE'S INTRODUCTION
AND ON THE ARTICLE ON THE
FORMULA IN HAUCK.
The Six Controversies and Points at Issue — The Pliant and Scholastic Nature of
Melanchthon — The Rise of Calvinism — The Disruption of the Schmalkald
League and the Helplessness of the Protestants — The Corpora Doctrinae — The
Efforts of Andreae — The Effort of Chemnitz and Duke Julius — The Effort of
Augustus — The Swabian Concordia sent to Augustus by Julius, and the Maul-
bronn-Formula sent by the South Germans — Recast into the Torgian Formula
and the Bergen Book — The Subscription to the Formula.

A

NEW Confession was a historical necessity. There
was only this one alternative, either to let the division
and confusion remain which resulted from the six contro
versies concerning the Interim and Adiaphora, Major and
his doctrine of Good Works, the Antinomia,^Westphal and
the Lord's Supper and Christology, Osiander and his doc
trine of Justification, and Synergism with Pfeffinger on the
one extreme and Flacius on the other ; or to bring these con
troversies to an end by a Confessional decision as to the dif
ferences of doctrine. AVith this naturally came the further
necessity of rendering the Confessional foundation sure by
means of a common Corpus Doctrinae.
THE INNER AND OUTER CAUSES OF THE CONTROVERSIES.
We shall understand the various efforts made toward this
641

643 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
final end, and the result itself, the Formula of Concord, if
we first of all point out the external and internal causes of
the controversies and the resulting confusion. In reality
the causes were not only, as is often affirmed, the theological
divergencies of Melanchthon in the doctrine of the Lord's
Supper, of grace, of the church, of the ecclesiastical rights
of the government, etc., or his pliant nature which constantly
yielded to prevailing conditions, and called forth the opposi
tion of those who had long remarked these things and now
arose with Luther's word against the Philippists. The final
causes lie much deeper and penetrate to the difference be
tween faith, divinely born; and truth, humanly grasped, as
ultimate sources of spiritual life.
Luther was universally conceded to be the hero of the
Evangelical faith; but Melanchthon, the schoolman, was the
preceptor of the church that was becoming evangelical. In
his school the gospel became the doctrina evangelii. He
coined the evangelical dogma, and also stated it, many times
changing formulation to no small degree for the sake of
perspicuity, and it was only later that this habit was found
to involve many contradictions. And (this is a second im
portant point), under his influence the conduct of theologi
cal science had entered upon pathways that were destined
to become disastrous. Above all else, the regular disputa
tions that had been resumed in Wittenberg in 1533 in
evitably led to a new scholasticism and actually fostered
the tendency to constantly originate new theories by making
finer and ever finer distinctions. There is a peculiar trag
edy in the fact that Melanchthon himself who was always
averse to such acuteness of doctrinal statement, did, against
his own will and by his own method, further the tendency
to spin out a theological thought to its very last consequences.
When Luther died, Melanchthon became in reality the
recognized leader. What we actually know, gives us no rea
son to assume that the number of his opponents, or even of
those who regarded his theological development with appre-

ORIGIN OF THE FORMULA. 643
hension, was at all considerable. But his weak conduct in
the Interim matter and the controversies arising therefrom,
changed the entire state of affairs. Faith in the orthodoxy
of Wittenberg was shaken in wide circles, and, while Luther
was now emphatically trumped out against Melanchthon,
others, too, who heretofore had kept in the background,
thought the time had arrived for them to come forth with
their own private opinions. Among these the foremost was
Andrew Osiander. ,
To this must be added the gradual rise of the Highland
" Richtung," which became more independent under the in
fluence of Calvin, deepened, won great regions of the West
and a considerable number of Melanchthonians as adherents,
and finally carried the controversy concerning the Lord's
Supper into the very mother-country of the Reformation.
This in the last instance was to no small degree conditioned
by political circumstances.
When the Schmalkald League was disrupted, a bond of
ecclesiastical union of no small importance had been sev
ered. It is unquestionably true that from the time of the
Interim, to which every little state church accommodated
itself in its own way, and after its revocation, in the read
justment to evangelical forms of worship and faith, the
specific system of state churches really had its actual begin
ning. Thus at the same time the self-consciousness of the
state clergy grew stronger and with it the consciousness of the
right to possess an individual opinion, which of course must
he the right one. And the strife between the universities of
Jena and Wittenberg, which degenerated into actual hatred,
found increasing nourishment in the contention between the
two Saxon lines.
These are the internal and external conditions of the
theological controversies, and in part, even of the forms in
which they were manifested. As old as these causes are the
attempts to overcome them. They became more definite
and more general after the year 1555. In the religious

644 THE LUTHERAN CONCESSIONS.
peace of Augsburg, the Augustana had become the charter
of German Protestantism, a real symbol. Now the question
arose as to which of the opposing parties had a right to appeal
to the Augsburg Confession and thereby possess a claim to
the peace of the realm. This called forth the endeavor of the
princes, to secure the unity of Protestantism and its char
tered existence in some form, by acknowledging the Augus
tana.

THE EARLIEST EFFORTS OF THE THEOLOGIANS TO SECURE
CONCORD.
Already in 1556, Flacius himself had made his "Linde
Vorschlage," rejecting the teachings of Zwingli, Osiander
and Major, and demanding that those in error should openly
retract the same : " Discerning and God-fearing people, to
whom religion and pure doctrine are an earnest matter, will
understand that it is necessary to act differently in matters
of faith than we do in civil transactions, where one often
makes amnesty, that is, causes errors to cease by forgetting
them; by letting them go, and that by no other milder means
can the divisions in the churches be silenced and brought to
an end."
The next year Flacius again suggested mediation between
Melanchthon and himself. Melanchthon set up as condi
tions a being united on the whole corpus doctrinae, and an
obligation to ignore the controversy concerning the adia-
phora ; the unity was to be a unity of the confession : " et
simus conjun'cti ad defensionem ver are doctrinae juxta sym-
bola et certam confessionem." The issue of the contro
versy is here foretold almost prophetically. The Flacians
adhered to the demand of an open declaration concerning
the adiaphora and the theses of Major. As the rule of the
consensus they set the Schmalkald Articles in addition to the
Augustana and its Apology. These were all impossible in
that they taught Luther's doctrine of the Lord's Supper.

ORIGIN OF THE FORMULA. 645
Flacius passed a sleepless night concerning the unrepentance
of Melanchthon, but he thought the dog would have to bark
sufficiently long to wake up the fox.
The religious Gesprach at Worms brought the differences
to a head. The Flacians questioned the right of the Phil
ippists to call upon the Augustana. The princes attempted
to restore peace at the Frankfurt Recess, through Melanch
thon's Opinion, which finds the pure doctrine in the three
chief symbols, the Augsburg Confession and the Apology;
and in which Melanchthonian formulas are used in reference
to the new obedience and to the Lord's Supper. Unity was
to be obtained by means of a censor, who should suppress all
religious writings " not found safe by the regularly ap
pointed censor in accordance with the true [Melanchthonian]
confession of faith." The Flacians declared this was " bind
ing the mouth of the Holy Ghost."
The idea of securing unity by a General Evangelical
Synod was dropped, as new controversies were feared. For,
as Brentz said, there was no Elector, John the Constant, and
no Luther, living any longer. Against the Frankfurt Re
cess, the Weimar Confutation condemned Philippism (1559),
but the Diet of Princes at Naumburg (1561) confirmed the
Frankfurt Recess. The Schmalkald Articles were not in
cluded by it among the symbols, and the great speaker was
the Calvinistic Frederick III. of the Palatinate. Because
this Diet evaded a clear Confession concerning the Lord's
Supper, the latter was at once brought into prominence as an
additional subject of conflict. Many who had been neutral,
now joined the Gnesio-Lutherans, believing Luther's doc
trine of the sacrament in danger.
And at this point they realized that the Augustana in
itself did not offer a sufficient confessional basis. A Con
vention at Liineburg asked for a Corpus Doctrinae that, in
addition to the Augustana, should also include the Apology,
the Schmalkald Articles, Luther's Catechism, and his re
maining writings; and that Osiandrists, the Majorists, the

646 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
Sacramentarians, the Adiaphorists, and the Synergists should
be condemned. This was still in 1561. In Lower Saxony,
especially, great stress was laid upon Luther's orthodoxy
and upon the right doctrine of the Lord's Supper.
And just at this time John Frederick resolved to break
with the radical Flacians. Flacius and Wigand were de
posed and exiled. This was in the end of 1561. This new
turn of affairs, while causing the Gnesio-Lutheran ideas no
longer to be the matter of a single theological party, brought
wide recognition for them throughout the church.
The Reformed Church also showed its object far more
clearly. Frederick III. went over to Calvinism entirely,
and adopted the Heidelberg Catechism in 1563. Electoral
Saxony had adopted the Melanchthonian Corpus Doctrinae
Christianae. It also was adopted in Hesse and Pomerania,
and a number of other territorial churches.
But in the strictly Lutheran countries and cities nothing
Melanchthonian except the Augustana and the Apology was
adopted. The Corpus Doctrinae of each contained the writ
ings of Luther. Thus each territory now had its norm of
doctrine. But the problem was to establish a common Cor
pus Doctrinae for the whole Lutheran Church of Germany.
This problem was solved through the Book of Concord. The
Corpus Doctrinae of each territory issued finally into the
Book of Concord.
For the single territorial confessions could not dispose of
the old conflicts brought on by the Philippistic teachings.
The Gnesio-Lutherans were recalled to Ducal-Saxony, and
a hot conflict arose with Electoral Saxony on the old sub
jects. The Colloquium at Altenburg, continuing from Oc
tober, 1568, to the Spring of 1569, could not restore a good
understanding. Everyone recognized the ruinous conse
quences of conflict, and though efforts to reconcile were made,
they did not succeed. There was only one way to restore
peace. The source of conflict must be considered, and a
solution that would satisfy must be sought. In the nature

ORIGIN OF THE FORMULA. 647
of the case this could only occur by means of theological for
mulas, and it could only be executed by having the territorial
churches recognize these formulas. It is this fact which
gave the Formula of Concord its outer form, and which de
termined its territorial mode of subscription.
The Naumburg Diet of Princes in 1561 and its immedi
ate results, had revealed how unsuccessful such attempts
were. Every political organism now went its own way.
The introduction by the state churches of their own corpora
doctrinae and similar standards of doctrine, to protect the
doctrinal unity of their own State church, at the same time
showed more and more clearly the internal disruption of
Protestantism as a whole, and its separation into Philip-
pistic and Lutheran State churches.
In the meantime, as we have seen, the idea was pondered
of stemming the evil in another way, by setting up a new
confession which was to level the differences, and by intro
ducing a Corpus doctrinae common to and uniting all evan
gelical state churches. This thought would not have been
possible, had not conditions at the end of the sixth decade
begun to change materially. The Gnesio-Lutherans who
had to sacrifice their leader Flacius on account of his Man-
ichaizing doctrine of original sin, still maintained their
position, but had lost their influence to a great extent and
finally died out. The same was true of the Old Melanch
thonians. Quite a number of those who ¦ had come forth
from Melanchthon's school, remembered their Lutheranism
when the controversy of the Lord's Supper became a question
not between Luther and Melanchthon, but between Luther
and Calvin. Among these were the leading theologians
of Lower Germany: Martin Chemnitz in Braunschweig
(fl586), Nicholas Selnecker, (Superintendent of Wolfen-
biittel 1570-1574, professor in Leipzig 1574-1589, and f 1592
in Dresden) and David Chytraeus (professor in Rostock in
1551,| 1600), who, without denying their Melanchthonian
training, claimed to be Lutherans.

648 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
Above all, it was an important thing that Wtirttemberg
under the powerful influence of John Brentz ("j- 1570),
through the " Stuttgart Theologians' Confession " of Dec.
19th, 1559, had stated the doctrine of the ubiquity [taught
by Brentz, but not taught by the Formula of Concord/]
in such a manner as to bring out the antithesis to Melanch
thon still more sharply, had been relatively untouched by
the controversy and could thus become the rallying centre
of the Lutherans. Accordingly it was a man of the Church
of Wiirttemberg who made it his life aim to unite the con
tending parties. He was employed by his prince in numer
ous diplomatic and ecclesiastical embassies, was most versa
tile and much calumniated, and from 1562 on, professor,
provost and chancellor in Tubingen. This man was Jacob
Andreae. THE FIRST ATTEMPTS TO UNITE, 1567.
The first new attempt at unity dates from 1567. To
draw up a formula of harmony, the Duke Christopher of
Wiirttemberg commissioned Jacob Andreae, in consequence
of a colloquium with respect to doctrinal differences which
he had with the Landgrave William IV. of Hesse Cassel.
This formula of confession, laying aside all personalities,
in a purely objective way, confined itself to the five contro
versial articles of justification by faith, good works, free
will, adiaphora, and the Lord's Supper. It claimed to be a
" Short Elucidation in the form of a Confession, according
to which Christian unity may be attained in the churches
devoted to the Augsburg Confession, and the scandalous and
protracted schism may be ended." 2
But the situation was not favorable for success. Duke
Christopher, who first had broached the idea of such a work

1 T. E. S.
2 " Bekenntniss und kurze Erkldrung etlicher zweispaltiger Artikel, nach
welcher eine chrlstliche Einigkeit in den Kirchen, der Augsb. Konfession
zugetan, getroffen und die argerliche langwierige Spaltung hingelegt werden
mochte."

ORIGIN OF THE FORMULA. 649
of concord, died on September 15th, 1568, and Landgrave
William of Hesse Cassel to whom Andreae was then obliged
to report, proposed to extend the union not only to all the
various parts of Germany, but even to the Reformed
Churches outside of Germany. Moreover a unity was not
to be thought of as long as Philippism reigned supreme
in Electoral-Saxony, while the Ducal-Saxon theologians, as
was shown at the Altenburg Colloquium, were unbendingly
and extremely Lutheran. And when Andreae, in his article
on the Lord's Supper, which taught the Lutheran type of
doctrine in a moderate manner, without reference to its
relation to Christology, gave an " Explanation " to it, in
which the consequences of this teaching were extended to
the doctrine of the Person of Christ, he came into decided
conflict with the Philippists. Both parties suspected him,
and the Landgrave of Hesse became still more distant.

THE SECOND ATTEMPT AT UNITY, 1569.
The first attempt in 1567 failed. In 1569, Andreae
journeyed to Saxony, but both the theologians at Jena and
those at Wittenberg turned him back. On a new journey in
1570, he succeeded at Zerbst in moving the theologians pre
sent to a recognition of the first edition of the Augustana as
well as the Apology, the Schmalkald Articles, and the Cate
chisms of Luther as the regulative norms ; but he gained all
the less by this, since the men of Wittenberg and of Leipzig
now formally characterized the Corpus Philippicum as their
norm of teaching. In 1571, almost every hope of uniting
vanished. Having been impressed with the fact that the
Philippists were adverse to all union, and that his attempts
at reconciliation only had served to arouse the suspicion of
the Lutherans against him, he undertook to give his efforts
a different direction. From henceforth he strove to unite
all Lutherans against all Philippists and Calvinists.

650 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
THE THIRD AND MORE SOUND ATTEMPT AT UNITY.
In 1573 and 1574, the relations of the parties in Saxony,
which up to this date were the greatest obstacle in the way
of the work of Concord, essentially changed. The decided
Lutheran party in Ducal-Saxony (Jena) was split, when,
after the death of Duke John William, the Elector Augustus
undertook the rule of the Thiiringian Province and intro
duced the Wittenberg type of doctrine by force (1573).
The Philippistic party in Electoral-Saxony, up to now
protected by the Elector Augustus, who was not versed
in theology and who, despite his ardor against Flacius,
never desired to be anything else than " good Lutheran "
and, up to this time, never felt any intimation that the
Philippistic type of doctrine dominant in his country de
parted from the Lutheran standard, was at last thrown
from its power, when the Philippists, made too bold by their
momentary victory, proceeded openly in the prosecution of
their plans and could not any longer keep the Elector de
ceived as to the departure of their doctrine from the Lu
theran doctrine (Exegesis Perspicua, 1574). Nothing is
better fitted to show the impending historical necessity of
a final Lutheran confession than just this temporary do
minion of Philippism in Electoral-Saxony, which, possible
only under the guise of Lutheranism, broke to pieces the
moment that that dishonorable guise, hitherto maintained,
was torn away. SIX CHRISTIAN SERMONS.
Already in the year 1573, before the catastrophe in Elec
toral-Saxony made its appearance, Andrese, who had been
encouraged to further effort by Selnecker's dedication of
his " Instituta Religionis Christiana," published " Six
Christian Sermons, concerning the divisions among the
theologians of the Augsburg •Confession, as they arose from

ORIGIN OF THE FORMULA. 651
the year 1548 up to this present 1573d year, how a plain
pastor and a common Christian layman who might be scan
dalized thereby, might be set right through the catechism." '
Freed now from the suspicion that had fallen on him
from the extremes of both sides, Andreae undertook to define
his position to the controversies in a precise manner. If
in his earlier " Confession," he had omitted all controversy
on the Person of Christ, he not only made good the mistake
this time, but added, in addition, several discussions on the
relation, and on the third use of the Law.
The six sermons treated: (1) the righteousness of faith"
and the essential indwelling righteousness of God; (2) the
necessity of good works to salvation; (3) original sin; (4)
the free will of man in divine things; (5) church ceremonies
which are called adiaphora; (6) the law of God; (7) the
distinction between Law «nd Gospel; (8) the third use of
the law; (9) whether good works are necessary; (10) the
person and majesty of Christ, the Son of God and the Son
of Mary.
He dedicated the sermons to Duke Julius of Brunswick,
to whom Andreae had rendered distinguished service in the
ordering of ecclesiastical matters in his country. Martin
Chemnitz in Brunswick, Joachim Westphal in Hamburg,
Chytraeus in Rostock received these sermons with favor, and
endeavored to obtain recognition for them from various ec
clesiastical ministries of Lower Saxony.
The sermonic form which Andreae chose shows us that in
his conception the salvation of the church must be found
in the common evangelical Christian consciousness as it
exists in the catechism, and not by means of scientific the
ological investigation. And not only his good Lutheran
way of thinking, but also his farsightedness was shown,

3 " Sechs Christlicher Predig, Von den Spaltungen, so sich zwischen den
Theologen Augspurgischer Confession, von Anno 1548 bis auf diss 1573. Jar.
nach und nach erhoben; wie sich ein einfaltiger Pfarrer und gemeiner Christ
licher Laye, so dardurch ver'ergert sein worden, aus seinem Catechismo darein
schicken soil " etc. — Printed entire in H. Heppe, Geschichte des deutschen
Protestantismus III, Appendix I, pp. 1-75.

652 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
when he this time passed the Wittenberg theologians by,
awaiting that God " would surely in His own time open the
eyes of their Lord the Elector and through him afterward
set for them a goal."
Thus Andreae's original plan of uniting the Lutherans
and Philippists, which had proved to be Utopian and only
heightened the antithesis, was cast aside. A formula was
now to be found which would unite all Lutherans and which
should be used as a means of conflict against the Philippists
and the Calvinists.
The sermons, as we have seen, were favorably received
by the Faculties in Tubingen, and in Rostock with Chytraeus
as its head. But Chemnitz was right in showing Andreae
that the sermonic form was hardly adapted to confessional
purposes, and a summarizing according to articles in " thesis
and antithesis " was called for.8

THE SWABIAN CONCORDIA.
Andreae at once agreed with Chemnitz. Thus a new
draft was prepared, which was approved by the Tubingen
Theologians and the Stuttgart Consistory. This was known
as the "Swabian Concordia." * It contains : 1. Original Sin.
2. Free Will. 3. Justification before God by Faith. 4.
Good Works. 5. The Law and the Gospel. 6. The Third
Use of the Law. 7. Churchly Usages called Adiaphora.
8. The Lord's Supper. 9. The Person of Christ. 10.
Eternal Providence and Election of God. 11. Other Groups
and Sects that never accepted the Augsburg Confession.
It is important to note that Andreae in the Introduction
emphasized the necessity of accepting confessionally those
symbols and writings that were afterward received into
the Book of Concord.

" Cf. the letter of Duke Julius to Andrea? Oct. 4th, 1573, in Hachfeld,
Zeitschr. fiir hist. Theol. 1866, p. 231.
' It is reproduced in Hachfeld, Zeitsch., 1866, pp. 234 sqq.

ORIGIN OF THE FORMULA. 653
On March 22nd, 1574, the document was sent to Duke
Julius, and Chemnitz endeavored with the authorization of
the Duke to win acceptance for it. This resulted in repeated
revision by the theologians of Lower Saxony, Chemnitz be
ing the principal agent, and finally in the much more com
pendious and considerably more theological " Swabian-
Saxon Concordia." s When this was accepted and sub
scribed by the theologians and pastors in the duchies of
Brunswick and Mecklenburg, and the counties of Mans-
feld, Hoya and Oldenburg, the Lower-Saxon countries, they
regarded the Concordia with Wiirttemberg as sealed. But
the Swabians were not at once satisfied with this complete
recasting. They objected to the unevenness in style caused
by working in the wishes of the individual theologians, the
Latin technical terms and the theological and polemic
tenor that did not fit into a work intended for the laity.
Above all else they feared the arising of new controversies
on account of the citations from Melanchthon, who was now
approved and now condemned in the document. They
would have preferred it if all quotations had been limited
to Luther's works.*
They had hardly reached the point of official explanations
when the events in Saxony gave a new turn to matters.
After the appearance of the Exegesis perspicua controver-
siae de coena Domini published by the Silesian physician
Joachim Curaeus in 1574, the Elector August became per
suaded of the Crypto-Calvinism of his theologians and pro
ceeded very sharply against the Philippists and was now
won, for the securing of the orthodoxy of his country, to
the thought of a union on a Lutheran basis. In a rescript
to his councillors dated Nov. 21st, 1575,1 he presented his

¦Heppe as above, III, Appendix, pp. 75-166, the final revision 116-325.
Heppe erroneously takes the first shorter revision for the Swabian Con
cordia. ' This appears from Andreae's Opinion delivered to Prince Elector August
of Saxony, Hutter, Concordia concors, fol. 86 sq.
'Hutter as above, fDl. 76.
45

654 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
views as to " whether there might not be a mode by which
we who doctrinally accept the Augsburg Confession might
not in a friendly way get together and agree that every
prince should appoint several peace-loving theologians, about
three or four in number, and an equal number of political
councillors, and that these gentlemen should convene and
that every one should bring his corpus doctrinse with him
and then deliver it to all theologians and political coun
cillors in such a manner as to make the Augsburg Confes
sion their guide. Then they should look up in their corpus
doctrinse, discuss and deliberate how, by the grace of God,
they might make one corpus out of all, to which we might
all subscribe, and this book or corpus doctrinse should be
printed anew and given in the land of every prince to his
theologians to be guided thereby."
THE MAULBRONN FORMULA.
Even before this, on the suggestion of the Elector, Count
Ernest of Henneberg, Duke Ludwig of Wiirttemberg and
Margrave Charles of Baden requested of the Wiirttemberg
Court-preacher, Lucas Osiander, Provost Balthasar Bidem-
bach in Stuttgart, the Henneberg Court-preacher Abel
Scherdinger and several Badensian theologians an opinion
on the production of a Concordia. Their opinion,8 delivered
Nov. 14th, 1575, was approved, and Osiander and Bidem-
bach were commissioned to work out a formula of union.
This formula being once more discussed with several Hen
neberg and Badensian theologians in the Convent of Maul-
bronn and subscribed, Jan. 19th, 1576, was called the Maul-
bronn Formula."
Here the Swabians avoided all the things which they dis
liked in the Swabian-Saxon Concordia, such as the Latin
technical terms and the mention of Melanchthon, and con-

8Hutter as above, fol. 89 sq.
0 Printed byTh. Pressel, Jahrbucher fiir deutsche Theologie, H (1856),
pp. 640 sqq.

ORIGIN OF THE FORMULA. 655
fined their quotations to Luther's works. The arrangement
of this much briefer confession was essentially different.
To express the thought more clearly that the object was to
unite the confessors of the Augustana, all heresies equally
condemned by the contending parties were excluded, the
individual points were arranged in the same order as in
the Augustana and before every section was placed the cor
responding statement of the Augsburg Confession. Thus
the Formula contained the following sections: 1. Original
Sin. 2. The Person of Christ. 3. Justification by Faith.
4. The Law and the Gospel. 5. Good works. 6. The Lord's
Supper. 7. Of churchly rites or things called Adiaphora.
8. Free Will. 9. The Third Use of the Law of God.
The Saxon Elector received the Maulbronn Formula
about the same time as the Swabian-Saxon Concordia sent
him by Duke Julius of Brunswick. He asked an opinion
on both of Jacob Andreae. Andreae gave the Maulbronn
Formula the preference for formal reasons — the substance
was the same in both. He was also willing that the Swa
bian-Saxon should be laid as a basis. There was not much
more need of disputing concerning the doctrine in itself
" which had been so thoroughly disputed all these years that
people doubtless well understood; and that not many mis
understandings occurred any more."- Deciding thus for the
Maulbronn Formula as the basis of the work of Concordia,
he advised at the same time to arrange a convention to
which not only theologians from the Electorate of Saxony
and from Wiirttemberg were to be invited, but also Chem
nitz and Chytraeus the principal authors of the Swabian-
Saxon Concordia. The Elector interpreted this to be an
approval of his own plan and engaged in the matter with
great zeal. This gave rise to the danger, under the political
constellation of the Empire, of preventing some govern
ments from joining of which it had been expected that they
would. The Duke desired to hold a convention of reputable the-

656 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
ologians, and selected Chemnitz and Chytrseus from North
Germany. Augustus agreed thoroughly to this plan: "Al
though every authority must now be timid in mingling in
among the confused minds of the theologians, nevertheless,
as there is no Pope among them, he feels anxious lest it will
grow worse and worse in their acts, if the civil authority
does not enter into the matter from every side." Therefore
the theologians should gather to establish a common Corpus
DoctrinaB. Moreover " certain controversial theologians
such as Illyricus and others " have died, " the rest are
wearied in part with disputing and scolding, so that it
will be easier to come to a conclusion." This was true.
The younger generation had attained — in so far as they
did not follow the recoil of Melanchthon toward Calvin — a
certain unified Luther-Melanchthonian view.
THE LICHTENBERG AND TORGAU CONVENTIONS, 1576.
Things went forward. Selnecker had been working in
Leipzig since 1574, and through his influence the theolo
gians of the Elector were won in a body at a convention
in Lichtenberg in February, 1576 ; and upon their request
Jacob Andreae himself was called to Saxony, and on May
28th (to June 7th) a more general convention of theologians
met in Torgau. This was attended by the Saxon theologians
led by Selnecker, Andreae and Chytrseus and two represen
tatives of the Electorate of Brandenburg, the general super
intendent, Andrew Musculus and the Frankfurt professor,
Christopher Korner. Here, with the final consent of An
dreae, they returned to the Swabian-Saxon Concordia and its
divisions, but re-cast it according to the wishes of the Swa-
bians with due consideration of the Maulbronn Formula.
The work thus produced, the " Torgian M Book," contained

10 The title in the manuscript copies reads : " Opinions as to how the di
visions among the theologians of the Augsburg Confession may be recon
ciled and settled by means of God's Word." Compare Heppe, -as above III,
118 ; and the same, Der Text der Bergischen Concordienformel &c.

ORIGIN OF THE FORMULA. 657
twelve articles, the same that are found in the finally adopted
Formula of Concord. The reason for this number of
articles was, that in reference to the controversy called forth
by Aepinus in Hamburg, a new article entitled Christ's De
scent into Hell was inserted as the eighth article.

THE TORGAU BOOK AND ITS CRITICISMS.
With the completion of the Torgau Book an important
step forward toward union was taken, and the Elector
Augustus exerted himself to the further progress of the
work. At his suggestion copies of the Formula were sent
to the most of the Evangelical Estates in Germany, with
the plea that the same be tested by the Theologians there,
and that the result of this test be returned to Dresden. The
criticisms that came in, which mostly harmonized with each
other, afforded a characteristic picture of the ecclesiastical
situation. The Anhalt theologians frankly declared the
whole undertaking to be useless : " Why make a confession
which is at least ten times more expanded than all the con-
elusions of the Ancient Church ? " Above all, Luther and
Melanchthon dare not be separated. But on the other side
there were zealous Lutherans like Heshusius and Wigand
in Prussia, who found it difficult to lay down their excep
tions against this work of mediation and its author Andreae, .
and who wanted to insist that the names of the heretics,
with Melanchthon at the head, be cited in the Book. On the
other hand, there were territorial churches like those of
Pomerania and Holstein in which the situation with respect
to the divisions in doctrine had not penetrated into the
common consciousness and therefore declared that they felt
it strange that Melanchthon's authority was not expressly
recognized along side of Luther's. They had no idea of
deviating from Luther's authority. The same Pomeranian
theologians who accepted Melanchthon's authority in this

658 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
way, declared themselves to be a unit with the Articles of
the Torgau Book concerning the Lord's Supper and the
Person of Christ; and the same Holstein theologians who
denied the necessity of a new Confession (since new ones
would eat up the old ones and stir new strife), and took
offence at the new treatment of Christology, were in favor
that everything that was in their own favorite Corpus Doc-
trinse including the Schmalkald Articles, should in future
disputation be decided out of Luther's writings along side
of the Scripture.
By the end of February, 1577, most of the criticisms
concerning the Torgau Book had come in to Dresden, and the
Elector Augustus commissioned Andreae, Chemnitz and
Selnecker to consider the criticisms and finally edit the
work. , THE BERGEN BOOK.
They convened March 1st, 1577, in the convent of Ber
gen. When still further criticisms were received, further
deliberations became necessary. To these Musculus, Kor-
ner and Chytrseus were also invited.
There could be no mention of a change of the original
program which was to give expression to the genuine Luth
eran doctrine. They confined themselves to greater pre
cision in some of the dissertations and to meeting ambi
guities. Many objections had been made against the great
compass of the Formula which made it unfit for a confes
sional symbol. To satisfy these Andreae had composed —

THE EPITOME.
" Comprehensive summary of the articles in controversy
among the theologians of the Augsburg Confession, set forth
and reconciled in a Christian way, according to God's Word,
in the following recapitulation."

ORIGIN OF THE FORMULA. 659
Probably this, though afterward revised, was adopted
at the first convention in Bergen.
At the last convention toward the end of May, they
quickly agreed on the chief part, eventually the second part
of the work, The Solid Declaration; " Solid [originally
" general " ] plain and clear repetition and declaration of
certain articles of the Augsburg Confession concerning
which for some time there has been Controversy among
some Theologians who Subscribe thereto, Stated and Settled
according to the Analogy of God's Word and the Summary
Contents of our Christian Doctrine." The " Catalogue of
Testimonies of the Holy Scriptures," added first with the
caption "Appendix " and later without the same, and which
was composed to prove that the Formula of Concord does
not teach any new thing on this point, and brought testi
mony from the Fathers on the Doctrine of the two natures
and the Communicatio Idiomatum, is a private work of An
dreae and Chemnitz. On the 28th of May, 1577, the finished
Bergen Book was laid before the Elector Augustus. This
is the Solida Declaratio.
Thus originated the " Bergen Book " or, as the Lutherans
usually named it in reference to its object and what it finally
became to them, the " Formula of Concord," the result of
years of discussion and of many considerations not always of
a theological nature, and of the collaboration of many theo
logians who were animated by the same intention, but only
gradually walked the same pathways. That determined its
character. The original thought of laying the Bergen Book before
a general convention of the Evangelical estates was regarded
as too dangerous. Both the electors of Saxony and Branden
burg undertook to send copies of the Bergen Book first
of all to those estates for their approval and signature whose
co-operation one could regard as sure.
That the Confession was not accepted on all sides with
equal willingness, that those churches which had had a dif-

660 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
ferent development of the process of confessing and es
pecially had connected themselves with the later mode of
Melanchthon's teaching, in order to maintain the bond of
connection with the Calvinistic Reformed Church, should
have rejected the Bergian Confession, and thus be pressed
to approach the Reformed Confession more closely, is so
natural, that one would only be astonished if it were other
wise. For the very object of the Confession was to establish the
genuine doctrine as over against the Melanchthonian di
visions. It was a consequence of the leading ecclesiastical
conception, that new ecclesiastical separations must also
take place, where they remained in disunity in the doctrine.
It is also easily comprehensible that the Formula of
Concord would become a rock of offense to all those who
believe that a covering over of doctrinal differences which
were already existing, and a regarding them with indif
ference was the right way for the restoration of the peace
of the church.

CHAPTER XXVIT.
THE LUTHERAN CONFESSION.
THE INTRODUCTION OF THE CONCORDIA, AND
THE AUGUSTANA CONSERVED.
Not Introduced by Papal or Imperial Mandate— Sent Forth and Discussed
Throughout Germany — None Other so Fully Tested — The Quedlinburg
Declaration — A Good Cause not Accountable for the Sins of Individuals — The
Signatories not Condemnable — Planck— More Democratic and Unanimous Than
Would be Possible in America To-day — No Creed really CEcumenical — No
undue Political Influence — The Opinion of Kolde and of Miiller — The Extent
of the Adoption — Rejected by Calvinistic States — Lutherans Who Failed to
Subscribe — The Opinion of Thomasius, Planck and Kollner — The Real Con
fessional Validity.
THE question of introducing the Formula was difficult.
The Augsburg Confession arose out of a historical
and heroic occasion, in the midst of popular excitement,
and in response to the demand of Pope and Emperor. But
Pope and Emperor had no concern for the healing of Prot
estant, internal dissensions, or for the putting forth of
a constructive Declaration of the Lutheran Church's Faith.
Popular excitement, too, was lacking, for the people were
weary, hopeless, and separated. Yet, -it scarcely will be
accounted against the Confessional character of the new
Confession, that its appearance was not mediated by a
mandate of Pope or Emperor;1 and that it addressed itself,
in appealing directly to tbe people of God — to "those now

2 Vid.. Chap. XXIX, p. 711. 661

662 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
living, and those who shall come after us ", — to the less
heroic and more humble, but equally necessary task of
probing and rightly binding up the wounds of a weak and
helpless Zion.
The Confession was sent forth into every part of Ger
many, and was discussed and examined by ministers and
teachers in Conferences or Synods called for the purpose
of testing it. Twenty-five criticisms came in to the theolo
gians who devoted nine days to considering them and de
tails of language. At last, on May 29th, 1577, the six
theologians signed the Confession with the following words :
" Therefore, in the sight of God and of the entire Church
of Christ, we wish to testify, to those now living and to those
who come after us, that the above Declaration . . . and
no other is our Faith, Doctrine and Confession, in which
we also will appear, by God's grace, with unterrified hearts,
before the judgment seat of Christ and for it will give an
account. Nor will we utter . . . anything contrary to
this Declaration, but, by the help of God's grace, intend to
abide thereby. After mature deliberation, we have in
God's fear and with the invocation of His name, attached
our signatures with our own hands."
That such a great wonder should have been wrought by
the grace of God, in bringing into internal concord the
conservative evangelical Churches on the basis of the old
Augustana was not satisfactory to those without — as little
to the Protestant communions closest to the Lutheran
Church, as to those who constituted its complete antipode.
Those nearest were the loudest to decry the validity of the
result. " The Reformed Count Palatine, John Casimir at
tempted to hinder the acceptance of the Formula of Con
cord by seeking, at the instigation of the English Queen,
to organize a union of all the Reformed against it (1577
Convention at Frankfurt). The embassador of Queen
Elizabeth of England raised energetic objection that several

THE FORMULA INTRODUCED. 663
of the German courts must be encouraging separation of
the Evangelical churches.
" But in the very nature of things this could not have any
success, neither did anything come of the attempt resolved
on at Frankfurt to establish a national Reformed confession
which should show the unity of the Augustana and the
Helvetica. "Against this on the side of the Lutherans it was sought
to do what was possible under the given circumstances to
be friendly to the uncertain estates, such as the Elector
Louis jf the Palatinate, the Landgrave William of Hesse,
the Princes Joachim and Ernst of Naumburg, and others, to
make them friendly to the work of Concord." **
The Calvinists complained that a General Council should
have been held before the Concordia was formally accepted.
Had this been done, the Calvinists, calling themselves Lu
theran, and the Philippists, would have gained an oppor
tunity to stir up new strife.
In reply to the criticism that it was unjust for only
six theologians to write a Confession for the whole Church,
and that a General Synod should have been held before the
signing of the Confession, the Convention at Quedlinburg,
in 1583, declared it untrue that the Formula of Concord
had been composed by only six theologians, and reminded
the critics, how, on the contrary, the articles had first been
sent a number of times to all the Lutheran Churches in
Germany — how, in order to consider them, Synods and Con
ferences had been held on every side, and the articles had
been thoroughly tested — how criticisms had been made upon
them — and how the criticisms had conscientiously been taken
in hand by a special commission.
The Quedlinburg Convention therefore declared in its
Minutes, that, indeed, " such a frequent revision and testing
of the Christian Book of Concord, many times repeated, is

'•ffcwcfc Encyc,

6C4 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
a much greater work, than if a General Synod had been
assembled respecting it, to which every province would
commission two or three theologians, who in the name of
all the rest would have helped to test and approve the book.
Since in that way only one Synod would have been held,
for the comparing and testing of this work, but, as it was,
many Synods were held ; and it was sent to many provinces
who had it tested by the weighty and mature judgment of
their theologians; in such manner as has never occurred in
the case of any book or any matter of religion since the
beginning of Christianity, as is evident from the history
of the Church."
In planting Christianity,2 in founding the Church," in
introducing the Confession, the good cause should not be
held responsible for sins of individuals who act against the
spirit and intent of the movement. We are solemnly told
that no one was forced by threats to sign the Formula of
Concord, and that no one was tempted to do so by promises.
We know that no one was taken suddenly by surprise.
Every one was given time to think. As the work of com
position extended through years, so several years were given
for the work of signing. Some objection has been lodged
against the means used to secure the completion and assent
to the Book of Concord.' There always is a small, narrow
and petty way of looking at historical personages, events
and movements; and there is a large, just and sympathetic
way of making the estimate. It is easy to impugn even the
New Testament by saying that John was vindictive, James
was ambitious, Peter was impetuous, and Paul was narrow
and rabbinic. It is not difficult to find the supposed un
worthy motive in the noblest deeds and events that are
chronicled in the annals of human history ; and so, it is easy,
after the manner of the historian Planck, to apply the
smaller defects of the principal men in our confessional
2 John 6 :70.
3 Acts 5 : 1-4.
* Cp. the imputation in footnote of Schaff, in loco.

THE FORMULA INTRODUCED. 665
history to their chief actions, and to put the least charitable
construction on all their words and deeds.
Our poor human nature, common to all of us in the
Church, is so weak, that nothing is done by us which does
not seem to bear the stamp of evil upon it. But to point
out these stains is not to justify or condemn an act. If it
were, all ecclesiastical action and writing must cease or be
condemned even in the saints of this latter day.
It may be regarded as reasonably certain that not all the
vain-glorious men, nor all the party-workers, who prefer
their own organization and name to the cause of the truth,
nor all the pugnaciotis men, nor all the narrow-minded men,
nor all the men of religious deadness and theological fury,
lived in the Sixteenth Century. Nor are all those to whom
such a despicable character can justly be attributed, to be
found in the Lutheran Church of that Century, as little as all
the true saints were to be found within the borders of Luther
anism, and all the doubtful saints were to be looked for in
Geneva or Rome. There was a deep piety of many in Rome,,
and in the Reformed Churches, and of many also in the
Lutheran Church. Perhaps the piety and honesty of the
old and the mediating Lutherans in that century, would com
pare favorably with that of the two schools of to-day. That
there are the impious, at least those who are not models, in
both schools, in both ages, must be admitted. The question
before us then is not to be decided by looking at the weak
human nature on any side, but by an examination of the
principles beneath it.
If some were coerced into signing the Book of Concord
by moral suasion, or otherwise, it is at least a fact that there
were many more who were not thus coerced. If there was
some bitter feeling on both sides in the Sixteenth Century,
surely there has also been some bitter feeling on both sides
in the Nineteenth Century, in time of confessional activity
and excitement. If the Concordia was not universally ac
cepted, let it never be forgotten, that this very thing was

666 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
also the case with every other creed in Christendom; and
that it became more conspicuous in the case of the Formula,
because of the greater pains taken to secure the approbation
of every individual in truly democratic manner.
Had the Elector Augustus and a few other statesmen
signed it, as was done in the case of the Confession of
Augsburg; though they might not have been able to cause
the clergy under them to obey so readily as occurred after
the signing at Augsburg, the clergy being now more enlight
ened, the question of improper subscription could not have
been raised. A moment's thought should convince every
reasonable mind that the average human nature of the day
will probably control the average securing and signing of
documents. We very much doubt whether the Lutheran
Church to-day could secure any democratic subscription so
clean, so conscientious, so united, or so large, as that which
was given to the Book of Concord.
It would require the name of every Lutheran clergyman
in North America, secured without undue influence, to gain
such a result. And when we consider the nature of Twen
tieth-Century Lutheranism, and how many nominal Lu
therans, on the ground of personal liberty, or because they
do not deem united effort necessary, or from indifference,
would fail to append their signatures to a document; and,
on the other hand, how many otherwise excellent Christians
think so little of their signature in our day that they will
sign any paper presented to them, we may feel sure that
no new creed of the Church to-day could be so unanimously
and yet ,?o genuinely accepted.
No Creed of the Church, in any age, has ever been unani
mously accepted. The Apostles' Creed was not universally
accepted; and its final prevalence was not entirely apart
from political movement — Harnack would say, was due to
political movement — in the Church. If the history of the
Nicene Creed were entered into in detail, it would reveal
conditions in the Church beside which those surrounding

THE FORMULA INTRODUCED. 667
the Formula of Concord were heavenly. The same may be
said of the Athanasian Creed. Neither the Apostles', nor
the Athanasian Creed is really oecumenical. Neither of
them was known to the Greek or Oriental Church, which
abode faithful to the faith " settled by the Holy Fathers
at Nicaea." " And can we say that the conditions surround
ing the composition of the Augsburg Confession were ideal ?
The chapter in this book on Melanchthon as a diplomat
and the one on the Melanchthonian Principle will answer
the question.
The churches were not given an opportunity to discuss
the Augsburg Confession, as they discussed the Book of
Concord. What the result at Augsburg would have been
if the personality of Luther had not been standing in the
background, and the Church had been torn by dissensions,
and every article had had to be canvassed and agreed on
in advance by all the churches, no man can forsee.
That the Confession of Augsburg achieved so much, is
a glorious tribute to the confessional truth in it. And the
same is true of the Formula of Concord. If the Formula
had not embodied the Confessional Principle of the Church,
the real development of the inner nature of Lutheranism
stated in Confessional manner, it would not have been
accepted in the wonderful way it was, and amid the bafflings
and discouragements of the period, and would not have
achieved what it did.
Where religion is introduced and upheld by political

' Cp. Principal John Tullock of St. Andrews : " Of all Christian creeds, the
Nicene, or Niceno-Constantinopolitan, is the only real oecumenical creed,
deliberately discussed and adopted by the representatives of the universal
Church. The two others associated with it in the services of the Western
Church have not only never had acceptance beyond the range of that church,
but are very gradual growths within it, without any definite parentage or
deliberate and consultative authority. They emerge gradually during many
centuries from the confusions and variations of Christian opinion, slowly
crystallizing into definite shape ; and sucb authority as belongs to them is
neither primitive nor patristic. It is the reflected assent of tbe later church
in the West, and the uncritical patronage of a comparatively ignorant age,
which have alone elevated them to the same position as tbe faith defined at
Nicaea, which is the only truly Catholic, or universal, symbol of the universal
church."

668 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
authority, as it was on all sides in the days of the Reforma
tion, with the consent of both Luther and Melanchthon,
and of all parties, since none knew any better, and the prin
ciple of individual Protestant freedom of conscience had
not worked itself out into the State as it has to-day," it is
almost inevitable that religious measures will to some ex
tent, at least indirectly, be affected by political authority.
If political authority was permitted to show itself in
behalf of the Formula of Concord, as also had been the case
for and against the Augsburg and the other Protestant
Sixteenth-Century Confessions, it is to be regretted; yet
it does not invalidate, nor necessarily tarnish the Confession
as such. Neither did it really contribute, we may be sure,
to the actual influence of the Formula.
" To persecute errorists, is only another mode of dissem
inating and strengthening their cause. It gives them im
portance; it excites sympathy in their behalf; and whilst
it may reclaim the timid, it makes others ten-fold more
firm and active. Nor was the effect to be different in the
cases of those princes and rulers who employed severe and
bloody measures against the Crypto-Calvinists and others
three hundred years ago. When carried so far by the
ological disputes as to behead Horst and Funk, imprison
John Frederick, quarter Grumbach and Briick, hang their
adherents, confine Peucer in a loathsome dungeon, banish
Riidiger, Crell, Wiedebram, Crueiger, Pegel, and Moller,
and to commit other deeds of violence against dissenters,
no wonder that confidence was destroyed, hearts alienated,
and multitudes driven to array themselves under another
standard. And yet, such was the stormy aspect of things
years before the Form of Concord was written.
" It was not the Form of Concord that originated these
scenes of strife, bitterness, and blood. On the contrary, this

6 Yet the German emperor would even to-day be pleased to unite church
and state more closely in a national religion, on the basis of a national
Germanic " Union."

THE FORMULA INTRODUCED. 669
new and valuable symbol, naturally and necessarily, grew
out of these lamentable religious disturbances. It was
framed with reference to their settlement. It was designed,
as its name imports, to bind together the distracted church,
to cast oil upon the troubled waters, and to save the precious
ark of God from being dashed into irrecoverable fragments.
It was for this that Augustus and his coadjutors instituted
measures to bring it into being. It was for this, that it
was submitted to the church for examination and criticism
before its completion. It was for this that Chemnitz, and
Andreae, and Selnecker labored upon it with so much assid
uity and prayer. And it was for this that it was at once
acknowledged and subscribed by three electors, twenty
princes, twenty-four earls, the lords of the four free cities,
thirty-eight members of the Diet, and about eight thousand
office-bearers in the churches and schools." "
So little was there thought of using force * that those who
showed that they believed otherwise were not allowed to sub
scribe. Andreae himself testified : " I can truly say that no
man has been forced to sign, nor has been driven away on
this account." * In Berlin, the commission found two
hundred ministers assembled. The Formula was read word
by word. Criticisms were heard and explained, and finally
all were agreed to it, so that the president of the Commission
thanked God for the true doctrine thus given, and the whole
assembly cried "Amen."
We believe no instance is known in which it is of record
that compulsion was used to secure the adoption of the
Formula. Doubtless moral suasion of a sort that men use
to-day in getting out votes on what they deem to be the
right side, was busy then as now. It is possible that
official zeal may in instances have used political persuasion;

•¦ The Evangelical Review.
1 As even Dr. Schaff admits. Vid. footnote 9 In this chapter.
' Vid. Miiller, Symb, Biicher, Einleit. CVII.
46

670 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
and that there may be some weight in Hutter's inference
from the arrangement of the signatures.
But after due allowance for such possibilities, the great
fact that is decisive is that the Formula was adopted by an
overwhelming part of the Church, and that the bulk of these
signatures were given with heart and soul. As over against
Planck's prejudiced assertion that the general reception of
the Formula was obtained " by actual compulsion," let us
plance the balanced historical verdict of Kolde: —
" Naturally enough, the churches leaning toward Calvin
allied themselves more closely to each other over against a
formula, which excluded them. Every formula of union,
like every confessional symbol, has ever had a separating
influence. " It was not to be wondered at if many hesitated, es
pecially in Saxony [the seat of Melanchthon's strength],
and that the electoral commissaries, who traveled from place
to place, experienced many objections and had to quiet many
misgivings. It can not be denied that the desire of the
ruler of the land played its part in influencing them. '. . .
But on the other hand the influence of the ruler must not
be estimated at too high a rate, as many of the opponents
of the Book of Concord have endeavored to do. Among
other reasons, this fact is borne out by the addition to the
signatures ' cum ore et cordo ', which occurs with great
frequency." te
To this may be added the older words of Mueller in his
Introduction to the Symbols : —
" The oft repeated offences and reproaches of this Sym
bol, were listened to and corrected, with moderation and
patience. Time was allowed to every one to consider. In
deed each one was admonished, in the name of the Elector,
not to subscribe against his conscience. And, although Hut
ter contends that many subscribed it reluctantly, it is a

8' Close of Kolde's Introduction to the Formula.

THE FORMULA INTRODUCED. 671
mere conjecture drawn simply from the arrangement of the
signatures, which is no proof that the signatures themselves
were obtained by force. Andreae confidently asserts, at the
convention of Herzberg, in 1578, ' I am able to declare
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.' In
consequence of this declaration, the opponents were chal
lenged to name but one who had been compelled to sub
scribe, and they were unable to do it; on the other hand,
it was acknowledged by the theologians of Nuremberg them
selves, who rejected the Form of Concord, that the signa
tures were obtained without compulsion."
Turning now from the mode and the heartiness, to the
territorial extent of the subscription, we find that, with a
few exceptions to be immediately referred to and explained,
the adoption of the Formula covers the greater part of the
imperial Protestant territories.8
It was adopted in the three Electorates of Saxony, the
Palatinate, and Brandenburg; the Duchies of Prussia,
Wuertemberg and Mecklenburg; the Margravates of Kulm-
•bach, Baireuth, Ansbach and Baden; also in the Upper
Palatinate, Neuburg and Sulzbach; in the Principalities
of Brunswick and Liineburg, in Thiiringia, Koburg and
Weimar, in Mompelgard; in the regions of Magdeburg,
Meissen, and Quedlinburg; in the earldoms of Henneberg,

• Schaff, in his Creeds of Christendom I, p. 331, note 3, says : " It was
adopted by the majority of the Lutheran principalities and state Churches in
Germany ; also by the state church of Sweden, the Lutherans in Hungary, and
several Lutheran synods in the United States. On the other hand, it was re
jected by a number of Lutheran princes." In a footnote, Schaff continues :
" The Preface of the Book of Concord is signed by eighty-six names representing
the Lutheran state churches in the German empire ; among them are three
Electors (Louis of the Palatinate, Augustus of Saxony, and John George
of Brandenburg), twenty Dukes and Princes, twenty-four Counts, thirty-five
burgomasters and counsellors of imperial cities. The Formula was also signed
by about 8000 pastors and teachers under their jurisdiction, including a
large number of ex-Philippists and Crypto-Calvinists, who preferred their
livings to their theology ; hence Hutter was no doubt right when he admitted
that many subscribed mala conseientia. Yet no direct compulsion seems to
have been used. See Kollner, p. 551, and Johannsen, Ueber die Unterschriften
des Concordienbuches, in Niedner's Zeitschrift fiir histor. Theologie, 1847,
No. 1."

C72 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
Oettingen, Castell, Mansfeld, Hanau, Hohenlohe, Barby,
Gleichen, Oldenburg, Hoya, Eberstein, Limburg, Schonburg,
Lowenstein, Reinstein, Stolberg, Schwarzburg, Leiningen,
and others. Also in the cities of Liibeck, Hamburg, Liine
burg, Regensburg, Augsburg, Ulm, Biberach, Esslingen,
Landau, Hagenau, Rothenburg, Goslar, Miihlhausen, Reut
lingen, Nordlingen, Halle, Memmingen, Hildesheim, Han
nover, Gottingen, Erfurth, Einbeck, Schweinfurt, Brunswick,
Munster, Heilbronn, Lindau, Donauworth, Wimpfen, Gin-
gen, Bopfingen, Aalen, Kaufbeuern, Kempten, Issny, Leut-
kirch, Hameln, and Nordheim. To these subsequently have
been added, Lauenburg of Saxony, Holstein, Pomerania,
Krain, Karnthen, Steiermark, and Hungary. And even in
Denmark, where it was once forbidden on pain of death,
it soon obtained a high authority, and was really used as
a symbol though not officially acknowledged as such. It
was also accepted in Pomerania and Hornia.
By June 1580, when the Fiftieth Anniversary of the
Augsburg Confession was celebrated with a great festival,
eighty-five Stande had signed it, and three years later the
number ran up to ninety-six. Sweden accepted the teach
ing of the Formula in 1593 in the Council of Uppsala, and
the Formula in 1617-1663. Hungary adopted it in 1597.
We already have alluded to the fact that a united general
subscription to any new confessional document is not to be
thought of in America to-day;10 and that many who ap
proved all the principles of a document would, for various
reasons, fail to sign it. This happened to some extent in the
case of the Formula. Of those who rejected the Formula,
first come those few states, which did so for real confes
sional reasons, and which were not Lutheran at all in their
convictions, but Calvinistic; and of which it was the inten
tion of the Formula, for the sake of truth and peace, to rid
the Lutheran Church. This was the disturbing element in

' Cp. the debates of Inter-Synodlcal Conferences,

THE FORMULA INTRODUCED. 673
the Church, an element which belonged elsewhere, and which
the Formula of Concord placed elsewhere. " It was not a
loss, but a riddance; not a dismemberment, but a superior
consolidation, which the Church effected by this pro
ceeding." These Calvinist Lutherans comprised Anhalt,
Lower Hesse and Bremen. They did the right thing in
withholding their signatures. Zweibriicken and Anhalt
went over bodily to the Reformed Church in 1588, and
Hesse followed in 1604. The Palatinate with Louis as
ruler, favored the Concordia, but Louis died in 1583, and
then his successor Casimir introduced the Reformed Faith.
In Denmark, which had been free from controversy, the
Formula had a curious fate. The wife of Augustus of
Saxony, it is said, sent her brother Frederick II. a hand
somely bound copy of the Formula; but inspired by some
of his theologians, who were Philippists or Crypto-Cal-
vinists, Frederick not only threw the book into the fire with
out reading it or having it read by his theologians; but he
issued an edict on July 24th, forbidding anyone to bring
a copy of the book into the kingdom, on penalty of execu
tion and confiscation of property. Thus the legal suasion
of the ruler, so common in that day, was not on any one side
of the question. Ministers and teachers were to be deposed
from office if they were convicted of harboring a copy in
their houses. Yet the Formula " came to be regarded in
Denmark with the highest reverence; and, in fact, if not
in form, became a Symbol of the Danish Church."
Then we reach Brunswick, whose Duke Julius was most
active in behalf of the Book of Concord in its initial stages,
and whose Corpus Julium embraced everyone of the Sym
bolical books but the Formula, and who had failed to sign
it for personal reasons."

11 Seiss.
12 He was greatly offended at Chemnitz for having rebuked him, because he
allowed his son to enter the Roman priesthood. Thus Julius was animated by
a very " practical " reason for being more " liberal " than the Formula.

674 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
The Brunswick theologians do not object to the article
on the Lord's Supper in the Formula, but they desire that
the ' absolute ubiquity ' be not asserted (August 15th, 1576) ;
and they desire a General Synod to inquire, since the
communication is applied by many to the first genus, and the
others are excluded, whether, the term was used as a " com
mune genus " under which all three were embraced, with
a special definition and appellation attributed to each one.
But some of the Brunswick theologians, with divines from
Goslar, Gottingen, and Hannover in lower Saxony, ventured
to declare : —
" We have discovered that, nearly throughout, the For
mula is word for word, what was before this, a year ago,
decided in these churches, and unanimously approved, ex
cept some small additions made in the conference at Torgau,
which were properly added for elucidation from Luther's
writings, and we declare that in the churches we maintain
the doctrines in regard to controverted articles as they are
set forth in this Formula, and therefore coincide with, and
are satisfied with this Formula; it is our purpose too, by
the help of God, to adhere to the form of doctrine, and are
resolved not merely in our ministry, but before our Chris
tian magistrates so to uphold them, that not only in churches
and schools, with the present generation they may be re
ceived, but that this deposit may be transferred to pos
terity." Thus it came about that in that part of Brunswick, whose
Confessional symbol was the Wilhelminum, the Book of
Concord and the Corpus were both received as symbolical.
As Chemnitz had offended Julius in Brunswick, so An
dreae had given offence " to Paul von Eitzen. Holstein
therefore reports that it does not feel the need of a new
symbol " because all the controverted articles dealt with in

13 Vid. Loscher Historia motuum, III, p. 262 ; Walch, Einlt. in d. Rel.
Strtgktn. d. ev. L. Kirche, IV, p. 450 ; Planck, 494 ; an4 Hutter, Concordia
Concors.

THE FORMULA INTRODUCED. 675
the new Formula are clearly explained in the old symbols."
To show that its faith is the same as that of the Formula,
it offers its formula of ordination as follows : —

" I swear fourthly, and particularly, that the words of my Lord and Saviour,
Jesus Christ, in his Holy Supper and Testament, namely, ' This is my body which
was given for you, this is my blood of the New Testament which was shed for you
and for many, for the forgiveness of sins,' I hold and believe truly in the simple
true sense of the plain words, namely : that the true actual body of my Saviour,
Jesus Christ, Who gave himself to death for me on the cross ; and the true actual
blood of Christ, my Saviour, which was shed for me, is truly present in the Lord's
Supper, and is really distributed in every part of the world, where the Lord's
Supper is administered according to the institution of Christ and is received by all
who go to the Lord's table, as the Lord's words express. As this doctrine of the
Holy Sacrament is explained in the Augsburg Confession, the Apology, the
Schmalkald Articles, and the two Catechisms of our holy Father and Teacher, Lu
ther, which Confession and writings, I hold and believe in this article, rightly and
truly, and obligate myself, by this, my oath, by the help and grace of God, to
present to my congregation the same true simple doctrine of the Lord's Supper,
without perversion and change, and to teach it till my death. Sixthly, and
specially, I hold and declare that the doctrine of the Anabaptists, and the per-
verters of the Sacrament, Carlstadtians, Zwinglians, Calvinists, Bezaites, or by what
ever name they are, or may be called — in opposition to the necessity and power of holy
baptism, and against the true presence, distribution and reception of the true actual
body and blood of Christ in the Holy Supper, wherever it is properly adminis
tered throughout the church, according to the institution of Christ — is wrong,
false, untrue and deceptive. But I will help to uphold and to propagate, by the
grace of God, and the Spirit's aid, the unchangeable, true doctrine and faith con
cerning the truth and Omnipotence of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the inseparable
union of His divine and human natures in the one undivided Person of Christ,
and the true actual presence of the true body and blood of Christ in the Holy
Supper."

The Pomeranians, finally, who were mainly concerned
about the defence of their Corpus Doctrinae, started a diffi
culty in regard to the article on conversion, which grew out
of a misapprehension," but professed themselves satisfied
with the article on the Lord's Supper and the Person of
Christ; only they desired a very copious exposition, as they
belonged to the most decided friends and defenders of

» Cp. J, G. Walch, loc. cit.

676 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
church orthodoxy. The Pomeranian Church Order of the
year 1563, confesses: —
"In regard to the Lord's Supper it should be taught harmoniously, that we
receive in it the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ with the bread and
wine, and that the Lord Jesus Christ is present in the Sacrament, not merely with
His grace, spirit and power, but really with His body and blood, as the words of
Christ express: 'This is my body, this is my blood,' which believers receive to
life and the unworthy and impenitent to condemnation."
Further, the Pomeranians in the year 1593 assumed the
three articles of the Formula of Concord — in respect to
the Lord's Supper, the Person of Christ, and the election
of grace — as their standard in the controversies with the
Reformed ; and signed the whole, at a later period.
In Holstein, and in the cities of Magdeburg and Frank-
furt-on-the-Main and Nuremberg, some of the Philippists,
who were not pleased with the Formula because the Me
lanchthonian errors were rejected in it, opposed its intro
duction. These cities, with Strasburg, Spires, Worms and
Bremen, felt hurt that they had not been asked at the
start to participate in the work, and failed to sign, though
most of them testified that they were at one in the faith
of the Book of Concord."
As in Pomerania and Holstein, the Hesse-Cassel theo
logians are not satisfied with the Formula as a Confession.
They say: "Our churches do not teach otherwise . . .
than that, in the true use of His Supper, together with the
bread and the wine [is] the true, essential, present body
of Christ . . . not nevertheless . . . in an external
natural, but in an internal mode comprehensible to faith
alone, by worthy and unworthy equally, by the worthy in
deed in the confirmation of faith, and thus to their salva
tion ; but to the unworthy to their judgment."
It was Crypto-Calvinism that kept part of Schleswig, es
pecially the principalities of Liegnitz, Brieg and Wohlau;
15 Miiller, Einleit., p. CX.

THE FORMULA INTRODUCED. 677
also Hesse-Cassel, Zweibriicken, Nassau, Bentheim, Teck-
lenburg and Solms, from signing. On the other hand, the
Roman Catholic government in the Duchies of Cleve and
Berg, in the earldoms of Mark and Ravensberg, in the
Principality of Halberstadt, in Osnabriick, in the region
of Ortenburg, in Austria (in the beginning), in Bohemia,
and in part of Schleswig and Lausitz, prevented the pastors
and schoolteachers from signing."5
This then is the remarkable fact, that the greater part
of those Lutheran magistracies that declined to sign the
Formula were satisfied with its doctrine, and with its con
formity to the older Confessions."
These objectors concurred with Luther against the doc
trine of synergism and in that of the Lord's Supper;
though in some cases the conception of the doctrine of the
Person of Christ appeared too subtle to them, and in others
there was dissatisfaction that several Melanchthonian ex
pressions had not been retained. Still others considered an
additional Confession unnecessary. Others again declined,
partly from wounded pride, and partly because, though
they themselves were favorable to the doctrine of the For
mula, yet their leaders were Calvinistic.
This is the conclusion of Kolde (see close of Chapter
XXVI) ; and also of such widely differing investigators as
Thomasius, Planck and Kollner. Says Thomasius: —
" To this candid judgment, we annex that of one of the
most determined opponents, Planck, who took pains to ex
ercise impartiality towards all except the Lutherans, who
poured contempt and sarcasm on the entire work of pacifica
tion, and knew how to place it in the most unfavorable
light; this historian feels himself compelled to acknowledge,
' It is almost beyond controversy, that in the Formula, in
every controverted doctrine, precisely the view was intro-

M Miiller, Einleit., p. CIX.
" Kollner, Die Symb. der Luth. Kirch., Hamburg, 1837, pp. 556, 573.

678 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
duced and sanctioned, which was most clearly sustained
by the Augsburg Confession, by the Apology for it, by the
Schmalkald Articles, and by the Catechisms of Luther. At
most, the article in regard to the Person of Christ alone
admitted of plausible doubt, whether it was presented in
the Formula as it had been in those writings ; but even here
it was not very difficult, by a succession of deductions, to
prove that it was involved in them. (Protest. Lehrbegr.i
vi, 697).'
" Little as we approve of the manner in which Planck
expresses himself, we wished to direct attention to this ac
knowledgment, particularly with a reference to those who
regard him as the highest authority when he treats so
slightingly, the Formula of Concord.""
" The symbolical authority of the Formula of Concord
for the Lutheran Church, as such," says Kollner, " can
hardly be doubted. By far the largest part of those who
regarded themselves as belonging to the Lutheran Church
received it as their Symbol. And as, to use the words of the
Elector Augustus, we have no Pope among us, can there be
any other mode of sanctioning a Symbol than by a majority ?
To this is to be added, and should be especially noted,
that the larger part of those who did not receive it, objected
to doing so, not on doctrinal grounds, but partly for polit
ical reasons, freely or compulsorily, as the case might be,
partly out of attachment to Melanchthon, partly out of a
mcrbid vanity, because they had not been invited early
enough to take part in framing the Concordia, and had
consequently not participated in it, and partly because,
in one land, those who had the most influence were Calvin-
istically inclined, although a large majority of the clergy
approved of the doctrines of the Formula." "
We have dwelt on the fact of this heavy majority vote
in favor of the Formula, in reply to criticisms that the
18 Thomasius Trans, in Ev. Rev., II, 218 sqq.
M Kollner, p. 575 (Trans, by Philip Krauth).

THE FORMULA INTRODUCED. 679
Formula is not a Lutheran Confession because it was not
adopted universally in the Church. We have tried to show
how impressive was the extent of its adoption; and how,
if it were a question to be decided by majorities,20 its adop
tion could be regarded as almost overwhelming. But it
must not be forgotten that a Confession can never become a
symbol of the Church by a majority vote. The Confessional
principle is one of conscience, and the conscience of the
minority is not to be overruled by that of the majority.
Still further, the Confessional principle is the truth of
Scripture; and agreement in it is not to be reached by a
majority, or even by a unanimous vote. The Confession
of the Lutheran Church is what it is, not because Lutherans
have agreed to make it so, but because Scripture has made
it so. The Lutheran Confession cannot be altered, modi
fied or abrogated by any part or by the whole of the Lu
theran Church in any age or any country. " If all our gen
eral bodies, . . . were to unite in a unanimous rejection
of some distinctive feature of the Lutheran Church of the
Reformation period, they could not change the faith and
confession of the Lutheran Church, but would simply dem
onstrate that, in such action, these bodies were no longer
Lutheran, but had broken with the unity of the Lutheran
Church." a
What we have, therefore, discussed here is simply the his
torical question of the extent of the adoption of the Formula
of Concord, and not the supposition that that extent could
become the determinative of its validity. If the Formula
really embodied the Lutheran principle, and yet 'failed
of a majority adoption, it would nevertheless be a true
Confession of Lutheranism, especially for those who con
fessed it.
The effect of the introduction of the Formula is impor-

20 The Thirty-nine Articles are not on the same plane as the Lutheran
Confessions. The mandate enjoining subscription to the former was granted
by the King.
22 Jacobs, in Distinctive Doctrines, pp. 95-96.

680 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
tant. It separated out the non-Lutheran elements from the
Lutheran Church. It disposed of the vague position of the
Philippists; and because they were obliged to decide either
for or against a clear-cut confession, it precluded the mis
understandings and bitter controversies of the past within
the Church. It thus solidified the Church, and prevented
its disintegration.

CHAPTER XXVIII.
THE LUTHERAN CONFESSION.
IS THE FORMULA OF CONCORD A CONFESSION?
Who Made the Negative Reply? — Zwinglians, Calvinists, Roman Catholics,
Philippists, Church of England, and Eighteenth Century Rationalists— Objec
tions Usually Offered — The Answer to Our Own Times : The Formula Does
Not Throttle the Freedom of the Twentieth Century — The Answer of History :
The Formula is a Confession Historically — The Answer to the Objection of
Multiplicity, and that the Augsburg Confession is Sufficient : Has the Latter
Sufficed, and the Former Multiplied the Confessions of the Church ?
THE testimony in the preceding chapters of this book
has gradually been leading up to one question: Is
the Formula of Concord a true Confession? A negative
reply was sounded loudly from the beginning, by TJrsinus,1
the pupil and friend of Melanchthon, and the friend of
Calvin, by the Philippists,2 by Roman Catholics,8 later on,
conjointly by Zwinglians and Calvinists — and by Hospinian *

J Admonitio Christiana de libro Concordiw, 1581.
2 The Anhalt Opinion, 1581 ; Reply of the Bremen Preachers, 1581 ; Irenaeus,
Examen, 1581 ; Ambrose Wolff, History of the Augsburg Confession.
3 Cardinal Bellarmin, Judgment on the Book of Concord, Cologne, 1589
(Controversies, IV).
* Beza, Refutatio dogmatis de ficticia carnis Christi omniprassentia. Rud.
Hospinian, Concordia Discors (Zurich, 1607). — This bitter polemic was pre
ceded by a folio in 1602, De origine et Progressu Controversial Sacramentarics
de Cozna Domini inter Lutheranos, Vbiquistas et Orthodoxas quas Zwinglianas
seu Calvinistas vacant which readers will not find overflowing with love for
the Lutherans ; and was followed by his Sacrce Scriptura!, orthodoxis symbolis,
toti antiquitati puriori, et ipsi etiam Augustana; Confessioni repugnantia, in
1609. This work introduced heavy controversy. Hospinian was answered by
Hutter, from Wittenberg in 1614, in the folio, Concordia Concors. H. L. J.
Heppe, Geschichte der lutherischen Concordienformel und Concordie; also the
latter's Die Entstehung und Fortblldung des Luthertums und die kirchlichen
Bekenntniss-Schriften desselben von 1548-1576, Cassel, 1863.
681

682 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
especially,- — by the Church of England people,5 and then
still further re-echoed by both Synergistic, Pelagian and
rationalist historians and symbolical writers ; ' and has, in
these latter times, been ringing again in the ears of the
Church. It declares in substance : " The Formula of Con
cord is a theological form, a dogmatic treatise, a commen
tary, the shibboleth of an extreme party, but it is not a
Confession ! " OBJECTIONS TO THE FORMULA.
When we ask the reasons assigned for excluding the Form
ula from a Confessional position, we find many. The Con
cordia is not a true Confession, it has been said, because it
fixes doctrine in a scholastic frame, and therefore constricts
the truth. The Lutheran Church is a Church of freedom
and of progress. The Word of God in the Church can not
be bound, especially not in this Twentieth Century. The
world has learned to look to development rather than to
dogma. In the second place, the Formula is not a true Confes
sion, it is said, because the doctrine which it teaches of the
ability of Christ to be omnipresent in His human nature
is so unscriptural and (what is more to the objector) so
incredible to human reason, that it cannot be true.
More than this, the Concordia is not unanimously re
garded as a Confession of the Lutheran Church, and large
parts of the Church ignore or repudiate it. And, after all,
the Augsburg Confession is the one great Confession of the
Church, and is sufficient for its confessional needs. The
tendency to multiply symbolical writings should be dis
couraged. The Formula has added greatly and unneces-
5 Queen Elizabeth of England sent embassadors to the Elector Augustus and
several of the Evangelical Estates, to head off what she supposed would be a
condemnation of the English Church ; and also delegates to the Reformed
Convention at Frankfurt-on-the-Main in 1577.
• G. J. Planck, Geschichte der Entstehung . . . unseres Prot. Lehr
begriffs . . . bis zur Einfiihrung der Concordienformel, Leipz. 1791-1800.
Cp. also such writers as Mosheim and Gieseler.

THE FORMULA A CONFESSION. 683
sarily to the bulk of our Confessions. In creeds, as in all
other axioms, the rule of paucity should prevail.
Still further, the Formula is no Confession because there
was no sufficient Providential stress, no trying inner need,
and no outer crisis at hand, sufficiently grave to justify its
appearance; and the means used to gain subscription to it,
were not such as the Church can approve.
Finally, objection is made to the use of the Formula
of Concord as a Confession of the Church because it does
not really present Lutheran doctrine in its broadest extent,
for Melanchthon and the Melanchthonians were slighted
in it. It is claimed also that the subjects distinctively
treated in it are not properly Confessional subjects ; that the
points of difference which it touches are too fine and hair
splitting to be a part of the Evangelical faith; that the
method which it employs is too Romanistic and too scholastic.
And it is suggested, in general, that the Sixteenth-Century
spirit of theology which it breathes is not suitable for the
Confessional use of the Church to-day.

THE E5TLIGHTESTMENT OE THE AGE.
Dwelling for a moment on the last of these objections, no
one can deny that during the past two hundred and fifty
years the human mind has been exceedingly active. More
discoveries and more thorough investigations of every de
partment of science were made in the Nineteenth Century
than in all the ages that preceeded it. The confining bonds
of the traditional knowledge that has been handed down to
us from the ancients have been broken, and we are living in
a new era of thought and life.
But we are not living in a new era of revelation from
God. If we believe that the full Gospel has been revealed
and preserved to us in the Scripture, we must admit that
the progress of humanity does not apply to the content of

684 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
our faith, no matter how much it may be possible to make
improvement in form. With J. A. Seiss we exclaim, " We
should like to know who has invented improvements on
Christianity ! " * ,
" Have we really," said Charles F. Schaeffer, " made such
progress in the discovery of truth since the era of the Re
formation, that we understand the Scriptures more thor
oughly than those who framed the Symbolical Books?
When Luther and his associates were prepared to surrender
their lives, but not the doctrines of the Augsburg Confes
sion, the Apology, the Schmalkald Articles, and the Cate
chism, had these men of faith and prayer discovered treas
ures of divine truth of less extent and less value than we
possess in modern times ? When the Elector Augustus with
holy fervor prayed to God that the authors of the Concord-
Formula might be guided by the Divine Spirit in the prep
aration of that admirable work, was his prayer for the il
lumination of the Spirit less efficacious than modern prayers
are ? If the writers of the Symbols were unworthy of re
gard, or are erroneous in their exhibition of truth, who are
the men that are more competent to unfold the Scriptural
doctrine? What palliating features have they discovered
in man's corruption, in more recent times? What useful
changes do they suggest in the doctrine of the atonement?
What improvement do they propose in our old doctrine of
justiT nation by faith? What more ready access to the
throne of grace have they discovered ? Are we wiser, more
holy, richer in divine grace, more useful through the in
spiration of the ' spirit of the times ' than our pious fathers
were? We are weary of the superior intelligence of the
Nineteenth Century in matters of Christian faith." *
The content of God's Word to man, and of man's saving
faith in Christ, does not change; but, like Christ, it is

7 Ev. Rev., IV, p. 20.
'Ib., I, p. 482.

THE FORMULA A CONFESSION. 685
" the same yesterday, to-day, and forever." ' And even
the sound old forms, in so far as they embody the true de
velopment of the Church in its witness to the Gospel are
to be held fast to and' appropriated. Nicholas Murray But
ler, President of Columbia University, has defined educa
tion as " the appropriation, by the individual, of the spir
itual possessions of the race." The appropriation of the
spiritual possessions of the Church, in her Testimony to
the truth which is preserved for the future by the mainten
ance of stable Symbols, that embody these Scriptural pos
sessions, is the Church's first and most important duty
toward the rising generation.
The modern radical spirit which would sweep away the
Formula of Concord as a Confession of the Church, will
not, in the end, be curbed, until it has swept away the
Augsburg Confession, and the ancient Confessions of the
Church — yea, not until it has crossed the borders of Scrip
ture itself, and swept out of the. Word whatsoever is not in
accord with its own critical mode of thinking. The far-
sighted rationalist theologian and Dresden Court preacher,
Ammon, grasped the logic of a mere spirit of progress, when
he said: "Experience teaches us that those who reject a
Creed, will speedily reject the Scriptures themselves."
With the radical Church in America, progress has already
ceased to be a question of Creeds, but has become a ques
tion as to the Scripture itself.
A recent writer, replying to an epigrammatic statement
of the position we are discussing, viz., that " The Lutheran
ecclesiastical sun did not stand still in 1580," correctly
points out, " that the sun did not stand still on the 25th
of June, 1530 ; and that the implied certainty that modern
Christian thought cannot express its faith in the categories

• Our apprehension of the content changes ; but it grows deeper with our
submission to the Word, and more shallow from our exaltation of our own
Intelligence. Our development of Scriptural Truth is also enriched under the
Influence of the Holy Spirit through the Word in the Church ; but this is
an organic inner unfolding, and not an external and critical overturning of
the old Faith.
47

686 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
of mediseval and primitive thought tells just fifty years
harder against the Augustana, and more than a thousand
years more against the Nicene Creed." " Certainly," it says,
" there are some things in Christian thinking that have the
attribute of stability, some things that cannot be shaken. . .
No one who is qualified to pronounce judgment, believes
that the theological sun stood still in 1580 or, further back,
in 1530. There is but one authentic account of the sun
standing still, and that was a miraculous occurrence recorded
in the book of Joshua." "
Sartorius" points out that the obligation of the Symbol
ical Books, and our duty of co-witnessing with them in the
testimony of the truth, does not stand in the way of our
developing the Christian faith. This, he says, is shown by
the Formula of Concord itself. That document takes pains
to exhibit the order of the formation of the symbols, as the
result of a great process of .spiritual progress. They are
testimonies and declarations of the faith, showing how, at
any time, the Holy Scriptures were understood and inter
preted on controverted articles, and the doctrines contrary
thereto rejected and condemned by those who then lived.
The giving up of these symbols by the friends of light and
progress has in the past been a sad relapse from the religion
of the Church of the New Testament, into the religion of the
Old, or still deeper, into that of the natural man; and has
attempted to make null and void the mighty spiritual move
ment, which flows through ail ages of the Christian Church,
and has preserved its great results in the Confessions that
mark its most significant epochs. " As if these men of
progress were the first to be enlightened by the Spirit to
understand the Scriptures, and to define what Christianity
is, they have cut off the entire organism of the doctrinal

la We might add that while the earth (not the sun) does move, it does so
only in its orbit.
11 Ueber die Nothwendigkeit und Verbindlichkeit der kirchlichen Glaubens-
bekenntnisse, von Dr. Ernst Sartorius, General superintendent der Provinz
Preuszen. Stuttgart I Verlag von S. G. Liesching, 1845, P- 59.

THE FORMULA A CONFESSION. 687
development of the Church, to reduce all God's truth to a
few simple and general sentences." "
Sartorius proceeds to say that the advance from one sym
bol to another has not come to a necessary stop, but " that
there is still room for further development, as new spiritual
movements in or out of the Church may render necessary.
New symbols were added to the early ones, and the occasion
may arise for adding to and defining the symbols which we
now possess. . . . The truth must ever be brought forward
in forms more definite against error, and be established
against shiftings and change, and have the reasons as well
as the consequences of its own statements further explained.
In a word, it must live, and live on in its confessors as a
common testimony of the fellowship of Spirit and truth
among Christian believers. . . .
" The obligation of the symbols involves neither a dead
stability, nor a backward movement towards inadequate or
extinct forms of the past. Just as certainly as the history
of the Church has not remained stationary for the last
eighteen centuries, so certainly has she not yet reached a
point upon which she may rest without advances. Thus
the church connects stability with progress, and the old is
united with the new as in one family." "
12 Ev. Rev., IV, p. 27. The last statement above sufficiently describes
Denney's surprising and superficial attempt in 1908 to make the Christian
Confession more brief than the Apostles' Creed by eliminating all reference
to the Holy Spirit.
Canon Henson, at the National Episcopal Congress, Boston, 1909, said :
" The old ruthless doctrine which separated Christianity sharply from all
other religions, and limiting the notion of divine revelation solely to the
religion of Christ, cannot maintain its ground. Either all religions exhibit the
action of the Holy Spirit or none. The difference between them is one of
degree, not of kind.
" The machinery of religion — priesthood, sacraments_ liturgies, ascetic dis
ciplines — is everywhere similar, showing plainly that these have their origin
in common needs rather than in any 'pattern in the mount' supernaturally
communicated to the founders of the Church.
" There is in the world a force superior to man, yet kindred with him,
which forever makes appeal to him, which wins his free allegiance and trans
forms him visibly. The holy Spirit of God has been active in the world since
men were ; humanity is unthinkable apart from His influence. Every religion
worthy the name is His origin, addressing itself to the conscience, reordering
and exalting conduct, making men, under whatever descriptions they may pass,
'friends of God and prophets.' " Thus does modern Christianity progress to
naturalism. "Cp. Ev. Rev. IV, p. 26.

688 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
THE QUESTION OF HISTORY.
Up to this point, we have been considering the objection
made to the Formula of Concord as a Confession, on the
ground that the wider twilight of the Twentieth Century
cannot be bound by the narrower noon of the Sixteenth Cen
tury. But this is a theoretical objection. Let us pass to
the solid ground of history.
Though the Confessional development of the Church has
not come to a stop with the year 1580, it nevertheless left
an ineradicable mark of importance on the dial at that
point in the history of Christianity. If the question, " Is
the Formula of Concord a Confession?" is to be answered
from and according to the record of history, that answer
will be, " It is a Confession." There is no doubt on this
point. It is the historical fact. The Formula of Concord
cannot, historically, be denied to be the Confession of those
who wrote it — and they were not the least of the men of the
Lutheran Church in the Sixteenth Century, — and the Con
fession also of some other Lutherans who joined with them
in this Confessional utterance. The Formula may not be
your Confession, or my Confession. It may not be the
Confession of the whole Lutheran Church because it was
agreed to and signed by a very large majority of the Luther
ans of that day — since we at least do not admit the Amer
ican principle of majority-rule in deciding the Confessional
matters of the Lutheran Church; but this much cannot be
gainsaid, that if those people who put the Formula forth,
and uttered it " with mouth and heart," made it their Con
fession, it is their Confession. It may be a poor Confession,
a clumsy Confession, an injudicious Confession, but these
defects could not deprive it of its Confessional character.
History shows that it was given to the world as a Confession,
and the question is a historical one.
The men who felt its need, the men who wrote it, the men
who intended it to fill a want, and the men who accepted it,

THE FORMULA A CONFESSION. 689
gave it forth as their Confession. They say, " We believe,
teach and confess that the only rule and standard are the
Scriptures. We believe, teach and confess that there is a
distinction between man's nature and original sin. Our doc
trine, faith and confession, is that the understanding and
reason of man are blind. We unanimously believe, teach
and confess that Christ is our righteousness. And so the
confession of faith runs through all the articles. And, last
of all, they " desire to testify that this is our faith, doctrine
and confession." " If the Christian reader will carefully
examine this declaration, ... he will find that what was
in the beginning confessed, ... in the comprehensive sum
mary of our religion and faith, . . . and afterward restated,
. . . is . . . the simple, immutable, permanent truth."
It is an incontrovertible fact, then, that the Formula is
the Confession of that part of the Lutheran Church which'
then believed and now believes in its doctrines. It further
is clear that it was not intended to be a Confession simply
for theologians, but also for every Christian, including the
laymen especially. For it says, " This is a brief and simple
explanation of the controverted articles. . . . Hence every
simple Christian, according to the guidance of God's Word
and his simple Catechism, can distinguish what is right or
wrong, where not only the pure doctrine is stated, but also
the erroneous contrary doctrine is repudiated and rejected,
and thus the controversies, full of causes of offence, that
have occurred, are thoroughly settled and decided."
But we have more than the testimony of the framers of
the Formula in support of its Confessional character. There
is the verdict of history. While general historians, and
others, may have doubts as to the appropriateness of the
form" and extent of the matter as Confessional, there is
little or none as to the nature of the matter as Confessional ;

14 Book of Concord, p. 539.
15 E. g., the last words of the close of the Epitome. — Book of Concord, p.
528.

690 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
and in dealing with the Formula as a historical factor,
they accredit it as Confessional. " The striving toward
unity was justified, and necessary. The Church felt that
a Confession was necessary in order to conserve the fruits
of the Reformation," says Hauck. " The Formula of Con
cord at once assumed a position among the regulative sym
bols of Lutheranism," " says Seeberg. " The amplest and
most explicit of the Lutheran Confessions," says Jacobs.
" The Formula of Concord is, next to the Augsburg Confes
sion, the most important theological standard of the Luth
eran Church,"" says Schaff, who justifies the great ampli
tude of his treatment " by the intrinsic importance of the
Formula." M Frank in the S chaff -Herzog, terms it " the last
of the six Symbolical Books of the Lutheran Church."
Schaff, in his Creeds of Christendom, terms it "The last
of the Lutheran Confessions ; " and a well-known American
theological cyclopedia ™ terms it " the seventh and last sym
bolical book of the Lutheran Church."
Its Confessional importance speaks for itself when a Pres
byterian/" though not friendly to it, devotes no less than
eighty-two pages of his Creeds to it and its exposition. Such
testimony is weighty when we consider that, in the same
work, the Augsburg Confession itself receives only eighteen
pages, the Apology two pages, the Tetrapolitana five pages,
the Heidelberg Catechism twenty-five pages, the Thirty-
Nine Articles of the Church of England thirty-two pages,
the Westminster Confession fifty-six pages, and the Apostles'
Creed ten pages. While the Confessional importance of a
work is not to be measured mechanically, and while the lack
of literature in the English language led the author in ques
tion to some degree of fulness in his treatment of this Sym-

M Hist, of Doctrines, II, 382.
17 Creeds of Christendom, I, 338.
uIb. 340.
ls McClintock & Strong, in loco.
20 Schaff.

THE FORMULA A CONFESSION. 691
bol, yet the fact that his methodical but unfriendly judg
ment has given the Formula its proper Symbolical position
in the plan of his work and has felt it wise to afford this
Confession more space, for the edification of American read
ers, than he allots to any other Creed in Christendom, should
be sufficient testimony as to the Confessional importance
of the Formula of Concord in the Symbolical literature of
the Lutheran Church.
Continuing to speak historically, and as a matter of fact,
the Formula of Concord is the Confession of the largest
Lutheran body21 in America, and of the general body with
which the writer of this volume is connected, which also
constitutes no small part of the Church in America. Of
its theologians, C. P. Krauth ** has called the Formula, " The
amplest and clearest Confession in which the Christian
Church has ever embodied her faith." And H. E. Jacobs 2S
has stated it to be " The amplest and most explicit of the
Lutheran Confessions."

MULTIPLICITY OF CONFESSIONS.
But we are met by another question: Is the Formula of
Concord needed as a Confession ? Is not the Augsburg Con
fession in itself sufficient to embody and represent and per
petuate the doctrine of the Lutheran Church? Why mul
tiply the symbols of the Church? Why render the appre
hension of our faith more difficult and cumbersome by so
largely increasing the Confessional literature, as is done
when we accept the whole Book of Concord? We have in
it a complicated body of human testimony nearly as great
21 " Ich erkenne die drei Hauptsymbole der [alten] Kirche, die ungeanderte
Augsburgische Confession und deren Apologie, die Schmalkaldischen Artikel,
die beiden Catechismen Luthers und die concordien Formel fiir die relne,
ungefalschte Erklarung und Darlegung des gottlichen Wortes und Willens,
bekenne mich zu denselben als zu meinen eigenen Bekenntnissen und will
mein Amt bis an mein Ende treulich und fleissig nach denselben ausrichten.
Dazu starke mich Gott durch seinen heiligen Gelst ! Amen."
22 Con. Ref., p. 302.
''Lutheran Cyclopedia, Art. on Concord.

692 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
in bulk, as the New Testament itself. Why not on the
grounds of simplicity, paucity, fundamental generalization,
and uniformity confine ourselves to a single Confession,
especially since that Confession happens to coincide with the
public birth of the Church, and state the doctrines of the
church in such a way that, barring the question of varia
tions, all Lutherans can stand upon it?
If we are sure that a single Confession is sufficient to
embody the faith in such way that it will be clearly under
stood, and never be misunderstood by any members of the
Church, it will certainly be most desirable to have only
one Confession, and that as brief as possible. One might
almost go as far as to say, with all reverence, that if it were
possible for the Lord to have revealed to us His Gospel so
clearly that every one would apprehend it, and that no
Christian would ever misunderstand it, in a single book of
the Scripture, it would be a great advantage to have only
one such book, of small compass, practical, popular, and
easy to refer to. Though it does not seem to have been
possible with regard to the source of Confession, viz., the
Scriptures ; is it not, perhaps, possible with reference to the
Confessions themselves? Could not the Apostles' Creed,
or, if you will, the Nicene Creed, have served the purposes
of all the oecumenical creeds; and, in truth, with possibly
a little amplification, would it not serve the purposes of all
Christendom to-day?
We think not. It is not the way of history and life, to
have short, ready-made rules drop down from Heaven, or
out of the Scriptures, in order to bring uniformity, sim
plicity, and clearness to the faith of the human race. God
has seen fit to so order our development that our Confes
sions are attained through dearly-bought historical ex
perience. History teaches that Confessions which are drawn
up theoretically, without the marks of the fiery historical
trial through which they have passed, prove themselves to
be as worthless as paper. And the experience of the Church

THE FORMULA A CONFESSION. 693
will show that it is impossible to cut away the genuine Con
fessional shoots of any part or age of the Church for the
purpose of concentrating our utterance upon a single symbol,
in the interest of paucity and clearness, however thoroughly
desirable that interest may be.
In accordance with the law of history, genuine Confes
sions are usually so concrete in intention, or so ground down
by attrition, before they became a real symbol of the Church,
that they completely meet, in outer form, and in the point
ing of their substance, only the wants that are felt in their
day. New wants, not covered, nor contemplated, nor fore
seen in the day of the original Confession will grow 'up ; and,
if it should so occur that any of these new wants become
pivots on which the future teaching of the Church can be
diverted to this side or that, a new conflict will arise in the
Church and a new Confession may develop out of the con
flict. That the Augsburg Confession did not suffice to main
tain the pure doctrine even in the early and golden period
of Protestantism, is shown by the dreadful conflicts that
arose on its basis, and by the setting up of over twenty
exceedingly bulky corpora doctrinae in addition to the Con
fession. Instead of restraining the formation of parties and
the partizan spirit within the Church, the Augsburg Con
fession became the subject of the most excruciating con
troversies that agitated the Church. It failed to prevent the
polemic extravagances of the Gnesio-Lutherans, the com
promises of the Philippists, and the approaches to the Re
formed doctrine by the Crypto-Calvinists.
" In this lies the supreme significance of the Formula
of Concord and of the Book of Concord, that through it the
Lutheran Church maintained her right to stand for herself
(Selbststandigkeit) as over against Calvinism. When we
look at the quality of doctrine represented by the Formula
of Concord, and at the wide circle within which this became
the norm, we perceive that it was not some theological party

694 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
that had forced its views upon the Lutheran Church, but
that the germ of a consensus which had been really at hand
had attained to its unfolding in the Formula of Concord. It
represented a Melanchthonian Lutheranism." " "It estab
lished the Augsburg Confession and Apology forever as the
Confession of the Church as a whole. . . . Most surely
will time bring all that love our Church to feel, that without
the second war and the second peace, the war and peace of
Conservation, the richest result of the first, the war of
Reformation, would have been lost. Hopeless division,
anarchy, ruin and absorption, were the perils from which
the Formula of Concord saved our Church." "
That the golden ideal of a single Confession for the Church,
does not meet the Confessional necessity of Lutheranism, is
shown again very clearly by the experience of the Church
in America in the Nineteenth Century. There is a striking
article in one of the old numbers of the Evangelical Review
under the heading " Dr. Schmucker's Lutheran Symbols,"
in which it is pointed out that the great leader of the English
Lutheran Church, in the Second, Third, and Fourth De
cades qi the Nineteenth Century, in all his ecclesiastical
publications, from the appearance of his Popular Theology
in 18^0, really made the attempt, directly or indirectly, "to
introduce a new Confession of faith into the Lutheran
Church of the United States." The whole of this American
effort " culminated and took its most distinct form in " a
confessional statement, still very famous by name.
The Beview article affirms that the new Confession, " as
originally prepared, not only contemplated but almost in so
many words proposed a division of the Lutheran Church."
According to the view of the writer of this Confession, one
of the reasons for the proposed introduction of the symbol
was that the Lutheran Church was rendered odious because
it had been represented as holding certain doctrines of the
24 Seeberg, in Hauck.
25 Krauth, in Con. Ref., pp. 327-328. -

THE FORMULA A CONFESSION. 695
Augsburg Confession, and the other Symbolical Books, and
that it was well to show that the Lutheran Church wished
to have no connection with so-called " Old Lutherans." *
In this instance, the acceptance of the Augsburg Con
fession by a part of the English Church, and the founding of
a Seminary upon it and Luther's Catechism, did not prevent
an earnest and brilliant man within the Church from
throwing his full life-force against, and from promulgating
teachings at the fountain-head which were contrary to, the
true Confession of the Lutheran Church. Had the Augs
burg Confession been re-enforced by the Formula of Con
cord, while it might not have prevented the activities just
mentioned, it would have brought on a crisis and a reac
tion that, in our judgment, would long ago have removed
the Lutheran Church in this land far from the boundary
line of Confessional obscurity.
The Augsburg Confession alone has not sufficed in the
history of Lutheranism. This is shown, again, in the fact
that the most active Confessional symbol in the Church, the
one which has formed the witness among the people, has
been Luther's Smaller Catechism. If the Augsburg Con
fession is sufficient, as a Confession, what shall be done with
Luther's Catechism, which is not a private commentary or
a dogmatic, nor even a mere text-book based on the Con
fession, but which is prior in origin to the Augsburg Con
fession, and is circulated far more widely than the Con
fession itself; and which in some respects gives a clearer
insight into the Lutheran principle of Law and Gospel, and
into the Lutheran doctrine of the Sacraments, than the Augs
burg Confession itself.
If the principle of simplicity and paucity be really the

26 In this proposed Confession, the Preface tells us that " Any district Synod
connected with the  Synod may, with perfect consistency, adopt this
Platform, if the majority of her members approve of the synodical disclaimer
contained in part II." In an Appendix to the third edition, which was a
variata from the first edition, instead of " the former Symbolical Books "
we And a " Definite Platform, being the doctrinal basis or Creed, con
structed in accordance with the principles of the  Synod."

696 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
essential thing in Confessions, the real reduction might,
after all, have to be to the Catechism, — not because it is
Luther's work, as over against Melanchthon's, although the
fact that it is Luther's work is not a special discredit to it;
but because it is both the Scripture and the Lutheran Con
fession in a nut-shell. It is the real epitome of Lutheran
ism in the simplest, the most practical, the most modern and
living, and, at the same time, the most radical form. It
steers clear of all obscure historical allusions, it contains no
condemnatory articles, it is based on the shortest and the
oldest of the oecumenical symbols. It is not a work for
theologians, but for every Lutheran; and it is not nearly as
large as the Augsburg Confession. If our Confessional
basis is to be determined on the principle advocated, by the
objectors to the Formula, the one Symbol of the Church will
be the Small Catechism, and not the Augsburg Confession.
But we have never heard of any objection to either of
the Catechisms of Luther, as Symbols of the Church. His
torically, in fact, there has not been objection to any of the
Symbols of the Lutheran Church (barring the Schmalkald
Articles), except to the Formula of Concord. After all, it
cannot be the principle of Confessional simplicity that is
the real motive for ruling out the Formula. Historically,
there is no justification for the emphasis of the principle of
paucity. No less than five-sevenths of the Book of Concord
was accepted by both Melanchthonians and Lutherans, often
together with a great deal of additional material, before the
Book of Concord appeared.
The Melanchthonians especially were willing to increase
the bulk of their Confessional writings. They did not ob
ject to the Apology to the Augsburg Confession, which is
five times as large as the Confession, and which is no less
than one and one-fourth times as large as the whole Formula
of Concord, and over five times as large as the Epitome of
the Formula. The Corpus Julium contained the whole
Book of Concord, except the Formula; and, so far as we

THE FORMULA A CONFESSION. 697
recall, there was not a single State of Germany or surround
ing countries, in the Lutheran or in the Beformed Church,
which accepted simply the Augsburg Confession with no
other additional symbolical writings.
The principle of an unnecessary multiplication of docu
ments (which we accept), is as valid in the confessional field
as it is everywhere in the field of public, solemn testimony.
It is a general law which applies not only to the public wit
ness of the Church, but also to the documentary develop
ment of the constitution of the State, and to all important
historico-practical entities. So averse is the English spirit to
the multiplication of documents, that large parts of the
English law are still not formulated. But that which has
been formulated historically, under the stress of crisis,
whether it be the Magna Charta, or such a document as the
Constitution of the United States, abides, and is not reduced
on the score of simplicity.
The principle of unnecessary multiplication does not
really apply to changing the verdict of time, but to the
creation of new symbols in the present. In this sense, the
Conservative Beformation" declares, that the Lutheran
Church, as a whole, objects to the multiplication of the num
ber or extension of the bulk of creeds. " For nearly three
centuries, no addition has been made to her Symbolical
Books; and although it is quite possible that, for local rea
sons, parts of our Church may enunciate more largely par
ticular elements of her faith, we do not think it likely that
the Lutheran Church, as a whole, will ever add to her Sym
bols, not merely anything which can have such relations to
them as the Augsburg Confession has (which would be im
possible), but not even such as the Formula of Concord has."
Speaking of the bulk of the Book of Concord, the Con
servative Beformation further says : " The Augsburg Con
fession, the Smaller Catechism, and the Epitome, may be
•" P. 273.

698 THE LUTHERAN C ONFFTSSIONS.
regarded as the texts, respectively, on which the Apology,
the Larger Catechism, and the Declaration are Com
mentaries. The whole of these books can be embodied in a
fair type in an ordinary duodecimo volume. When we think
of the space which a minister covers with the words in which,
during a single year, he states the sacred doctrines — when
we look at the many volumes in which particular authors
have presented the results of their labors on Scripture, . . .
it hardly seems an excessive demand on the part of the
Church that she should ask ministers to study one small
volume to reach the official expression of her judgment on the
greatest questions, which pertain to pure doctrine, sound
government, and holy life. Yet the Book of Concord has
been denounced on the ground that it contains so i much.
Be it right or wrong, be its teachings truth or falsehood,
its bulk is sufficient to condemn it."
The Epitome of the Formula of Concord, which is the
declarative portion of the Confession, is only six or seven
pages longer than the Augsburg Confession, and could be
published in a small pocket volume not larger than the
ordinary Luther's Small Catechism. The oecumenical
Creeds, the Augsburg Confession, and the Formula of Con
cord, could be published in a small work in large clear type
which could readily be carried in the pocket. With the
growth of historical and institutional Christianty, and es
pecially with the growth of Protestantism, where the temp
tation constantly arises of every mind becoming a law unto
itself, the complexity of actual theological thought increases.
Truth and error both are more fully unfolded; and to cover
the more complicated situation, the older symbols must be
explicated. A primitive people can do with the multipli
cation table, and a very simple slate and pencil; but where
the astronomic, economic and commercial problems of life
rise in bewildering confusiou, and in larger proportions, it
is necessary to have a whole arithmetic, systems of book
keeping, tables of logarithms, and even very elaborate, yet,

THE FORMULA A CONFESSION. 699
after all, really simplifying cash-registers and adding ma
chines. No one will assert that the Augsburg Confession
contains the fully developed doctrine of the evangelical
Church. It contains the doctrine developed sufficiently to
meet the situation then in hand with Rome.

CHAPTER XXIX.
THE LUTHERAN CONFESSION.
THE ANSWER OF A PROVIDENTIAL ORIGIN
TO THE QUESTION, IS THE FORMULA A
CONFESSION ?
A Crying Need : the Confusion of the Age, the Failure of the Melanchthonian
Answer — A Definite and Sufficient Call — The History of its Origin and Com
pletion in the Light of the Call.
IS THE HAND OF PROVIDENCE MISSING?
THUS far we have confined our inquiry as to the Con
fessional nature of the Formula of Concord to the
verdict of history, and to a consideration of the principle
of an unnecessary multiplication of symbols. But now we
are met by still another objection urged against the Confes
sional character of the Formula. It has been assumed by us
all along that the occasion which called forth the Formula
was adequate. " But," we are asked, " was this really a
fact?" Was there a need, a providential stress in the
Church, at the time of the framing of the Formula, suffi
ciently critical to call it forth; and was the occasion of its
issue of such a character as to warrant its being considered
a real Confession?
In reply to this inquiry, it must be said that there was a
crying need. Very few men are able to realize the internal
confusion into which the Lutheran Church had been thrown
in the latter half of the Sixteenth Century. The battle with
700

FORMULA'S PROVIDENTIAL CALL. 701
external foes in the earlier part of the Century, which stirred
all Europe, which made the castle-door at Wittenberg ring,
which caused the world to thrill at the declaration of Lu
ther at the Diet of Worms, and which inspired the Pro
testants with faith in their cause as brought to the Em
peror in their Confession at Augsburg, was serious enough;
but the later situation was relatively worse.
Internal demoralization, all will agree, is the very worst
foe against which any large and imperfectly organized body
has to contend. " The superstitions of centuries had been
over-thrown, and the temple of a pure Scriptural faith was
to be reared upon their ruins. Every man was a polemic
and a builder. It was an age in which extravagances rose in
hostile pairs. Two errors faced each other, and in their
conflict trampled down the faith which lay prostrate between
them. The controversies which followed Luther's death, ar
rested the internal development of the Church. The great
living doctrines, which made the Reformation, were in dan
ger of losing all their practical power in the absorption of
men's minds in these controversies. The Church was threat
ened with schisms. Her glory was obscured. Her enemies
mocked at her. Her children were confounded and sad
dened. Crafty men crept in to make the Lutheran Church
the protector of heresy. There was danger that the age
which the Conservative Reformation had glorified, should
see that grand work lost in the endless dissensions of embit
tered factions.
" Hence it is, that while the larger part of the Lutheran
Church received the Formula with enthusiasm, some did
not accept it. For, while the Confessions set forth the faith
of our Church, in her antagonism to the errors outside of
her, the Formula, in the main, is occupied in stating the
truth, over against the errors which had crept into her.
Romanism, with its artifices, had misled some. The ardor
of controversy had led others, as, for example, the great and
noble Flacius, to extravagance and over-statement. The Lu-
48

702 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
theran Church was assailed by intrigue, Jesuitical device,
and conspiracy. False brethren endeavored by tricks of false
interpretation to harmonize the language of the Augsburg
Confession with their errors. The mighty spirit of Luther
had gone to its rest. Melanchthon's gentleness sometimes
degenerated into utter feebleness of purpose, and alike to
the Romanists and the sectarians he was induced to yield
vital points.
" Not yet compacted in her organism, living only by her
faith, the Lutheran Church was called to meet an awful
crisis. No man who knows the facts, will deny that some
thing worthy of the responsibility involved in such great
and cogent issues had to be done." 1
Even Harnack, whom none will suspect of speaking in the
interests of a strict Lutheran Confessionalism, has this to
say 2 of the Lutheran Church prior to the appearance of the
Formula of Concord : " Round about 1570, it seemed that
Lutheranism was done for. It was everywhere outside
threatened by Calvinism, and then split up by strife and
reaction." Prof. Tressler adds, " In face of such a situa
tion and to meet it with Scripture wisdom, the Formula in
1577 appeared."
We have tried to present a picture of the confusion that
reigned in the Church after the death of Luther and later
of Melanchthon, and before the appearance of the Formula,
to show the crying need. of some common principle of strength
and order. But it was more than a matter of mere confu
sion that threatened the Lutheran Church. There was a
real peril — at least, historians of every school, with Harnack,
tell us so — of Lutheranism falling into pieces; and it must
be conceded that the good wrought by the Augsburg Con
fession in 1530 would have been very limited if, half a

1 Condensed from Con. Ref., pp. 306-307.
2 Lectures on the History of the Reformation, quoted by Tressler, one or
his hearers.

- FORMULA'S PROVIDENTIAL CALL. 703
century later, the evangelical principle had disintegrated
into hopeless and waning Protestant individualism.
Schaff, in opening his discussion of the origin and occa
sion of the Formula puts the deep necessity of the situation
in a nutshell. He says, " The Form of Concord, the last of
the Lutheran Confessions, completed in 1577, and first pub
lished in 1580, is named from its aim to give doctrinal unity
and peace to the Lutheran Church, after long and bitter con
tention. The work was occasioned by a series of doctrinal
controversies, which raged in the Lutheran Church for thirty
years with as much passion and violence as the trinitarian
and christological controversies in the Nicene age. They
form a humiliating and unrefreshing, yet instructive and
important chapter in the history of Protestantism. The free
spirit of the Reformation, which had fought the battles
against the tyranny of the Papacy and brought to light the
pure doctrines of the Gospel, gave way to bigotry and intole
rance among Protestants themselves. Calumny, abuse, in
trigue, deposition and exile were unsparingly employed as
means to achieve victory. Religion was confounded with
theology, piety with orthodoxy and orthodoxy with an ex
clusive confessionalism. Doctrine was overrated, and the
practice of Christianity neglected. The contending parties
were terribly in earnest, and as honest and pious in their
curses as in their blessings ; they fought as if the salvation
of the world depended on their disputes. Yet these contro
versies were unavoidable in that age, and resulted in the
consolidation and completion of the Lutheran system of
doctrine. All phases and types of Christianity must de
velop themselves, and God overrules the wrath of theolo
gians for the advancement of truth." s
Krauth puts the matter only a little more strongly when he
says, " Hopeless division, anarchy, ruin and absorption
were the perils from which the Formula of Concord saved

5 Creeds of Christendom, I, pp. 258, 259.

704 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
our Church." * The Roman Church had made persistent use
of every opportunity to recover her outer hold and regain
her inner power over the Protestant world. The territorial
expansion of Protestantism had ceased. The spiritual life
and inner progress of Protestantism had come to a stand
still. There was no longer any anchorage to which the
Church could cling. Unless the principles of the Evangelical
Faith could be gathered into consistency, and set forth in a
clearer light than that which now was shining down from a
former generation, there would be no teaching sufficiently
steady to counterbalance the inner strengthening of the
Roman Church, which had come to it as a result of the
Council of Trent, and which it had gained through the
founding of the Society of Jesus. The ceaseless conflict be
tween Lutherans, which, even in exhaustion, showed no signs
of a springing concord, was causing the faith of the Reforma
tion to crumble to dust Even the political authorities most
keenly realized the necessity, if religion was to be preserved,
of having the theologians bring their desultory antagonisms
to an end, and work out some permanent standard which
should become the firm and consistent Faith of the Church.
The very tendency, already alluded to, of undue multipli
cation of symbols, complained of to-day by those who would
cut the nerve of historic continuity in the vain attempt to
attain ideal brevity and simplicity in the expression of the
Confessional principle, was threatening the Church at the
time when the Formula was adopted. There was crying
need of a Confession that would compress and unite the
many Confessional statements springing up in Post-Refor
mation Protestantism. One of the Formula's leading ob
jects, and one of those in which it was very successful, was
the elimination of bulk and the simplification of the great
mass of material that had sprung up in luxuriant profusion
round about and all over the original Confession. Who

' Con. Ref., p. 328.
* Tschaekert, Die Enstehung der luth. . . Klrchenlehre, pp. 570, 571.

FORMULA'S PROVIDENTIAL CALL. 705
can dispute the statement of Krauth that " we have twenty-
eight large volumes of Melanchthon's writings — and at this
hour, impartial and learned men are not agreed as to what
were his views on some of the profoundest questions of
Church doctrine, on which Melanchthon was writing all his
life?"8 Who can question the fact that much that Melanchthon
wrote could be taken in two senses, and that his name was
used to shield that of which there is no reason to believe
that he would have approved ? " Whatever may be the
meaning of Melanchthon's words in the disputed cases, this
much is certain, that they practically operated as if the worse
sense were the real one, and their mischievousness was not
diminished but aggravated by their obscurity and double
meaning. They did the work of avowed error, and yet could
not be reached as candid error might." '
We have, then, in the Melanchthonian principle as em
bodied in Confessional print at this era the two qualities of
great bulk and great weakness. The Corpus Philippicum,
preceding the Book of Concord, was much more bulky than
the Book of Concord and is composed entirely of Melanch
thon's writings,8 many of them his private writings, con
taining much matter that was cumbrous and unsuited to a
Confession. In addition to these, the Latin Philippicum contains the
Augustana, 1542 ; the Apology, the Repetition of the Augs
burg Confession for the Council of Trent; the Loci Theo-
logici, the Examen Ordinandorum, the Answer to .the Bava
rian Articles, A Confutation of the Error of Servetus, and
Melanchthon's reply to Stancar. This constitutes a folio of
over one thousand pages. The Corpus Julium, another rival
of the Book of Concord, as we have seen, contained every
thing found in the Book of Concord, except the Formula,

" Con. Ref., p. 291.
' 76., 291.
B Except the three oecumenical Creeds.

706 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
and in its place included a work by Chemnitz and one by
Urbanus Rhegius!
When the Formula of Concord is spoken of as a good pri
vate commentary, but too bulky to be a public confession,
it is well to bear in mind the Melanchthonian ideas on this
subject which preoccupied the ground before the Formula
of Concord. came into existence.
Had not the Melanchthonian situation failed so com
pletely, in its confessional development of the Church and its
doctrine, it is a question whether the men who undertook
to frame a clear, strong, brief Form, to bring harmony, would
have been impelled to supply the crying need. The friends
of the Lutheran Church " were embarrassed and con
founded, and its enemies delighted and encouraged, by per
ceiving endless diversities of statement in the editions of
books, rapidly succeeding each other, books which, in their
first form, Luther had endorsed as of Canonical purity and
worthy of immortality. The very Confessions of the
Church, determined by her authorities, and signed by her
representatives, were amended, enlarged here, abridged
there, changed in structure and in statement, as the restless
spirit of refining in thought or style moved Melanchthon.
All his works show the tinge of his mind at the time of
their issue, whether affected by his hopes that Rome would
be softened, or roused by the elusive prospect of real union
with the less radical part of the Zwinglians. Melanchthon
fell into a hallucination by which his own peace of mind
was wrecked, his Christian consistency seriously comprom
ised, the spirit of partisanship developed, the Church dis
tracted and well nigh lost. This was the hallucination that
peace could be restored by ambiguous formulas, accepted in
deed by both parties, but understood in different senses." *
Here the great error of pure Protestantism, as accepted
in Melanehthonianism, comes to light. It is the liberty

" Con. Ref., p. 290.

FORMULA'S PROVIDENTIAL CALL. 707
claimed for the individual mind to modify the Church's
faith in accordance with its own personal views, without
clearly and formally submitting such proposed modification
to the Church for acceptance and rejection, and without wil
lingness to assume the consequences if there be rejection.
To the Melanchthonian mind, the right of the individual to
make intellectual progress for himself and for the Church,
overtops all rights which are conjoint and historical. To a
conservative evangelical Protestant, this private right can
not be carried out to the detriment of other existing rights
in the body of the Church, without giving all such rights
ample notice and their just power to act. For the individual
in a communion to act in and for the communion as he
thinks — when the communion and he differ in their think
ing — without first influencing the communion to change their
thinking to his thinking, nay, even without notifying the
communion, is a lack of ethical integrity in dealing with
that which is outside of ourselves and to which we have no
right/0 The Melanchthonian principle did not recognize
that the rights of individual Protestantism cease where the
rights of collective Protestantism begin.
It was this mistaken habit of regarding a Confession as
belonging to a changeable — or progressive, if you prefer —
individual, to be modified according to new views and cir
cumstances, rather than as necessary testimony, reflecting the
unchangeable Word of God in the Church, that brought
multiplication, bulk, confusion and peril into the Church;
and, in consequence of which, the great and true Confes
sional witness at Augsburg had not been able to maintain
either the pure doctrine or the united Church.

10 It may be urged that Luther was more of a Protestant in this individual
sense than was Melanchthon ; and that he cared less for the old historical
forms than his coadjutor who was always seeking some outer nexus with
the visible Church of the past. But this objection falls before the fact that,
while Luther cared less for the forms, and was more individualistic as to the
visible nexus, he was conservative to the core on the substance. There was
no rationalistic coefficient in his faith. Melanchthon on the other hand was
constantly seeking internal or rational freedom, with outer conformity.

708 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
This fact is admitted by Schaff, who says : " Melanchthon,
. . . with . . . more logic and system than Luther, and
with a most delicate and conscientious regard for truth and
peace, yet not free from the weakness of a compromising
and temporizing disposition, continued to progress in the
ology, and modified his views on two points — the freedom
of the will and the presence of Christ in the Eucharist;
exchanging his Augustinianism for Synergism, and relax
ing his Lutheranism in favor of Calvinism ; in both instances
he followed the ethical, practical, and unionistic bent of his
mind. . . . These changes were neither sudden nor arbi
trary, but the result of profound and constant study, and
represented a legitimate and necessary phase in the devel
opment of Protestant [not Lutheran] theology, which was
publicly recognized in various ways before the formation
of the ' Form of Concord.' " u Thus with remarkable ad
missions as to the Melanchthonian principle does the Re
formed historian write, and prove that the author of the
Augsburg Confession made progress beyond the Confession,
from which it follows that the Confession was not sufficient in
itself to maintain the Confessional principle of Lutheranism.
From each and all of the varied considerations before us,
we are led to conclude that the crisis at hand in the Lutheran
Church was sufficiently grave to demand and to justify a
new Confession of the faith. Would the authors of the
final Confession, men of temperate judgment, have denied
themselves so long and suffered so much; and would the
Elector have expended so many thousand dollars in this work
of sound unification, if the Melanchthonian principle (and
the Confessional corpora doctrinae) had not demonstrated
their inability to control the Church, and if a serious crisis
were not impending?
Let us briefly sum up the crying necessity, the inability
of the helpless Church to extricate herself from the exigency,

22 Creeds of Christendom, I, p. 261.

FORMULA'S PROVIDENTIAL CALL. 709
if Providence, by changing the historical situation, by
raising up men of insight, perseverance, prudence, and love
for the truth, and by removing obstacles on every side, had
not ushered in a new and better era.
First of all, the Formula was a spiritual necessity. The
Melanchthonian principle had been operative now for a
whole generation. It had failed at Augsburg in 1530 ; but
still its methods of dealing with the truth, with the Con
fession, with men, with public policies, and with ecclesias
tical difficulties had continued to assert themselves. These
methods, though wearing the mantle of peace, had brought
no peace anywhere. On every hand, and in every quarter,
there was nothing but war; and as Seeberg himself
declares, if the Melanchthonian principle had continued in
direction of affairs, the conflict in the Lutheran Church would
have been eternal. For the suppression of parties, and
strife, and intestinal conflict, and peace of mind and heart
in the Faith, the Formula of Concord was a necessity. As
Seeberg says, " It succeeded in gradually restoring the peace
of the Church." "
A new Confession was also a vital necessity. The right
of the Lutheran Church to self-existence had been questioned
from the start by Rome, and the progress of that life, as it
struck out on its new pathway, after clearing itself from
Roman bondage, was eagerly watched by the old enemy.
And there was a similar eagerness on the part of the other
Protestant parties, who had not been favored as the Lutheran
Church was, at Augsburg ; and whose hope of becoming the
prevalent type of Protestantism lay in dissipating the more
conservative elements of Lutheranism, and in absorbing the
Church under their own radical principle. There is no
doubt that Calvinism, if it had been successful in its use of
the Melanchthonian mantle, in possessing itself of the lead
ing citadels of Lutheranism, would have successfully united
"II, 382.

710 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
Protestantism by the destruction of the conservative princi
ple. All divisions in the Protestant Church to-day may
be traced back to this deepest one, and the questions of the
Sixteenth Century on this point are the questions that Lu
theranism must likewise meet to-day.
For the Formula of Concord, there was, in the third
place, a historical necessity. This point is emphasized bv
Seeberg. Says he, " A new Confession was a historical ne
cessity. . . . There was only this one alternative, either
to let the division and confusion remain, or to bring them
to an end by confessional decision of the conditions of
doctrine. The situation shown at Naumburg, the situa
tion in the institutions of learning, in the politics of the day,
and in the administration of the churches, showed how hope
less the future was, without some common standard of Lu
theran agreement, which would resolve the conditions that
had arisen within the Church after its period of Reformation
and during its period of reconstruction."
The Formula of Concord was also a confessional neces
sity. As we already have seen, through the multiplication
of the Corpora Doctrinae, the confessional situation had be
come so complicated as to be quite intolerable, and with
the large number of petty state churches, the frequent changes
in the rulers of the state, and the religious confusion en
suing, the Testimony of the Lutheran Church was brought
to the verge of contradiction.
But, last of all, a new confession was necessary to up
hold the truth of God's Word. The Augsburg Confession
had spoken, guardedly, toward Rome. The Apology had
spoken more fully toward Rome. The Schmalkald Arti
cles had spoken toward Rome. But there was no voice
rising up within the Church, as yet, to speak the truth
toward Protestant errors against the Word of God. The
Word of God itself had not yet been recognized as the su
preme rule of faith. The doctrine of free grace, and of
Christ Himself, as applied, in our salvation, in Word and

FORMULA'S PROVIDENTIAL CALL. 711
sacrament, the whole essence of the real Gospel, as opposed
to the apprehension of Christianity as mere reform in body
and members, was now at stake. God's Word, for which
so much had been suffered, in order to free it from the
Church's Word, was in danger from the milder and more
humanistic apprehension of a new Protestant scholasticism.
With such a crying need, the need of the spirit for peace,
-the need and right of the body to self-preservation, the need
of historical and confessional strength, and, above all, the
need of establishing the truth of God's Word in Christ, who
will deny that the Formula of Concord, viewed from the
situation out of which it arose, is a real confession of the
Church ! WAS THERE A PEOPEE CALL?
Passing by the need and occasion of the Formula, the ob
jector may turn to criticise its Call. Whence came the au
thority to issue a new Confession? Who gave its authors
the power to propose it to the Church? Did its writers
really have a sufficient Call ?
The outer Call extended to these men was as clear, more
universal, and less individual than that given to Luther to
nail up the Theses. We have heard how, in the opinion of
its defenders, the Formula was examined in a more thorough
manner, and approved more substantially, than if it had
emanated from a General Council of the Church. The Call
of the writers, in its deliberateness, in its authoritativeness,
and formality, was the greatest outer Call given to any body
of Lutherans since the days of the Augsburg Confession.
There was no imperial Call. Maximilian II., who
reigned as emperor of Germany from 1564 to his death, Oc
tober 12th, 1576, though himself a Protestant, or at least
friendly to Protestantism,1 dealt with the various religious

12 Through the influence of his preceptor in youth. In 1568, he granted
the Protestants in Austria liberty to worship God according to their conscience.
and commissioned Chytraus to compose a Protestant liturgy for Austria. He
opposed and restricted the Jesuits, yet tolerated them in their influence in
his own family.

712 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
parties in the interests of preserving the empire, and his de
cisions, as the Protestants were divided, fell more or less in
accord with the majority of the Estates, which were Roman
in belief. Unlike Charles V., Maximilian was too friendly
to Protestantism to allow the Pope to put the Protestants
on the defensive, which was the case in the Diet at Augsburg,
and unlike the Saxon electors, he was too much of a politi
cian to allow religion chief place in his rule. Therefore -
there could be no Imperial call to a confession." But the
Call was issued by the legitimate successor of the political
head of the early Reformation activity, by the Elector of
Saxony, Augustus,15 the son-in-law of Christian III. of Den
mark. There is nothing but good to be said of the Elector,
of his intention, and of his Call. " The Elector was in
advance of his time in the principles of constitutional sov
ereignty. In an arbitrary age, he governed by law. He
consulted his parliament on all great questions, and raised
no money by taxation without their advice. His edicts were
so just that he has been called the Saxon Justinian. His
subjects regarded him with peculiar love and reverence. By
his skilful internal administration, he raised his country far
above the rest of Germany, introducing valuable reforms
both in jurisprudence and finance, and giving a decided im
pulse to education, agriculture, and manufactures. The
Dresden Library owes to him its origin, as do also most of
its galleries of arts and science.
"Augustus bore a part in the Formula of Concord worthy
of him. To meet the necessary expenses connected with
the Formula, the Elector himself paid a hundred thousand
dollars in gold. His gifts and efforts were unceasing till the
14 Maximilian admonished Frederick of the Palatinate to abandon Calvinism,
and become Lutheran again ; and advised the upper Palatine estates to abide
steadfast in the use of the Augsburg Confession.
16 The statement made that the Elector Augustus of Saxony subsequently
joined the Church of Home is an error. Augustus II., who succeeded his
elder brother as Elector in 1694, at the age of twenty-four, became a Roman
Catholic in order to gain the throne of Poland. His son, Augustus III., also
king of Poland, was brought up a Protestant, and became a Catholic on his
travels in 1712, and succeeded his father as Elector of Saxony in 1733.

FORMULA'S PROVIDENTIAL CALL. 713
great end was attained. Noble and unsuspicious, he had
been slow to believe in the possibility of the treachery of the
false teachers, whose mischievous devices he at length re
luctantly came to understand. The troubles they brought
upon the Church whitened untimely the Elector's head, but
so much the more did he toil and pray till the relief from the
evil was wrought. While the theologians were engaged in
conferences, the Elector and his noble wife were often on
their knees, fervently praying that God would enlighten His
servants with His Holy Spirit. In large measure, to the
piety, sound judgment, and indefatigable patience of this
great prince, the Church owes the Formula of Concord,"1'
The Preface to the Book of Concord1' narrates this outer
Call in the words of Augustus. It says : —

"And accordingly, we, by the grace of God, Duke of Saxony, Elector, etc.,
after a council held with some other electors and princes agreeing with us in
religion, for the purpose of promoting the godly design of harmony among the
teachers of the Church, summoned to Torgau in the year 1576 certain theologians
experienced and endowed with pre-eminent learning. When they had assembled,
they conferred devoutly concerning the controverted articles and the writing of
pacification. And prayers first having been offered, they with extraordinary care
(the Spirit of the Lord aiding them by his grace), embraced in a document all
those things which seemed to pertain to this deliberation. Afterwards this book
was transmitted to some chief adherents of the Augsburg Confession, Electors,
Princes and Deputies, and they were requested, with the aid of the most eminent
theologians, to read it with godly zeal, to examine it, and finally, to express their
judgment and the reasons therefor concerning it collectively and taken part by
part" 1S
Much preparation for the work of the Conference, or
Synod, or Council, at Torgau had been made at preliminary
meetings, just as the Marburg and Schwabach Articles had

16 Hutter, Cone. Cone, ch. XI ; Anton., I, 147, 148 ; Kollner, 533 ; Krauth,
Con. Ref., p. 308.
17 Book of Concord, p. 12. The occasion for this Preface, the end in view,
and the manner of its composition, do not in our judgment reflect upon its
testimony or its integrity of- purpose. It is a mild, noble and just document,
and its defense of the Formula and of the whole undertaking is proper.
"Condensed from Book of Concord, I, pp. 12, 13.

714 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
been prepared prior to the Diet at Augsburg. This pre
vious preparation included the Maulbronn Formula and the
Swabian-Saxon Formula, together with the results of the
Convention at Lichtenberg.
The Convention, in pursuance of a Call issued by the
Elector of Saxony in November, after consultation with a
number of the evangelical princes and theologians, met on
the Fifteenth of February, 1576. The Elector prepared a
memorandum concerning the best means of adjusting the
controversies. He regarded the many corpora doctrinae ac
cepted by different countries as the chief hindrance to union,
and proposed that the princes adhering to the Augsburg
Confession should appoint peace-loving theologians, with
lay counsellors, to attend a meeting to which each should
bring his own corpus doctrinae. With the Augsburg Con
fession as a standard, a new Body of Doctrine should be com
posed from these, which should be made binding upon all
the ministers in their countries. The conference was to
determine the number of theologians to be invited to partic
ipate in the work, the mode of deliberation, the part to be
taken by the Estates, the articles to be treated, etc.
The Convention of Lichtenberg recommended the adop
tion of three measures to promote peace, viz. : 1. The en
tire abandonment of all personal rivalries and complaints.
2. The removal of all hindrances to harmony, of which the
Corpus Doctrinae Philippicum was mentioned as one, and
certain publications, such as the Wittenberg Catechism, the
Consensus Dresdensis, through which Crypto-Calvinistic
errors were disseminated, as another. Instead of the
Corpus Philippicum, the three Oecumenical Creeds, the
Augsburg Confession Invariata, the Apology, the two Cat
echisms and the Schmalkald Articles were recognized as sym
bolical, with Luther's Commentary on Galatians, if any
desire to include it. 3. A conference of theologians is to
judge the points in the controversy, according to Scripture
and the received Symbols, in the presence of the electors and

FORMULA'S PROVIDENTIAL CALL. 715
princes. Chytrseus, Chemnitz, Andreae and Mar bach were
named as theologians well qualified for the work." "
On May 28th, 1576, the Elector as recommended at Lich
tenberg, convened the Conference, or Synod, at Torgau. It
was composed of seventeen theologians from Saxony, Bruns
wick, Mecklenburg and Wiirttemberg. On June 7th, this
body completed the Torgau Book. It was then sent through
the Elector to the princes, who gave it into the hands of their
theologians for examination and criticism.20 A committee
appointed by the Elector and the princes of Wiirttemberg
and Brunswick examined the criticisms, and made correc
tions in words and style, in several separate revisions.
Finally at Wittenberg, on June 15th, 1777, it was sub
mitted, not to a General Council, but in truly democratic
manner21 to all the teachers and ministers of the Church
for their approval and subscription. The ministers of a
district would assemble in a Convention and an appeal be
made to them to subscribe. The Preface thus describes this
procedure : —
"Some of our rank (not all of us were able to do this), have caused this book
to be recited, article by article, and distinctly, to the theologians and the ministers
of the Church and of the schools collectively and individually, and have caused
them to be excited to a diligent and accurate consideration of those parts of the
doctrine, which is contained in it.
"When, therefore, they noticed that the Declaration agreed with the Word
of God, and with the Augsburg Confession, they gratefully received this Book of
Concord as expressing the genuine meaning of the Augsburg Confession, approved
it and subscribed to it, and publicly bore witness concerning it with heart, mouth
and hand. Wherefore that godly agreement is and perpetually will be
called, the harmonious and concordant Confession not only of some few
of our theologians, but, in general, of the ministers of our churches and
rectors of schools, one and all, in our provinces and realms." a

M Condensed from Book of Concord, II, Jacobs, Intro., pp. 58, 59.
30 Vid. Chap. XXVI, p. 657.
21 The wide range of the preparatory work is further proof on this point.
" From 1558, at the Frankfort Recess, to 1579, many scores of theological
thinkers had labored and prayed toward this end. At least twelve separate
conventions, ranging from Faculty Conferences to National Diets, had been
utilized in its interests." — Vid. G. A. Tressler in Lutheran World.
22 Condensed from Preface to Book of Concord, p. 13.

716 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
After allowing about two years for the public subscrip
tions, the rulers and Estates met and signed the Formula
and its Preface, now completed, in the Spring of 1579, in
all, to the number of eighty-five rulers, nobles and free
cities, and between eight and nine thousand theologians23
(there are at this time, 1909, just a few more than eight
thousand ministers in the whole Lutheran Church in Amer
ica, including all branches).
The historical counterpart to those not participating in
the Formula is to be found in the adherents of the Tetra-
politana, who did not participate in the Augustana, but
sent in their own Confession. Then the non-partcipants
were Zwinglian, and desired to be admitted, but were not.
Now they were chiefly Calvinistic, and would not allow
themselves to be admitted. The Preface is entitled, " We
the Electors, Princes and Deputies of the Holy Roman Em
pire in Germany, adherents of the Augsburg Confession."
Thus was the outer Call complete, in some respects, more so
than at Augsburg.
But we lay no stress on the participation of the Civil
Authorities, whether Emperor or Elector, in the case of
either Confession, except as they represented the duly con
stituted Church authorities of the day ; and as their presence
and interest indicated the stress and Providential necessity
that brought forth the Confession.
23 For full particulars see Chap. XXVII, p. 671. sqq.

CHAPTER XXX.
THE LUTHERAN CONFESSION.
THE ANSWER TO THE CRITICISM MADE ON
THE MOTIVES AND MEN, AS TOUCHING
THE QUESTION, IS THE FORMULA
A CONFESSION?
The Motive of the Formula not a Party One — The Testimony of the Formula Itself
— The Men of the Formula : Andreae, Chemnitz, Selnecker.
HAVING concluded the discussion of the Call, we are
now. brought to the inner motive underlying the
Formula. It must be put to the test. " Was not the framing
of this Confession a party measure? Was it not the
final effort of the Lutheran Lutherans to throttle the Re
formed Lutherans, and to suppress all liberty of thought?
Was the purpose of its framers a genuine Confessional one ?
Was Confessional Testimony to the Word of God really the
underlying motive of the Formula of Concord ? "
On this question, the first witness that is entitled to be
heard is the Formula itself. What motive can we find in it,
in its lines, and between its lines? Is that motive Confes
sional, or is there a temporal, ecclesiastical, factional, or
" sectarian," interest that might seem to have caused it to
appear ? The Preface to the Formula says : —
"It is a remarkable favor of Almighty God, that, in these last times [t. e.,
this Sixteenth Century], He has willed, according to His unspeakable love, that
717
49

718 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
the light of His Gospel and Word, through which alone we receive true salva
tion, should arise and shine after the darkness of papistical superstitions. This
brought forth a succinct Confession, prepared from the Word of God, offered at
Augsburg in 1530 by our ancestors, presented to the deputies of the Empire, and
finally diffused in the entire world. But immediately after the death of Luther,
the enemy labored to disseminate the seeds of false doctrine in the churches and
schools, and to separate the bond of Christian agreement. Now our chief desire
has been that our churches should persevere in the pure doctrine of God's Word,
and in unanimity, and that they should be handed down to posterity in a godly
way. As, however, we see that corruptions have been introduced by false
brethren, just as was the case in the days of the Apostles, in those churches in
which Ihey themselves had planted the Gospel; mindful of our duty, which we
know has been divinely enjoined upon us, we think we ought diligently apply
ourselves to an aggressive advance against the false dogmas in our realms.1
"Accordingly, when an opportunity occurred at the Frankfort Diet, in 1558, a
unanimous effort was made to hold a special, general assembly, where there
might be a thorough but amicable conference3 among us, concerning matters
maliciously presented by our adversaries; we took the Augsburg Confession of
1530, and all subscribed that godly confession, built upon solid testimonies of
truth in the Word of God, with one mind, in order, in this way, to provide for
the interests of posterity. It was to be a perpetual testimony, God aiding us, to
support no new dogma, but retain the truth which we professed at Augsburg
in 1530.
" But when we learned that our Declaration and Repetition of the godly Con
fession had little weight with our adversaries, and that we3 were grievously
slandered; and the things we did with the best intention were received as though
we were so uncertain concerning our confession of faith and religion, and so often
have transfused it from one formula to another, that it is no longer clear to us
what is the confession once offered to the Emperor at Augsburg; we judged that
these slanders and increasing dissensions could not be better met, than by accur
ately explaining the controverted articles, by rejecting the false dogmas and by
lucidly presenting the truth.
"Our theologians then explained the controverted articles from the Word of
God and described in what way the dissensions could be settled in a right and
good manner; and we were of the judgment that this goodly purpose of the theo
logians ought to be promoted by us with great earnestness according to the
nature of the office and duty divinely committed to us. Accordingly, in the
year 1576, we summoned to Torgau, certain eminent theologians who conferred
devoutly with one another concerning the controverted articles and the writing of
pacification. Prayers first having been offered, they embraced all those things

1 These are princes, not theologians ; and under the theory of the day, in
which the ruler was responsible for the religion of his people, no fault can bs
found with this statement. This condition obtained from the start of the
Reformation ; but in America, it, happily, no longer exists.
2 This conference was held at Naumburg.
3 The princes.

MOTIVES AND MEN. 719
which seemed to be required, in a document; 4 and thus that Book of godly Con
cord was composed.
"The ministers of the Church with the most ready mind and the testimony of
their gratitude toward God, received this Book of Concord, as expressing the
genuine meaning of the Augsburg Confession, and publicly bore witness concern
ing it with heart, mouth and hand. Wherefore that godly agreement is called the
harmonious and concordant Confession of the ministry of our churches and
rectors of our schools, one and all, in our provinces and realms.
"This is the reason why we, with great and godly agreement, have worked out
in this Book a Declaration of our perpetual wish, and a Repetition of our
Christian Faith and Confession.
"The first Augsburg Confession alone (alone we say), and no other, pre
sented to the Emperor in 1530, by the help of God, we will retain to our last
breath. We hope, therefore, that our adversaries will hereafter not accuse us of
being unable to decide upon anything concerning our faith, as certain, and of
fabricating new confessions almost every year. Nor do we judge that other useful
writings of Dr. Philip Melanchthon, or of Brenz, Urban Regius, Pomeranus,
etc., should be rejected and condemned so far as they agree in all things with the
norm which has been set forth in the Book of Concord.
"Although some theologians, and among them, Luther himself, when they
treated of the Lord's Supper, were drawn to disputations concerning the personal
union of the two natures in Christ; nevertheless our theologians testify that godly
men should be led, with regard to the Lord's Supper, to no other foundations than
to those of the words of institution of the testament of our Lord Jesus Christ.
As to the phrases employed when we treat of the majesty of the human nature in
the person of Christ exalted, our theologians wish to testify that this majesty is in
no way to be ascribed to the human nature of Christ, outside of the personal
union, neither are we to grant that the human nature possesses this majesty, as its
own. ' ' The duty is especially incumbent upon all the theologians and ministers, that
they teach from the Word of God those who in a simple or ignorant mind have
erred from the truth, to the peril of their salvation.
"By this writing of ours, we testify in the sight of Almighty God and before
the entire Church, that it has never been our purpose to occasion trouble or danger
to the godly who today are suffering persecution, by this Formula of Union. For
as, moved by Christian love, we have already entered the fellowship of grief with
them, so we are shocked at this persecution and most grievous tyranny, and sin
cerely detest it.
"We testify that, in the before mentioned Declaration, we wish to conduct our
churches and schools, first of all, to the fountains of Holy Scripture, and to the
Creeds, and then to the Augsburg Confession. As instructed from the Scriptures,
we are sure concerning our doctrine and Confession. And we have determined
not to depart even a finger's breadth either from the things themselves, or from
the phrases, which are employed concerning them, but the Spirit of the Lord aid-

* Afterward this book was transmitted into most able hands for criticism.
The responses were suggestive, and were utilized.

720 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
ing us, to persevere constantly, with the greatest harmony, in this godly agree
ment; and we intend to examine all controversies according to the true norm and
declaration of the purer doctrine. With the rest of the electors, princes and
estates, of the Holy Roman Empire, and other kings, princes and magnates of the
Christian state, we also have determined to cultivate peace and harmony." 5
This is the defense officially made for the Formula. We
have given it impartially, and have concealed nothing that
might grate on modern ears. No one can fail to find in these
words a zealous and a genuine motive — even if it were a
piously mistaken one — for the Formula. It was not politi
cal considerations, personal considerations, partisan consid
erations, but the teaching of the pure doctrine to church
and school, and the setting it forth in a proper, official and
fixed way, so that friend and foe alike might know just .
what it was at which these official framers aimed.
Their intent is to furnish not private comment, but offi
cial teaching that will harmonize the Church. The stress
these laymen and rulers lay on subscription (a subscription
list is the laymen's way of binding to a declaration or enter
prise), the willingness they assume to be responsible for
all teaching in their dominions, the sharpness of their reac
tion against error, and many other things which we would
frame and do differently in our age, are readily explain
able from the environment of these godly laymen, and from
the atmosphere of an age weary of unfair argument and
bitter conflict. The tone here, in view of all, is moderate.
When we come to the Formula itself we find it to be a
real " Reconciliation in a Christian Way," " according to
God's Word, of Controverted Articles " in the Lutheran
Church ; and in every case the declaration is " we believe,
teach and confess." The genuine Confessional purpose of
the writers of the Formula is not to be disputed. As repre
senting the original faith of the Lutheran Church, these
parts of the Church were fully justified and, indeed, as
Thomasius says, " bound to proper symbolical decisions in
regard to the controverted topics; and if this was done

5 Condensed.

MOTIVES AND MEN. 721
in consistency with the older confessions, so that they were
consequences of them, then does it assume the place of a
vital continuation of them, and constitutes them an organic
whole. He, then, who recognizes them as his faith cannot
without inconsequence and without contradiction refuse his
belief to the Concordia." "
If the objector should consider himself as driven from
the ground of historical fact — from the standpoint of the
occasion, the need, the call, the purpose and the Confes
sional motive of the Formula, — he might still perhaps con
tinue his position of objection and inquiry along the line
of the character of the men engaged in the work. Were
they sufficiently representative, scrupulous, pious and
learned to " believe, teach and confess " for the Church ?
There is one man who shines out above all others as the
practical author of the Book of Concord. The original con
ception was his, and he, last of all, put the substance of the
Formula into the form of the Epitome. His also were the
testings of the plan in the scorching fires of experience. To
his lot fell the persuasion and conciliation of many parties
and partisans in the interest of this higher and real unity;
and the return, after defeat, to new attempts. He bore the
brunt of battle far more than any other, and the " much
hated Book" reflected the great bitterness of its foes upon
him. He was a man of affairs, with a broad grasp of situations,
capable of dealing with currents of opinion and representa
tive personalities, of more than great, if not of exhaustive
attainments in theology, and one who thoroughly understood
the fact that Evangelical Protestantism, if it was to per
petuate itself against the rule of Rome, must not waste its
strength in individual and contradictory, effort and change,
but must hold firmly and distinctly to the substance of the
true doctrine of the Word of God. From this position

« Tr. in Ev. Rev., II, p. 217.

722 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
neither persecution nor denunciation could move him. He
recognized the doctrine of the Person of Christ as the key
of the sound evangelical faith, and in this he lived and
died. He began his public activities in 1546 and ended
them in 1590 at the age of 62 years, passing away after
having received the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper with
prayers upon his lips.
Probably no other man of the Sixteenth Century has been
so much abused as he, ' especially by the Reformed writer
Hospinian, and others. Let us now say the worst about
Jacob Andreae, the projector of the Formula of Concord,
and the author of the Epitome. He was of an abrupt and
fiery disposition, vehement and vociferous in argumentation,
often considering himself to be the only one in the right,
peculiar in his feelings, easily stirred to passion, and not
always cautious in the use of his language. He probably
possessed little of that false modesty which causes a man
to be eager to receive the credit for his own actions and to
feel hurt when it is not given, and thus also impels
him to sit quiet and be sulky when justice is not done him.
He was filled with faith, patience and perseverance beyond
all possible expectancy. In our judgment, he was not more
ambitious, and probably not so much so, as many of the
ecclesiastical leaders, servants of God, in our own day. We
might mention a whole line of leaders in the Lutheran
Church " with whom, in spirituality, he would compare favor
ably. Andreae was one of those honest souls who erred in all
sincerity, from undue persistency, and from passionate ear-
' "Ungerecht aber sind die maszlosen Sehmahungen und Verdachtlgungen,
womit er von Mit-und Nachwelt ist iiberhaiift worden."' — Wangemann.
8 When men occupy positions of authority, it seems to become more or less
of a second, nature to them to speak as with authority, and to tolerate no
dissent from their opinion. Even the mild, modest and truly pious Walther,
Is said, in his later years, to have been no exception to this law.
If we were to select a group of modern ecclesiastics, whose range, attain
ments, and motives were on not quite so high a level as those of Jacob
Andreae, the names that occur to us would be Dean Stanley, Stopford Brooke,
Philip Schaff, Charles A. Briggs, Leonard Bacon, Phillips Brooks, Bishop
Potter ; shall we come down a step and say, I. K. Funk, Russel Conwell,
Cardinal Gibbons and John Wanamaker?

MOTIVES AND MEN. 723
nestness ; and no one was more ready to openly acknowledge
his weaknesses and faults than he, to ask the forgiveness of
those whom he injured or offended, and to gladly forgive
those who had offended him.
Yet he is painted in the blackest colors by contemporaries
within and without the Lutheran Church, and by the union
ists and rationalistic Symbolical writers. Planck is par
ticularly scathing in his arraignment of Andreae, and even
Kolde has perhaps not thoroughly estimated the value and
the nobility of a pioneer of this kind in the kingdom of God.
Andreae was always bold and outspoken. As a young
man of eighteen years, he was the only pastor who remained
at his post in Stuttgart when the city was occupied with
Spanish troops in the Schmalkald war, and here by his
conduct he gained the respect of the enemy. When the
Interim came, Andreae, then twenty years of age, resigned
rather than accept its concessions to Rome. The Interim of
1548 drove him out of Stuttgart. Later he became the
fellow-laborer of Brentz, yet was not always of the same
opinion with him.
In 1554 he attempted, after the manner of a Calvinistic
reformer, to introduce better morals into Wiirttemberg by
law. In 1559 he was engaged in a controversy with the
Calvinists concerning the presence of the body of Christ in
the Lord's Supper, and, when with the Wiirttemberg Church
he cut loose from all the Philippistic mediation theories of
the Supper, he drew upon himself the ridicule of Melanch
thon and the attacks of Beza and Bullinger. He accom
panied his prince to Regensburg in 1557 and boldly opposed
the Roman preachers at the Diet at Augsburg in 1559.
In 1561 he was engaged in many administrative affairs
in the Church, and in 1562 predestinarian and sacramenta-
rian controversy occupied his time. In 1568 he was sent,
at the request of Duke Julius, to aid in the introduction of
an evangelical liturgy in Brunswick and to represent the
South German theologians in conference with the North

724 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
German theologians, viz., Chemnitz and Selnecker, in order
to establish a consensus of agreement as to the true faith
of the Church.
From this time on, that is, betweeen 1568 and 1580, he
gave his life to the unification of the Church in a common
faith. He first sought the aid of Duke Julius and the
Brunswick theologians, and then set out for nearly all the
courts, universities and cities in Germany in order to secure
adherents to his Five Articles of Peace, and do away with the
controversies and the errors disrupting the Lutheran Church
since the death of Luther. For this purpose he visited
Brandenburg, Wittenberg, Magdeburg, Anhalt, Hesse, Pome
rania, Lower Saxony, Schleswig-Holstein, Mecklenburg,
Liibeck, Hamburg, Liineburg, Bremen, Denmark, and even
went to the Emperor Maximilian II., in Prague, who en
couraged him in his work. He labored to the same end in
South Germany, from whence he hailed.
It should not be forgotten that this first effort at the pacifi
cation of the Church was made by Andreae with the idea
of reconciling all the extreme parties and of bringing the
Philippists and the Flacians, as well as the Conservatives,
together into the same faith. By 1570 he came to under
stand that neither the Philippists at Wittenberg, nor the
Gnesio-Lutherans at Jena, would ever enter into such an
effort to unite the Church; and he quietly projected a new
plan of operations, which would be straightforward and meet
the truth in the middle. He gave up the impracticable idea
of neutralizing opposites or of a compromising of extremes,
but set his heart on bringing together all the sound confes
sional elements in South and North Germany for the estab
lishment of an orthodox confession which would preserve
the true Lutheran faith throughout all the future.
To this end he prepared Six Sermons ' in 1572, and when,
in 1576, the Elector Augustus desired to restore the true
Lutheran faith in his domain, Andreae was summoned. He

¦ Vid. Chap. XXV.

MOTIVES AND MEN. 725
attended the Lichtenberg Convention in the middle of
February, 1576.
As the inception, the overcoming of difficulties, and the
practical moves in the formation of the Book of Concord,
were his, both Catholics and Calvinists, Philippists and
Flacians were embittered against him, and even within the
ranks of his own fellow-workers complaints were made of
his overpowering personality. Yet Planck is obliged to say
of Andreae that he " belongs not merely to the learned, but
to the liberal-minded theologians of his era. ... It
was not in his nature to hate any man merely because that
man was not orthodox. ... It was not only possible
for him to be just at least in the beginning toward those
who were in error, but he felt a something to which it is
not easy to give a name which attracted him to those that
erred." With Andreae was Chemnitz, the greatest theologian of
the Sixteenth Century. " The learning of Chemnitz was
something colossal, but it had no tinge of pedantry. His
judgment was of the highest order. His modesty and sim
plicity, his clearness of thought, and his luminous style, his
firmness in principle, and his gentleness in tone, the richness
of his learning and the vigor of his thinking, have revealed
themselves in such measure in his Loci, his Books on the
Two Natures of our Lord, and on the True Presence, in
his Examen of the Council of Trent, his Defence of the
Formula of Concord, and his Harmony of the Gospels, as
to render each a classic in its kind, and to mark their
author as the greatest theologian of his time — one of the
greatest theologians of all time," "
" Chemnitz is distinguished as a theologian for his clear
and transparent style, his mild but decided spirit, and his
sound and discriminating judgment. To the discussion of
every subject, he brings the mature fruit of most extensive
reading. He belonged to the school of the stricter Luth-

M Con. Ref., p. 310.

726 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
erans, at the same time always retaining the highest respect
for his preceptor, Melanchthon." "
With Andreae and Chemnitz was associated Nicholas Sel
necker, the great theologian of Augustus, the author of the
beautiful German hymn, "Ach bleib bei uns, Herr Jesu
Christ," and one of the best-beloved hymn writers of that
century. Though bitterly attacked, he remained silent under
abuse. " He was severely persecuted by the Reformed
Church for his work on the Formula of Concord. When
Augustus died, Selnecker was deposed, his family was har
assed, he was reduced to poverty, not being allowed even to
remain in Leipzig as a private citizen. With these men
were Chytraus, Professor at the University of Rostock, a
great and renowned teacher, of naive and gracious mind, of
good judgment, and Musculus, earnest, fearless and active.
We doubt whether the Lutheran Church has ever had a
body of men greater in learning and piety than those who
elaborated the Formula of Concord. Although they were
human, and their faults were open and known, as were
those of the three chief apostles of our Lord, yet the hon
esty of their purpose, the depth of their piety, and the
sincerity of their conviction cause their life to add to, instead
of detracting from, the validity of the Confession.
The Age of Illumination in the Eighteenth Century was,
in its superior acuteness of culture very sarcastic as to its
judgments on the men, the motives and the value of
the Book of Concord. Weber and other Melanchthonian
scholars write against the Book of Concord with a bitter
ness that is amazing. In attributing malice, dishonesty and
other of the worst motives of human nature as the moving
causes of historical facts, they remind one of Ernest Renan
in his treatment of the life of Christ, and of certain nega
tive critics of the Old Testament who reduce the human
personalities of the patriarchs and early personages in the

" Jacobs, Lutheran Cyclopedia.
12 Even Weber a century later, abuses and accuses Selnecker.

MOTIVES AND MEN. 727
Old Testament to a compound of the most selfish attributes
of human nature.
The effort of these Melanchthonian liberalists in laying
so much stress on the variations of the Augustana in con
nection with the Preface of the Book of Concord, and with
a disparagement of the motives of its writers, is to discredit
the strength of the Confessional principle, to undermine the
fixed and firm foundation of the Faith in ecclesiastical Con
fessions, and to make of them the expression of the sum of
human opinion concerning Faith at any moment, which
changes with every moment.
But these writers seem to forget that the same critical
principles which they use against the Confessions, if valid,
are also equally operative against the Scripture itself. For
every variation in the manuscripts of the Confessions there
are perhaps ten in the manuscripts of Scripture. And of
all texts of Scripture, the Textus Receptus — the one on
which our English Bible is based — is one of the most cor
rupt. All scholars recognize that this is not the real point
in Scripture; neither is it the real point at issue in the
Confessions. If the writer were re-writing this work he
might and doubtless would introduce dozens of variations
into its mere phraseology ; but these changes would not alter
any historical values it may possess so long as the facts and
positions he maintains remained identical in every writing.
We do not consider such reasoning as that of Weber on
the gentle Chytraus as just. Howsoever Colestin may de
serve his condemnation, any one of a hundred circumstances,
of which we know nothing, might have existed to change
the whole situation. The argument is one of probabilities,
re-enforced by appeal to unworthy human motives, such an
argument as should not be resorted to by men of really sur
passing critical power.

13 Krauth's " Concervative Reformation " is sometimes pointed to as very
acute and penetrative in its polemic, but when we recall that Krauth wrote
with a full study and mastery of Weber, the biting Melanchthonian, we may

728 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
Dr. Krauth was in possession of the researches of Weber
as early as 1854, and all his positions with reference to
the Augsburg Confession were matured with a full knowl
edge of Weber's demonstrations as to the texts of the
Augustana — demonstrations that with some additions are
occasionally given forth to the world under the impression
of being new discoveries of more recent scholarship.
In estimating the writings of historians who criticize the
confessional value of the Formula of Concord, it should be
remembered that the spirit of detraction and hatred shown
toward the Formula had been experienced in earlier days
by the Augsburg Confession itself. Thus Possevinus de
clares," " Quamobrem Confessio haec non Confessio, sed
infitiatio atq. negatio Evangelicae, Sacrae, Christianae ac
Verae Augustanac Fidei jure optimo vocanda est."
The Papists and Fabricius 1o falsely assert that the Elector
John denied the Augsburg Confession and ordered his son
John Frederick to abolish the Lutheran religion. And
Carpzov16 points that the Calvinists" and the Papists" af
firm that the Augsburg Confession was conscripta and con-
cinnata in the name of a few orders by a few theologians in
the 'greatest haste and under the pressure of dreadful fear.
The enemies of the Conservative Evangelical Confession
have pronounced malediction upon it first and last — first
on the Augustana, and last on the Formula. But its friends,
the church of the Reformation, have ever enjoyed the bene
diction of the Auguetana's healthy trunk and ever have sat
in safety beneath the shadow of the Formula's protecting
branches.

well admire the noble objectivity of Krauth's thought. Of Weber, Krauth
says, his work " is classic in the department of the text of the Confession." —
Con. Ref., p. 249.
14 In 1. VII. Bibl. 15. f. 298.
15 In Prcefat, Harm. Ungersdorflus, Pistor. Jodocus Kedd.
10 Is. p. 127.
11 Neostadd. in Admon. c. 4. p. 143.
18 Flor. Raemund. I. 2. Synop. et Aut. Comp. c. I. qv. I. n, S. Patzm, in
Hodeg. 1. 4.

CHAPTEE XXXI.
THE LUTHERAN CONFESSION.
.THE ANSWER OF THE FORMULA'S OUTER FORM
TO THE QUESTION, IS THE FORMULA
A CONFESSION?
The Title of the Formula and its Wording — No Confessional Claim for the Solida
Declaratio — Is the Formula a ' ' Commentary ' ' ? — In what Sense it is a Mere
Repetition, and not a New Confession — Comparison with the Form of the Augs
burg Confession — Why the Formula presents doctrine by Antagonism-^In what
sense the Formula is a Commentary — Is the Formula a Treatise on Dogmatics ?
— Does the Formula represent All Types of Lutheranism? — Does Sharpness of
Logical Form Condemn, with the Epitome as a Confession?
AFTER having examined the Formula in the light of
the confessional confusion that preceded it, and of
the confessional multiplication it intended to obviate; of
the reaffirmation it establishes between itself and the oecu
menical Confessions, and between itself and the Augsburg
and later Lutheran confessions ; in the light of its men and
motives, of its solemn and oft-repeated, " we believe, teach
and confess," — we cannot do otherwise than conclude that
it came into being with a genuine Confessional purpose.
Its purpose was to settle, set fast, and bear witness to the
real doctrine of the Evangelical Church. This purpose is
further evinced in the Title and external form of the
work. The deliberate confessional object of those who issued the
Formula appears in the Title which they prefaced to the
original symbolical volume. They called the Book of Con-
729

730 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
cord, the " Christian, Bepeated, Unanimous Confession of
Faith of the Electors, Princes and Estates of the Augsburg
Confession, and their Theologians, Subscribed at the end
of the book; to which has been added a Comprehensive Dec
laration, from the Holy Scripture, the only norm and rule
of the truth, of Certain Articles that have Come into Con
troversy since the happy departure from this life of Dr.
Martin Luther."
Nothing could mark the intention of its framers and the
historical fact itself more formally than the language used
in this Title. The Public and Official Confession of those
who make it, and who are standing on the Augsburg Con
fession, is the Book of Concord, from the Apostles' Creed
at the beginning to the Epitome of the Formula at the end;
to which there has then been added, in the form of proof
from Scripture, the more comprehensive Declaration of the
Articles in controversy. The Ejiitome is the confession
which they put forth; and the Comprehensive Declaration
is its explanation and defense — as the Apology is the expla
nation and defense of the Augsburg Confession, and the
Large Cathechism is the explanation of the Small Catechism.
At this point we are brought face to face with the oft-
repeated statement that, " while we are unwilling to ascribe
public Confessional value to the Formula as a symbol of
the Church, we are willing to accept it privately . and for
ourselves, and to admit its great value as a private work."
The ustial form in which this mediate position, ascribing
value, but refusing Confessional validity to the Formula,
declares itself, is in the phrase, " The Formula of Concord
is a 'commentary,' a valuable commentary, on Lutheran doc
trine. But it is only a commentary, and not a Confession."
If those who hold to this position were to include the
Epitome among the Confessions, as the sixth and last
symbol of the Book of Concord, we believe that the Confes
sional question in the Lutheran Church would quickly re
solve itself into a complete and genuine harmony on the

THE FORMULA'S FORM. 731
basis of the Title just quoted. For the only unsettled ques
tion, then, would be as to the formal nature and the position
of the Comprehensive Declaration. The substance of doc
trine would be exactly the same, no matter what view was
taken as to the quality of the Comprehensive Declaration.
Says Thomasius : " The Epitome cannot, with any jus
tice, with its clear and precise form, be exposed to this ob
jection that it wears much more the form of a theological
dissertation than that of a Confession. It lays down its
positive and negative positions with so much aciiteness and
clearness, and maintains so happily the didactic confessional
manner, that it leaves nothing, in this respect, to be desired ;
indeed it surpasses in this the Augustana. In the Solida
Declaratio theological explanation and argument are pre
dominant. . . . Why should the Form of Concord be
condemned for that which is admired in the Apology " (Ev.
Bev. II, 216).
But quite against the intention and Title of the book,
against its call, origin and substance and results, the ob
jector declares that the Formula — meaning the whole work —
is " only a Commentary."
Is the Augsburg Confession only a Commentary? It
was written to bring " back to the one simple truth and
Christian Concord " 1 the whole Christian Church. Just
so the Formula of Concord was written to " set forth and
reconcile in a Christian way " the doctrines in the whole
Evangelical Faith. The Augsburg Confession offers itself
to " Your Imperial Majesty " ; the Formula of Concord tes
tifies " in the sight of God, and of all Christendom, to those
now living and those who shall come after us." The Augs
burg Confession witnesses to " the Confession of our preach
ers and of ourselves " ; the Formula witnesses " that the
above Declaration is our Faith, Doctrine and Confession,
in which we also will appear, by God's grace, with unterri-

2 Preface to Augs. Cop-f.

732 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
fied heart before the judgment seat of Jesus Christ, and
for it will give an account."
If the objector, who can hardly maintain standing ground
for the proposition that the Formula is only a private writ
ing of some kind, in the face of this language of the For
mula, nevertheless desires to persist in his position, he will
take one step further and say : " But the Formula of Concord
mentions all the Lutheran Confessions, and does not include
itself among them. It expressly says that its intention is not
to promulgate ' any new Confession.' Why, then, should it
be regarded as a Confession ?"
To this objection the reply is evident. The authors of the
Formula made clear the Confessional intent of their work,
but it was not in their province to set the final and outer
seal of value on what they had done. They loyally put the
seal on everything that the Church had done up to their day,
and they left it to us, their successors, with equal loyalty to
the testimony of the Church, to affix the seal of value on
what they had done.
It was not in their province to define the value of their
own Confession, nor was it in line with their object. Their
object was to show that they were not creating anything new,
but merely recovering the one old Confession in the Church,
as it manifested itself in all the Confessions. Their order
is historical, beginning with the Scripture and coming down
to the Augsburg Confession, from which departure had been
made (especially in the Variata), and to which they were
now trying to lead back the Church.
Thus they emphasize the unchanging Confessional prin
ciple, the same unchanging germ that unfolds itself in ever-
widening circles of growth. As Frank ~ points out, the Con
fessions of the Ancient and those of the Reformation Church,
do not run in parallels, nor stand by themselves as a row
of unconnected units ; but they concentre about Scripture as

2 Theologie der Concordien Formel, I, 7.

THE FORMULA'S FORM. 733
narrower and broader circles : the latter of which presuppose
and include the former, wherever the development is normal.
The inner living and self-centered faith sends forth out of
its trunk, in response to solicitation from without, a circle
of boughs and branches, which, though turned to various
sides, and varying in extent, are yet all expressions of the
same inner creative life-power; and as a harmonious whole
show forth the one principle within them which causes them
to shoot up.
" It is from this view that the utterances of the Formula
of Concord are to be measured when it solemnly assures
us that it does not desire to constitute any new Confession;
but, in bringing the existing conflicts to a decision in accord
ance with God's Word and the approved writings, it does
so only in the power of the divine Word, and of the earlier
Confessions. The reference of the Formula of Concord to
the Confession, partly of the old and partly of the renewed
Scriptural Church, at once transplants us into the organic
connection, out of which the truly genuine standards always
grow. Let us look more closely into the supposition that the
Formula of Concord claims for itself no Confessional value,
because of its repeated statements that it does not intend to
make or introduce a new Confession. In the opening para
graph of the Solid Declaration s it says : " We have declared
to one another, with heart and mouth, that we will neither
make nor receive any separate or new Confession of our
Faith, but acknowledge as Confessional the public common
writings which always and everywhere were received in all
the Churches of the Augsburg Confession as such Symbols
or Public Confessions, before the , dissensions arose among
those who accept the Augsburg Confession, and as long as
there was a unanimous adherence, maintenance and use of
the pure doctrine of God's Word as the late Dr. Luther

* Book of Concord, p. 535.
50

734 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
explained it." This is not an utterance as to the nature of
the Formula which they are now bringing forth, but an ex
planation of the reason why they introduce the earlier and
already recognized " Public Confessions " of the Church,
viz., the three oecumenical creeds, the Augsburg Confession,
the Apology, the Schmalkald Articles, Luther's Large and
Small Catechisms, which are to them " the sum of the
Christian doctrine." The Confessors are not here intimating
that their own work is but a private commentary ; and is not
to be regarded as a Symbol ; but that, in this new Declaration
or Symbol, they are not setting up a new Confession.
The earlier Confessions are introduced as a witness of
the truth in God's Word, and as " a unanimously received
correct understanding of our predecessors." In other words,
they are here, without openly saying it, yet actually, placing
the Formula in line and on a level with the other historic
creeds, in so far as the Confessors touch the subject at all.
But the real point which they are elucidating is the state
ment that " for thorough, permanent unity in the Church, it
is before all things necessary that we have a Comprehensive,
unanimously approved Summary and Form," wherein are
brought together from God's Word the common doctrines
reduced to a brief compass, the work of previous confessors
in this field, as they state : " By what has thus far been said
concerning the Summary of our Christian doctrine, we have
only meant that we have a unanimously received, defi
nite and common form of doctrine, which our Evangelical
Churches together and in common confess." When, then, they
speak of making no new Confession, they mean to say that
the Formula, as a Confession in line with the Augsburg
Confession and the other Confessions before it, is a Confes
sion of the same old "unanimously received, definite common
form of doctrine." It is not a new Confession, but merely
a repetition of the old Confession, and therefore of the same
authority as the old Confession. "In order that the truth
may be preserved the more distinctly, and be not hidden

THE FORMULA'S FORM. 735
under rather general words, we have expressly made a Dec
laration to one another; so that there might be a Public,
Definite Testimony, not only for those now living, but also
for our posterity, as to what is and should remain the
unanimously received understanding and judgment of our
Churches." This "Declaration," this "Public Definite Testimony,"
intended for " Posterity " and showing the " unanimous "
teaching " of the Churches," guarding against false doctrine
and practice in the ministry and in the schools, is not a
private writing, but consciously professes the elements of
symbolical authority. And can there be doubt as to this
authority ? We have the judgment of Seeberg : " The For
mula of Concord thus at once assumed a position among
the regulative symbols of Lutheranism." * We have the
remarkable testimony even of Schaff : —
" The Formula is the fullest embodiment of genuine Luth
eran orthodoxy, as distinct from other denominations. It
represents one of the leading doctrinal types of Christendom.
It is for the Lutheran system what the Decrees of Trent are
for the Roman Catholic, the Canons of Dort for the Cal
vinistic. It sums up the results of the theological contro
versies of a whole generation with great learning, ability,
discrimination, acumen, and, we may add, with compara
tive moderation. It is quite probable that Luther himself
would have heartily indorsed it, with the exception, perhaps,
of a part of the eleventh article. The Formula itself claims
to be merely a repetition and explication of the genuine
sense of the Augsburg Confession, and disclaims originality
as to the substance of the doctrine." °
Schaff here admits that the Formula " is for the Lutheran
system what the Decrees of Trent are for the Roman Cath
olic " ; and that the disclaimer of originality (" not a new
Confession " ) refers to the substance of the doctrine — to

'Hist. Doctr., II, p. 382.
5 Creeds of Christendom, T, p. 338 sq. Schaff's footnote Is discussed elsewhere.

736 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
the old doctrine — and not to the symbolical form of the
Declaration. This is sufficient to convince the discriminat
ing mind that it is untenable to maintain that the Formula
is but a private commentary. But, if more evidence be
needed, it is to be found in many places in the Formula.
Thus the authors bind themselves, saying: —
" We will speak . . . nothing contrary to this
Declaration, but . . . intend to abide thereby. . . .
We have attached our signatures with our own hands."
This is not the language of a Commentary nor of a Dog
matic. It is the language, most solemn, deliberate and
final, of a binding Confession.
Let us compare the public forms of the Augsburg Con
fession with those of the Formula, and see whether these
be not of equal symbolical validity. The Augsburg Con
fession appeals to the Emperor; the Formula, to God Him
self and the Judgment Seat of Christ. The Augsburg Con
fession was intended as part of " a mutual presentation of
writings and calm conference between us." It was one of two
religious parties appearing before the Emperor, and was
not sanctioned by a Council of the Church: "In the event
that . . . the difference between us and the other
parties be not settled, we present ourselves . . .
ready, though it be beyond what is sufficient, to . . .
defend our cause in a general, free and Christian Council.
. . . Nor do we intend to forsake it by this or
any other document, unless the matter between us should
. . be compared, settled, and brought to Christian
concord." The Augsburg Confession, therefore, was not
the Confession of a General Council- — was not even
laid before the General Council ; but it was " a solemn
and public protest " by one of two parties before a civil
tribunal. The Formula of Concord takes this Augsburg
Confession and binds it in with the other symbols of the
Christian Church, " as the symbol of our time " ; and con
fessionally acknowledges it and the other Lutheran symbols

THE FORMULA'S FORM. 737
as binding, in the same way in which it confesses its own
Declaration as binding.
On the distinction between a private dogmatic writing
and a public standard, Charles F. Schaeffer said many
years ago: —
" The Form of Concord, after asserting that the peace
of the Church can be permanently established only by the
adoption of a compendious statement, or type of doctrine
derived from the word of God, proceeds to declare that
this compendious form of doctrine ought to consist not of
private but of public writings, prepared in the name of
the associated churches, and sanctioned by them, or, in other
words, of symbols or creeds adopted formally by the law
ful representatives of the Church as expressive of her real
sentiments. '
" Even the writings of men like Luther and Melanchthon
do not contain our creed unless these writings have been
officially recognized and adopted by the Church. It is the
extreme of injustice to burden us with private opinions
which have never passed the ordeal of a public ecclesiastical
revision. We accordingly maintain as a fundamental prin
ciple that no doctrine can be considered as a Lutheran, doc
trine unless it be taught in the acknowledged standards or
symbolical books." *
The forms used in the Formula are not of a private or
dogmatic, but of a Confessional character : " We believe,
teach and confess." So, also, the rejection or condemnation
of false doctrine is symbolic; and in this, too, the exact
Confessional form of the Augsburg Confession is followed,
only more fully : " They teach."
The Rejection, or Antithesis, is important. Modern feel
ing hesitates at the bold and outspoken condemnation of
error. It would tread more softly; and there are those who
stumble at the negative, or condemnative, clauses, even of

* Book of Concord, II, 535.
T Ev. Rev., I, p. 464.

738 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
the Augsburg Confession, drawn up by Melanchthon him
self. We must not forget that the Scripture ! is as clear
and frequent in its condemnations as in its affirmations —
though much modern preaching is not true to Scripture
in this respect, but tones down and omits its minatory ele
ment; and that the Confessions are but faithfully following
their rule of faith in bearing honest testimony against, as
well as in favor of, that which is Scriptural.
In the second place, we must also remember that we
learn most by the presentation of a doctrine in its antago
nisms. The mere affirmation is too smooth to stir the activ
ity of the mind and the experience of the soul; but when
the false is set in its own glaring contrast to the true, our
mind and spirit awaken to the real nature of both. This
is doubtless the reason why God permits history to develope
by extremes ; and why experience, in all its bitter and appar
ently unnecessarily tragic contrasts, is the most effective
teacher. So long as the positive facts were new and not firmly
grounded in the Church's consciousness, i. e., so long as
Christianity had not yet conquered the world, the positive
form of statement, as found in the Apostles' and Nicene
Creeds, was most wholesome. But already in the Athanasian
Creed, the necessity of impressing the older and more worn
truth by contrast began to be felt, and the condemnatory
begins to appear.
Much more so would this be the case after a thousand
years more of the reign of external Christianity. It was
the very hardness and settled character of the traditional
wrong in the case of the Pharisees of the New Testament,
and of Judaism in the Old Testament, that brought forth
the sternest denunciations of the Saviour. He was more
earnest and terrible in His denunciation" than are any
of the Creeds.

8 Via. Chap. VI.
'Ib.

THE FORMULA'S FORM. 739
Moreover, a Confession, in testifying to a doctrine, is
expected to draw the line. This is the one difficult thing in
judgment of the truth. For this purpose, namely, to draw
the line, in earthly affairs, the most solemn tribunals, the
supreme courts of our land, have been erected; and, if the
Church is to be guided aright, this difficult duty should
also be undertaken in the symbols that speak for her funda
mental and determinative principles. Hence, for these
good and various reasons, the " reaction " of the doctrine, the
negative declaration, no less than the positive, should be
heartily received and openly confessed.
And there is a wider view-point to be taken into considera
tion in this connection. The Church in her Confessions is
always on the defensive. Starting with the substance of
Christ in its lowest and most compact terms, her Confessions
have never been extended a single point beyond what was
needed for protection and defense. They have never been
unfolded and expanded a priori, that is with a desire simply
to cover the field of possible positive faith, but always to
check the spread and heal the Church of error.
The spores of error like those of weeds are more prolific
than the seeds of truth, and with every succeeding century's
development of civilization and philosophy, the sheer burden
of education in secular no less than in religious development
becomes ever more heavy. This is one of the penalties of
life in a world old with thought and action. What was once
only a germ becomes multitudinous in its unfoldings and
branchings. But in each case, in the Confession, it is those
who introduce the variation, the error that requires ad
ditional discrimination, that are responsible for the ad
ditional bulk of Confessional statement, and not the Church.
In reply then to the call for smaller and fewer creeds in our
day, a cry often born of modern impatience and ignorance,
we say there never were so many errors afloat as now. While
modern forms must be met by vital statement, the latter
cannot omit or evade the complicated facts as they actually

740 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
exist, in order to be more popiilar and more elementary,
without suffering from the shallowness that accompanies
merely popular forms of statement.
That the Formula is " a Commentary," in the sense that
it is an exposition not independent in form and matter,
but leaning upon previous Confessions for both — upon what
has been made public an'd acknowledged as standard in the
public mind — i. e., that it is interpretative and not construc
tive, may be admitted; if, therewith, we accept the inter
pretation as part and parcel, and as of equal Confessional
authority, with the original. 10
But even here it must be borne in mind that the Formula
is not a commentary in the usual sense of the word. It
does not " comment " either upon the text or upon the
formal material of the Augsburg Confession. It leans only
upon the topics of the Confession, and its presentation of
these topics, both in form and in subject-matter, is inde
pendent and whole. It is a " commentary " of the same
order as Virgil is a " commentary " on Homer, or as Deu
teronomy is a " commentary " on Leviticus and Numbers.
Granting, then, that the Formula is a commentary, it is
evident that the work of comment is not its sole, nor its most
important and final function. In its own words, it " sets
forth," but it also " reconciles " " for all future time." Its
intention in doing so is to become a Confessional standard.
If it has failed as a standard, it is not a commentary, but a
standard only partially accepted, and only partially attain
ing its object.
In withholding Confessional authority from the Formula,
it is possible to vary the descriptive figure applied to the
work. Instead of drawing an illustrative term from the
exegetical field, and calling the Formula a "Commentary,"
the term may be taken from systematic theology, and the

10 As an approved Judicial decision, and not merely an argumentative opinion
on the original.

THE FORMULA'S FORM. 741
Formula called a " Dogmatic." " The Formula," says the
objector, " is not a Confession, but a good, yet unauthori
tative work on the dogma of the Church."
That the Formula of Concord is not a " Dogmatic
Treatise " is apparent at the first glance. Dogmatics are
not written by half a dozen authors in conjunction; and
then sent throughout the Church to be tested and criticised
at Conferences and Synods called for that purpose. Dog
matics are not signed and subscribed to by nine thousand
confessors. Neither are they written in symbolical form,
nor avowedly for posterity. Neither do they depend for
their principle of unity upon symbols of the Church, nor
do they usually confine their discussion to loci that have
been the subject of controversy.
There can be no question on this point. The Formula is
either a Symbolical Book of the Lutheran Church, or it is
a private and party Confession. It is not a Dogmatic.
The signers to the Preface declare that " they have been
most grievously accused as being unable to decide on any
thing concerning their faith, as certain" ; and as therefore
" fabricating new Confessions almost every year, yea, in
deed, every month." "
Hence they " once more declare and testify before God
and all mortals" that, in their Declaration, they are "not
introducing a new Confession, or one different from that
presented in 1530," but that they wish " to conduct our
Churches and schools first of all, indeed, to the fountains
of Holy Scripture, and to the Creeds, and then to the Augs
burg Confession." " "We mean that doctrine, which, hav
ing been derived from the Prophetic and Apostolic Scrip
tures, is contained in the three ancient Creeds, in the
Augsburg Confession, presented in 1530, then in the Apology,
in the Schmalkald Articles, and lastly in both the Cate
chisms.

"Preface, Book of Concord (Jacobs), p. 15.
22 lb., p. 18.

742 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
" . . . Therefore, we also have determined not
to depart even a finger's breadth either from the things
themselves or from the phrases which are employed con
cerning them; but, the Spirit of the Lord aiding us, to
persevere constantly, with the greatest harmony, in this
godly agreement, and we intend to examine all controver
sies according to this true norm and declaration of the
purer doctrine."
When it was perceived that the Declaration of the For
mula agreed with God's Word and the Augsburg Confession,
the signers of the Preface " publicly bore witness concern
ing it with heart, mouth and hand. Wherefore that godly
agreement is called, and perpetually will be, not only the
harmonious and concordant Confession of some few of our
theologians, but, in general, of the Ministers and rectors of
schools, one and all, in our provinces and realms." " This
language speaks for itself. The real reason for reducing
the Formula to the level of a Dogmatic lies in the sub
stance of the doctrine, and does not arise purely from the
character of its outer form. The great and substantial
objection against the Formula to-day is the objection of
the Philippists in the Sixteenth Century, viz., that it does
not represent every type of Lutheranism. In shutting out
the extreme Philippists, and the extreme Gnesio-Lutherans,
and in exposing the waverings of Melanchthon, it has, in
the eyes of some Lutherans, narrowed itself from a generic
to a party document. Several important facts are not to
be lost sight of at this point: The first of these is, that
the persistence of Melanchthon and his extreme party fol
lowers was responsible for the disintegration that the For
mula repaired; the second is, that Andreae actually made
his first attempt at union on the broader basis, and failed,
because neither the extreme Philippist nor the extreme
Gnesio-Lutheran would unite on a central Confession; and,
thus Providence so ordered, in the third place, that the
la Book of Concord, p. 13.

THE FORMULA'S FORM. 743
Confession in the Formula was to be the true Word of
God unadulterated with human changef ulness ; and party
expediencies were not to moderate it either in this or in
that direction.
Melanchthon was not slighted in the Formula. He is
mentioned with respect; but he is not mentioned as an
authority, like Luther, because his testimony did not give
forth " no uncertain sound." His spirit and method, on
their good side, are recognized and employed in the For
mula, as might be expected at the hand of Melanchthon's
own pupils.
There was one to whom the reputation of Melanchthon
was much dearer than to those who, in the Twentieth Cen
tury, seem to glory in his doctrinal variations. " No one
was in so eminent a sense the pupil of Melanchthon, as
was Chemnitz. Connected with him by family ties, and
living under his roof, the studies of Chemnitz were guided
by Melanchthon, not as a public teacher, but with the close
contact of personal interest and intimacy. As a teacher of
theology, Chemnitz lectured on Melanchthon's 'Loci,' and
Melanchthon himself was occasionally in the audience. The
fidelity of the younger theologian to the stricter type of
Lutheran theology, and his responsibility as its ablest de
fender, never led him into harsh denunciations of the man
to whom he confesses that he owed so much." And he was
the leading theologian of the Formula. He saw its necessity,
he guarded its form, he confessed it with heart and mouth,
and he' explicated and defended its doctrine.
Schaff, defining the nature of a Confession in his Creeds
of Christendom, avers that neither the dogmatic, the doc
trinal nor the polemic form of a creed renders it any the less
a Confession. He says : " A creed may cover the whole
ground of Christian doctrine and practice, or contain only
such points as are deemed fundamental and sufficient, or as
have been disputed. It may be declarative, or indicative in
form. It may be brief and popular (as the Apostles' and the

744 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
Nicene Creeds), for general use in catechetical instruction
and at baptism; or more elaborate and theological, for min
isters and teachers, as a standard of public doctrine (the
symbolical Books of the Reformation period). In the latter
case a confession of faith is always the result of dogmatic
controversy, and more or less directly or indirectly polemical
against opposing error."
Another objection frequently urged against the Formula
is the sharpness and the very evident logic of its form.
But when we remember the subtlety and the difficulty of
the subject-matter, the emphasis given to just such state
ment by Melanchthon, and the whole object to be attained,
we may be induced to admit that it would have been diffi
cult in that age to embody the substance in any superior
form." The Epitome is the Confession Proper; and the Ample
Declaration is its establishment. The material developed is
the eleven articles, in the order of the articles in the Augs
burg Confession. The Epitome first briefly states the case
in controversy (status controversiae) ; approves the pure
teaching (pars affirmativa) ; and disapproves the wrong
teaching (pars negativa). The fundamental exposition
(Solida Declaratio) treats of the articles in connection with
each other. Then there follows an appendix of heresies. "
Thus, the method of the Formula is to present the doc
trine, in each case, in simplest witness form, and follow
with the larger exposition. It is suitable to its purpose,
as a Confession, as the varying forms of the oecumenical

M The form of thesis and antithesis, used by Luther at the opening of the
Reformation, and still more so by Melanchthon in his disputations, has been
broken by the modern method of induction, but is often employed to-day
by the speculative and sketchy theologians of the age. The method in the
Formula is a beautiful combination of Luther's frankness with Melanchthon's
logic. " As Melanchthon's views of the Teaching and the Church remained the
norm, so the influence of his dogmatic is clearly to be perceived in the in
dividual results arrived at in the Formula." — Seeberg, on " Formula " in
Hauck. 15 The testimony of the witnesses of the Holy Scriptures, etc., in eight
articles, by Andrea? and Chemnitz, is not a part of the Formuia.

THE FORMULA'S FORM. 745
and the other Lutheran Confessions are suitable to their,
purpose. That the Formula of Concord was not intended to be
sharp, controversial and condemnatory, but to draw the
teeth out of the highly inflamed and controversial discus
sions raging in the Church, may be seen from the Preface : — "
" Godly men, lovers of peace, judged that the increasing
dissension could best be met by an accurate explanation of
the controverted articles from the Word of God, which
would reject and condemn the false dogmas; and clearly
present the divine truth. This would not only silence adver
saries, but would show the more simple and godly how to
act- in these dissensions, and to avoid future corruptions of
doctrine." And could anything be more true of our own day than
the following : " Besides, this matter is of importance also
in this respect, viz., that troublesome and contentious men,
who do not suffer themselves to be bound to any formula
of the purer doctrine, may not have the liberty, according
to their good pleasure, to excite controversies which fur
nish ground for offence, and to publish and contend for
extravagant opinions. For the result of these things, at
length, is, that the purer doctrine is obscured and lost,
and nothing is transmitted to posterity except academical
opinions and suspension of judgment." "

™ Book of Concord, p. 11.
» lb., p. 10.

CHAPTER XXXII.
THE LUTHERAN CONFESSION.
THE ANSWER OF THE FORMULA'S SUBJECT-
MATTER, TOUCHING THE QUESTION, IS
THE FORMULA OF CONCORD A
CONFESSION?
The Subjects Treated were Subjects of the Day — They were Agitating the Whole
Christian World — The Need of Settling them was Felt by the Melanchthonians
— The Formula Starts by Planting itself Firmly on Scripture — It Treats the most
Vital Doctrines of Christianity, Centering All in Christ — The Formula Treats of
Christ: His Work, Presence, Person — It Touches the greater Questions of
Christian Faith — Original Sin — Man's Freedom — Infused Righteousness — Law
or Gospel— The Person of Christ in the Sacrament.
WE HAVE made our way through many structural
preliminaries, and have now come to the heart of
the Formula. Is its subject-matter of a weight and fit
ness to comport with the character of a standard of the
Church of the Lord Jesus Christ? Are the doctrines dealt
with the right ones for Confessional use? We believe that
they are, that they are the great doctrines to which the
Church needs to give the Confessional weight of her testi
mony to-day, in the midst of the errors in which she is
living and that are rising around her.
Let us begin by recalling that the subjects treated in
the Formula were the problems of the day. The framers
of the Formula were not responsible for the subject-matter
with which the Confession deals. These questions were in
the times, and were agitating the whole Christian world.
746

SUBJECT-MATTER. 747
Instead of characterizing these problems as petty contro
versies within the narrow boundaries of a particular Luth
eranism, the profound and broad-minded historian will rec
ognize them as the great religious questions that ever agitate
the human mind ; and as springing, in the order of a natural
and necessary development, from the earlier premises of
Protestantism; and as affecting simultaneously not only
the Lutheran Church, but the whole of Sixteenth-Century
Christianity. In the Roman Church they took the form of the Jan-
senist controversy; and in the Reformed Church they came
to the surface in the Arminian controversy; while in the
deeper bosom of the Lutheran Church, which was sustain
ing a dual line of development — on the one side, reaching
out and attempting to approximate to a common Protes
tantism; and, on the other side, unfolding, in successive
conflicts, the specific and inner quality of its own nature —
they came to a head in the Person of Christ, Son of God
and Son of Man, and in the most profound sacramental
mystery revealed to man.
If the Augsburg Confession flowed forth as the neces
sary witness, of the earnest soul, awakened by Scripture,
against the errors of Rome, the Formula of Concord was
the outflow of the same mind and heart, most deeply agi
tated in attempting to find, for its newly-found doctrine
of salvation, a basis sufficiently grounded in the Scrip
ture and sufficiently developed to ward off the extremes
of Protestantism's own unfolding life. The Formula of
Concord, like other great documentary foundations of his
tory, arose out of terrific conflict and upheaval; for, after
the external struggle had been won at Augsburg, the inter
nal weaknesses began to manifest themselves. The For
mula was not a book forced upon the Church, nor composed
academically in days of peace. It came forth out of much
anguish as an inner necessity and as the answer of an
obedient Scriptural conscience to the needs of the day. The

748 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
writers of the Formula say, " These controversies are not
mere disputes concerning words." The subjects are great.
Their one wish is a practical one, viz., that " the errors
and corruptions that have arisen may be shunned and
avoided by sincere Christians who prize the truth aright."
The historian should not overlook the important fact
that the need of a Confessional settlement of the problems
that were ploughing into the vitals of the Church was felt
as well on the Lutheran-Philippist side. The attempt to
enlarge and amplify our Confessions first appeared among
the Melanchthonians. " It was in the unionistic part of
our Church," says Krauth, " that the tendency first ap
peared to put forth bulky Confessions, and the necessity
for the Book of Concord was largely generated by the
greatly larger bodies of doctrines which were set forth by
the Philippists." The source of the trouble was on the
broad side of the house. Its revered head, the excellent
Melanchthon, was constantly shifting his ground, treating
truth as though it were some human opinion to be modified
and adapted to the temper of the hour, and thus destroy
ing its fundamental stability.
While the doctrinal questions undoubtedly would have
arisen of themselves within the heart of Lutheranism, the
tortuousness, and prolongation, and fierceness of the con
flict, was in no small part due to the haziness which over
shadowed the whole evangelical field of truth. To again
quote Krauth :' " We have twenty-eight large volumes of
Melanchthon's writings — and, at this hour, impartial and
learned men are not agreed as to what were his views on
some of the profoundest questions of Church doctrine, on
which Melanchthon was writing all his life ! "
This same statement, it is true, may also, in some places,
be turned against Luther; for he can often be quoted on
both sides of the same question. But his utterances, not-

> Con, Ref., p. 291.

SUBJECT-MATTER. 749
withstanding, were all genuine insights, and not accommo
dative adaptations; and, therefore, serve, in the end, only
to swell the fuller harmony and strength of the ultimate
principle which the Church maintains.
At its start the Formula plants itself firmly on Scrip
ture; and to-day the very first thing we need to know in
any of the movements of our Twentieth Century is the
attitude which their promulgators take toward Scripture. *
Without limitation, the Concordia sets up the Holy Scrip
tures of the Old and the New Testament as the " only
judge, rule and standard by which all other writings are
to be judged." This great principle, not announced in
any of the oecumenical or earlier Lutheran Confessions,
of the Scriptura unica regula, disposes of many Sixteenth
Century difficulties; and relieves the Formula of Concord
itself, and the full Confessional principle of our Church,
from the criticism that is often made upon it, viz., that
we lift the Confessions to the place of the Bible. In order
to prevent this very thing, the Formula has declared the
Scriptures to be the only rule, and expressly says that
the symbols of the Church, including itself, ' are not judges,
but only a witness and declaration of the faith.' 3
It is admitted that the Formula is the only Confession
that brings out the relation of our Church to Scripture.
" The Augsburg Confession," says Schaff, " does not mention
the Bible principle at all, although it is based upon it through
out ; the Articles of Schmalkald mention it incidentally ; and
the Formula of Concord more formally." " Schaff is per-

2 That this Confession seemed so thoroughly in accord with Scripture as to
have been regarded as semi-inspired by some at a later day, does not militate
against the Confessional strength of the Formula, which has taken unusual
precaution to bear testimony against this very thing. If there are Lutherans
of the Seventeenth Century who have unduly worshiped the Formula of
Concord, are there not Lutherans of several centuries later who pay almost
similar tribute to the Augsburg Confession, as the sufficient fountain and the
palladium of such doctrine as they deem it well to confess.
8 E. g. : " The . . . symbols . . . are ... a witness and de
claration of the faith." — Intro, to Epit., B. C, 492.
»» Creeds of Christendom, I, p. 216.
51

750 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
haps not quite correct in this statement, for its Preface tells
us that the object of the Augustana is to show " what manner
of doctrine from the Holy Scriptures and the pure Word
of God has been set forth in our lands and churches;" and
the conclusion of the Augustana declares that " nothing has
been received on our part, against Scripture or the Church
Catholic ;" and that " we are ready, God willing, to present
ampler information according to the Scriptures."
But the Formula explicitly lays down the Scripture prin
ciple as the basis for the whole Lutheran Confession. The
" Comprehensive Summary " is the teaching or sum of Holy
Scripture as it is gathered in the Confessions of the Church.
The Formula's Introduction proceeds immediately upon the
Evangelical principle of Scripture, and recognizes the Scrip
ture as the one rule and standard of faith, as the touch-stone
according to which all doctrine is to be esteemed and judged.
The Confessions of the old Church and' the Confessional
writings of the Lutheran Reformation are acknowledged as
the true and faithful extract of Scripture, as the epitomical
explanation of the Bible, as the sum and type of doctrine, as
the unanimous certain universal form of doctrine ' from and
according to which, because they are taken out of God's
Word, all other writings, in so far as they are to be approved
and accepted, are to be judged.' All other writings, except
the Confessional writings, all ' private writings,' are authori
tative only in so far as they are proven true by the Confes
sion, only quatenus. This is the relation particularly
to all Tradition: it is to be prized as an inherited good, but
its value is only quatenus, that is in so far as it is not
contrary to the Scripture. But the Formula of Concord by
no means intends to subject the Churchly Confession to a
quatenus. To the Formula the Confession is authorita
tive because, not in how far it is in accord with the Word of
God. Thus already in the Introduction the Large and the
Small Catechisms are expressly recognized as the Bible of the
laity.

SUBJECT-MATTER. 751
Therefore the Holy Scripture is to be accorded the position
of norma normans, the standard that rules every
thing ; the Confession as norma normata, the standard
already judged by the highest standard' which serves as a
standard itself just on that account.8"
The subjects treated in the Formula of Concord are the
most vital doctrines of Christianity. All of them pertain
either to man's salvation or to the person and nature of
man's Redeemer, Jesus Christ. The Formula begins, like
the Augsburg Confession, with man himself, proceeds to
what Christ has done for man, and shows how Christ was
able to accomplish such a work for man.
Here, then, is the one symbol of the ages which treats
almost exclusively of Christ, — of His work, His presence,
His person. Here is the Christ-symbol of the Lutheran
Church. One might almost say that the Formula of Con
cord is a developed witness of Luther's explanation of the
Second and Third Articles of the Apostles' Creed, meet
ing the modern errors of Protestantism — those cropping
up from the Sixteenth to the Twentieth Century, in a
really modern way.
As usually represented by those unfriendly to it, the
Formula of Concord is the product of an extreme, small-
visioned sectarian Lutheran ecclesiasticism, under the in
fluence of an abstract theological philosophy. The reverse
is the case.4 The Augsburg Confession has an article on
the abstract doctrine of the Trinity; the Formula has
none. The Augsburg Confession has no less than two arti
cles on the Church, and oiie on ecclesiastical order; the
Formula has none. ' The Augsburg Confession has one

8b Goschel, Die Concordien Formel nach ihrer Geschichte, Lehre u. Kirch-
lichen Bedeutung, p. 42.
* Schaff in his extensive treatment of the controversies of the Sixteenth
Century undesignedly pays the Formula the highest tribute, as to its handling
of these problems for the modern reader, when he says, " We notice them in
the order of the ' Form of Concord.' " — Creeds, I, p. 288.
'Unless the Article on Church Rites be considered one. <

752 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
article on Private Confession, and one on the Use of the
Sacraments; the Formula has none. That the Formula
really deals with living and vital issues, as much so as the
Augsburg Confession, may be seen from the fact that in
the two recent and complete discussions of our Church
doctrines, those by Dr. Valentine (Christian Theology) and
by Dr. Jacobs (Summary of the Christian Faith), the For
mula of Concord is mentioned as often as is the Augsburg
Confession. *
The discussions of the Formula of Concord, we repeat,
touch the greater questions of our Christian faith. Every
one of them is a large and live question in the Protes
tantism of the Twentieth Century. The subjects treated
in the Formula are in truth the burning subjects in theology
at the present day, the ones on which the Church of the
Twentieth Century must speak confessionally. At the head
of them we find the question touching the Word of God
and the Scripture, whose antithesis to-day is the Negative
Criticism and the New Theology. This is followed by the
Lutheran teaching on Original Sin, whose antithesis to-day
is the Evolution of man's natural powers unfolding to per
fection. Then follows, third, the doctrine as to Free Will,
whose antithesis to-day is a double one : I. — First, the reign
of Natural Law over man; second, man's mind, soul and
conscience are a product of heredity and environment. II. —
Man's will is able to decide for salvation through new
powers bestowed by God. This is the subtle Synergism
which has infected nearly the whole of modern Evangelical
Protestantism, and which is or has been taught in institu
tions bearing the name of our own Church. Speaking of
this synergistic teaching in the work, Christian Theology,
Jacobs says: —
"The real question involved in the discussion is this: ' Is faith God's work in

8 Dr. Valentine puts both on a par, so far as quotation Is concerned, In re
ferring to both an equal number of times, Dr. Jacobs refers to the Augsburg
Confession fifty-seven times, and to the Formula of Concord forty-four times.

SUBJECT-MATTER. 753
man, or is it a work of man wrought through new powers bestowed by God?'
In assailing the affirmation of the former by the Formula of Concord, [the au
thor] arrays himself also against the Augsburg Confession. ' The Holy Ghost is
given,' says Art. V, 'who worketh faith where and when it pleaseth God, in
'them that hear the Gospel.' It is the question over again of the ' Variata' as
opposed to the 'Invariata.' "
The fourth living doctrine discussed by the Formula is
that of Justification by Faith, the doctrine that is at this
moment being completely " readjusted " in English The
ology so as to correspond with the old doctrine of " infused
righteousness," developed in the Osiandrian controversy, one
of the errors that led up to the necessity of the Confession
of the Formula.
The fifth subject of the Formula is the Testimony as
to Good Works, whose antithesis to-day is reaching one's
destiny and salvation by character.
The sixth truth taught in the Formula is the Law and
the Gospel, whose antithesis to-day is a modern preach
ing which places repentance and the punishment of God
in the background, and emphasizes only the Fatherly Love
of God.
The seventh doctrine of the Formula is that teaching
which is often perverted to-day by loose Christians as found
in the Augsburg Confession, viz., the Christian's use of
the Law, and whose antithesis is that Christian liberty is
license. The antithesis of the Seventh Article, on the Lord's Sup
per, is the current view that the Communion is chiefly a
meal to signify fraternal fellowship among all Christians;
and the antithesis of the Eighth Article is that Christ is
only a perfect man, inspired and elevated in the order of
nature. The antithesis of the Ninth Article, on the De
scensus, is the failure to recognize Christ's power over
evil. Of the Eleventh Article the antithesis to-day is the
over-exaltation of ceremonies and the entrance into litur
gical extremes, on the one hand; and, on the other, their
complete rejection as foolish mummery. Of the Twelfth

754 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
Article, on Predestination, the antithesis is the current
belief and assertion that " men have a right to be saved " ;
and of the last Article, on Sectarians, the present-day
antithesis is the position apparently assumed on all sides ¦
that the Church is a human organization in which men
of one temperament flock together to express their own
religious feelings; that every man has a right to utter his
own views in every pulpit, that all pulpits should be open
to all teachings, since " truth is mighty and will prevail,"
and that no theological errors are important, nor to be sup
pressed, since, after all, heresy is only half-truth groping
its way through to the fuller possession of all sides of every
subject. It would be difficult to find a more modern cata
logue of subjects, or one on which the Lutheran Church is
more needed for testimony and confession.
Let us look at this important matter somewhat more in
detail. The truths testified to and confessed in the For
mula are at the very heart of Christ's redemption, and
they are treated not only with a face toward Rome, as in
the Augsburg Confession, but with a face toward radical
ism. They set up the true Faith in the midst of its two
extremes. They give us the central view of the questions
concerning sin and grace, justification by faith, the use of
good works, the Law and the Gospel, the Lord's Supper,
and the Person and work of Christ. To these are added
a discussion on church ceremonies (a living question to
day, as we have seen), one on predestination (a living ques
tion), and a catalogue of wrong doctrines and wrong teach
ings of all kinds.
The first article goes to the root of humanity's plight.
It discusses the source of all the evil in man, original sin
— not in the hard and dry scholastic manner of Calvinism,
nor in the superficial manner of Romanism, but with a
thorough grasp of Scripture and a modern touch. The
question analyzed is whether original sin is the nature of
man itself, or a corruption of his nature; and the errors

SUBJECT-MATTER. 755
disposed of are those which inhere, in large part, in the
loose and liberal Christianity of. to-day.
No one can discuss theology, especially original sin, with
out at least stumbling across the theological question of
free will. This is not a philosophic doctrine.' Valentine
himself is not able to omit a consideration of it ; and though
he believes, as we do, that " the weary metaphysical strife "
is unnecessary, yet, of the theological question, he says,
" This subject is one of great importance, deeply integrated
in Christian theology." " The Scriptural teaching as to
man's freedom and his relation to the converting grace of
God is one of the most fundamental and far-reaching of
all the principles of Christianity. The New Testament
devotes much space to it. It was the subject of the great
controversy between Augustine and Pelagius. All unevan-
gelieal and much nominally evangelical modern preaching
is vitiated by errors on this subject. The Augsburg Con
fession had discussed it, and on the right foundation; but,
in later years, Melanchthon had taught a form of Synergism,
" a refined evangelical modification of semi-Pelagianism." *
This doctrine of Synergism, or a partnership between
man and God in the work and merit of salvation, is a
natural and tempting belief of the human mind, and one
which is continuously injurious to the free grace of God,
and to a perfectly pure faith in man. The testimony of
the Formula on this point is admirably clear, simple and
useful; and it leads to the central doctrine of justification
by faith.
In the Augsburg Confession justification had been prop
erly treated. Lutheranism had always taught clearly the
distinction between justification as an external act of God

1 The philosophic problem of free will or necessity is a question in a dif
ferent field.
8 Christian Theology, I, p. 464.
• Schaff, Creeds of Christendom, I, p. 270.

756 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
freeing man in his relation to God, and sanctification as
an internal act of God in man; and had viewed sanctifica
tion as the necessary effect of justification.
But it was a Lutheran university professor, a speculative
genius of great learning, who became the first Protestant
to assail the forensic conception of justification, and who
declared that the sinner is made just by an infusion of the
divine nature of Christ, which is our righteousness. This
rejection of justification as a forensic act, and the errors
connected with an infused or a developing righteousness
in the human soul, is the heart of the New Theology of
our day. Since some latter-day Lutherans choose to resort
to non-denominational encyclopedias and Bible dictionaries,
rather than to the Confessions, for their theology, let us
take this cardinal principle of our Church, which Luther
calls " the article of a standing and falling Church," justi
fication by faith, and see whether the Lutheran Church
does not to-day need the Formula of Concord in the main
tenance of this teaching.
The representative English theological cyclopedia of the
century, many of whose articles are treatises in themselves —
some of them more extensive on a single subject than the
whole Formula of Concord with all its subjects, presents the
following exposition of justification: —

"One of the commonest views in modern theology makes justification de
pendent on a real union with Christ, breaking down the sharp distinction be
tween justification and regeneration, and treating them simply as aspects of the
same process. Faith, on this view, is to be regarded in justification not simply as
the reflex of Divine grace, but as comprehending the spiritual content of union
with Christ, and of the gift of the Spirit, which is the basis of the ethical life of
the Christian. Hence this view of justification is claimed to be ' ethical ' ; justifi
cation according to it being a recognition of what really is in the believer his new
life, as well pleasing to God. A reconciliation with the forensic view is found in
the Kantian thought that God judges by the ideal; so that justification appears as
a prophetic judgment, which sees in the first germ of the new life its whole fruit.
"This view is closely akin to Osiander' s. It has undoubtedly points of con
tact with the broader use of the word ' faith ' in St. Paul, who, as Pfleiderer
points out, often uses it as practically equivalent to the whole of Christianity

SUBJECT-MATTER. 757
{Urchristenthum, I, p. 250; cf. I Cor. 12: 9f; 16: 13). It is further along
the line developed in the cycle of passages like Rom. 8: 17; Gal. 2: 17; I Cor.
4: 4; 9: 24, 27; Ph. 3: 10-14, as previously explained."

So, then, it is admitted that the Osiandrian error, which
the Formula combats, and which is included in what are
often termed those " petty," " dead," and " useless " " Six
teenth Century " " Theological controversies," is " one of
the commonest views in modern theology." If such is the
case, it brings the Formula up to date, as to subject-matter
touched on, as the most modern and useful of Lutheran
symbols. It is true that the Augsburg Confession also deals with
this cardinal article, but in the cyclopedia referred to, in
differentiating the Roman, the Lutheran, and the Reformed
doctrines, the Augustana is not mentioned; while the For
mula is discussed and criticised at length, as the repre
sentative of historical " Protestant Theology." Says the
article : —

"The Protestant theology, like St. Paul, found the revelation of the divine
grace in Christ, and His work for sinners. Here, however, a considerable
development takes place, based upon the mediaeval development of the doctrine
of the Atonement due to Anselm. The latter had viewed the death of Christ in
the first place as a satisfaction to God's honour, which liberated Him from the
necessity of punishing sinners, and in the second place as a merit or work of
supererogatory obedience, which could be made available for His followers. The
Protestant theology accepted both these ideas, but with such modifications as
made it possible to combine them with the forensic idea of justification. The
death of Christ was viewed not as a satisfaction to God's honour, but to the
penal sanctions of His Law. To this was added His active obedience to the Law
in His life as a satisfaction to its positive requirements. The whole was summed
up as Christ's active and passive obedience or merit, and regarded as a provision
of the Divine grace with a view to the justification of sinners. Justification con
sists in the gracious imputation of this two-fold merit or obedience to the sinner
on the sole condition of faith, so that he becomes not only guiltless before the
Law, but also totally free from its claims. This conception is common to both the
Lutheran and the Reformed Churches. It did not grow up all at once; but the
roots of it can be traced in the earlier Reformers, and it finally established itself
firmly in both Churches. It is completely stated in the Formula of Concord
(pars ii. Solida Declaratio, iii, 14, 15)."

758 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
This Evangelical doctrine is then criticised at length in
the cyclopedia, as follows: —
"The conception of Christ's death as a satisfaction to the penal sanctions of
the Divine law, on the ground of which God forgives sinners, may, indeed, be
accepted as a natural interpretation of the Pauline conception of Christ's death as
an expiatory sacrifice for sin, if this conception is to be translated into terms of
law. Whether, however, such translation is desirable, is questionable; as we saw
that the forensic point of view is only formally and not materially regulative for
the Pauline conception of justification. Thus, instead of seeking to translate
related conceptions into legal terminology, we ought rather to seek such an
explanation (or, if need be, modification) of them as accords with the material
element in St. Paul's idea of justification, viz., that it is entirely the work of
grace, 'apart from law.' The Protestant theology, in fact, misinterprets Paul by
taking his legal phraseology as essential, and seeking to systematize his whole
view of justification and its presuppositions under legal ideas. The attempt of the
Protestant doctors to conceive the whole process of salvation in legal forms, made
them introduce into theology a number of axioms which are in no way part of the
Christian view of the world. Such an axiom is that all sin must be punished;
whereas the Christian religion teaches that it can be forgiven, and forgiveness and
punishment are mutually exclusive (Cf. W. N. Clarke, Christian Theology,
p. 330). Another axiom is that the punishment of sin may be transferred from
one person to another; whereas the very essence of the idea of punishment is its
connexion with guilt. The vicarious suffering of the innocent for the guilty is
not punishment. A third axiom is that merit may similiarly be transferred from
one person to another; whereas the moral result of a life, which is what is meant, is
personal, and while it may result in the good of others, cannot be possibly separated
from the person of its author, and treated as a commercial asset. That the
Protestant doctors had to base their theology on axioms like these, plainly shows
that they were on the wrong line in attempting to translate the doctrine of salva
tion into legal terms. We may no doubt recognize behind the forms of the
Protestant theology the intention to show that the Divine grace itself is the grace
of a Holy and a Righteous God. But the immediate identification of the Divine
Righteousness with its expression in law is fatal to a full and complete view of
grace. St. Paul might have taught a better conception of law as a temporary and
preparatory manifestation of the Divine righteousness, whose end is fulfilled in a
higher way by grace (Gal. 3: 24)." 10

10 In opposition to this plausible New Theology teaching, we might cite the
words of Thomasius on the nature of Justification. He says : " The divine
act, in consequence of which this transfer to the sinner occurs, we denominate,
distinguishing it from the influences by which the Holy Ghost converts and
sanctifies him, a declaratory act (actus forensis) ; not designing thereby, that
God in heaven pronounces, in accordance with human usages, a judicial sen
tence, but in the sense of the earlier teachers of our church, who characterize
it as the decision of the divine mind — the determination of the divine mind and
will (aestimatio mentis divinas, relatio mentis et voluntatis divinae). It is an
act of God's intuition, who sees man not as he is in himself and in his sub-

SUBJECT-MATTER. 759
• We see that those who follow Ritschl, Kaftan, Haring,
Lipsius, and Clarke, — in other words, the most progressive
theologians of our day — on the doctrine of "a standing or
falling church" find the typical orthodox Protestant con
fession of Justification in the Formula of Concord, in the
article bearing testimony with reference to the Osiandrian
controversy; and that they go back to the Formula as the
best and most Scriptural Confession of the Protestant or
Evangelical development of the doctrine of justification by
faith. They recognize that the Formula of Concord is the
highest representative of the Scriptural teaching of which
they themselves are the antithesis.
The difficulty with many in the Mother Protestant
Church who dip into the newer Scotch, British, New Eng
land or German streams is that of the near-sighted and
deaf octogenarian who lived near but had never seen Niagara
Falls, and who swore to and sighed for the superior majesty
of a noisy stream called Roaring Run, amid the sylvan
scenes of a rich neighbor of his boyhood days. They do
not believe how great in volume the Witness of the For
mula has shown itself to be, how impregnable, to the be
liever, its positions are, and how the strength of each and
every doctrine in it re-enforces all the rest. Twist or re
move the one doctrine of justification, the one doctrine of
the Person of Christ, the one doctrine of the Word, the
one doctrine of the Sacrament, the one doctrine even of

jective condition, but in connection with Christ, as indeed one with Christ,
the holy propitiator, with whom he has, on his part, by means of faith, united
himself [He sees and loves him in Christ, upon Whom he believes. Com
pare Luther's declaration : Fides apprehendit Christum et habet eum presentem,
inclusum tenet, ut annulus gemmam ; imo vero per earn sic eonglutinaris
Christo, ut ex te ipso fiat quasi una persona.] ; for though justification on
the part of God, results from grace on Christ's account, its subjective con
dition on the part of man is faith ; and therefore this objective act of God
does not remain external to him, but enters directly to his conscience, and thus
opens the way, so that the sinner actually perceives within himself the voice
of the judging God, who absolves him from his sins, the consciousness of
the divine favor and adoption springs up ; here justification' coincides with the
production by God of justifying faith. It is like the imputation of sin, which
is God's condemnation of the sinner, and is so brought home to the heart by
the Holy Spirit, that it feels the pain of remorse and the flaming wrath of the
judge, terrores conscientia? (stings of conscience). We go beyond the state-

760 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
the Church, and you have thrown all the others out of
joint. The Formula is our guarantee against that twist in Luth
eranism which prevailed during 'the reign of the Melanch
thonian principle; and against the ruisarranged and in
verted relations in the faith of many Protestants who seem
nearest to the Lutheran Church to-day.
A striking illustration of the way in which a misplaced
emphasis on one point spreads through, and affects, the whole
doctrinal system is to be found in the teaching of Caspar
Schwenkfeldt on the Lord's Supper; which led quickly to
the rejection of the Lutheran doctrines of justification, of
the Word and Sacrament, the Person of Christ, the Church,
and the Office of the Word in the Ministry.
Schwenkfeldt's deviation resembles that of Osiander.
Starting at the first impulse to salvation, we find in
Schwenkfeldt the Outer Word, which is a mere sign. It
causes an outer faith; but the Inner Word is the actual
substantial Christ Himself, which quickens, enlightens,
purifies, saves, and nourishes, without external means. The
Scriptures touch only the outer man; and they profit noth
ing without the spiritual understanding given by God to
the elect.
In the sacraments, water, bread and wine are not a
medium, but are a mere outer sign of that which is im
parted by living inner faith. The Person of Christ is not
a union of two natures communicating the idiomata of each

ment that man is justified by faith ; more accurately to define, we add, ' by
faith alone' (sola fide). By this we exclude from justification all human
excellence, works, merit, as effective or auxiliary ; assert, that neither a
precursory nor a consequent human love is the procuring cause ; reject the
scholastic congruent and cooperating merit (meritum de congruo et condigno) ;
the formate faith (fides formata) and the infused justice (justitia infusa),
and place our trust entirely and exclusively on the grace which, purchased for
us by Christ, is provided and offered in the Gospel. For this very reason is
this grace — grace to us sinners, — and therefore accessible and certain, because,
on the one hand, independent of an atonement connected with our subjectivity,
but positively complete and satisfactory to God, and, on the other, resulting
from no condition than faith, otherwise it would be useless. As it is, we extend
to it with confidence the hand — the poor, empty hand of faith, and apprehend
with it the ' gift of righteousness,' which it offers us in Christ through the
word and the sacraments." — Ev. Rev., I, pp. 201, 202.

SUBJECT-MATTER. 761
to the other, but consists in the flesh of Christ deified, and
one with God. The union is a transformation or a tran
substantiation of the human flesh into the divine nature.
This divine flesh, given to man by the inner Word and
the inner Sacraments, is the inner faith and brings justi
fication, regeneration, sanctification and glorification.
Thus we find here a false unity in the relation of the
two natures of Christ, which runs from the Lord's Supper,
from the Person of Christ, from justification, clear through
all the other doctrines, comes to the surface in the Word
and the Sacraments, and, though a unity, introduces a
dualism of the inner and the outer, into human nature,
into the Gospel, and into the kingdom of God, which accords
neither with the healthy balance of the Scripture, nor of
the facts of human life. One twist of the central doctrine
of the Person of Christ, with its correlate in justification,"
turns the system of Schwenkfeldt almost as far from Luth
eranism as Lutheranism itself is turned from Rome. It
is no wonder that the framers of the Formula devoted
unusual care to the great central teaching as to Christ
Himself. Turning to the next (third) article of the Formula, we
find it reveals the direct line of connection between the
doctrine of the Person of Christ and that of justification
and faith. Osiander had taught that Christ is our right
eousness according to His divine nature — a doctrine which
sympathizes with that of infused righteousness ; and Stan-
car had opposed this, claiming that we are justified with

11 " In the fundamental doctrine of justification all the other doctrines of the
symbols are involved, so that every one who sincerely believes the one will
be compelled to believe the others, if he carry out his faith. Conviction of this,
on the part of any one, demands subscription to the • entire body of the doc
trines of the church, because they contain, developed, the faith which he
entertains. Assuredly minor defects in the form would not create difficulty ;
the less, as in the recognition of the Symbols, what is mere theological elucida
tion, is not taken into the account, but the ' credimus,' ' docemus,' and ' con
fitemur.' " — Thomasius, Trans, in Ev. Rev., I, p. 200.

762 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
Christ as our righteousness according to his human nature.
Consequently, here again the question is one of the bear
ing of the Person of Christ upon other doctrines; and the
Formula of Concord, true to its true balance of the divine
and the human in the Person of Christ, and true to the
golden balance of the whole Lutheran system, has settled
the matter right by teaching that the one, whole, and per
fect obedience, active and passive, of Christ, as God and
man, is our righteousness; and that His whole obedience
unto death, is imputed unto us.
Even in the doctrine of good works, which is the next
subject of controversy taken up in the Formula, the For
mula leads the disputants from the bare bones of the outer
frame to the inner grace in Christ Jesus. The Roman
Catholic doctrine made much of good works in its system
of salvation; and the Reformation's teaching of salvation
by faith alone was arrayed directly against it. Yet, up to
the appearance of the Formula, Protestantism had not yet
finally fixed the exact status of the doctrine of good works,
in a positive sense ; and in the course of time two teachings
concerning them, arose: one, that good works are necessary
to salvation; and the other, that good works are dangerous
to salvation. Melanchthon strove to solve the troublesome
question by saying simply, " Good works are necessary " ;
but it was the Formula of Concord that finally settled the
doctrine, by separating good works from justification and
from salvation, yet declaring them necessary as effects of
justifying faith.
Among all the effects of the Reformation there is none
so popularly lauded to-day as that of the right of freedom
of thought, freedom of conscience, and freedom of action.
The Augsburg Confession discusses the right indirectly, in
connection with ceremonies, traditions, observances, vows,
etc. ; and the Schmalkald Articles discuss it with reference
to the Papacy; but it remained for the Formula of Con
cord to discuss the doctrine, not with respect to Rome, but

SUBJECT-MATTER. 763
with respect to Protestantism itself. The Augustana gives
us the doctrine externally, in contrast with Rome. The
Formula gives us the doctrine internally in its relation to
the Gospel itself.
The Antinomian controversies, usually considered so
effete, were nothing but the first cry of the Protestant mind,
in its joy for freedom, refusing to be bound by any law.
What could be more characteristic of the extreme religious
and social democracy of our own day, and of all the indi
vidualistic movements of the Nineteenth and Twentieth
Centuries, than this unwillingness to abide by the law and
command of God?
It is not affirming too much to say that the bulk of our
modern religious teaching, the teaching that puts all stress
on God's love and mercy; that directs the ministry to
preach only of heaven and be silent as to hell; that speaks
exclusively of grace, and not at all of penalty, — is, in
essence, and at its best, a repetition of the teaching of John
Agricola, of Eisleben, who was the first Protestant to de
clare that the Law is superseded by the Gospel, and has
nothing to do with repentance and conversion; but works
only wrath and death, leads only to unbelief and despair,
and is no longer needed since the Gospel is sufficient both
to warn and to comfort.
This error is one of the great weaknesses of a spineless
and unionistic Twentieth-Century Protestantism. It was
most vigorously combatted by Luther in his catechisms
and in his preaching. But the truth was settled finally
and confessionally for us by the Formula of Concord,
which laid down a three-fold use of the law: first, the
political or civil use, to maintain outward order; second,
the pedagogic use, to lead men to a knowledge of sin and
the need of redemption; and third, a normative use, in
regulating the life of the regenerate.
The Old Testament is not Law alone; and the New Tes
tament is both Law and Gospel. It will only be when this

764 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
healthy balance of authority and love is universally recog
nized in our own age, that our own theology and religion,
our own training and discipline in home and school, our
own theories of pedagogy, reform and penology, and our
own teaching of ethics and psychology, will return from
the unhealthy extreme into which, in the last generation,
they have been drifting.
The step in the Formula from Law and Gospel, as given
in Christ, to love and life, as manifested and applied in
Christ — is a beautiful upward progression. The Gospel
is most concretely applied in the sacrament of Christ's
body and blood; and the prerequisite of Christ's body and
blood in the Sacrament, is the Person of Christ itself. The
Sacrament of Christ roots itself in the Person of Christ.12'
Thus the centre of Christ is Christ in the Sacrament, and
Christ in the Sacrament is the epitome, the summary, the
culmination of the whole Gospel. Says Jacobs :
" Assuming the doctrine of the Real Presence and the
Sacramental Union and Eating, the entire Plan of Salva
tion and much that it presupposes are most forcibly set
forth in the Holy Supper.
" The proclamation of death and the presence of blood
that has been shed, preach the Law as well as the Gospel,
by arraigning all who partake of the Holy Supper, of a
guilt that called for the death of the Son of God. But
with this announcement of guilt, there is also the procla
mation of the remedy which has been provided. While
' without the shedding of blood, there is no remission '
(Heb. 9:22), here we are assured that this requirement
has been met, and that blood has actually been shed for
us; and, as a pledge of this, it is actually offered to and
applied to each communicant. The days of Old Testa
ment waiting are over; the promise has been fulfilled; the

i»a " Their [Lutheran and Reformed] controversies clustered around this
article [Lord's Supper], as the Nicene and post-Nicene controversies clustered
around the Person of Christ." — Gchaff, Creeds of Christendom, p. 216.

SUBJECT-MATTER. 765
sacrifice so long expected is actually here. It is not the
body that is to be given, but that has been given. It is
not the blood that is to be shed, but that has been shed,
of which the cup is a communion. . . Each one, by himself,
is made to realize that redemption has been provided for
him, and the Son of God belongs individually to him!
For this reason, the main stress rests upon those very small
monosyllables, ' For you.'
" ' All the good things that God the Lord has, belong to
Christ, and here become entirely mine. But that I may
have a sign and assurance that such inexpressibly great
blessings are mine, I take to myself the body and blood
of Jesus Christ.' ' If I believe that His body and blood
are mine, I have the Lord Jesus entirely and completely
and all that He can do is mine, so that my heart is joyful
and full of courage; for I am not left to my own piety,
but to His innocent blood and pure body which I re
ceive' (Luther, Walch's ed., XL, 842 sq.).""
These are the culminating doctrines of conservative evan
gelical Protestantism. They are the great bulwarks and
preservatives against the rationalism of Zwingli, the human
ism of Erasmus, and the shallow work-righteousness of
Rome — the Aristotelian excess — on the one hand; and, on
the other, against the undue mystical immanence of the
eternal in the temporal — the speculative extreme of Plato,
Photinus, Gnosticism, Clement of Alexandria, Neo-Platon-
ism, Origen (Augustine), Duns Scotus, Bernard, Hugo,
Richard of St. Victor, Bonaventura, Albertus Magnus, Ger-
son, Tauler, Riiysbrock, Eckhart, Schwenkfeldt, Bohme, a
Kempis, Fenelon, Guyon, Swedenborg, Emerson, and the
modern pantheists. To the Protestant Church the doctrine
of the Person of Christ in His Word and especially in His
Sacrament, as found in the Formula, is the one bulwark
against a disintegrating religious individualism, the only
one which Lutheran Protestantism possesses (since it does
22 Jacobs, Summary of the Christian Faith, pp. 356-357.
52

766 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
not, like the Reformed Churches, call in the majesty of
God's law to preserve itself, nor the principle of the Church
as the source of authority, as do Rome and the Episcopalians,
who thus bind together minds in disagreement, and varying
in conscience, in an outer unity).
The Lutheran bond is an internal one, and not external.
And yet it is objective. We are grafted by Baptism into
the mystical body of Christ, and in our union with Him
become members one of another. In this union, and as
full members of it, we receive His real body to eat and
His blood to drink, as the dying gift of the living Christ
to secure to us in His atoning blood the benefits of remis
sion of sins, life and salvation. With His Word of abso
lution and the Sacrament of Baptism, the circle of divine
power in a human congregation is completed, and each
soul is held objectively to the other in Christ.
All worship, up to the Reformation, culminated in the
Romish mass — the core of superstition and error, and the
stronghold of a priestly order, able, as the Church, to offer
sacrifice for the sins of the people.
With the brushing away of the mass as a sacrifice, both
the congregation as a communion, and its order of worship,
would have lost their highest centre in the true visible Word
had not the sacrament of Christ's body and blood been held
to as the substantial concentration of the gifts of the absolv
ing Word.
With the Sacrament removed, the Word of absolution
could not have maintained its place, and the Word would
become a proclamation to the individual, and the sacra
ment a commemoration by associative individuals of an
empty rite, " or an act of faith in itself almost sacrificial. "
It was Melanchthon, who, trying to bridge the gap be-

is •• The doctrine of the Real Presence of the Body and Blood of Christ, is
what gives the memorial all its force." — Jacobs.
u What Christ could not do, in Calvin's view, viz., come to us with His
bodily presence, our faith could do, viz., come to Him in Heaven, by its
spiritual presence !

SUBJECT-MATTER. 767
tween the two Protestant wings by a formula of words, —
the great mistake of his life, which led him to be a maker
of confessions, or rather a confessional dogmatizer, and not
a confessor, — quietly modified the Lutheran teaching of the
real presence in the great Lutheran Confession, without con
sulting any one, so far as to allow the Reformed doctrine
the same right as his own in the evangelical Churches.
He so changed the tenth article concerning the Lord's Sup
per, "that Calvin could give it his hearty consent, and
even Zwingli — with the exception, perhaps, of the word
truly — might have admitted it." " He omitted the clause
on the real presence, and the disapproval of dissenting views ;
and substituted the word exhibeantur for the word distribu-
tantur. This one act in itself, done quietly and privately, by a
prominent individual in the church, in a publicly received
Confession, and in the very doctrine in which all the in
trinsic divine truth and worship of the Church culminates,
and by which it most of all is openly distinguished from a
legalistic and individualistic Protestantism (with which it
never will be able to combine) — this in itself was sufficient
in our judgment to bring on the years of Confessional eon-
fusion that followed; and to justify the Testimony of a
new symbol which should go back to the original teaching
of the Church — especially if such symbol set forth that
teaching in such simple, succinct and complete manner as
is done by the Formula of Concord.
We must digress for a moment. It will be noticed by
our readers that we are confining ourselves to the doctrinal
substance of this discussion.
We do so because it is not textual criticism, but the
inner principle of the truth, which is decisive in a matter
such as this. The question of manuscripts and variations
has exactly as much place, no more and no less, in a con-

M Schaff, Creeds of Christendom, p. 241.

768 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
fessional discussion as to doctrine, as the variations in the
readings of the New Testament affect the discussion of
any such articles of faith as the divine nature of Christ,
the existence of miracles, the nature of the Church, etc.
The loss of originals or the existence of variations has com
paratively little to do with our ascertainment of the doc
trinal content of the New Testament, since the facts are
not as a rule seriously affected by the changes that came
by the mutations of time. But for a Luke or a John, or a
Mark or a Paul to have gone through life producing new
editions of the Gospels and Epistles, and to have changed
the style for the sake of improvement- — to say nothing of
changing the sense — would have been greeted with amaze
ment. The Witness of the Gospel is too weighty to be
made the subject of change in matter and style.
Dr. Schaff claims that Melanchthon's later view of the
Lord's Supper essentially agreed with that of Calvin, and
that this Melanchthonian-Calvinistie view "was also in
various ways officially recognized with the Augsburg Con
fession of 1540." M
The unity of Melanchthon, Bucer and Calvin on the
Lord's Supper furnishes the Reformed historian Heppe"
the foundation for his theory that Melanehthonianism,
Humanism and Calvinism together composed a great his
torical reformatory movement, which was suppressed by
the narrowness of the Gnesio-Lutherans. Seeberg, speaking
of the situation prior to the Formula of Concord, states
that " the peculiar characteristics which marked German
Calvinism in many particulars may be at least partly ac
counted for by this commingling of Humanistic-Melanch-
thonian and of Calvinistic elements." "

18 Creeds of Christendom, p. 280. Schaff adds that this edition " was long
regarded as an improved rather than an altered edition " ; which is quite
natural, since the seeds of error are not detected in their young shoots,
but only very late, and after stem and leaf have grown up.
17 Geschichte des Deutschen Protestantismus, 1855-81, 4 vols.
18 II, p. 381.

SUBJECT-MATTER. 769
At all events, it is certain that the doctrine of the Lord's
Supper, as the application of the mystery of the Cross, is
the one central and concentrated test of the whole tree of
living Faith that lies behind it. The great sensuous
Roman system comes to flower in the gorgeous and glitter
ing sacrifice of the mass; the subtle but discerning spiritual
system of Calvin, a divine truth in human dialectic,
unfolds the Supper into an ethereal fruit plucked by ven
turesome faith; the rationalism of Zwingli offers in the
Supper an empty and withered blossom — ashes of roses;
while the believing faith of Lutheranism finds in the Lord's
Supper an applied epitome of all redemption, the real and
very fruit of the Cross of Christ — the body and blood given
and shed for the remission of sins, working deliverance, and
bringing life and salvation.
49

CHAPTBE XXXIII.
THE LUTHERAN CONFESSION.
THE PERSON OF CHRIST AND THE FORMULA
OF CONCORD.
The Person of Christ the Centre — Consequences in Lutheran Theology — " Person
of Christ" in the Formula — Not a New Doctrine to Bolster up the Real Pres
ence — The Divergence on this Doctrine between the Two Branches of Protes
tantism — It is rooted in Luther — Luther on the Person of Christ — Whence Lu
ther Derived this Doctrine — Luther's Rescue of the Sacrament — The Communi
catio Idiomatum vs. The Zwinglian Alloesis — Misrepresentation of the Lutheran
Faith — The Personal Omnipresence a Fundamental Fact — The Most Potent
Objection— The Critique of Schaff — Inconsistency of critics of the "Ubiquity"
— The Scriptural Origin of the Communicatio Idiomatum — The Ancient Creeds
— The Church Fathers — The Formula and the living Christ.
PERSON OF CHRIST CENTRAL IN SCRIPTURE AND IN LUTHERAN
PROTESTANTISM.
THE doctrine of the Lord's Supper is deeply rooted in the
Person of Christ. The Person of Christ is the mystery
of Christianity and the ages. To-day, yesterday, forever, it is
fundamental. Christ is all and in all. The theology of every
age is conditioned by its lighter, or its more vital, grasp of
this doctrine. No Biblical theme has had such a hold on our
own time, except the critical investigation of the Scriptures,
as this central one of the personality of Christ.1 The old

iFairbairn, Christ in Modern Theology; Noesgen, Christus der Menschen
und- Gottssohn, (1869) ; Grau, Bos Selbstbewusstsein Jesu (1887) ; Bruce,
Humiliation of Christ (1889) ; Wendt, Die Lehre Jesus (1890) ; Baldensperger,
Das Selbstbewusstsein Jesu (1892) ; Gore, Dissertations on the Incarnation
770

THE PERSON OF CHRIST. 771
problems as to the knowledge, presence and power of the
Son of God, in relation to the limitations, growth and un
folding of the Son of Man; the psychological inquiry into
the mind and the consciousness of Christ, the questions as
to the Kenosis, have been pursued with tireless zeal for a
whole generation.
The Lutheran Reformation began with the confession of
justification by faith, but the leaven at once worked down
deeper to the living ground of our justification, which is
Christ. Christ is the centre of the Word of God,2 and the
centre of Lutheran theology, as Luther has built it into the
explanation of the Second Article of the Creed.
This centre, the Person of Christ, was the most practical
and vital part — next to justification — of Luther's Faith.
For it was not the philosophy of the incarnation as such,
not the speculative mystery of the union of the natures, in
which he was interested. His interest lay in the mystery of
the active Person. He saw salvation wrought out for him
self in the life, death and resurrection of the Divine Person,
and he emphasized these personal saving acts, rather than the
passive condition of the natures.
From our present point of view, Luther's great work in
theology was his re-discovery of the living Christ. Instead .
pf metaphysical analyses of God and definitions of the qual
ities of the two natures of Christ, which was an intellectual
process of the mind, and never touched Christ's saving work,
Luther made the Person of Christ a part of the blessed per
sonal experience of justification by faith. Only those who
(1895), pp. 71-202; Lietzmann, Der Menschensohn (1896) ; Powell, Principle
of the Incarnation (1896) ; Mason, Conditions of our Lord's Life on Earth'-
(1896) ; Gifford, The Incarnation (1897) ; Dorner, Person of Christ; Ottley,
Doctrine of the Incarnation, Vol. II. Edwards, The God-Man. Bruce's several
works ; Beyschlag, Die Christologie des Neuen Testaments ; Forrest, The
Christ of History and Experience (1897) ; Adamson. The Mind in Christ
(1898) ; Stalker, The Christology of Jesus (1899). Cp. the writings of
Schmiedel ; Bossuet (Jesus) ; Arno Neumann (Jesus), of the critico-physcho-
logico- rationalistic school ; Das Gottliche Selbstbewusstsein Jesu Nach Dem
Zeugnis Der Synoptiker, Joh. Steinbeck. 1908. A Schweitzer, Von Reimarus
zu Wrede, Eine Geschichte der Leben-J esu-Forschung , Strasburg, 1906.
2 "Tre ch>f .-•ti-le is this, that Jesus Christ, our God and Lord died f"r
our sins, and was raised again for our justification." — Schmalkald Articles.

772 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
know we are not saved by our own person and character,
but by the work of Christ, can truly appreciate the Person
of Christ. When we know God is working for us, we cease
trying to work for ourselves.* Therefore the Person of
Christ is something more than a doctrine, for the true
Christian. It is a part of ourselves, which we carry about
with us in our life.
" To know Jesus in the true way means to know that He
died for us, that He piled our sins upon Himself, so that
we hold all our own affairs as nothing, and let them all
go and cling only to the faith that Christ has given Himself
for us, and that His sufferings and piety and virtues are
all mine. When I know this, I must hold Him dear in re
turn, for I cannot help loving such a man."
In this insight of Luther, we touch the kernel of the Re
formation Confession as to Christ Jesus, "the master-truth
which distinguishes its theology from all previous teaching
about God and the Person of Christ." ' " The older theology
had never grasped the thought that Jesus Christ filled the
whole sphere of God. It limited the work of Christ to the
procuring of forgiveness of sins, and left room outside of
Christ for many operations of Divine grace which were sup
posed to begin when the work of forgiveness was ended. So
there grew up the complex system of expiations and satis
factions, of magical sacraments and saints' intercessions,
which made the mediaeval Christian life so full of super
stitions, and, to all seeming, so empty of Christ."5
To Luther — and this is the keynote of Lutheran Protest
antism, as distinguished from Calvinism, Zwinglianism, and
all other Protestantism — there was room for no other vision
of God than that which Christ gives us. This cut away the
pagan threads that had continued to form the web of scho-

5 Erlangen 12. 244.
'Lindsay on Luther's Belief in the Person of Christ.
5 Op. Th. Harnack, Luther's Theologie.

THE PERSON OF CHRIST. 773
lastic theology, and suggested the great vitalization and
simplification of Christian dogma.
" '-Luther,' as Harnack says, ' in his relation to God, only
thought of God at all as he knew Him in Christ.' Beyond,
there is the unknown God of philosophical paganism, the
God whom Jews, Turks and pagans ignorantly worship. No
one can really know God save through the Christ of history.
Hence, in Luther, Christ fills the whole sphere of God : ' He
that hath seen me hath seen the Father ', and conversely,
' He that hath not seen me hath not seen the Father.' The
historical Jesus Christ is the revealer, and the only revealer
of the Father, for Luther. The revelation is given in the
marvellous experience of faith in which Jesus compels us
to see God in Him — the whole of God, Who has kept back
nothing which He could have given us.
" There is only one article and rule in theology. He who
has not a full and clear grasp of it is no theologian; namely,
true faith and trust in Christ. Into this article all the others
flow, and without this they are nothing."8 " In my heart
there rules alone, and shall rule, this one article, namely,
faith on my dear Lord Christ, which is, of all my thoughts on
things spiritual and Divine, the only beginning, middle and
end." '
CONSEQUENCES OF THIS DOCTRINE IN LUTHERAN THEOLOGY.
This mighty Lutheran Confession of the Person of Christ
brought about certain important changes in Christian doc
trine, principally in Lutheran theology; but also to a less
extent in Reformed theology in so far as it was dependent
on Luther. The first of these important consequences was
that the Person of Christ itself was endowed with a richer
and fuller Scriptural meaning than had ever been the case
in the earlier history of the Church. That Christ was God,

"Erl., 18. 398.
'Io., 58. 63.

774 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
in all His acts, brought God on very close and intimate terms
with every Christian; and that Christ was man, made God
very real, very concrete, very historical and very effective to
every believer. Before Luther, the relation of the Two
Natures had been so put as to convey the impression that
the only use and part of the divine nature in the Person was
to reinforce and establish the work of the human nature.
Even Augustine and Anselm expressed the matter thus, and
the Reformed theology of the Reformation repeats it. But
Luther was unwilling to thus crowd the divine nature into
a corner. He constantly cautions us against supposing that
the " Two Natures " are joined so mechanically that we can
consider the one apart from the other.
" This is the first principle and most excellent article, how
Christ is the Father: that we are not to doubt that whatso
ever the man says and does is reckoned, and must be reckoned,
as said and done in heaven for all angels; and in the world
for all rulers; in hell for all devils; in the heart for every
evil conscience and all secret thoughts. For if we are certain
of this: that when Jesus thinks, speaks, wills, the Father
also wills, then I defy all that may fight against me. For
here in Christ have I the Father's heart and will." 8
The second of the consequences of the new Reformation
doctrine was that Luther restored human reality to the Per
son of Christ. In emphasizing the powerful and complete
Divinity, Luther was the last one to sacrifice Christ's hu
manity. He tells us that the reason why the Scholastics
went so far astray and dealt so artificially with Christ was
because they had either dropped the humanity entirely, or
had overlaid and obscured it by reasonings and imaginations
not found in the Scripture.
" ' The deeper we can bring Christ into our humanity, the
better it is,' " he says in one of his sermons. So his frequent
pictures of the boyhood of Jesus are full of touches from

'Erl., 49. 183, 184.
• lb., 6. 155.

THE PERSON OF CHRIST. 775
the family life of the home at Wittenberg. The boy Jesus
lived just like other boys, was protected, like them, by the dear
angels, was suckled at His mother's breast, learned to walk,
ate and drank like other children, was subject to his parents,
ran errands for His mother, brought her water from the
well, and firewood from the heap in the yard, and finally,
when He grew up and became stronger, began to ply the
axe to help His father (passim)." And this, Luther as
serted against those who had erected it into an article of
faith that Christ from the first moment of His life was so
full of wisdom that there was nothing left for Him to learn.
He will have nothing to do with those who ascribe to Christ
only a mutilated humanity. " By humanity I mean body and
soul. And this I wish to emphasize because some, like
Photinus and Apollinaris, have taught that Christ was a man
without a human soul, and that the Godhead dwelt in Him
in place of the soul."
" It is," he says in his exposition of John 1 :14, " the most
precious treasure and highest . comfort that we Christians
have, that the Word, the true natural Son of God, became
man, having flesh and blood, like any other man, and became
man for our sakes, that we might come to the great glory:
that thereby our flesh and blood, skin and hair, hands and
feet, belly and back, sit in heaven above, equal to God, so
that we can boldly bid defiance to the devil and all else that
harasses us. We are thus made certain, too, that they belong
to heaven and are heirs of the heavenly Kingdom."
" It was no mere semblance of a man who was now exalted
at the Father's right hand, but one who was bone of our
bone, and flesh of our flesh, to whom no human experience,
save sin, was foreign, — a boy who enjoyed his play and
helped in little household duties, a man who shared the
common lot of toil and weariness and temptation, a real
man living a true human life under conditions not so far

'lb., 46. 12 sq.

776 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
removed from our own. Having life — a true human life —
He understands us fully, and we can know Him, and God
through Him. Through Him alone can we come to know
God. ' Outside of this Christ no other will of God is to be
sought. . . . Those who speculate about God and His will
without Christ, lose God completely.' " "
The third of the consequences of Luther's Christology was
that, while it accepted, it also put the life of Scriptural
reality, into the old Church doctrine. Luther ever insisted
that he accepted only the ancient Church doctrine on the
Person of Christ.
" ' No one can deny', he says, ' that we hold, believe, sing,
and confess all things in correspondence with the Apostles'
Creed, that we make nothing new therein, nor add anything
thereto, and in this way we belong to the old Church, and
are one with it.' The Schmalkald Articles and the Augs
burg Confession begin with stating over again the doctrines
of the Old Catholic Church, founding on the Nicene Creed,
and quoting Ambrose and Augustine; and Luther's conten
tion always was that, if the sophistry of the Schoolmen could
be cleared away, the old doctrines of the ancient Church
would stand forth in their original purity. When he spoke
of the Scholastic Theology as sophistry, he attached a definite
meaning to the word. He meant not merely that the School
men played with the outsides of doctrines, and asked and
solved innumerable trivial questions; but also that the im
posing edifice they erected was hollow within, and had noth
ing to do with the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.
He maintained that in the heart of the system there was,
instead of the God whom Jesus had revealed, the abstract
entity of pagan philosophy, an unknown deity — for God
could never be revealed by metaphysics. All this sophistry
he swept away, and then declared that he stood on the
ground occupied by the theologians of the ancient Church,

12 Walch, V, 198.

THE PERSON OF CHRIST. 777
whose faith was rooted in the triune God, and in belief in
Jesus Christ the Revealer of God. . . .
"Luther believed, and rightly believed, that for the
Fathers of the ancient "Church, the theological doctrines in
which they expressed their conceptions about God and the
Person of Christ were no dead formulas, but were the ex
pressions of a living Christian experience. Luther took the
old dogmas, and made them live again in an age in which
it seemed as if they had lost all their vitality and had
degenerated into mere dead doctrines on which the intellect
could sharpen itself, but which were out of all relation to
the practical religious life of men. The Summa of Thomas
Aquinas gives little insight into the deep and genuine re
ligious experience of the writer, and gets no inspiration there.
The efforts of the schoolmen were directed solely to the ex
position of the philosophical implications of traditional
doctrines; they ignored the relation to actual religious life
in the Church,, apart from which theology becomes unreal.
. . . Through Luther came the discovery that there was
theological material in the living experience of Christian
souls." u
This objective reality of justification through Christ, of
faith in Christ, of Christ's sacraments, of Christ's Church,
lifts the Lutheran Faith alike above the dead principle
adorned with sensuous imagery of Rome ; and the subjective
idea, and opinion, the vague thought, or natural truth or
mere sentiment of a common Protestantism. The Sacrament
of Luther, for instance, is not a metaphysical miracle, nor
a sentimental memorial, but a mighty and living reality.
The fourth characteristic of Luther's doctrine of the Per
son of Christ was that it was incorporated into theology in
a plain, practical and edifying exposition.
" If Luther accepted the old formulas describing the na
ture of God and the Person of Christ, he did so in a

"Lindsay on Luther's Belief in the Person of Christ.

778 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
thoroughly characteristic way. He desired to state them in
plain German, so that they could appeal to the ' common
man.' He did not believe that theology, the most practical of
all disciplines, was a secret science for experts. He con
fessed with some impatience that technical theological terms
were sometimes necessary, but he did not like them, and he
used them as little as possible." " He reached the Person of
Christ from below, from the redemption of the Cross, and not
from any speculative heights above. He does uot reason
from " what Godhead must be, and what manhood must be,"
to " how Godhead and manhood can be united." " He rises
from the office to the Person, and does not descend from the
Person to the office. ' Christ is not called Christ because He
has two natures. What does that matter to me? He bears
this glorious and comforting name because of His oflice and
work which he has undertaken.' "
The fifth, and in many respects, the most important change
brought about by Luther's doctrine of the Person of Christ
was the restoration to its original Scriptural intent and
glory, without let or weakening, howsoever, of the doctrine
of the Lord's Supper.

THE PERSON OF CHRIST IN THE FORMULA.
The Lutheran doctrine of the Person of Christ we find
especially in Luther's Catechisms, as the necessary cul
mination of the doctrine of the personal union of God and
man in Christ. The Third Article of the Augustana pene-

13 (Erl. 1st. 36. 506). Like Athanasius, he preferred the word oneness to
express the relation between the Persons in the Trinity. He even disliked the
term Trinity or its German equivalents Dreifaltigkeit, Dreiheit. ' Dreifaltig-
keit ist ein recht bose Deutsch, denn in der Gottheit ist die hochste Einigkeit.
Etliche nennen es Dreiheit ; aber das lautet allzuspottisch. . . . darum
lautet es auch kalt, und viel besser sprach man Gott denn die Dreifaltigkeit.
(2 Erl. 6. 358). He called the technical terms used in the old creeds
vocabula mathematica, and did not use any of them in his Small or Large
Catechisms.

THE PERSON OF CHRIST. 779
trates little further than the Catechism, being only a slight
amplification of the clauses in the Second Article in the
Apostles' Creed, for the call had not yet come, and the time
was not yet ripe for a fuller confessional unfolding of this
inner mystery. But the Formula of Concord was driven
to the innermost heart of the Faith, and deep below the com
plicated questions of the day, found it beating in the doctrine
of the Person of Christ. This great Confession's most il
lustrious service is its attempt in twelve statements to con
fess " the pure doctrine of the Christian Church concern
ing the Person of Christ." Its wonderful success in open
ing the full Word of God to our eye as to this mystery of
the ages, is a marvel.
The Formula teaches the unity of the personality, the
integrity of the natures, the true divinity of the divine, and
the true humanity of the human nature, the personal union
and consequent communion; the fact that God thus is man,
and man thus is God ; the virgin birth ; the death and resur
rection and ascension of Christ, not as mere man, but as the
Son of God ; the suffering of the Son of God as our high
priest; the exaltation of the Son of man at the right hand
of God; the possession of divine majesty in the flesh, but
the abstinence from it; the substantial, yet not earthly or
Capernaitic, impartation of His true body and blood in the
Holy Supper; the person of Christ not divided, as it was
by Nestorius; nor the natures commingled, as was taught
by Eutyches ; " but Christ is and remains, for all eternity,
God and man in one undivided person, which, next to the
Holy Trinity, is the highest mystery, as the Apostle testifies
(I Tim. 3:16), upon which our only consolation, life and
salvation depend."
As a guide to contemporary religious discussion on the
great topics of Christianity, and* especially on problems con
nected with the Person of Christ, the Epitome of the
Formula will, we are confident, prove more interesting, and
its use of Scripture and of the pure Gospel will be as edi-

780 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
fying, to a student and layman, as is the Augsburg Con
fession. The clearness, calmness, simplicity, and weight of
the matter, without repetition of platitudes, fit it for con
vincing modern use; and we trust that the day will come
when it will be published as a tract or pamphlet to be
placed in every Lutheran household.
The great stumbling block in the Formula of Concord,
to Roman Catholic " and Reformed ™ writers of the Sixteenth
Century, is the introduction of the new doctrine (thus the
objectors put it), of the ubiquity of the Person of Christ.
With the philosophical doctrine of " the Ubiquity " as such,
we have as little sympathy as these critics. The basing of the
truth of the Word upon a philosophical form is foreign to
the Scriptural and the Lutheran Confession. It is not " the
Ubiquity," but the doctrine which is revealed in the Scrip
ture as a divine fact, and which is applicable as a divinely
revealed fact to Christ in all His relations, that is taught
most clearly in Luther and in the Formula, and is an es
sential part of the Lutheran Confession.
We do not find this teaching scholastic, speculative, ab
stract, or fine-spun, as some writers on the Confessions in
timate ; but to us the article is filled with the marrow of the
Word, more than shares in perspicuity, and altogether out
rivals in edification the current ephemeral discussions ™
which seek to illumine the Person of our glorious Redeemer
with critical clear lights, or to flash human and psychological "

" Bellarmini, Judicium de libro quern Lutherani vocant Concordiae.
M Cp. Schaff, Creeds of Christendom, on the " Formula." Also Lindsay, as
given below.
M E. g., " The Christian Doctrine of Atonement as Influenced by Semitio
Religious Ideas," by Reginald Campbell ; " The Gospel of Krishna and of
Christ," and " The Messianic Idea in Vergil," by R. S. Conway ; " The Divine
Immanence and the Christian Purpose," by A. C. McGiffert.
17 The philosophical motive usually attributed to this doctrine's presenta
tion in the Formula is not there except subordinately : the Formula seeks to
set forth only what the Scripture teaches. The philosophical method of those
who complain of the philosophy of the Formula brings a philosophy of its
own. whether mediaeval or modern, to the Scripture, and construes the Scrip
ture by it.

THE PERSON OF CHRIST. 781
high lights upon it from outside the Scripture. No Con
fession of the Church of Christ, no private investigation or
essay, whether by the Fathers, Luther, Melanchthon, Chem
nitz, — shall we come down to modern speculation — to Renan,
Strauss, Dorner, Salmond, Schmiedel? — gives so clear a
Scriptural insight into the Person of Christ in so few words.

NOT A NEW DOCTRINE OF THE FORMULA.
And this doctrine of the Formula is not new. It is not a
scholastic subtlety drawn upon in the Lutheran Church by
post-Reformation theologians in order to bolster up an anti-
Melanchthonian conception of the Lord's Supper." It is not
an extreme development deduced by later dogmatists from
the earlier Lutheran teaching. It is not a new teaching, but
the old faith of Martin Luther himself.
It is not true that the Formula's doctrine of Christ's Per
son was first taught in the Formula of Concord. The
Formula itself emphasizes that this is the doctrine of Martin
Luther. It is the doctrine which Melanchthon had in mind
and followed when he wrote the Augsburg Confession; it is
the doctrine of the Large Catechism and the Schmalkald
Articles. Nay, it is the great central and fundamental doc
trine on the Person of Christ, which separated Zwingli from
Luther, fifty years before the Formula was written, and
which still separates the Lutheran Church from the Re
formed. Instead of fixing the blame upon the Formula of
Concord for introducing an abstract philosophical teaching,
in order to bolster up the doctrine of the Lord's Supper,
as was done from the start by the enemies of the Lutheran

M " The truth Is, that when we admit the personal union of the human
nature of Christ with a divine nature, we have already admitted the fact,
In which the mystery of Christ's Sacramental presence is absorbed. The
whole Divine person of Christ is confessedly present at the Supper, but the
human nature has been taken Into that personality, and forms one person with
It ; hence the one person of Christ, consisting of the two natures, is present,
and of necessity the two natures which constitute It are present." — Con. Ref.,
p. 459. 53

782 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
Church, a study of the facts will show that this doctrine goes
back lo the fountain head of the Reformation, and divides
the streams there; that Luther taught positively all that is
taught by the Formula, not chiefly in order to support the
doctrine of the Lord's Supper, but as a necessary part of the
doctrine of the Person of Christ.
The historical situation will show that the real difference
between Reformed and Lutheran theology lies in the depth
of the Lutheran conception of the reality of the Person of
Christ." It will reveal that this is a difference which sep
arated Luther from Zwingli at Marburg, separated Melanch
thon from Zwingli at Augsburg, and would have continued
to separate Bucerism and Calvinism from Lutheranism for
ever, if Bucer had not made his great, but not thoroughly
open and honest attempt20 to unite the two churches, to
which, not then, but in later days, the words and deeds of
Melanchthon lent countenance.
To Calvin, to Bucer, to Zwingli, the Person of Christ,
whether in Scripture or in the Sacrament, was a truth to be
apprehended and worked into our consciousness by a be
lieving faith ; but to Luther and to the Formula of Concord,
the Person of Christ, whether in Scripture or in the Sacra
ment, is a fact, is the great reality of salvation, which, as a
fact, and not as a mere spiritual truth, works itself and its
effect upon and into us without the mediative and inter-

"" " In regard to the presence of Christ, our dispute is not as to how He is
present, which, like the whole doctrine of His person, is an inscrutable mys
tery, but as to whether there be a true, not an ideal presence. It is the
essence of the doctrine, not its form, which divides us from the Reformed." —
Con. Ref., p. 458.
20Loscher, Ausfiihrliche* Historia Motuum, I. 219, according to Jacobs,
Book of Concord, II, 254, " gives proof of Bucer's sincerity, citing frank ac
knowledgments of his former error made to others than Lutherans;" and at
the conference of theologians at Schmalkald in 1537, according to Melanchthon,
C. R., Ill, p. 292, " Bucer satisfied us all, even the more rigid." " Neverthe
less," continues Jacobs, " at Gotha, where Bucer overtook Luther on his
premature departure from Schmalkald, Luther arraigned him very plainly for
the inconsistencies in which he was involved by his attempts to mediate (Erl.
65. 92) ;" " nor have we found any evidence of retraction of the interpreta
tion of ' the unworthy ' as given in his ' Explanation,' " For the ." Explana
tion " see the Book of Concord, II, pp. 259 and 260.

THE PERSON OF CHRIST. T83
pretative grasp of our mental processes. Not a logical con
cept, " the ubiquity," but a living fact divides the Reformed
Church from the Lutheran. It is the fact of the Person of
Christ. In Rome, the Church reproduces a mechanical
reality as the Christ; in radical Protestantism, the human
mind and memory grasp after a spiritual reality; but in
Luther and the Formula of Concord, the actual and historical
Personality of Christ, with its full mystery of strength,
grasps and saves the human sinner in the contact of Word
and Sacrament.

THE DIVERGENCE BETWEEN THE TWO BRANCHES OF PROTEST
ANTISM.
It is an act of injustice, oft repeated, to claim that the
sharp division between the two evangelical Protestant re
formatory movements of the Sixteenth Century was sprung
by the Formula of Concord. " The root of the divergence
lies in the very nature of Christianity ; and there can be no
satisfactory solution of the differences between the Zwinglio-
Calvinistic, and the Lutheran Reformation, and the Churches
which were respectively established upon them, except this,
that the one accepted the truth, the other a mistaken meaning
of God's Word, on certain points. That is, and will forever
remain, the real question between them." "
This divergence — divisive at the start — centering always
somewhere in the doctrine of Christ or of His Person, funda
mental all the way from Luther's early teaching down to the
Formula of Concord, affected all the great doctrines, the Law
and the Gospel, the Scriptures, the Word and the Sacrament,
the Ministry, the doctrine of the Church, and pre-eminently
the culminating doctrine of the Lord's Supper. " It has been
fruitful in unspeakable mischiefs," and has, more than all

« Con. Ref., p. 457.

784 THE LUTHER N CONFESSIONS.
other causes, rendered the struggle against Rome " prolonged
and dubious.23
To know and believe Jesus Christ, true God, true man,
as the Scriptures reveal Him, was the underlying task of the
Reformation as it is of every other earnest age. Luther,
drinking in Scripture with his whole mind and heart, knew
and trusted Christ as a real Person, moving freely if in-
comprehensively as one Person in the spheres of his man
hood and of his Godhead. The communication of the prop
erties of the divine nature to the weaker human nature, not
mechanically, but in the vital unity of the Person ; and with
out a weakening of the human by the divine overshadowing;
or an abuse of the divine glory and fullness by the mechanical
or capricious infringement of the human ; was a fundamental
doctrine, was a commonplace, was the very staff of life in
the Christ-faith of Luther.

THE DIVERGENCE IS ROOTED IN LUTHER.
Yet this basal fact as to the communicatio idiomatum,
in Luther's doctrine, is rarely recognized by non-Lutheran
theologians, and the doctrine is supposed to have been im
ported from scholastic theology, and forcibly injected into
the Lutheran Faith by the Formula of Concord. Despite
the abundant quotations from Luther by the Formula, which
quotations constitute the substance of, the Formula's teaching
on this subject, the existence of the fact that the Person of
Christ can and does use the divine properties, as being at
the call of the personal unity, to enable the inseparable per-
22 Not only in the sense in which Krauth discusses it, as weakening and divid
ing the Protestant unity ; but also in the sense that the apprehension of
Calvinism is often Roman rather than Lutheran. " The whole conception of
the Christian life as Calvin draws it, is Roman Catholic rather than Protestant.
The essential feature of Luther's message was that in Christ we were free
to live more and more unto righteousness. ... On ethical grounds we
may say that Calvin was one of the last of the schoolmen. Thomas Aquinas
is greatly his superior as an ethical thinker. — Hibbert Journal, VI, 1, p. 184
(1907). 23 Con. Ref., p. 457.

THE PERSON OF CHRIST. 785
son, divine and human, human as well as divine, to perform
its wondrous work of redemption — whether on the Cross, or
at the right hand of the Father, or in the Sacrament of the
Supper, or in the hearts of believers, — more readily than
the sun communicates its properties to the atmospheric ether
and is present for creation, vivification, and fructification at
any and every point in the planetary system — without at
the same time failing or falling short of its central specifi
cally proper presence in the sun itself, — the existence of this
fundamental doctrine of Christ in the Lutheran faith, prior
to the Formula of Concord, is usually denied by the theo
logians of the Protestant Churches, English and German."
Even Dr. Valentine * affirms that the genus majestaticum
is peculiar to the Lutheran dogmaticians, though he sub
sequently admits that its substance was maintained by
Luther. Let us hear what Luther himself has to say on this
doctrine, which is so contemptuously characterized as 28 " the
24 E. g., Dorner In Germany, Lindsay in England, and Schaff in America.
The shining of the sun upon the earth, as alluded to in the Second Helvetic
Confession, confirms the Lutheran, not the Calvinistic doctrine of the Sacra
ment. " As the sun," says this Confession, " is far away over us in the
Heaven [it is not far away for a sun, just as a preacher in the pulpit is not
absent or ' far away ' from any who come within the range of his powerful
voice], yet is none the less efficaciously present [it is visibly present, as near in
Its nature as the gas light over the table is near in its nature] ... so
much the more the Sun of righteousness, absent from us in the Heavens in
His Body [are "the Heavens " a room that shuts Him in?] is present to us
not Indeed corporeally, but spiritually [what becomes of His body meantime]
by a life-giving activity."
The presence of the sun upon the earth, is such a Real Presence, in, with
and under the atmosphere through which it penetrates, that it not only
appeals to and affects the body, but is visible in itself and in its effects of
heat. It is not the spiritual presence of the sun that overcomes a man with
sunstroke, or that prints its glorious image of real light upon the surface
of the camera.
B Christian Theology.
20 Schaff and all similar writers in loco. The insinuation against the
Lutheran Faith has filtered down into current modern theology, probably
through Dorner. Thus, Gore, on the basis of Dorner, characterizes the
Lutheran doctrine as follows : —
" The quasi-Nestorian tendency was checked in Luther by the sacramental
controversy. Driven to defend the doctrine of the real presence of our Lord's
body and blood in the sacrament of the Eucharist by a theory of the ubiquity
of our Lord even in His humanity, he was led to speak of this ubiquity as
resulting from the union of the divine and human natures, and of the com
municatio idiomatum from one to the other as existing from the beginning
of the Incarnation. This led to a development of thought in a Monophyslte

786 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
doctrine of the ubiquity introduced into Lutheran theology
by the Formula of Concord in order to give support to its
theory of the Lord's Supper." The Formula quotes from
Luther as follows: —
LUTHER ON THE PERSON OF CHRIST.
"Our reasons are those which Dr. Luther himself, J7 in the very beginning,
presented against the Sacramentarians in the following words: 'The reasons upon
which I rest in this matter are the following:
" '1. The first is this article of our faith: Jesus Christ is essential, natural,
true, perfect God and man in one person, undivided and inseparable.
" '2. The second, that God's right hand is everywhere.
" '3. The third, that God's Word is not false and does not deceive.
'"4. The fourth that God has and knows of many modes of being in any
place, and not only the single one concerning which fanatics talk flippantly and
which philosophers call local.'
"Also: ' The one body of Christ [says Luther] has a three-fold mode or three
modes of being anywhere.
" 'First, the comprehensible, bodily mode, as he went about in the body
upon earth, when, according to his size, he occupied room, and was circum
scribed by fixed places. This mode he can still use whenever he will, as he did
after the resurrection, and will use at the last day, as Paul says (I Tim. 6: 15) :
'Which in his times He shall show who is the blessed and only Potentate, the
King of kings and Lord of lords.' And to the Colossians (3: 4) he says:

rather than a Nestorian direction, and this rival tendency, which renders
Luther's Christology very difficult to understand as a whole, became dominant
in the Lutheran schools. It resulted in the formation of a Christology based
on ubiquitarianism, which Dr. A. B. Bruce, without undue severity, pro
nounces to be, to an amazing extent, 'artificial, unnatural and incredible.' " —
Gore, Dissertations on the Incarnation, pp. 181, 182.
Thus also Lindsay, as late as 1906, in his History of the Reformation, p.
356, will repeat the old slander. He says : " A controversy soon raged in
Wittenberg to the scandal of German Protestantism. Luther insisted more
and more on the necessity of the Presence in the elements of the Body of
Christ ' corporeally extended in space.' "
On page 357 he says again, " Luther, looking mainly at the mediaeval
doctrine of the Eucharist, taught: (1) . . . (2) That . . there must
be in the Bread and Wine the local Presence of the Glorified Body of
Christ which he always conceived as ' Body extended in space.' . . . (3)
That this local Presence of Christ does not presuppose any special priestly
miracle, for, in virtue of its ubiquity, the Glorified Body of Christ is every
where naturally, and therefore is in the Bread and in the Wine."
Thus also on page 358 he says, " Luther depends on a questionable
mediaeval idea of ubiquity, . . . Zwingli spent all his argumentative
powers in disputing the doctrine of ubiquity . . . Zwingli maintained that
Christ could not be present, extended in space, in the elements." (This is
said of the Marburg Colloquy with which compare Luther's and Melanchthon's
letter after the close of the Colloquy.)
27 In his Large Confession, concerning the Holy Supper.

THE PERSON OF CHRIST. 787
•When Christ who is our life shall appear.' In this manner he is not in God or
with the Father, neither in heaven, as the wild spirits dream: for God is not a
bodily space or place. And to this effect are the passages of Scripture which the
fanatical spirits cite, how Christ left the world and went to the Father.
" ' Secondly, the incomprehensible, spiritual mode, according to which he
neither occupies nor makes room, but penetrates all creatures according to his
most free will, as, to make an imperfect comparison, my sight penetrates air,
light or water, and does not occupy or make room; as a sound or tone penetrates
air or water or board and wall, and is in them, and also does not occupy or make
room; likewise, as light and heat penetrate air, water, glass, crystal, and the
like, and is in them, and also does not make or occupy room; and much more of
the like. This mode he used when he rose from the sealed sepulchre, and
passed through the closed door, and in the bread and wine in the Holy Supper,
and, as it is believed, when he was born of the Virgin Mary.
"'Thirdly, the divine, heavenly mode, since he is one person with God,
according to which all creatures must be far more penetrable and present to him
than they are according to the second mode. For if, according to that second
mode, he can be so in and with creatures that they do not feel, touch, circum
scribe or comprehend him, how much more wonderfully is he in all creatures
according to this sublime third mode, so that they neither circumscribe nor com
prehend him, but rather that he has them present before himself, and circum
scribes and comprehends them! For you must place this mode of the presence
of Christ, as he is one person with God, as far beyond creatures as God is be
yond them; and again as deep and near to all creatures as God is in, and near
them. For he is one inseparable person with God; where God is there must he
also be, or our faith is false. But who will say or think how this occurs ? We
know indeed that it is so, that he is in God beyond all creatures, and is one per
son with God, but how it occurs we do not know; this mystery is above nature
and reason, even above the reason of all the angels in heaven; it is understood
only by God. Because, therefore, it is unknown to us, and yet is true, we should
not deny his words before we know how to prove to a certainty that the body of
Christ can by no means be where God is, and that this mode of presence is false.
This the fanatics ought to prove; but we challenge them to do so.
'"That God indeed has and knows still more modes in which Christ's body
is anywhere, I will not herewith deny; but I would indicate what awkward and
stupid men our fanatics are, that they concede to the body of Christ no more than
the first, comprehensible way; although they cannot even prove the same, that it
conflicts with our meaning. For I in no way will deny that the power of God is
able to effect so much as that a body should at the same time be in a number of
places, even in a bodily, comprehensible way. For who will prove that this is
impossible with God? Who has seen an end to his power? The fanatics think
indeed that God cannot effect it,27' but who will believe their thoughts ? Whereby
will they confirm such thoughts ? '
" From these words of Dr. Luther it is also clear in what sense the word
Spiritual is employed in our churches with reference to this matter. For to the

•»• Cf. Epitome, vii : 32, 34.

788 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
Sacramentarians this word spiritual means nothing else than the spiritual com
munion, when through faith those truly believing are in the spirit incorporated
into Christ, the Lord, and become true spiritual members of his body." as

WHENCE LUTHER DERIVED HIS DOCTRINE OF CHRIST.
The Formula of Concord proceeds to show how Luther's
doctrine is the true Scriptural doctrine as over against the
rationalistic, scholastic and unscriptural doctrine of Zwingli.
Many of our modern writers in Reformed theology will not
admit that Luther starts solely with the Scripture, and that
his use of the metaphysical modes of presence are but an
illustration of the possibility of the presence of Christ in
such way as Scripture actually reveals it.
Thus Schaff declares the Reformation doctrine of the Per
son of Christ to have been taken bodily from the Eastern
Church, and especially from the symbol of Chalcedon. But
the true fact is that the mighty faith of Luther owed very
little directly to the oriental formularies. Luther's Christol
ogy was rooted in the Scripture itself, of whose depths he
was an expounder ; in the actual and living Person of Christ
as he found it in St. John, St. Matthew, and St. Paul : and
in the concrete Augustinian apprehension of the Gospel as
salvation by redemption, rather than in the Eastern appre
hension of the incarnation.
The East emphasized the union of two natures; the West
emphasized the unity of Person; and Luther, starting in
Scripture, followed the West.2* He revitalized the doctrine
of the Person, under the powerful and practical aspect of
the doctrine of justification by faith, in such way that Christ
"Formula of Concord, p. 620.
29 Athanasius said : " My Saviour must be the great God who made heaven
and earth ; and He must unite the human and divine natures which He pos
sesses, in a union which for me is a mystery to be believed, hut which my
Intelligence can never explain nor penetrate." But Augustine thus beautifully
describes Christ, " The Son of God ever, the Son of Man In time, yet one
Christ in the unity of the Person. He' was in heaven when He was speaking
upon earth. Thus He was Son of Man in heaven In the same manner In
which He was Son of God on earth ; Son of God on earth in the flesh which He
took upon Him; Son of Man in heaven in the unity of the Person."

THE PERSON OF CHRIST. 789
was for him not a biography in a book belonging to past ages,
whose character and work are to be discussed; but the one
Man who now lived and ruled and wrought salvation in
human souls; and who though Man was God. He was Son
of Man in Heaven in the same manner in which He was Son
of God on earth : of God — in the flesh He took upon Him ;
of Man — in the unity of the Person. He was in Heaven
when He was speaking upon earth.
Luther thus followed Augustine, who went back to the old
Church tradition of Tertullian through Ambrose. There was
no indistinctness, and no fusion in the natures ; but the clue
to the Person of Christ was to be found in the statement of
Paul that Christ existed ' in the form of God,' and took upon
Him ' the form of a servant.' These two forms co-existed
in the unity of the Person. Every justified believer feels
the power of this unity : " there is a Man in Whom God
dwells, and Who is God." " Proprium illius hominis sacra-
mentum est." *° Hence Luther strongly asserts, " whatso
ever I behold in Christ is at the same time both human and
divine." " " Wherever thou canst say, Here is God, there
must thou also say, Therefore Christ the Man is also here.
And if thou shouldst point out a place where God was and
not the Man, then would the Person be already divided,
since I might then say with truth, Here is God, who is not
man, and never yet became man. But nothing of that God
for me! . . . Nay, friend, wherever thou placest God for
me, there must thou also place for me the human nature.
They cannot be separated and divided from each other.
There has come to be One Person." "
NOT A POLEMIC NECESSITY.
This is the inmost faith of Luther's heart trusting in the
grace of Christ for his salvation. Such a mighty living faith
*• Augustine.
31 Erl., 47. 361. sq.
82 lb., 30. 211. . -

790 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
in Christ as God had not appeared since the time of Athanas-
ius. Such a help from the mystery of the union of the two
natures in Christ had not been known in the Church since
the time of Cyril.83 To say, then, that Luther's doctrine
of the Person of Christ was a result of polemical necessity,
a means of defending his doctrine to which he had recourse
in the controversy with Zwingli, is to place his teaching on
Christ under as great a theological misrepresentation, as it
is to misrepresent his doctrine of the Sacrament by declaring
that he taught transubstantiation or consubstantiation." To
know Luther is to recognize the falseness, and indeed the
impossibility, of his having built up a Christology by the
adroit use of a scholastic mode. Luther's fathom-deep in
sight into Scripture caused him to discover that the human
nature of Christ is there revealed as the organ and bearer
of the divine nature, in the whole Revelation and in all the
Operations of grace, from the time of His conception, to
the time of His Second Coming, and thereafter forever; and
this most naturally included the elements of miracle and
sacrament. " Luther's most profound ideas concerning the
knowledge of God and faith may be understood in the
light " 35 of this teaching of Christ.
When, therefore, Luther came to more clearly formulate
his doctrine of the Lord's Supper, under attacks from with
out, what else could he do but present it in the light of its
proper background in the Person of Christ? What the
Person of Christ was and did on earth it would be and do in
Heaven. He would be Son of Man and Son of God in all
His acts in Heaven, as He had been on earth ; and His pres
ence would be a presence of the person on earth, whether
spiritual (John 6), sacramental (The Lord's Supper), or
local (the Parousia), in the future, as it had been in the
past.

" Harnack, Hist, of Dogma, VII, 173.
" A stigma fastened on Luther by Schaff. (Creeds, I, pp. 232, 316.)
88 Seeberg, Hist. Doctrines, I, 252.

THE PERSON OF CHRIST. 791
His doctrine of the Lord's Supper, like all bis other
doctrines, was developed in the process of taking that which
he found in the Church, and subjecting it to the test of
Scripture.5"

LUTHER'S RESCUE OF THE SACRAMENT.
Hence his rescue of the Scriptural sacrament of the Lord's
Supper from Romish tradition, and his grounding of the
true doctrine, were gradual. Under the influence of Scrip
ture, he had to steer clear not only of the false but central
fact of the Romish Mass; but also of its antithesis, viz., a
false spiritualism, manifesting itself just at this time in the
pious mysticism of the later Middle Ages."
In being confronted with the Mass and the other Roman
Sacraments, Luther had begun his thought with the Augus
tinian conception of a sacrament as a " sign which helps and
incites to faith," ™ and even later he still spoke of the sacra
ment as an " outward sign," a " seal or signet ring." 5° By
1519, he came to be clearer both as to Baptism (Sermon von
dem heiligen, Tiochwurdigen Sakrament der Taufe) ; and as
to the Lord's Supper ; although in his Ein Sermon v. d. hochw.
Sacrament des Leichnams Christi un. v. d. Bruderschaften,
of 1519, transubstantiation was not yet separated from
Luther's original and always abiding belief of the presence

8b"This In our judgment expresses in a word all that is to be said as to
Luther's dependency on Occam, D'Ailly, Biel and the scholastics. To derive
a doctrine, and to illustrate its possibility from an extraneous sphere
are two entirely different methods. The Colloquy at Marburg showed whence
Luther derived his doctrine, and whence Zwingli derived his. To assert of a
modern writer like C P. Krauth that he derived his theology from Berkeley
or from Kant, would be on a par with declaring that Luther gained his Person
of Christ and his Real Presence aside from, not in Scripture.
87 Compare especially the " inner word " of the spirit, which has no need
of the " bodily " word ; and the " divesting self of material things," in the
Imitation of Thomas A. Kempis ; and the whole circle of mystical, ascetic,
apocalyptic and socialistic ideas which broke forth upon him in the Zwickau
prophets, Carlstadt and Miinzer.
88 Walch, II, 686, 693.
"Erl., 12. 178f; 16. 48, 50, 52.

792 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
of the body of Christ in the Lord's Supper. But from 1520
on, he definitely rejected transubstantiation as a Thomistic
fiction, and laid down his doctrine in his Sermon on the
Mass, in 1520. The mass is not a sacrifice, and the body
is to be received in both elements. Faith in Christ's bodily
and personal presence is everything : " If I believe that
His body and blood are mine, then I have the Lord Christ
entire, and everything that he is able to accomplish." "
It was in 1522 that Luther first heard from the Bohemian
Brethren that they held the bread and wine as bare symbols ;
and that Honius of Holland wrote to him that he inter
preted the est as equivalent to significai. Carlstadt also pro
posed that "This" refers to the body, but "Take" and
" Eat " refer to the bread. Thus was Luther forced to a
new investigation, and he decided for an adherence to the
very word of Scripture," as well as for the bodily omni
presence, since ' Christ does not continually keep traveling
from heaven to earth.' " His eyes were opened to the supreme
importance of the bodily presence, and he saw that it is not
merely a means of realizing the sacramental gift, but the
gift itself.
Meanwhile, in 1523, Luther found that Zwingli, who had
learned of the correspondence of Honius with Luther, had
adopted the interpretation of Honius; and, basing his argu
ment upon John 6, "the flesh profiteth nothing," had used
the scholastic conception of the existence of the body of Christ
as local, and as not able therefore to be in the Supper. A
little later Luther published his work " Against the
Heavenly Prophets," in 1524-25," in which the Lutheran
doctrine is developed and is practically complete; and his
letter to the Strassburgers, 1524."

'"Erl., 11. 187.
nIb., 28. 412f; 29. 329, 331; 393, 396, 398.
« lb., 29. 289, 293f.
"'Ib., 29.
"De Wette, II, 574 sqq.

THE PERSON OF CHRIST. 793
In 1525 Zwingli determined to attack the teaching of
Luther and proposed to undermine the authority of Luther."
Zwingli sent a fictitious letter to Alberus and attempted in
many ways to win the South Germans away from Luther.
Oecolampadius, Bucer, and Capito aided Zwingli in this
attempt, and unscrupulous means were employed — e. g., the
text of Bugenhagen's Commentary on the Psalms, and the
notes in the translation of Luther's Church Postils were
corrupted — in order to stir up agitation against Luther's
doctrine in South Germany." Those who understand clearly
what Luther was dealing with cannot condemn his severity
" when he finally broke his silence and entered the fray. It
is more important to set forth clearly the spirit of these
opponents and the historic base of it, than to shudder at the
thought of Luther's coarseness in dealing with them." " This
is all the more true since we now know that Zwingli's de
pendence upon Luther (notwithstanding Zwingli's protests
to the contrary) is a settled fact."
Luther's own view of the morality of Zwingli and his
compeers in these transactions is that it is very low. He
says, "My free, open, simple snapping at the devil is to
my notion much better than their poisonous, plotting, as
sassination, which they practice against the upright under
the pretence of peace and love." 4
It was in 1525 that Luther first applied the doctrine of
the personal omnipresence of Christ to the human nature in
the sacrament, and in 1526 he published his "Sermon on the
Sacrament."™ In 1527 he wrote: "That these Words:
This is my Body, stand firm; " and in 1528, his " Confes-

" Walther, 1. c. p., 815 sqq., 916 sqq.
"Erl., 30. 24, 38, 61, 98, 139, 148 sqq., 160, 205.
47 Seeberg, Hist. Doctrines, II. 320.
48 Usteri, 1. c, Stahelin, Zw. I. 164ff., 175f., Kawerau (MSller, Kirch.
Gesch., III. 46), quoted by Seeberg, II, 308.
"Erl., 30. 266.
110 16., 29. 329.

794 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
sion concerning the Lord's Supper." 51 Then came the Col
loquy at Marburg,52 where Luther told the Zwinglians that
they had " another spirit," but nevertheless hoped for a
" good-natured friendly harmony, that they may in a friendly
spirit seek among us for that which they lack ; " °3 while
Zwingli wrote that "Luther, impudent and contumacious,
was vanquished . . . although he declared himself uncon-
quered." The Schwabach Articles follow, making the true
doctrine of the Sacrament a part of the faith of the Church.
Then comes the Augsburg Confession, Bucer's interview with
Melanchthon in 1533, the Wittenberg Concord" in 1536,
and its failure; and Luther's last work, Short Confession^
of the Holy Sacrament 1545.55
THE COMMUNICATIO IDIOMATUM VS. THE ZWINGLIAN
ALLOEOSIS.
We have seen that Luther taught the presence of the Body

"Erl., 30.
B " The Colloquy at Marburg could not, under the circumstances, lead to
harmony, although Zwingli, impelled by political considerations (' Burgrecht'),
made as large concessions as possible to the Lutherans. Agreement was
indeed reached upon fourteen articles of faith, modeled upon formulas drawn
by Luther (Trinity, Christ, original sin, faith, justification, word, baptism,
works, civil government). . . Luther, although he had not hesitated to express
to the Strassburgers his conviction that they had ' another spirit,' yet hoped
for a ' good-natured friendly harmony, that they may in a friendly spirit seek
among us for that which they lack' (E. 36. 322). Zwingli wrote: 'Luther,
impudent and contumacious, was vanquished . . . although he mean
while declared that he was unconquered ' (opp. viii. 370)." — Seeberg, Hist.
of Doctrines, II, p. 330. Vid. also the correspondence of Luther and Melanch
thon after the Marburg Colloquy, and Article in The Lutheran Church Review,
" Is there Any New Light Concerning the Schwabach Articles?" 28. 278.
°3Erl., 36. 322.
04 " Nor did the Wittenberg Concord (A. D. 1536), produce an actual and
permanent agreement. From the time of the Diet of Augsburg, Bucer labored
unweariedly to bring about an agreement between the Saxons and the the
ologians of Southern Germany. His formula was : ' That the true body and
the true blood of Jesus Christ are truly present in the Lord's Supper and are
offered with the words of the Lord and the sacrament.' Both Luther and
Melanchthon hoped that an understanding might be reached upon this basis.
But Luther did not change his own opinion. Although he was willing to re
frain from laying special stress upon the assertion, that the body of Christ
is present also for the unbelieving, yet the formula finally adopted expresses
his view : ' That with the bread and wine are truly and substantially present,
offered, and received (vere et substantialiter adesse, exhiberi et sumi) the
body and blood of Christ. ' " — Seeberg, Hist, of Doctrines, II, p. 331. Cp.
Eook of Concord, II, p. 253 sqq.
53 Erl., 32. 396 sqq.

THE PERSON OF CHRIST. 795
of Christ in the Supper from the beginning, and that it was
a seal to the believing communicant of the forgiveness of
sins, wrought by it. We have seen, likewise, how funda
mental the Communicatio Idiomatum in the Person of
Christ was to the daily, living faith of Luther. As he said,
" God ' dwells ' in Christ bodily, so that one person is man
and God." M " The two natures are ' one single person ' " in
inseparable union, so that where the one is the other must
also be." e " They are to each other as body and soul ; °° and
the flesh is a spirit-flesh. It is in God and God in it." "
" The same Christ who has secured for us grace and the
forgiveness of sins is present in the Lord's Supper in order
to assure us of His redeeming act." ° This is the great point,
that Christ the actual person, the historical Redeemer, the
One well known and Who on earth performed all the acts
of redemption is present here in the Supper ; and that as He,
the God-man, was apprehended historically on earth only in
the presence and contacts of His human life, so this same
Man Jesus with the human nature, by which He gained
our salvation, is present by His body in the Holy Com
munion to personally seal the salvation He gained. How
His body is present (whether by a certain supernatural
mode, or in any one of a hundred other ways possible to
God — but certainly not in a mechanical ubiquity) is not
essential, and does not belong to the doctrine.62
When then the discussion of the doctrine of the Lord's
Supper with Zwingli was forced on Luther, his faith in the
Person of Christ Who was present on earth as a Man to
redeem, and Who will be present again as a Man to restore,
and Who is present, according to His own word and Testa-

"Erl., 30. 63.
"Ib., 30. 63, 206 sq., 211, 222.
°»h., 211 sq.
"Ib., 204.
M lb., 30. 125 ; 48. 28, 58.
61 lb., 29. 348; 48. 23; 30. 85, 134, 137.
e'Ib„ 30. 200, 202, 210, 217.

796 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
ment in His Sacrament to seal, was as real and living; as
Zwingli's definitions of the two natures were scholastic, ab
stract and artificial; and, in the Lutheran Faith, as over
against the theory of Oecolampadius, Bucer and Calvin, we
believers are not merely thinking of Him, as present by an
effort of our imagination;03 nor to see in His Sacrament
" a sign of a future or absent thing ; " but to hold to it as
the presence, under the visible form of the elements, of
" His invisible body and blood."
So far then from the particular Lutheran explication of
the doctrine of the Sacrament being an invention of the
Formula of Concord, the Formula itself draws attention to
the Luthero-Zwinglian divergence of half a century earlier,
as the final development of the whole matter. It says : —
" Inasmuch as Dr. Luther has written concerning the alloeosis of Zwingli in
his large Confession concerning the Holy Supper, we will here present Luther's
own words, in order that the Church of God may be guarded in the best way
against this error. His words are as follows: —
" ' Zwingli calls that an alloeosis, when anything is ascribed to the divinity
of Christ which nevertheless belongs to the humanity or the reverse. As Luke
24: 26: ' Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his
glory ? ' Here Zwingli triflingly declares that the word Christ is understood with
respect to the human nature. Beware, beware, I say, of the alloeosis; for it is a
mask of the devil, as it at last forms such a Christ after which I certainly would
not be a Christian. For its design is that Christ should henceforth be no more,
and do no more with his sufferings and life, than another mere saint. For if I
permit myself to be persuaded that only the human nature has suffered for me,
Christ is to me a Saviour of little worth, since he indeed himself stands in need
of a Saviour. In a word, what the devil seeks by the alloeosis is inexpressible.'
"And shortly afterwards: 'If the old sorceress, Dame Reason, the grand
mother of the alloeosis, should say, Yea, divinity can neither suffer nor die; you
should reply, That is true; yet, because in Christ divinity and humanity are one
person, Scripture, on account of this personal union, ascribes also to divinity
everything that occurs to the humanity, and the reverse. And thus, indeed, it is
in truth. For this must certainly be acknowledged, viz., the person (he refers to
Christ) suffers and dies. Now the person is true God; therefore, it is rightly said:
The Son of God suffers. For although the one part (so to say), viz., the divinity,
does not suffer, yet the person, which is God, suffers in the other part, viz., in his

63 Just as moderns subjectivize the whole incarnation, redemption, atone
ment, and the act of justification ; and think it into being as an act of the
Imagination, instead of holding to it vitally as a mighty fact.

THE PERSON OF CHRIST. 797
humanity; for in truth God's Son has been crucified for us, i. e. the person which
is God. For the person, the person, I say, was crucified according to the
humanity. '
"And again shortly afterwards: 'If the alloeosis exist, as Zwingli proposes, it
will be necessary for Christ to have two persons, one divine and one human, be
cause Zwingli applies the passages concerning suffering, alone to the human
nature, and of course diverts them from the divinity. For if the works be
parted and disunited, the person must also be divided, since all the works or suf
ferings are ascribed not to the natures, but to the person. For it is the person
that does and suffers everything, one thing according to one nature, and another
according to the other nature. Therefore we consider our Lord Jesus Christ as
God and man in one person, so that we neither confound the natures nor divide
the person.' " w

THE MAJESTATICUM BELIEVED BY LUTHER.
Not only did Luther from the beginning teach the presence
of the body of Christ in the Supper ; but that he also taught
the Genus Majestaticum, the following words from the
Formula of Concord will show: —
"Upon this firm foundation Dr. Luther, of holy memory, has also written
concerning the majesty of Christ according to human nature.
"In the Large Confession concerning the Lord's Supper he writes thus con
cerning the person of Christ: ' Since Christ is such a man as is supernaturally one
person with God, and apart from this man there is no God, it must follow that
also, according to the third supernatural mode, he is and can be everywhere that
God is, and all things are entirely full of Christ, even according to humanity,
not according to the first corporeal, comprehensible mode, but according to the
supernatural, divine mode.' For here you must confess and say: 'Wherever
Christ is according to the divinity, there he is a natural, divine person, and he is

14 Krauth is Illuminative : ¦' As these two natures form one Inseparable
person, . the whole person is involved in the acts of each part of it. Everything
that the Saviour did and suffered is both human and divine. Every act, in
deed, is done, every suffering endured, through or by the one or the other
nature, but not without the personal presence of the other. Jesus Christ
wrought miracles through the divine nature, but they were wrought by the
human nature. Through His divine omnipotence sight was given to the
blind, hut His divine omnipotence wrought it by his human touch. Jesus
Christ died according to His human nature, but His death was the death of a
divine person. Through his human infirmity He was crucified, but that human
weakness wrought by His divine majesty an infinite sacrifice. Godhead cannot
bleed, but the Church is purchased by the blood of God.
" We Lutherans affirm that there is a real common participation of the
whole person in the properties of both natures. The Reformed deny it, and
say 'that each nature is isolated from the other in its attributes.' " — Con.
Ref., p. 476 sq.
54

798 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
also there naturally and personally, as his conception in his mother's womb well
shows. For if he were God's Son, he must naturally and personally be in his
mother's womb and become man. But if, wherever he is, he is naturally and per
sonally, he must also be in the same place as man. For there are not in Christ
two separate persons, but only one person. Wherever it is, there the person is
only one and undivided; and wherever you can say: 'here is God,' there you
must also say: 'Therefore Christ the man is also there.' And if you would show
a place where God would be, and not the man, the person would be already
divided, because I could then say with truth: ' Here is God who is not man, and
who never as yet has become man. '
" ' Far be it from me that I should acknowledge or worship such a God. For
it would follow hence that space and place separated the two natures from one
another, and divided the person, which, nevertheless, death and all devils could
not divide or rend from one another. And there would remain to me a poor sort
of Christ, who would be no more than a divine and human person at the same
time in only one place, and in all other places he must be only a mere separate
God and divine person without humanity. No, friend, wherever you place God
for me, there you must also place with him for me humanity ; they do not allow
themselves to be separated or divided from one another. They become one per
son, which as Son of God does not separate from itself the assumed humanity.
" In the little book concerning the Last Words of David, which Dr. Luther
wrote shortly before his death, he says as follows: ' According to the other, the
temporal, human birth, the eternal power of God has also been given him, yet in
time, and not from eternity. For the humanity of Christ has not been from
eternity, as the divinity; but as we reckon and write Jesus, the Son of Mary, is
this year 1543 years old. But from the instant when divinity and humanity were
united in the person, the man, the Son of Mary, is and is called almighty,
eternal God, has eternal might and has created and sustains, by the communicatio
idiomatum, all things, because he is one person with divinity, and is also true,
God. Of this he speaks (Matt. 11: 27): 'All things are delivered unto me of my
Father;' and -Matt. 28: 18: 'All power is given to me in heaven and in earth.'
To what me? To me, Jesus of Nazareth, the Son of Mary and born man.
From eternity I had it of the Father, before I became man. But when I be
came man I received it in time, according to humanity, and kept it concealed un
til my resurrection and ascension; then it was to be manifested and declared, as
St. Paul says (Rom. 1: 4): 'He is declared and proved to be a Son of God
with power.' ' John (17: 10) calls it 'glorified.'
"Similar testimonies are found in Luther's writings, but especially in the
book: 'That these Words still stand Firm,' and in the 'Large Confession con
cerning the Holy Supper: ' to which writings, as well-grounded explanations of
the majesty of Christ at the right hand of God, and of his testament, we refer,
for the sake of brevity, in this article, as well as in the Holy Supper, as has been
heretofore mentioned." te
Krauth states the point clearly thus : " God became man,

' Book of Concord, pp. 640, 641.

THE PERSON OF CHRIST. 799
but Godhead does not become humanity. A man is God —
but humanity does not become deity. In this aspect the
Lutheran Church draws a distinction, total and all-com
prehending between the presence of the Godhead of Christ,
and the presence of His humanity. Omnipresence is the
essential attribute of the divine, and hence His Godhead
is necessarily, in and of itself, in virtue of its own nature
present. But the essential attribute of the human is to have
a determinate presence, and hence the human nature of
Christ has such a determinate presence, nor in and of itself
would the human nature have any other presence; but as it
is in one person with the divine, it is in that one person
rendered present with and through the divine. . . .
The human eye, in its own essence or nature, has no power
of being conscious of light; but . . . the eye has a real
sight through the soul, as the soul has its sight by the eye.
. . . The eye does not become spirit, nor the soul become
matter; nor has the soul one consciousness nor the eye
another; but . . . there is a common participation of the
two natures in the act of the one person ; . . . the eye itself
really receiving a distinct set of powers, from its union
with the soul, and the soul exercising its own essential
power, under a wholly new set of conditions, in consequence
of its union with the eye . . . There is no transfer of
properties; but there is a common participation of them.
And so in some sense, and yet with the infinite difference
made by the nature of the subjects in this case, we reply to
the sophism against the doctrine of our Church : The divine
in Christ is forever divine; the human forever human; but
as they can never be confounded, so can they never be sep
arated; and the one person participates in both, and each
has a personal communication with the attribute of the
other. ' Great is the mystery of Godliness : God was
MANIFEST IN THE FLESH.' " "

68 Con. Ref., pp. 479-481.

800 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
Luther always conceived of the Person of Christ in its
real unity; Zwingli conceived of it under the two logical
categories of finite and infinite. In Luther's doctrine, the
whole Christ was in every Word and act, and the Lord's
Supper was the culmination and essence of all Words and
acts ; but in Zwingli's doctrine Christ was differentiated into
the abstract quality of the natures. This accounts for the
persistent Reformed condemnation of the Formula's teach
ing " on the Ubiquity," from Hospinian in the Sixteenth
Century to Schaff in the Nineteenth. " The very term
"Ubiquity" betrays a Reformed conception of the subject,
non-Lutheran and foreign to the Formula, whose two relevant
chapters treat only of the two facts of " The Lord's Sup
per," and " The Person of Christ."

MISREPRESENTATION OF THE LUTHERAN FAITH.
We are told that the Formula extends the human body
of Christ everywhere in a geometric space and in locality,
whereas we teach that the human body of Christ cannot be
omnipresent by its own nature, but has the majesty of co-
presence only from the divinity, and can be omnipresent
only in the divine mode, through the unity of the person.

•* Cp. Seeberg : " While Luther interprets the traditional dogma from the
view-point of personal unity, Zwingli always premises the abstract difference
of the two natures. God ' assumed human nature ' — the incarnation signifies
nothing more than this (ii. 2. 69f). . . . But for the great thought in
Luther's theology — that even the human words and works of Christ are a
revelation of God — he has no comprehension. His Christology remains ab
solutely upon the plane of the mediaeval conception. The divine and human
natures are assigned to the opposite categories of finite and infinite nature.
The consequences of this position came to light in the controversy upon the
Lord's Supper." — History of Doctrines, II, pp. 321, 322.
M Oil is kept in a lamp or vessel. Its local presence is in the vessel. The
oil is never " locally extended in the geometric space of the room " even
when burning. But when the higher nature of fire takes the oil up into' itself,
the presence of the oil, by virtue of the higher attributes of the fire, is dif
fused everywhere illocally as far as the power of the presence of the fire-
nature reaches. Those who misrepresent the Lutheran doctrine say that It
teaches that the body of Christ — i. e., the oil in the figure, when burning —
extends itself locally through space, as the oil locally fills the vessel when
not burning. One would not suppose that such gross misrepresentation of
Lutheranism could manage to live on through the centuries.

THE PERSON OF CHRIST. 801
We are told that the Formula teaches the corporeal and local
presence of the body of Christ, but we really teach a cor
poreal presence that is not local. Our doctrine is misrepre
sented. What stronger language could be used than that of
the Conservative Beformation well known to the author of
the Creeds of Christendom : "Of a local presence of the body
of Christ in, with, or under the bread, there never was any
controversy between the Lutherans and Calvinists ; that local
presence we expressly reject and condemn in all our writings.
But a local absence does not prevent a sacramental presence,
which is dependent on the communication of the divine
Majesty." "
In spite of these words, the Creeds of Christendom, n
will persist in the derogatory use of the term ubiquity
with reference to the Lutheran doctrine of the presence
of Christ in the Lord's Supper, and will insist that it was
made a part of the Lutheran doctrine of the Person of
Christ in order to support the Lutheran doctrine of the
Lord's Supper; that it was unknown to Luther and the
earlier theologians; and that it is a metaphysical invention
of the theologians of the Formula of Concord. And this is
the wide-spread mode of stating Lutheran doctrine among
English theologians. Lindsay, the Reformation scholar,
does not grow weary of attributing a theory of mechanical
and local ubiquity to Martin Luther himself. In his History
of the German Reformation he misstates this fact no less
than five times within the space of twenty-five pages. The
very phrases " Corporeally extended in space," " Body ex
tended in space " are quoted as if from Luther, yet nowhere
is there any citation added from Luther's works on this
point, and for a very good reason. The following extracts
show how positive, detailed and complete is the misrepresen
tation of Lutheran doctrine on this point.

¦» Con. Ref., pp. 131, 132.
'" It also similarly repeats and affirms the old falsehood that the Lutheran
Church teaches the doctrine of consubstantiation in the Sacrament.

802

THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.

LINDSAY WOULD FASTEN "THE
UBIQUITY" ON THE LUTHERAN
CHURCH. A. D. 1906.
1. " Luther insisted more and m«re on the
necessity of the Presence in the elements of
the Body of Christ 'corporeally extended in
space.' " — History of the Reformation, I,
p. 356.
2. "Luther always conceived the Glorified
Body of Christ as 'Body extended in space. ' ' '
—lb., p. 357.
3. " Luther's [theory] depends on a
'questionable mediaeval idea of ubiquity."
—Ib., p. 358.
4. "They met at Wittenberg, and after
prolonged discussion it was found that all were
agreed save on one small point — the Presence,
extended in space of the Body of Christ. . .
. It was agreed that this might be left an
open question; and what was called the Wit
tenberg Concord was signed, which united all
German Protestants." — lb., p. 377.
5. " Luther's convent studies in D'Ailly, Biel, and their common master,
William of Occam, enabled him to show that there might be the presence of the
Glorified Body of Christ, extended in space, in the elements Bread and Wine
in a natural way, and without any priestly miracle: and that satisfied him." — lb.,
p. 354.

THE FORMULA RE
JECTS AND CON
DEMNS "THE
UBIQUITY." A. D. 1580.
Our Church ' rejects
and condemns the error '
that the human nature
of Christ is locally ex
tended in all places of
heaven and earth, " or
" has become infinite
essence." — Formula oi
Concord, (p. 520, 642,
Jacobs, in Book oi Con
cord) .

What the Lutheran Church does teach is not the infinite
extension of the body of Christ, but the personal omni
presence of the human nature of Christ, when and as He
wills, — and He has willed it in the Sacrament — under the
power of the attributes of the divine nature. Our Church
does not teach that Christ's human nature is omnipresent in
its own right, as His divine nature is omnipresent, in virtue
of any property of its own. Nor does it teach that His
human nature has been rendered equal to the divine in its
essential properties. Still less does it teach that the human
nature of Christ is 'locally expanded ' in all places of Heaven
and earth. God Himself is not present in this manner;
and the mode of the presence of the human nature, which,

THE PERSON OF CHRIST. 803
in union with the divine nature, is under the control of the
will of Christ, is also not after this manner.

THE PERSONAL OMNIPRESENCE A FUNDAMENTAL FACT.
It is not true that the doctrine of the personal omni
presence was first " taught in the Formula of Concord.
The foundations of this doctrine were laid in Luther's
teaching, in the Augsburg Confession, and in the other
symbols; and the Formula pointed out the larger (but con
sistent) development and the central position of this fact
in the Person of Christ.
Jacobs, in discussing the statement in Valentine's Chris
tian Theology that the Genus Majestaticum, " is peculiar
to Lutheran dogmaticians," points out that the statement
is modified by the author's own admission that " its sub
stance was maintained by Luther." " The long quotation
from Luther in the Formula of Concord concerning the
different modes of presence and the meaning of 'the right
hand of God ' is, in fact," says Jacobs, " the chief part of the
argument of that Confession."
Forrest," resting on Bruce and Gore, rises above Schaff
and Lindsay in his conception of the doctrine of the real
presence, which he characterizes as " illocal," but which he
nevertheless regards with a mechanical eye, and disposes of
in an epigram based on the theory that Christ was not
omnipresent or omniscient upon earth. He says, " The ' il-

71 The tendency of the enemies to the Formula to find and emphasize dif
ferences between it and the Augsburg Confession is natural and to be expected.
Such differences have been " found " in the teaching of the two Confessions on
Free Will. But, says J. T. Miiller, " In truth we may call our symbols for
tunate that in that their most sharp-sighted opponents can find no other con
tradictions in them than such whose solution are also to be found within
them. If the Augustana and her Apology contain passages which are in need
of a justifying explanation, this is given in the later symbols, especially in
the Formula of Concord. Therefore the Formula pretends to be nothing else
than an explanation of the former, and an introduction to its proper under
standing. Such representations are indeed themselves only a testimony for
the necessity of the Formula of Concord itself."
" The Christ of History and of Experience, pp. 194, 195.

804 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
local ubiquity ' which the Lutherans attribute to His hu
manity is as fantastic as it is incomprehensible." One might
with equal propriety remark that the birth of the Son of God
in Bethlehem, or His resurrection from the tomb of Joseph,
or His ascension to the right hand of the Father, is " as fan
tastic as it is incomprehensible."
The contrast in manner in which this doctrine is ap
proached on the Lutheran and on the Reformed and Philip-
pist side is marked. At times this teaching is ascribed to
Luther and his scholasticism ; and again, it is • denied to
Luther and ascribed to the Formula. By non-Lutherans it
is regarded as a ridiculous human abstraction. By our
Church it is regarded as a divine and mysterious fact in
the Person of Christ, the crowning, most lofty and most real
act of our Lord in His person for us. Compare for in
stance, the reverence, the restraint, and the objectivity shown
in Jacobs' Summary of the Christian Faith, and the caustic,
rationalizing and almost flippant discussion in The Creeds
of Christendom. n
If this particular form of the communication of divine
attributes to the human nature of Christ is a mere theo
logical invention and speculation, and a philosophical ab
straction, a pretext of reasoning to help out the Lutheran
doctrine of the Lord's Supper, as is so constantly asserted,
neither the writer, nor the Lutheran Church, because of her
doctrine of the Word, can have anything to do with it.
But if the mysteries of the Incarnation, the Redemption, and
the Glorification of Christ, are not also mere philosophic
figments, and human inventions, but are the great and ulti
mate facts of history, imperfectly comprehensible by our
poor human reasoning, then this particular fact of the
genus majestaticum, that inheres in the Incarnation and

73 This is one of the few places in the Creeds of Christendom in which
Schaff descends from the symbolic standpoint to argue at length, and as a
particular member of the Reformed Church, against a particular doctrine ; and
*ie does it in a way which seems to show his intention of giving the Lutheran
doctrine a death blow.

THE PERSON OF CHRIST. 805
Glorification of Christ, is also not a philosophical figment,
but an adorable mystery."*

THE MOST POTENT OBJECTION.
The most potent argument that is advanced by the Re
formed and the weaker Lutherans against the genus majes-
taticum is the rationalistic one, viz. : that it cannot be true,
for it is contrary to human reason, and human reason can
not comprehend it. Thus Schaff says, " How can eter
nity ... be really communicated to a being born in
time . . . ? How can immensity be transferred to a finite
man ? " "
And Valentine says, "It is impossible to conceive how
the divine properties could be given to the human nature, as
real attributes, without making it something else or other
than human nature. . It is the essence of human nature to
be finite; to add to it omnipresence is, to the necessities of
scientific thought, to constitute it per se infinitely beyond
the self-identity of human nature." ™
This same argument of transcendence beyond the bounds
of what is possible to human thought, can be directed, if it

,3» Everything that the Saviour did and suffered is both divine and human,
that is, it is personal. He did, and suffered all, and He is both human and
divine. Every act, indeed, is done, every suffering endured, through or by
the one or the other nature, but not without the personal presence of the
other. Jesus Christ wrought miracles through the divine nature, but they
were wrought by the human nature. Through His divine omnipotence sight
was given to the blind, but His divine omnipotence wrought it by His human
touch. Jesus Christ died .according to His human nature, but His death
was the death of a divine person. Through His human infirmity He was
crucified, but that human weakness wrought by His divine majesty an in
finite sacrifice. Godhead cannot bleed, but the Church is purchased by the
blood of God ; for He who bleeds is in one inseparable person, God as well as
man, and His blood has efficacy, not because of the properties of the nature
according to which He bleeds, but because of the attributes of His whole
person, which is divine. Had not He who hied been personally God as well
as man, His blood would not have availed. Jesus Christ is essentially and
necessarily omnipresent according to the divine nature, but His human nature
not of its own essence, or by a necessity resulting from its own attributes,
but because the divine has taken it into personal union with itself, is
rendered present through the divine. — Con. Ref. pp. 476 and 477.
71 Creeds of Christendom, p. 324.
15 Christian Theology, II., p. 77.

806 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
be valid, with fatal force, against the whole mystery of the
Incarnation, the Redemption and the Glorification of Christ.
The genus majestaticum is a specific fact in the general
union of the divine and human natures in Christ. This
union of the finite with the infinite, which is the greatest
fact of revelation, is as incomprehensible, as to its possi
bility, as is the particular fact which is a part of it, which
we term the genus majestaticum.
It is, however, admitted by Valentine that if the com
munication of the divine attributes to the human nature be
viewed as " functional," the mild and careful confession
of the doctrine in the Formula of Concord can be accepted :
" Interpreted in this, its true light or sense, it is really only
a necessary explication and issue of the functional action
taught in the second kind of communication, arising from
the real personal union. . . Looked at in this light, this kind
of communication surely belongs to a full Christological
view. . . This gives all that is necessary to a correct view of
the Lutheran doctrine of the Supper." ™
This functional action in the communio " gives all that is
necessary " to the doctrine of the Supper, but has nothing
to spare for the majesty of the Person of Christ, on the
ground that " Melanchthon did not accept the idea of a real
communication of the divine attributes." ™

THE CRITIQUE OF SCHAFF.
But the Reformed critique of this doctrine, as repre
sented by Schaff, without entering into the mystery of
Christ at all, presumes to judge it from an external and
speculative point of view. The very first statement of
Schaff, which he supports by a quotation from Stahl, is as
follows : " The scholastic refinements of the doctrine of the
Communicatio Idiomatum, and especially the ubiquity of
76 Christian Theology, II, pp. 79-80.

THE PERSON OF CHRIST. 807
the body, have no intrinsic religious importance, and owe
their origin to the Lutheran hypothesis of the corporeal pres
ence. They should, therefore, never have been made an
article of faith. A surplus of orthodoxy provokes skepti
cism." If a rationalistic approach such as this were made to the
doctrine of Predestination, to the doctrine of the Trinity,
and to certain Presbyterian doctrines connected with the
organization of the Church, they might be read out of court
in statements as curt as these.
In proceeding to show that the Formula overstates and
endangers the " central mystery of the union of the divine
and human in Christ," Schaff declares, " It leads neces
sarily — notwithstanding the solemn protest of the Formula
to a Eutychian confusion and equation of natures; for,
according to all sound philosophy, the attributes are not an
outside appendix to the nature, and independent of it, but
inherent qualities, and together constitute the nature itself."
Schaff's first objection, then, is that the doctrine has no
religious value; his second objection is that it is condemned
by "all sound philosophy," that is, by human reason. His
third objection is that the doctrine breaks down half way,
and cannot be carried consistently through all the attributes.
This is likewise an objection of the human reason. His
fourth objection is that the doctrine has no support in the
Scriptures. In reply to this we would say that nearly all
the Scriptures which describe to us the manifestation of
the divine nature in the human are a proof of this doctrine ;
not merely such general passages as Matt., 11: 27; 28: 18;
John, 5:26; but Heb., 2:8; Col., 2:3; John, 6 : 51 ; I
Cor., 15: 45; Matt., 9:6; John, 5: 27; Phil., 2: 9, 10;
Heb., 1:8; Matt., 18 : 20 ; 28 : 20 ; Eph., 1 : 23 ; 4 : 10 ; Heb.,
1:3; Heb., 2:9; Luke, 22 : 69 ; I John, 1:7; John, 17 : 5.
The fifth objection of Schaff, namely, " The Christology
of the Formula makes it impossible to construct a truly
human life of our Lord on earth," is also an objection of

808 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
pure rationalism. It is not so important for us to be able
"to construct a truly human life of our Lord " as it is
to accept the fact that God " constructed " such a life, and to
believe in it whether we understand it or not. As for the
" construction," we should remember the words of the For
mula, "it shines forth . . . when and as Christ wills."
No time need be wasted on the sixth objection of Schaff,
which is illustrative, nor on the seventh, which attributes
" consubstantiation " to the Formula of Concord and de
clares that the ubiquity of the body is " logically necessary
for consubstantiation." The eighth objection is puerile, de
claring that " ubiquity proves too much by extending the
eating of Christ to every meal." Christ did not quicken
every dead man to life, nor forgive every paralytic his sins,
nor heal every blind man he saw, neither is his " ubiquity "
a mere mechanical category, which affects all objects auto
matically, and in which we are, as we are in space and time ;
but it is under the control of Christ's will, and shines " forth
when and as he wills."
The ninth objection of Schaff borders on the absurd. It
is that the ubiquity " conflicts with the facts of Christ's local
limitations while on earth." As thus conceived by these
rationalistic philosophers, the ubiquity indeed would be a
terrible burden, a fearful punishment of fate, under which
even the Christ of God could not hold himself erect on
earth, and which would certainly be a barrier and obstruction
to his freedom at the Right Hand of the Father. They so
distort the ubiquity mechanically as that it rules the Person
and the Will. The Lutheran Church places this Communi
cation of the attributes of the divine nature to the human
in proper control of the Person and Will of Christ.
The tenth reason of Schaff is perhaps the real, at least the
real historical, reason why the doctrine of the Formula of
Concord has been fought so terribly. It is that if this
doctrine be true, it requires the presence of the body and
blood of Christ in the Sacrament, and would dispose of the

THE PERSON OF CHRIST. 809
Zwinglian and Calvinistic interpretation of the Lord's Sup
per. Thus is the central position of the Formula in the evan
gelical faith, and the central doctrine of the Formula, which
upholds the central fact in the Person of Christ ; as acknowl
edged, in all the greatness of its mystery, by the Lutheran
Church, brought out as the real reason for the rejection of
the Formula. And thus is the impossibility of union on
the part of a real Lutheranism with Reformed Protestantism
set forth in extenso, by the founder of the Evangelical Alli
ance. INCONSISTENCY OF CRITICS OF THE " UBIQUITY."
Those who see in the Lutheran doctrine of the Lord's
Supper a philosophical theory of ubiquity, instead of a
Christian mystery, seem not to realize that they themselves
have lost the true doctrine of the Lord's Supper because
they are resting upon a shallow philosophical theory of the
Person of Christ. This fundamental distinction could not
but come out most sharply every time the Lord's Supper was
discussed, beginning at Marburg in 1529 ; and continuing
even when Calvin's view, later, was substituted for that of
Zwingli. For a true presence of Christ on earth, so possible to the
glorified Son of Man, the Calvinistic view substitutes " an
imaginary presence of the believers in Heaven," so impossi
ble as an actual reality. The Calvinistic view " puts too
much upon man who is nothing, because it concedes too little
to Christ who is everything . . . With its great ad
vance on the rationalism of Zwingli, the doctrine of Calvin
still bore with it the fatal taint of the very view which he
calls ' profane.' All that ¦ Calvin gained in depth, as con
trasted with Zwingli, he lost in clearness. He does not as
flatly as Zwingli contradict the text. But he does what
Zwingli did not, he contradicts himself. But two views will

810 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
remain in the ultimate struggle, the rationalistic, Zwinglian,
Arminian, Socinian view, which fully denies the whole mys
tery, on the one side, and the Scriptural, Catholic view,
which fully and consistently recognizes it on the other.
This is the view of the objective reality of the presence held
in its purity in the Lutheran Church, and held in the Roman
and Greek churches, though with the rubbish of human
additions heaped upon it. The advance of either view
presses out the Calvinistic . . . The rigid logic which so
wonderfully marks Calvin, in the other parts of his
system, " seems to fail him here. His sacramental theories
were an adaptation of the views of Bucer, which their orig
inator ultimately abandoned for those of the Lutheran
Church. They were grafted on Calvin's system, not grown
by it, and they fall away even when the trunk retains its
original vigor, or are retained, as the Unionistic theology,
though with great changes, now retains them, when every
thing ordinarily embraced in Calvinism, is utterly aban
doned." "
The most savage assaults upon the Formula of Concord
made by Reformed and Philippist are due to its teaching
that the human nature in Christ has received the divine
majesty according to the manner of the personal union, so
that, as the Formula says, " The entire fulness of the divin
ity dwells in -Christ, not as in other holy men and angels,
but bodily, as in its own body, so that, with all its majesty,
power, glory and efficacy, it shines forth in the assumed
human nature of Christ when and as he wills, and in, with,
and through it, exerts its divine power, glory, and efficacy."

77 But cp. Prof. Thomas C. Hall of Union Seminary, New York, who says,
" The ethical system of Calvin is profoundly reactionary, scholastic, and
Roman Catholic in both method and aim. As a religious force of the first
magnitude Calvinism has aided in high degree men's practical ethical life. . .
But on the intellectual and philosophical reconstruction of ethics it has left no
such mark as that made by one single work of Luther's, Die Freiheit des
Christenmenschen." '» Con. Ref., pp. 499, 501.

THE PERSON OF CHRIST. 811
THE COMMUNICATIO IDIOMATUM ORIGINATED IN SCRIPTURE,
NOT IN THE FORMULA.
This confession, instead of being merely a doctrine of
the Formula of Concord, is the doctrine taught in Scripture,
and did not originate in the necessity of defending the Luth
eran doctrine of the Lord's Supper. " The doctrine of our
Church rests upon the true testimony of God's Word, and her
interpretation of the meaning of that Word is not one of her
own devising, but had been given ages before her great
distinctive Confession by the fathers and Councils of the
pure Church." ™
We have seen that Luther drew the communicatio idio
matum from his profound knowledge of the Person of
Christ as found in Scripture. Its origin is in Scripture,
not in the Formula. John, who tells us that the Word was
made flesh, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the
Only-begotten of the Father, presents to us the communica
tion of attributes. Christ Himself teaches this doctrine in
John, 3 : 35 ; Matt., 11 : 27 ; Luke, 10 : 22 ; and John, 13 : 3.
One of the most striking of all contrasts between the two
natures in the one Person is this : " Jesus knowing that the
Father had given all things into his hands, and that he was
come from God, and went to God; he riseth from sup
per . . . and began to wash the disciples' feet." And
here the whole point of the antithesis between what Christ
was, and what He did, turns upon the communicatio.
" That Jesus performed this act of touching lowliness not
in forgetfulness of His glorious majesty and of the plenitude
of His gifts, but fully conscious of them " is the point of
the narrative. But if he had " all things " given unto
Him as a man, as in the consciousness of this glory, He
washed the disciples' feet, then was there real humiliation. °°
In Him, Who had power to lay down His life and power to

70 Con. Ref., p. 502.
80 For the discussion of Matt. 28:18; Matt. 28:20; John 17:5; Col. 2:9;
Matt. 17 : 25, etc., vid. Con. Ref., pp. 502-508.

812 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
take it up again, Who offered Himself a ransom for many,
Who gave His body and His blood for the remission of sins,
Who rose from the dead in the glory of the Father, yet with
the nail-prints upon Him; Who is with His disciples even
unto the end of the world, the human nature as the per
sonalized organ of the divine nature, experiences, enjoys and
uses, according to the wisdom of His own will, the attributes
of the divine nature, whether He be on the Mount, upon
the Cross or at the right hand of the Father. " So thor
oughly," says Krauth, " does this idea of the personal unity
underlie the New Testament conception of Christ, that we
find it constantly assumed where no formal statement of it
is made."

THE ANCIENT CREEDS.
The Apostles' Creed teaches the communicatio idiomatum
when it declares that God's " only Son, our Lord," was con
ceived, born, suffered, crucified, dead, buried, descended into
hell, ascended into heaven, and sitteth at the right hand of
the Father Almighty." If God's Son was really conceived
and born, and suffered, " if He whom the heaven of heavens
cannot contain, was hidden in the grave," there was in the
whole earthly life of Christ a communication of natures in
their attributes.
The Nicene Creed states the communication of attributes
in the one Person with great clearness. "The only begotten,
the Eternal Son, Maker of all things, descends from heaven,
is made man, is crucified, suffers. He is one Person, to
whom is referred all the glory that is divine, and all the
shame and pain that are human. The Athanasian Creed
witnesses still further: Though He be God and man, He is
not two, but one Christ — one, not by the conversion of
Divinity into flesh, but by the assumption of humanity to
God ; one altogether, not by confusion of substance, but
by unity of Person. For as the rational soul and flesh is

THE PERSON OF CHRIST. 813
one man, so God and man is one Christ, who (God and man,
one Christ) 'suffered for our salvation, descended into hell,
rose the third day.' The Augsburg Confession takes up
this thread of witness : ' God the Son became man, so that
there be two natures, the divine and human, in unity of
person inseparably conjoined, one Christ, truly God and
truly man, who was born, truly suffered, was crucified, dead
and buried.' " 81

THE CHURCH FATHERS.
The participation of attributes in Christ in the sense of
the genus majestaticum passed from Scripture to the wider
territory of the Church Fathers. Was it the Formula of
Concord that said, " As the Son of God has been made
participant of flesh and blood, so the human flesh of our Lord
has been made participant of Deity?" No, it was St.
Basil, who also says, " When our Lord declares ' All power
is given unto me,' the words are to be understood of Him
in His incarnation, not in His Deity." "2
Was it the Formula that said, " Christ according to His
humanity shares the throne of God," or " Thou art every
where, and standing in our midst art not perceived by us,"
or "One Christ is everywhere; here existing complete, and
there complete ?" S8 No, it was Ambrose. Was it the For
mula that said, " He is wherever He wills to be ; wheresoever
He is, He is entire " ? No, it was Chrysostom. Was it the
Formula that said, " The holy body of Christ ... is com
municated in the four parts of the world . . . He exists en
tire and undivided in all everywhere " ? No, it was Theophy-
lact.M It was Jerome who said,86 " The Lamb is everywhere."

Bftm. Ref., 316-317.
8a Basilius in Homil. de Nativ. Christi.
53 Ambrose on Luke X, Lib. VII, ch. 47, and on Heb. IV.
wTheophyl., on Eph. IV, 10.
85 Adv. Vigilantium.
55

814 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
This confession was not an invention of the Formula. It was
confessed by the Formula because it was confessed by Luther.
It was confessed by Luther after it was confessed by the
Ancient Church, and because both Luther and the Church
Fathers found it taught in Scripture itself.
The real objection to the doctrine of the Person of Christ
in the Formula was the rationalistic Christology of Zwingli,
which he accepted from the schoolmen of Rome, which at
tempts to limit and confess Christ in the forms of common
sense and the human mind ; and which was artificial just as
the Roman doctrine of justification is shallow; but which has
passed into the teaching of Reformed Protestantism.
If it be borne in mind that the Reformed Church, through
Zwingli, retained the rationalistic view of the natures of
Christ as an heirloom from Rome, it will be understood
why the Reformed, the rationalist, and the Roman Catholic
have joined hands to extinguish the truth of the Formula.
This truth is the inner citadel of our Faith in Christ our
Redeemer, and it is confessed, used and enjoyed in every

88 Seeberg speaks even more sharply of Zwingli's theology as follows : " His
Christology has the Nestorian tendency of the Scholastics. His interpreta
tion of original sin harmonizes with that of the later Middle Ages. His
theory of the sacraments follows the symbolic view not infrequently held in
the Middle Ages. He mingles philosophical theories with his presentations
of the gospel, lacking Luther's sense of the positive character of revelation — ¦
Duns and the Nominalists having here prepared the way. Thus Christianity
became a kind of philosophy deduced from the Bible. In view of these
characteristics of his teaching, it may be said that the undeniable difference
between Zwingli and Luther — despite their common understanding of the
gospel — is to be explained by the fact, that Zwingli received his impulse
originally from the Erasmian illuministic tendency, and that, in consequence,
the medieval ideas continued to exert a greater influence upon him than
upon Luther." — II, p. 317.
" Zwingli was from the first conscious of the deviation of his ideas from
those of Luther, which explains in part the zealous assertions of his (sup
posed) independence of the Saxon reformer. If he at first, indeed, represented
this difference as a merely formal one, though emphasizing the idea of a
repeated memorial (Wiedergedachtniss, i. 257), yet he very soon resolved to
assail the theory of Luther, and from the year 1525 built up a carefully
planned and vigorous propaganda for the purpose of winning the Southern
Germans to his views. . . There was a feeling of strong confidence that
Luther's view could be explained away as simply the product of hypocrisy and
timidity (e. g., vii. 390 f). Zwingli and his friends were impatient in their
desire to measure swords with Luther and undermine his authority, and
counseled against the use of prudent or pious tactics in dealing with him." —
Ib. I, p. 319.

THE PERSON OF CHRIST. 815
celebration of the Lord's Supper, which " constantly recalls
the minds of those who use it aright to the most central facts
and truths of Christianity. In the light of this Holy Sac
rament, the proper relation between" the human and the
divine, God and man, sin and redemption, " is set forth and
maintained. The words of the Gospel which it brings and
seals to the individual, every time he communes, condense
all that is taught in both Old and New Testament. It is an
impressive summary of God's entire revelation of Himself
to man. It fixes the lines along which faith moves and ac
cording to which it works . . . Nor is its testimony confined
to communicants. It shows forth the Lord's death and all
that it means to those as yet outside the Church. Without
interruption, it has come down from a period before men
could read the message of the Gospel in the canon of the New
Testament, and even before its very first book was written,
and through all these ages it gave the very same testimony
as it is giving to-day." "
If our faith holds and clings to the living Christ, and is
not content with abstract dogma deduced from the mere ideas
of a philosophizing Christianity, if we know that our
mighty and merciful Redeemer touches God at every point in
the heights of heaven and touches our fallen nature at every
point in the depths of humiliation ; if we know that He is the
potent, compassionate, and glorious Mediator, . reaching out
to us with His flesh and blood, after the manner of the hu
man, and reaching up into the eternal life and equality of
His Father in His divinely begotten and eternal nature; if
we believe that he has poured out divine powers and treas
ures of redemption through the human vessels of His own
body and blood, and if we believe that these vessels in their
union with the divine have become transfigured under its in
fluence ; if He, the Mediator is a reality, is a unit in person
ality, a single entity in the fullness of His own life, far be-

87 Jacobs, Summary of Christian Faith, p. 366-367.

816 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
yond anything which it hath entered the mind of man to
conceive, then how can we be so shallow as to empty the sac
ramental mystery of His bodily life broken for our sin, of all
its reality, and as to deprive His own Church of the one
great standing miracle of the real presence of His living and
saving Person, unconfused but also undivided.
Well does the Formula of Concord close its wonderful de
fence of our Lord's Person with the following words:
" We would exhort all devout people not to attempt to
scrutinize this deep mystery with the curious search of
human reason, but rather with the Apostles of our Lord
to exercise a simple faith, closing the eyes of human reason,
and bringing every thought into captivity to the obedience
of Christ. But most sweet, most firm consolation, and per
petual joy may they seek in the truth that our flesh is placed
so high, even at the right hand of the majesty of God, and of
His almighty power. Thus shall they find abiding conso
lation in every sorrow, and be kept safe from every hurtful

CHAPTER XXXIV.
THE LUTHERAN CONFESSION.
CONCORDIA IS THE CHURCH'S GREAT CONFES
SION OF CHRIST.
The Material of Concordia — Its Field is Salvation — Its Subject is Christ — The
Church should never Go Back to the Concordia ; but should Stand Upon It — It
treats Other Doctrines, but substantially it is the Great Confession of the Person
and Work of Christ.
SHOULD our Concordia be the Confession, as is the
Augustana, of the whole Conservative Evangelical
Church? Its material is that of the Augustana, which it
raises to clean, sharp outline and more ample clearness. It
eliminates the more earthly and temporal elements found in
the Augustana, the Apology, and the Schmalkald Articles.
It focuses all the rays of Scripture truth on the field of
salvation. It concentrates the whole Lutheran Confession
upon Christ, the Son of the living God. It confesses a
Christ Who assumed our human nature into the unity of
His divine person, that He might be our high priest for our
reconciliation with God; and Who, possessing the majesty
and power of God according to the personal union, abstained
from it in humbling Himself, and grew in all wisdom and
favor with God and man; Who exercised this majesty, not
always, but when it pleased Him, until, after His resur
rection, He laid aside the form of a servant, and not the
nature, and resumed the use, manifestation and declara
tion of His own majesty and thus entered into His glory,
so that now not only as God, but also as man, He knows all
817

818 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
things, is present with all creatures, and has, under His feet
and in His hands, everything that is in heaven and on earth.
Present in His whole Person by His divine nature with
His Church unto the end of the world, He is also sacra-
mentally present with His Church in His human nature,
according to the property of the divine nature, to impart
and seal the forgiveness of sins, life and salvation to each
believer. This presence of the exalted Christ is not of the
earth, or physical, or Capernaitic. Yet it is true and sub
stantial, as He declares in His Testament, " This is my
body." In His incarnation, atonement, resurrection, ascension and
impartation of redemption to each believer, the Person of
Christ is not divided. Neither are the natures together
with their properties confounded; neither is either creature
changed into the other; but Christ is and remains, for all
eternity, God and man in one undivided person, upon which
mystery our only consolation, life and salvation depend.
This then is the sublime Confession, clear and Scriptural,
of the Formula of Concord. On its presentation, preserva
tion and protection of the doctrine of the Person of Christ,
in which it stands preeminent and unapproachable, even as
the Jungfrau towers in her soaring height above the whole
circle of her surrounding sisters, the Formula of Concord
may rest its case as to whether it is and is entitled to be
acknowledged as the Symbol of the Lutheran Faith, and
the culminating Confession of the whole Lutheran Church;
and whether it is to be thankfully accepted by those who bear
the name of Luther and who follow Him in the proclama
tion of the Word and the administration of the Sacrament.
It is true that the Church of this day will never go back
to the Sixteenth Century or to the Formula of Concord.
Neither can it go back to the Confession of Augsburg; and
still less should it go back to the New Testament of Christ.
But only by occupying and standing fully on the sure ground
of the past will it be able to build upward to the true pin-

THE CONCORDIA. 819
nacle of the future. A deviation very slight at the start
results in a leaning tower at the top.
It is true that the Concordia includes more than the Per
son of Christ, as the Augustana contains more than the mate
rial principle of the Reformation. Thus it settles the prin
ciple of things more and things less important in the Chris
tian Faith, the later form which the controversy with
Rome took, and which brought the Lutheran states un
der the control of the emperor and the Roman Church. *
It takes up the Article of Predestination, which in Lutheran
Theology comes after and not before the doctrine of the
Person of Christ. * But while such Loci as are found in the
Augsburg Confession are treated in view of the fifty years'
experience since the Confession of Augsburg, the crowning
distinction of the Formula of Concord is that it is the
Confession of the Work and the Person of Christ — the Work
as we find it in saving the lost, the Person as the back
ground and explanation of that salvation. The Formula of
Concord is not, like the Augsburg Confession, ecclesiastical
or reformatory in its treatment: it is wholly soteriological.
It contains no article, like the Augsburg Confession, on the
Church, none on Civil Affairs, none on Abuses, none on

JThe emperor requested the Protestants to submit to compromise pending
the call to a Council. The Augsburg Interim (1548) was the first com
promise. It was wholly in favor of Rome, giving to the Protestants only the
cup to the laity and the marriage of priests. In south Germany about four
hundred Lutheran preachers were expelled or dismissed for non-conformity.
Six months later came the second compromise, the Leipzig Interim, for
the domain of Maurice of Saxony, of treacherous memory, where the Augsburg
Interim could not be carried out. It retained some parts of the evangelical
faith, but required conformity to the Romish ritual, including confirmation,
episcopal ordination, extreme unction, a large part of the mass, fasts, proces
sions, and the use of images. Melanchthon, here as originally at Augsburg
and ever after, compromising, acted as mediator between Protestantism and
Maurice. The Formula in settling this subject, lays down the principle that ec
clesiastical rites not commanded in the Word of God are in themselves
adiaphora ; but ' the observance or non-observance of them may, under testing
circumstances become a matter of principle and of conscience.'
aThe now famous article on Predestination is introduced by the following
paragraph, which shows most clearly the confessional intention and char
acter of the Formula : " Concerning this article no public discussion has
occurred among the theologians of the Augsburg Confession. But since it is
a consolatory article, if treated properly, and by this means the introduction
in the future of a controversy likely to cause offence may be avoided, it is
also explained in this writing."

820 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
the Bishops, but it confines itself to Christ and to His
salvation. The Saviour, the Living Christ, is the centre of
the Formula. In this sense the Formula is the return of the
Church back to Christ. In a historical sense, it is a return
from Melanchthon, for whom the Person of Christ was not
the centre, to Luther, for whom the Person of Christ was — in
his earlier, and growing ever more intensely, for his later
years — the source and centre of hope and faith. The For
mula is the Lutheran Church's expansion of the Second
Article of the Creed and of Luther's explanation of it, as the
remedy for all the errors and conflicts of Protestantism.
Luther's theology was the whole Christ and nothing but
Christ. His striving was a " profound and earnest attempt
to secure full recognition of the doctrine of the truly divine
and the truly human natures," especially of the human
nature, as enjoying also the fullness of the divine, in the in
separable union of the one Person. By this one fact he
felt himself separated from the Roman scholasticism of
earlier ages. "The most exalted theologians in former times
flew from the humanity of Christ to His divinity, and clung
alone to this. I was also formerly such a doctor, and ex
cluded the humanity. But we must ascend to the divinity,
and hold fast to it, in such a way as not to abandon the
humanity of Christ. Thou shouldst know nothing of any
God, or Son of God, but Him who is declared to have been
born of the Virgin Mary and to have become man." s For
Luther, God and man were inseparable in Christ, and that
was the mystery of the redemption and oi its application in
Word and Sacrament. Being inseparable, the man in Christ
secures for itself a participation in the loftiest prerogatives
of the divine glory; and this fact in Christ is the key that
unlocks all the teachings of Scripture as to the One by
Whom we are saved. The Sacrament of the Altar and the
Formula of Concord, are the two great testimonies, the one
divine, and the other human, that Deus et homo unus est
Christus.

lErl., 47. 362.

CHAPTER XXXV.
THE LUTHERAN CONFESSION.
WHAT THE FORMULA OF CONCORD ACCOM
PLISHED AS A CONFESSION OF THE
LUTHERAN CHURCH.
The Substance of the Gospel Set Together after Protestantism had been Tested —
A Confession of Teachers and Congregations — It Rescued the Church from a
Petty Doctrinal Territorialism — It Recovered the Church from the Weaknesses
of Its Friends — The Estimate of Seeberg — It Preserved the Existence of the
Church — It Brought Peace — It Made Possible a Substantial Catholic Evan
gelical Church — It Guarded the Relation of the Divine and the Human in All
the Great Doctrines — It Settled the Question of Justification, of Synergism and
of the Sacraments — The White Winged Standard of Peace — The First Permanent
Synthesis of Luther and Melanchthon — It Deserves to be Accepted by the Lu
theran Church.
THE Formula of Concord was the old Faith of God's
Word summed up for Protestantism, subsequent to
the period of testing, and once again set together. It was the
Augsburg Confession reconciled in its own native meanings,
and repeated reverently by the unanimous consent of the con
fessors. * It was the very substance of the Gospel and
of the Augsburg Confession, kneaded through the experi
ence of the first generation of Protestantism, by incessant
and agonizing conflict, and coming forth from that experi
ence as a true and tried teaching, a standard recognized
by many.

1 Concordia. Pia et Vnanimi consensu repetitq Confessio.
821

822 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
The Augsburg Confession appearing in the first flush
of heroic reaction from Rome, had proven to be a popular
standard. But it was something done for the congrega
tions and not by them. Originally it figured as the private
Confession of the Elector John. Under stress it was broad
ened out to include the other territorial heads of Lutheran
ism. But, whereas the Augustana had seven signers, the
pious and unanimous repetition of the Augustana, the Con
cordia, had over seven thousand signers. After the Augs
burg Confession had been delivered for the whole Church
prior to its discussion, and had resulted, in part through
Melanchthon, in endless and ever weakening post-eventu
discussion, the Concordia was signed by the far greater part
of the Church, and not until all had participated fully in
its discussion, and it thus became the Church's own act
and document.
The Formula of Concord was the great Evangelical in
strument that rescued the Evangelical Churches from the
evils of a petty doctrinal territorialism, from the polemicism
of powerfully protected partizanships in isolated institutions
of learning, from many princes' individual bodies of doctrine,
and brought the men of the Lutheran Faith together on the
basis of an internal agreement in the new growth and life
that had now sprung up beyond the dark shadows thrown by
the closed circle of Rome.
The Book of Concord gave all Lutherans who wish to
confess it, not a mere common corpus, but a vital and
organic Confession, and relieved the Church of the numerous
collections of confessional and doctrinal writings, bulky and
individualistic, which separate territorial churches had drawn
up as their standard. In other words, the Book of Con
cord, notwithstanding the independent Lutherans who did
not acknowledge it, accomplished in the Sixteenth Century
what the general bodies of the Lutheran Church in America,
despite the many independent synods, are attempting to
accomplish in the Twentieth Century, viz., protecting the

ACCOMPLISHMENT OF FORMULA. 823
Church from absorption and furnishing one common centre
of strength on which reliance can be placed.
The Augsburg Confession is the Lutheran Faith in the
attitude of respectful apology and defence against an open
foe without. The Formula of Concord is the Lutheran
Faith in the attitude of recovering itself from weaker
friends within and devouring friends without. Augustana
rescued the Church from decapitation at the hand of the
foe; Concordia rescued it from slow poisoning at the hand
of its own members.
The two great Confessions are each the result of a great
situation for which neither of them was responsible: in the
case of the Formula, it was a terrible internal situation in
the demoralized Church of Luther. " In forming our esti
mate of the Formula of Concord, it must be borne in mind,"
says Seeberg (translated by Hay), "that the problems with
which the Formula deals, were dividing the church in that
age; that it actually gave expression to a consensus already
inaugurated ; and that it consequently succeeded in gradually
restoring the peace of the church. The detailed theological
definitions of the pure doctrine which it presented were in
keeping with the spirit that had prevailed in the church it
represented for about a century and a half. We can, there
fore, as little ignore the historical necessity of the enter
prise, as we can fail to be impressed with the tactful and
energetic literary labor which it reveals. The Formula of
Concord did indeed make final the breach between the Luth-
eran-Melanchthonian and the Calvinistic-Melanchthonian
types in the evangelical church of Germany; but this breach
was, under the existing circumstances, unavoidable. No
reproach can be cast upon a Confession for giving expression
to a condition of affairs already existing." *
And Seeberg is justified in speaking still more positively.
He asserts that the Formula preserved to the Lutheran

* History of Doctrines, II. pp. 382-383.

824 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
Church her right of self -existence. ' Repeating that the
Formula arose from an inner historical necessity in the
Church, that it solved its own particular task in a prudent
and far-sighted way, that the Melanchthonian doctrine, the
more thoroughly it was taught, the more decidedly it worked
toward a division of the Church, that the nearer Philippism
approached Calvinism and the more Gnesio-Lutheranism
advanced into party limits, the less was any unity to be
thought of, Seeberg goes on to say, " In this lies the supreme
significance of the Formula of Concord and of the Book
of Concord, that through it the Lutheran Church upheld her
' Selbstandigkeit ' as over against Calvinism."
Seeberg declares that " it was not some theological party
that had forced its views upon the Lutheran Church," in
the adoption of the Formula, "but the germ of a con
sensus which had been really at hand had attained to its
unfolding in the Formula of Concord. It represented a Mel-
anchthonian-Lutheranism . . . The Formula of Concord
taught the doctrine which had gradually shaped itself out
among the Lutheran theologians. It was therefore able to
pacify the Lutheran Church." * As showing what the Con
cordia wrought, Seeberg goes so far as to insist that " his
torical insight must not allow itself to be darkened to such
an extent by subjective inclination as to deny that the
situation of the Lutheran Church at that time was such
that any unity of the Calvinistic with the Lutheran teaching
would have rendered the destructive ecclesiastical strife
within itself eternal." '
The valuelessness of Dr. Schaff's judgment on the Formula
is due to his position on the Union question. The Formula
thoroughly blocked the way to union with the Reformed by
permanently setting forth the inner strength of a genuine
and consistent Lutheranism as the full sum of evangelical
faith. Dr. Schaff would have a re-union of the Reformed
and Lutheran Churches on the basis that Lutheranism sur
render or ignore its central doctrines and come over to a
8Hauck, Cyc. *I6. 6J6.

ACCOMPLISHMENT OF FORMULA. 825
substantially Reformed position. This is always the uncon
scious position of the unionist with respect to Lutheranism.
The Augustana with the tenth article altered, and the con
demnation omitted, might have constituted a fine historical
basis for such a union, prepared by Melanchthon himself, and
leaving the historical glory to Lutheranism, but taking away
the actual substance of its truth.
This glorious re-union of Protestantism at the expense of
genuine Lutheranism was prevented by the Formula. Hence
Dr. Schaff, and many before and after him, feel that the
Formula is sectarian, and that it has prevented the building
up of a united Protestant Church with the excrescences of
Lutheranism lopped off, and with the Reformed spirit
triumphant as a formative factor.
That our estimate reveals the inner standpoint of the
harsh judgment voiced by Dr. Schaff against the Formula
may be seen from the fact that Dr. Schaff quotes as "not
without good reason," the striking statement of Kliefoth,
"Mit Spener beginnt jener grosse Eroberungszug der Be-
formirten Kirche gegen die Lutherische, der seitdem ver-
schiedene Namen, erst Frommigkeit, Dann Toleranz, dann
Union, dann Confederation auf sein Panier geschrieben
hat." '*
In other words, Dr. Schaff plainly admits that the progress
of unionism in the Lutheran Church is an "Eroberungszug,"
a procession of triumph, for the Reformed Church.
The Formula saved the Church from Roman attacks and
Romanizing teachings on the one side and the Reformed
tendencies on the other, that were creeping in from without ;
and it preserved the Church from both the extremely rigid
partisans of Luther ; ° and from the compromising Philip
pists who were agitating and destroying it from within. It
proved a solid centre, with substance and strength, which
«• Creeds, I, p. 307.
• " Thats&chlich war Luther die hBchste Auctoritat, obwohl seine Lehre mit
Umsicht und Scheu vor alter Uebertreibung durchgefuhrt wurde." — Hase, Kir
chengeschichte.

826 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
gave continued possibility of existence, and prevented the
absorption in surrounding faiths even of many Lutherans
who would not accept it, but who for various doctrinal and
personal reasons rejected it, though remaining benefited
by the sphere of its influence.
It settled and set at rest the hidden frictions which re
mained embryonic in the early years of the Reformation,
but which, as soon as opportunity offered, if they had pre
vailed, would have carried the Church to one extreme or the
other, or into unbelief, doubt and despair of ever arriving at
a consistent faith. It thus made possible and established a
conservative and Catholic evangelical faith which has given
rise to no Oxford movements on the one hand, nor Inde
pendent sectarian movements on the other.
What has the Formula accomplished for evangelical doc
trine? It has settled forever the primacy of the Person
and Work of Christ in the Lutheran Faith, and determined
and maintained the balance of the divine and human ele
ments in each; thus giving confessional authority to the
mystery of the Cross hid from ages, both in predestination,
revelation, redemption, the Word and the Sacraments, and
in the nature of the Church itself.
It has guarded forever against any confusion as well as
any separation of the divine and the human, but has found
in the counsels of God, in the Scriptures, in the Person of
Christ, in Justification and in Sanctification, and in the
Sacraments, a proper point of union in each case, and a
mysterious, superhuman, but vital communion.
It taught the Lutheran Church to dwell exclusively neither
on the literal nor on the spiritual, but on the underlying
unity in both, so that the Word was not without the Spirit,
nor the Spirit without the Word; so that tradition and his
tory were not separated from the Holy Ghost ; and the Holy
Ghost was not separated from the channels and forms in
which He operates. It settled for Lutheranism the ques
tion as to whether the Law was still to be preached for

ACCOMPLISHMENT OF FORMULA. 827
repentance, or whether love alone works both faith and re
pentance, — one of the vital questions in the Protestant world
of to-day. It set forth that Law has not only a usus politicus
and a usus elenchcus, but also a usus didacticus.
It settled the vital question, the very foundation of the
Reformation, whether or not the sacrificial death of Christ
is only the negative condition of justification, while the in
carnation — as reproduced in the believer, is its positive con
dition; whether or not justification is a making righteous
by an infusion of the righteousness of Christ.
How cardinal and yet how subtle this error is in pre
vailing Protestantism in the world to-day may be seen
from the fact that nearly all the newer writers on
doctrine who touch this subject, treat justification as an
infused righteousness, the Osiandrian heresy reproducing
itself in the newer advances of modern denominational
thought and teaching.
It settled for Lutheranism the question of synergism, a
teaching perhaps more widespread to-day than any other
in the Protestant denominations of America.
It also settled forever that the common-sense rationalism
of Zwingli as to the mystery of Christ, in His Word and
Presence, acquiesced in now by the majority of Protestants
outside of our Church; and the Calvinistic idealization of
the Sacramental principle adhered to by the remaining and
more meditative Protestants, run a deep line of separation be
tween themselves and the Lutheran faith. This prevented a
union of the Reformed with Luther and Melanchthon be
fore the Church possessed either the Augustana or the
Concordia, though Melanchthon subsequently wrought misery
in the Church for a generation, and brought on hopeless
internal division, by cherishing the hope of bridging this
gulf; not because he believed the Lutheran doctrine er
roneous, but because he felt, synergistic as he was, that the
doctrine of a spiritual reception of the body and blood by
faith, gave up no essential part of religious truth.

828 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
The Formula of Concord has opened the eye of faith to
this mystery in which the reality of the sacrifice of Christ
offered to God, conditions the reality of the sacrament of
Christ offered to man, as no Creed or Symbol ever was able
to do before. 8 The invisible reality of atonement became
visible and actual in the body and blood on the Cross; and
the invisible application of the atonement becomes visible
and actual in the body and blood in the Sacrament. There
is no figure, but an actual divine provision in both. " A
presence of the whole Person of Christ, of the divine by
its inherent omnipresence, and of the human through the
divine — a presence, not ideal or feigned, but most true;
not fleshly, but spiritual ; not after the manner of this earth,
but of the' unseen world; not natural, but supernatural —
this presence the Lutheran Church maintains, and, God
helping her, will maintain to the end of time." *
Are not the questions decided by the Formula, on the basis
of Scripture, for the Lutheran Church, still burning prob
lems in the wider religious world to-day ? Namely, —
1. That there is only one rule of faith and life;
2. That God's Law and authority are needed now as ever
to check the evil in our heart and in the world, and to bring
a knowledge of sin, even though salvation comes only by the
Gospel ;
3. That there are things of minor importance, in teach-

8 Compare the beautiful insight of Krauth : " As is the redemption, so is
its sacrament. The foundation of both is the same, and lies forever in
approachable by man. ... In the redemption, nature furnished the out
ward organ of the divine, in the frail body and the flowing blood of our cruci
fied Lord. Through this organ an infinite ransom was accomplished. In the
Supper, the organ of the redemption becomes the organ of its application.
With an artlessness which heightens its grandeur, this redemption, which
forever centres in Christ's sacred and undivided person, veils its supernatural
powers under the simplest elements which sustain and revive our natural life.
But faith none the less clearly sees that the bread which we break is the
communion of Christ's body, and that the cup of blessing which we bless is
the communion of His blood." — Con. Ref., pp. 465 sq.
8 Con. Ref., pp. 460 sq.

ACCOMPLISHMENT OF FORMULA. 829
ing, custom and life, but that in crises even such things
may assume great importance.
4. That salvation comes not at all from deeds; but that
where salvation takes root by faith in the heart, deeds spring
up spontaneously in the life.
We do not realize what Protestantism has had protected
and preserved for it by the Confession of the Formula.
Luther died with the premonitory clouds of dust presaging
the coming storm sweeping his gloom-stricken brow; Me
lanchthon died terrified and broken-hearted. The gates of
hell were opened and the hounds of war were let loose. The
Pope and the Emperor conspired to bring the Protestant
movement to ruin, and its congregations back to the cor
rupt old fold. The brilliant lustre of the glorious standard
of Augsburg, the Magna Charta of the Christian Faith,
was being tarnished by its own bearers. The edge of the
line was turned, broken. None thought of advance, and
none knew how to retreat. Confusion reigned upon the
field. During such times and amid such travail, God set up the
Formula — a white-winged standard of order and peace, 10 —
round which, after the death of Moses and Aaron, the host
of the Lord could flock. This was the conviction of the
great multitude of its signatories. It brought light, rule,
order and peace into the Lutheran situation; and the storm
which Luther foresaw and Melanchthon experienced gave
way to calm.
This Formula of Concord is a great symbol. It is noth
ing less than the first and permanent -synthesis of Luther
and Melanchthon. It is the teaching of Luther in the
spirit and the form of Melanchthon. It has combined the
two antagonistic forces of the Reformation.
It has worked its impress into the faith and life of the

10 That anti-Lutheran book, Der Protestantismus in seiner Selbst-Auf.Ssung ;
Schaffhausen, 1843, admits that " after the acceptance of the Formula of
Concord, the theological strife receded from the arena of public life."
56

830 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
Church as did the oecumenical creeds, which also for ages
left parties outside; and time will show, if the Church is
true to herself, that this firm but moderate centre, this
balance of mutually destructive principles, this source of
internal strength, which will make planets and not mere
comets of the Protestant churches, will finally prevail in our
midst, and among the children of men.
It asks our acceptance and deserves our respect, not as
a great theological production, nor yet as a Commentary on
the Augsburg Confession, but as the solemn and well-
matured testimony of our Church11 as to the witness and
teaching of the Augustana on the great doctrines of Prot
estantism as they appeared shortly after its birth and will
continue to reappear until the end of time.
" But for the Formula of Concord it may be questioned
whether Protestantism could have been saved to the world.
It staunched the wounds at which Lutheranism was bleed
ing to death, and crises were at hand in history, in which
Lutheranism was essential to the salvation of the Reforma
tory interest in Europe. The Thirty Years' War, the war
of martyrs, which saved our modern world, lay indeed in the
future of another century, yet it was fought and settled in the
Cloister of Bergen. But for the pen of the peaceful tri
umvirates, the sword of Gustavus had not been drawn. In
testine treachery and division in the Church of the Reforma
tion would have done what the arts and arms of Rome
failed to do. But the miracle of restoration was wrought.

11 " The symbols do not ' assume to themselves any more than to be wit
nesses for the truth ; and it is great presumption for a preacher to wish
to be more than this, or to raise himself from a witness to be a judge of the
truth, above the Scriptures or the church. He is, or indeed should be, only
a witness for the truth — not a preacher for himself alone, isolated and
separate, as a testator of his own mere private opinion, but in association
with the other witnesses and confessors, that is, in fellowship with the
church as a co-witness with her testimony, and a partaker in the general
confession which she makes. He does not believe in the symbols, but with
them.. If he is unwilling to take this position, and wishes with his new spirit
to establsh a separate and new congregation, he becomes farther and farther
sundered from the common scriptural confessions of the ancient church, and
has less and less of the testimony of the Holy Spirit in his favor." — Sartorius,
Ev. Rev., IV, 18.

ACCOMPLISHMENT OF FORMULA. 831
From being the most distracted Church on earth, the Luth
eran Church had become the most stable. The blossom put
forth at Augsburg, despite the storm, the mildew and the
worm, had ripened into the full round fruit of the amplest
and clearest Confession, in which the Christian Church has
ever embodied her faith." u

22 Krauth, Con. Ref., p. 302.

CHAPTER XXXVI.
THE LUTHERAN CONFESSION.
THE BOOK OF CONCORD. THE FACTS OF ITS
ORIGIN AND PUBLICATION. KOLDE'S ESSAY.
Its Publication began in 1578 — Adoption of Early Symbols — The Earliest Edi
tions — The Title — The Arrangement — Later Editions.
ALONG with the efforts for recognition of the Formula
of Concord went the other task which involved the
framing of a Corpus Doctrinae that was to unite all the sub
scribers to the Formula of Concord. The publication of the
same was begun in 1578, under the direction of Jacob
Andrea, to whom Archdeacon Peter Glaser and a Dean,
Kaspar Fiiger, of the Church of the Cross in Dresden, had
been associated as correctors. Their aim was to meet in a
preface of some length the many attacks to which the For
mula of Concord had been submitted.
Such a preface, prepared as an explanation of the theo
logians on many separate questions,1 was in the end not
adopted. Its place was taken, in accordance with the whole
preceding development, by a preface of the Evangelical
Estates subscribing to the "Book of the Concordia," with
the addition of their subscriptions. To this are added "The
Three Chief Creeds or Confessions of the faith of Christ,
concordantly accepted in the Church."
The adoption of these symbols of the early Church, the
1 Printed by Th. Pressel, as above, p. 711.
833

ORIGIN AND PUBLICATION. 833
Apostolicum and the Nicaenum (more correctly the Nicaeno-
Constantinopolitanum), occurred as follows. It must be
traced back to Melanchthon, who, in order to emphasize the
unity with the whole church, declares at once in the first
article of the Augustana with especial mention of the Ni
caenum, which for centuries was regarded as the foundation
of all orthodoxy, that the evangelical churches assent to it and
to statements in the Athanasianum.3 Then too it was im
portant for this question, as well as for all subscription to
symbols, that in the Wittenberg doctor's vow, which dates
from Melanchthon, those to be promoted were obligated to de
fend the Apostolic, Nicene and Athanasian Creeds, and that
since 1535 this was extended to all ordained in Wittenberg."
The next step was Melanchthon's Confessio Saxonica,
of the year 1551, written to be presented at the Tridentine
Council, and in which he emphatically declares the adherence
of the Evangelicals to these symbols.4 The same was done
by John Brentz in the Confessio Suevica," which was written
for the same purpose, and in the Frankfurt Recess of 1558.'
In the Corpus Philippicum, accordingly, they preceded the
writings of Melanchthon and were received into most of
the Corpora Doctrinae always in order to establish the con
nection with the early Church. As the Schwabian Concordia,
perhaps with reference to the fact that Osiander had sharply
opposed an obligation upon the Symbols,* subscribed to them,

2 Cf. Kolde, The Augsb. Conf. etc., p. 23. Zwingli did the same in his
Fidei Ratio. Cf. Karl Miiller, Die Bekenntnisschrlften der reform.
Kirche. Leipzig, 1903, p. 79 sq.
B Liber Decanorum Facultatis Theological Academias Vitebergensis ed. Fors
temann. Lipsiae, 1538, p. 158, and C. R. XII, 5 sq.
1 C. R., XXVIII, 376, and Heppe, D. Bekenntnisschriften der altprot.
Kirche Deutschlands. Kassel, 1855, p. 413.
•Heppe, as above, p. 492.
* C. R., IX, 494, and Heppe, as above, 562. Here they are called the
three chief symbols. As to the transactions of the Frankfurt Diet, Cf. G .
Wolf, Zur Geschichte des deutschen Protestantismus. Berlin, 1888, pp. 120,
sqq. ' Cf. C. R., VIII, 6 sq., and Strobel, Beitrage zur Literatur d. 16. Jahrh.,
II, 1. Nurnberg, 1786, p. 192 sq., and P. Tschaekert, Neue Beitrage zur
Geschichte der SymboVoerpflichtung. Neue Kirchi. Zeitschr. (1897), p. 807.

834 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
it was only in agreement with the whole preceding develop
ment, that they are placed first in the Book of Concord, as
being the chief symbols.
When in the title they are described as "concordantly used
in the Church," an expression used by Luther was adopted,
who in his writing, " The Three Symbols or Confessions of
the Faith of Christ, Concordantly Used in the Church. Wit
tenberg, 1538," as a matter of fact had understood the Apos
tles' Creed and the Te Deum by this expression, and had
added the Nicene Creed, by way of appendix, as " a confes
sion also opposed to Arius." * It was his German translation
as there given that was received into the Book of Concord.
The Latin rendering of the "concordantly used" by "Sym-
bola catholica seu oecumenica," which since then became the
usual one in Evangelical theology, must be traced to Nicholas
Selnecker, who in three publications of the year 1575 calls
the three symbols " oecumenica " and after that used this
name in his lectures and in catechetical instruction.'
The three General Creeds are followed in the order in
which they were first placed by the Schwabian Concordia, by :
1. The Augsburg Confession, "as the symbol of our time"
to use the words of the Formula of Concord.10 2. The Apol-

¦ Luther's Works, Erl., Ausg., 23, 251. It is therefore incorrect when
Ad. Harnack says in Prot. Realenzykl., I, 742, 1 sqq. : Luther was
perhaps the first to place the three together as expression of the general
confessions of the Church. This was done long before, and not at all by
Luther. The Te Deum was even in the Middle Ages here and there grouped
with the confessions of the early Church: Cf. T h i e m e , Theol. Literaturblatt,
1892, p. 543.
* First in his Historica Narratio et Oratio de D. D. Martina Luthero, Lips.,
1575, which originated from lectures on Luther's life, delivered in Nov., 1574,
where he speaks of the completion of his lectures entitled " Exegesis Sym-
bolorum Catholicorum et vere Oecumenicorum ; secondly, in his
Catechesis Martini Lutheri Mi/nor Gracolatina, published 1575 (not 1577 as
T hie me reports). Here on p. 165 we read: " Quot sunt Symbola fidei
Christianae in Ecclesia? Tria sunt praecipua, quae nominantur oecumenica,
sive universalia et authentica id est, habentia auctoritatem et non indigentia
demonstratione aut probatione, viz., Symbolum Apostolicum, Nicenum et
Athanasianum." Last of all, in the published edition of his lectures on the
three symbols : Symbolorum, Apostolici, Niceni, et Athanasiani Exegesis etc.
Lips., 1575, where on p. 6 we read : Haec tria Symbola sunt Catholica et
Oecumenica. 10 In the Epitome, p. 518. " Symbolum " for the Augustana was first used
In a statement of the Hessian Theologians of the year 1570 : " The Augsburg
Confession which is our symbol." In Neudecker, Neue Beitrage zur

ORIGIN AND PUBLICATION. 835
ogy. 3. The Schmalkald Articles with the subtitle : " Ar
ticles of Christian Doctrine, which were to have been Pre
sented on our Part to the Council if any had been Assembled
at Mantua or elsewhere, Indicating what we could Receive or
Grant, and what we Could not. Written by Dr. Martin
Luther in the year MDXXXVII." Immediately following
this, as a sort of appendix, came : " Of the Power and Prim
acy of the Pope. Treatise Written by the Theologians as
sembled at Schmalkald, in the Year MDXXXVII." 4. The
Small Catechism (with the orders for baptism and marri
age)." 5. The Large Catechism. 6. The Formula of Con
cord." As an appendix we find the Catalogue, of proof pas
sages, etc., and the names of the theologians and school
masters who subscribed. On June 25th, 1580, the fiftieth
anniversary of the presentation of the Augsburg Confession
the work was published in Dresden:
Concordia. Jehovah. Christliche, Widerholete, ein-
mutige Bekenntniis nachbenanter Churfiirsten, Fiirsten
und Stende Augspurgischer Confession, und derselben
zu ende des Buchs underschriebener Theologen Lere
und Glaubens. Mit angeheffter, in Gottes wort, als der
einigen Richtschnur, wolgegrundter erklarung etlicher
Artickel, bei welchen nach D. Martin Luthers seligen
Absterben disputation und streit vorgefallen. Aus ein
helliger vergleichung und befehl obgedachter Churfiir
sten, Fiirsten und Stende, derselben Landen, Kirchen,
Schulen und Nachkommen, zum underricht und warnung
in Druck vorfertiget. Mit Churf. G. zu Sachsen be-
freihung. Dressden M.D.LXXX.
Concordia. Jehovah. Christian, repeated, unanimous Con
fession of Faith and Doctrine of the after-named Electors,
Princes and Estates of the Augsburg Confession and their

Geschichte d. Reformation. Leipzig, 1841, II, p. 292. The term " Symbola "
for the other writings was perhaps first used by Hutter, Compendium
Locorum theologicorum. Wittenberg, 1610, p. 10.
11 See on this point below.
12 The Epitome and the Solid Declaration both bear a special title-page and
the date " Dressden, 1579," which permits the conclusion that, although a
separate edition of the Formula of Concord before the Book of Concord can
not be proven, it was yet intended.

836 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
theologians subscribed at the end of the book. To which is
added a declaration, well-founded in God's Word, as the only
rule of certain articles, in regard to which after Dr. Martin
Luther's blessed death dispute and controversy have taken
place. Upon the common counsel and command of the same
Electors, Princes and Estates for the instruction and warn
ing of their lands, churches, schools and descendants, done
in print. With Privileges of His Grace, the Elector of Sax
ony, Dresden, M.D.LXXX.
In all probability, although M. Chemnitz a speaks of two
editions, there appeared, to be exact, only one official Dresden
edition in the year 1580 ; but the copies of the same that have
come down to us show in part some very considerable varia
tions." According to the statements of the Saxon court
preacher, Polycarp Leiser,15 which give the impression of com
plete reliability and in the main agree with those of Chem
nitz, the printing was somewhat hastily done and the sheets
were printed and sent out separately. Thereupon came
objections from theologians and princes, partly on account
of the separate parts, partly on account of considerable mis
prints. This occasioned the reprint of individual sheets,
which were again sent out separately, but in the binding were
not placed by all recipients in the place of the earlier ones.
Besides, the printers may have sent out mixed copies.
Thus, to enumerate only the most important, there oc
curred the following divergencies : 1. Out of consideration
for the Highland Princes, especially for the Elector of th?
Palatinate, who objected to the exorcism in Luther's baptis
mal formula (Taufbiichlein), the Dresden Consistory had
agreed to omit the Taufbiichlein and the Traubiichlein, on the
ground that these things belonged "non ad doctrinalia sed ad

13 In his letter, Nov. 7th, 158Q, de mutatione Formula? Concordia?, In
Hutter, Concordia concors, f. 360 sq.
" Cf. F e u e r 1 i n 1 , Bibliotheca Symbolica, ed. J. B. Riederer, Normb., 1768,
I, 8 sq.
15 Polycarp Leiser's short and well founded report on the accusation
promulgated in public print under the name of Daniel Hoffmann against the
Christian Concordia printed in Dressden. Dresden, 1597.

ORIGIN AND PUBLICATION. 837
caerimonialia." But when the sheets in question were pub
lished, the Elector of Brandenburg, Duke William of Liine
burg, and above all Chemnitz, filed objections. Thereupon
the Elector ordered them included. This led to negotiations
during which Chemnitz, to satisfy all, proposed "One should
print the small Catechismum Lutheri thus into the Concordien
that one may lay the Taufbiichlein and the Traubiichlein into
it or take it out." This was agreed to and as a result there
were copies that contained both parts, others (those printed
first) that simply omitted them, and others which marked
their absence and the- place where they were to be laid in
eventually in such a way that the last leaf of the small
Catechism bears the page numbers 169, 170, 171, 172, 173,
at the same time. 2. Some copies bear as title over the
catalogus testimoniorum the term "Appendix," while in
others, conformably to the desire of the Elector Palatinate',
since this was not discussed or, as others thought, so as not
to grant them the same authority as to the Formula of Con
cord, the word " Appendix " is simply omitted. 3. In the
Formula of Concord (in Miiller, 595, Cf. variants, p. 824),
the quotation from Article XX of the Augustana was repro
duced according to the quarto edition of 1531, as it was in
manuscript. Chemnitz, who at once observed the discrepancy
with the text in the Book of Concord, which rested upon the
Maintz manuscript, ordered this sheet to be reprinted, which
brought about another difference of copies that was accord
ingly made special use of by the opponents."
In the same year Selnecker produced a Latin edition of
the Book of Concord, which although described as "Communi
Consilio et Mandate Electorum, etc., vulgata," was altogether
a private undertaking. It contained the first, rather crude,

M Of less importance was the error called by Chemnitz " pudendum erratum,"
which was corrected in a reprint (Miiller, p. 539, 33, see variants, p. 824).
Some copies also have at the close after the signatures a special leaf with
two verses from the 9th Psalm, the book-mark of the printers, Stockel and
Gimel Bergen, and after the print mark the erroneous date M.D.LXXXI, which
in other prints was erroneously corrected to M.D.LXXIX.

838 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
translation of the Formula of Concord, which had been begun
by Lucas Osiander in 1578, and completed by the Tubingen
professor, Jacob Heerbrand." As the whole edition was full
of errors,18 it found no favor, and Elector August seems to
have prohibited its circulation.19 Only after a thorough
revision of Selnecker's text, especially that of the Formula
of Concord,20 which must be attributed essentially to Chem
nitz, had been effected at the convention at Quedlinburg
(Dec, 1582 and Jan., 1583), which was especially devoted
to the completion of the most important article of defence
of the Concordia, the " Apologia or Defence of the Christian
Book of Concord," did the Elector command the reprint of
the revised text "for the benefit of our student youth and the
foreign church." At the same time it was ordered to omit
the signatures, so that no one need complain that his name
was appended to a book which he had not read or approved.21
The edition published at Leipzig in 1584 became the textus
receptus of the Latin Book of Concord.
In a new Latin edition of 1602, the ordering of which
became authoritative for most of the later ones, the Preface
of the Estates was preceded by an Electoral Mandate (accord
ing to the German edition of 1603, in our Ed. Ill, appendix,
p. 785), in which Christian II. of Saxony, orders that all of
ficials be obligated upon the Book of Concord. It after
wards received another addition in the fact that in the Saxon
editions the " Christian Articles of Visitation of 1592 " were
inserted (our edition, p. 778). This was most probably done

117 Cf. G . B o s s e r t , Vebersetzungen d. Formulas Concordie, Zeitschr. f.
Kirchengesch. XIX, 470. Although according to this by the end of Oct., 1580,
the printing of it had been going on for a long time, it seems never to have
been published.
18 Be it again observed that it reproduced the Augustana of the octavo edition
of 1531 and contained many typographical errors, among others the much
ridiculed one in the Tractatus de potestate Papce : " ultimum ferculum"
instead of " ultimum ius et iudicium."
"Heppe, Gesch, d. deutsch. Prot., IV, 225.
20 Selnecker himself furnished a revised text in his German-Latin
separate edition of the F. C. of 1582.
21 Cf. Polycarp Leiser, as above, Diij.

ORIGIN AND PUBLICATION. 839
first in the German22 edition of Henry Pipping of the year
1703. The Saxon Articles of Visitation owe their origin to the
Crypto-Calvinistic disturbances that arose again toward the
end of the reign of the Elector Christian I. (-j- Sept. 25th,
1591), the victim of which the Chancellor Nicholas Krell
(•]- Oct. 9th, 1601) was to become. In order to prevent all
agitation, Duke Frederick William, who was regent for
Christian II. during the latter's minority, ordered a general
church visitation. The theologians called for the same, M.
Mirus, G. Mylius, JSgidius Hunnius, Burch. Hebardus, Jos.
Lonerus and Wolfg. Mamphrasius composed as a guide for
it : " Articles of Visitation a for the whole electoral territory
of Saxony, together with the Calvinist's Negativa and Coun
ter-teaching, and the form of subscription in the manner in
which they have been put before both parties for subscription."
They treat in four sections of the Lord's Supper, of the
Person of Christ, of Baptism, of Election and eternal Fore
knowledge of God. According to a rescript of March 6th,
1594, all pastors and teachers of Saxony had to subscribe to
these Articles, and it was in force up to 1806. For this
reason, they possessed a legal and binding importance for
Saxony, but only for this country. They have nothing to
do with the Book of Concord or with the symbols of the
Lutheran Church.

22 1 have been unable to ascertain when it first occurred in the Latin text.
It does not seem to be in the editions of Rechenberg. [Kolde.]
23 Printed in 1593. Cf. also Griindl. V erantwortung der vier streitigen
Artikeln, wie dieselbigen inn Theses und Antitheses kiirzlich verfasset u.
in jiingst verrichteter Chursachs. Visitation zu underschreiben vorgelegt
worden, gestellet durch die zu ermeldter Visitation verordneten Theologen.
Leipz., 1593, 8. Aeg. Hunnii, Widerlegung des Calvinischen Biichleins,
so wider die zur Visitation d. Chursachs. Kirchen u. Schulen verfasste vier
Artikel ausgesprengt worden, 1593, 8.

CHAPTER XXXVII.
FROM THE BOOK OF CONCORD TO THE
PRESENT DAY.
The Story of Unionism and Confessionalism according to Schaff — The Seventeenth-
Century Dogmatik — Criticism of the Same — The Reaction in Calixtus — The
Modern Individual Philosopher and Dogmatist — The Course of the Church
in Europe — In America— Dogmatic System and the Confession.
THE FRATERNAL AND UNION VIEW OF CHURCH HISTOEY.

rrv

4 i f I ¦! HE spirit of Melanchthon could be silenced, but not destroyed, for it
meant theological progress and Christian union. It revived from time
to time in various forms, in Calixtus, Spener, Zinzendorf, Neander
and other great and good men, who blessed the Lutheran Church by protesting
against bigotry and the overestimate of intellectual orthodoxy, by insisting on per
sonal, practical piety, by widening the horizon of truth, and extending the hand
of fellowship to other sections of Christ's kingdom. The minority which at first
refused the Formula became a vast ' majority, and even the recent reaction of
Lutheran confessionalism against rationalism, latitudinarianism, and unionism will
be unable to undo the work of history, and to restore the Lutheran scholasticism
and exclusivism of the Seventeenth Century. The Lutheran Church is greater
and wider than Luther and Melanchthon, and, by its own principle of the absolute
supremacy of the Bible as a rule of faith, it is bound to follow the onward march of
Biblical learning." l
This is a typical statement of the consequences and the
fate of Lutheran Confessionalism, sketched in the spirit
of Zwingli, Beza, Arnold, Zinzendorf, Heppe, S. S.
Schmucker and Dorner. It expresses the feelings of the great
American- writer on the Creeds of the Christian Church,
but is out of harmony with a sober judgment found else-
1 Schaff, Creeds, I, p. 339 sq. 840

UNIONISM AND CONFESSIONALISM. 841
where in his work. More recent historians have shown
that " the spirit of Melanchthon " did not mean " theo
logical progress," but scholastic definition. The freedom
and vitality of Luther in his whole-souled and unvaried
Confession is in contrast with the confining school-work of
Melanchthon. " It cannot be denied," says Seeberg, " that
the Formula of Concord by its classical theological manner
has contributed much toward the ossification of Lutheran
theology, and has limited and broken its practical working."
Let the reader then accept this, once for all, that the scho
lastic method in setting up dogma by definition and inference,
is of Melanchthon, to whom Calvin was a correlate in the
Reformed Church.
Neither did " the spirit of Melanchthon " mean " Chris
tian union." It meant, an attempt at union by ambiguity of
expression, which in time invariably reacted and in place of
union brought final dissension and confusion. The entire
movement of the Reformed Church under the Augsburg Con
fession was of this fraternizing but finally disruptive charac
ter, and Schaff himself, with feeling, repudiates our Con
fession as a legitimate expression of the Reformed prin
ciple. " The spirit of Melanchthon " was not revived, so far
as dogma was concerned, in Spener or Neander: the great
hiatus between Spener and the spirit of Melanchthon is best
Seen in the mutually hostile attitude of Zinzendorf and
Muhlenberg in America. " The spirit of Melanchthon',"
as shown sufficiently in Melanchthon's correspondence, laid
more stress on " intellectual orthodoxy," and less on per
sonal faith and practical piety than did that of Luther.
Luther was the truthful, the prayerful, the believing, the
resigned, the heroic and the spiritual-minded Christian.
Melanchthon's spirituality does not free itself from shrewd
manoeuver and logical platitude. " The spirit of Melanch
thon " did not " extend the hand of fellowship to other sec
tions of Christ's kingdom " at Marburg (the scene probably

842 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
in the mind of the author), but Melanchthon was more
' bigoted ' against Zwingli than Luther. Luther " would
gladly have given up his life three times " (these are his
own words) to reach harmony in the Confession of the sac
rament. "Who . . . that will read Zwingli's Beckoning
will not see that Luther acted with astonishing moderation
at Marburg?"2 He separated from Zwingli under the
assurance of mutual patience and love. But Luther under
stood thereby the universal Christian and not the intimate
brotherly love, because the latter demanded a perfect har
mony of faith. ' The superficiality of the view voiced by
Schaff, and prevalent elsewhere, as to " the bigotry of Con
fessional Lutheranism," is most strikingly seen in his bal
ancing of Lutheran " confessionalism, scholasticism, and ex-
clusivism " on the one side, against " rationalism, latitudi-
narianism and unionism " on the Melanchthonian side.
In reply, it will be sufficient to inquire, Are rationalism and
latitudinarianism the company in which unionism wishes
to be found ! The reader, last of all, will note that it would
be difficult to frame a more fallacious statement than the
final one of this unionistic historian, in which " the Bible as
the only rule of faith " is made to appear synonymous with
the free "onward march of Biblical learning"!'

2 Jacobs, Preface to Book of Concord, II, p. 6.
' The Elector and the Margrave at Schleiz agreed entirely with Luther that
full unity in the faith was needed for mutual defence ; and when therefore
the Schwabach Articles were placed before the Zwinglians as a Confession,
they declined to sign. This put an end to the proposed federation.
4 In this discussion, and elsewhere, we have selected and used the classic
statements of Schaff by way of illustration, for several reasons. First of all,
he is the author of the one standard work on Symbolics in the American
Church, and in that work he assigns the first place to the Lutheran symbols,
and gives them a more complete discussion than is to be found elsewhere in
the English language outside of the Lutheran Church. Second, he was all
his life intimately connected with Lutherans and the Lutheran Church, and
was a life witness of the Confessional development that culminated in the
General Council. Third, his own general doctrinal position, and the tone and
spirit of his writings are such as that they would probably meet with ac
ceptance as expressing the views of those of our readers who do not agree
with us, both those without, and those within the Lutheran Church. He
stood, so long as he lived, both in word and example, at the head of that
movement which believes that the days are ripe for advancing to an external
Christian union.
Any one who weighs the Judgments of Dr. Schaff (taken in connection with

UNIONISM AND CONFESSIONALISM. 843
THE DEVELOPMENT IN HISTORY.
From Luther and Melanchthon, the confessional principle
of Christianity developed into that body of truth more pure
and complete, more satisfactory to the mind and the heart,

the steps in his own life) respecting the Lutheran Confessions, will find that,
though he is the most voluminous non-Lutheran English commentator on the
Formula of Concord, yet his sympathies were all against it, and its principles,
in consequence of his nature, his training, the denominational changes in his
life, his type of theology, his position in Union Theological Seminary, and in
consequence of all he hoped to accomplish toward the re-union of Christendom
in the fostering of the Evangelical Alliance.
Dr. Schaff's mind on the question before us is revealed by the kind of
solution that he proposes for the reconciliation of the Lutheran and Re
formed doctrines. He says, "We firmly believe (Creeds of Christendom, p.
327), that the Lutheran and Reformed views can be essentially reconciled, if
subordinate differences and scholastic subtleties are yielded. The chief
elements of reconciliation are at hand in the Melanchthonian-Calvinistic
theory. The Lord's Supper is : 1. A commemorative ordinance. (This is the
truth of the Zwinglian view). 2. A feast of living union of believers with the
ever-living, exalted Saviour, whereby we truly, though spiritually, receive
Christ with all His benefits, and are nourished by His life unto life eternal.
(This was the substance for which Luther contended against Zwingli, and
which Calvin retained, though in a different scientific form, and in a sense
rightly confined to all believers.) 3. A communion of believers with one
another as members of the same mystical body of Christ."
This, then, is Schaff's method of carrying out the proposition to unite the
Lutheran and the Reformed Churches, viz., by accepting " the true Zwinglian
view," and adding to it " the Calvinistic view," and then calling it " the
substance of the Lutheran view." That Lutheranism" loses everything Is too-
obvious to need pointing out — and yet Dr. Schaff can go on in the same
breath and say : " The Eucharistic controversies are among the most unre
freshing and apparently fruitless in Church history. Theologians will have
much to answer for at the Judgment Day for having perverted the sacred
feast of divine love into the apple of discord. No wonder that Melanchthon's
last wish and prayer was to be delivered from the rabies theologorum. . . .
Fortunately, even now Christians of different denominations and holding dif
ferent opinions can unite around the table of their common Lord and Saviour."
Surely, one who thus sharply condemns the Lutherans, as answerable at the
Judgment Day, for having persisted in unimportant doctrinal differences would
be prepared to yield all for the sake of a general concord. And yet, when
proposing such a concord, he preserves his own doctrine (" reconciliation by
the Melanchthonian-Calvinistic theory "), and sacrifices the Lutheran doctrine,
and calls the result union.
That Schaff, in his Symbolical work, expresses an animus against the
Lutheran Church is to be seen in his account of the meeting of Luther and
Zwingli at Marburg. He says, " Zwingli proposed, with tears, peace and union,
notwithstanding this difference [in the Eucharist], but Luther refused the hand
of Christian fellowship, because he made doctrinal agreement the boundary-
line of brotherhood." (Creeds, p. 362.) He fails to add that Zwingli's tears
[for even according to Dr. Schaff, Zwingli was no emotionalist] were not
tears respecting the Lord's Supper, but respecting the failure of a political
alliance which was at the bottom of this proposed compromise ; and that the
doctrinal peace that would have ensued, would have been somewhat of the
nature between that proposed by the traditional lion to the lamb.
But the animus of Dr. Schaff as a unionist toward the Lutheran Church
comes out most clearly, not in speaking of the Lutheran Confessions, but
at the point where he has passed on to a consideration of the Reformed

844 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
and more worthy of Christ's own Church, than the world
has elsewhere possessed. All the parts in this whole exhibit
the same form of doctrine, and " he who candidly adopts the
Augsburg Confession will not hesitate to adopt those with
Confessions, and where he describes the historical origin of the names of the
Lutheran and the Reformed. Here he says that the followers of Luther,
" forget St. Paul's warning against sectarian names. They gradually ap
propriated the term, Lutheran or Evangelical Lutheran, as the official title of
the Church since about 1585, under the influence of Jacob Andreae, the chief
author of the Formula of Concord." The whole passage is instructive, and
we therefore give it as follows :
" We take the term Reformed here in its catholic and historical sense for
all those Churches which were founded by Zwingli and Calvin and their
fellow-reformers in the sixteenth century on the Continent and in England
and Scotland, and which agreed with the Lutheran Church in opposition to
the Roman Catholic, but differed from it in the doctrine of the real presence,
afterward also in the doctrine of predestination. By their opponents they
were first called in derision Zwinglians and Calvinists, also Sacramentarians
or Sacrament-schwdrmer (by Luther and in the Formula of Concord), and in
France Huguenots. But they justly repudiated all such sectarian names,
and used instead the designations Christian or Evangelical, or Reformed, or
Evangelical Reformed or Reformed Catholic. The term Reformed assumed
the ascendency in Switzerland, France, and elsewhere. Beza, e. g., uses it
constantly. Queen Elizabeth, in sundry letters to the Protestant courts of
Germany in 1577, speaks throughout of ecclesia; reformatce, and once calls
the non-Lutheran Churches ecclesios reformatiores, more Reformed, implying
that the Lutheran is Reformed also.
" The Lutherans, before the last quarter of the sixteenth century, called
themselves likewise Christian and Evangelical, sometimes Reformed, and
since 1530 the Church or Churches of the Augsburg Confession, or Verwandte
der Augsburgischen Confession. For a long time they disowned the terms
Lutheranus, Luthericus, Lutheranismus, which were first used by Dr. Eck,
Cochlaeus, Erasmus, and other Romanists with the view to stigmatize their
religion as a recent innovation and human invention. (A Papist once asked
a Lutheran, ' Where was your Church before Luther? ' The Lutheran an
swered by asking another question, ' Where was your face this morning he-
fore it was washed? '). Eramus speaks of Lutherana tragedia, negotium
Lutheranum, factio Lutherana. Hence the Lutheran symbols never use the
term Lutheran, except once, and then by way of complaint that the ' dear,
holy Gospel should be called Lutheran.' Luther himself complained of this
use of his name ; nevertheless he had no objection that it should be duly
honored in connection with the Word of God, and thought that his followers
need not be ashamed of him. They thought so, too ; and, forgetting St. Paul's
warning against sectarian names, they gradually themselves appropriated the
term Lutheran, or Evangelical Lutheran, as the official title of their Church,
since about 1585, under the influence of Jacob Andreae, the chief author of
the Formula of Concord, and Aegidius Hunnius, and in connection with the
faith in Luther as a special messenger of God for the restoration of Christianity
in its doctrinal purity. See the proof in the little book' of Dr. Heinrich Heppe,
Ursprung und Geschichte der Bezeichnungen ' reformirte ' und ' Vutherische '
Kirche, Gotha, 1859, pp. 28, 35, 55.
" The negative term Protestant was used after 1529 for both Confessions
by friend and foe, and is so used to this day ; but it must be explained from
the historical occasion which gave rise to it, and be connected with the
positive faith in the Word of God, on the ground of which the evangelical
members of the Diet of Spires protested against the decision of the papal
majority, as an encroachment on the rights of conscience and an enforcement
of the traditions of men."
It seems that Dr. Schaff, with his magnificent vocabulary, has reserved

UNIONISM AND CONFESSIONALISM. 845
which it is indissolubly connected. They constitute a com
plete whole." *
But the Seventeenth-Century Dogmatik of the Church did
not flow directly and solely from the Book of Concord.
The fountain-head of Lutheran Confessionalism, beginning
in 1517 with the Doctrines of justification, repentance, and
faith, in the Ninety-five Theses, ran on into a summary
of Lutheran doctrine in the Loci, an application of them
in the Catechism, a defense against Roman extremes in the
Augsburg Confession and the Schmalkald Articles, and a
defense against Protestant extremes in the Formula of Con
cord. Then came the further extension and development of
Melanchthon's Loci into complete dogmatic system.
SUMMARY OF THE LUTHERAN DOGMATIK.
Martin Chemnitz was the prince of Melanchthonian theo
logians, who so thoroughly apprehended the Confessional sub
stance of Luther, in his Loci, 1591. He was followed by
Hutter in his Compendium, 1610, and in his Loci* His
contemporary was the mild and devout Gerhard, the standard
dogmatician of the Lutheran Church, with his Loci, 1637.
Calovius, more elaborate, followed in his Systema Locorum
Theologicorum (1655-77). One century after the Book
of Concord came Quenstedt' (d. 1685), and Baier,8 1686;
the use of the word ' sectarian ' for the Lutheran Church, and, in particular,
in connection with the author of that symbol which is the Church's most har
monious and final expression. Not in describing anabaptists, puritans, radicals
and church parties of the wildest sort, does he, so far as we see, characterize
them as ' sectarian.' It is the great balance wheel of the Reformation (of
which the Augsburg Confession is the hub), that in Dr. Schaff's thought and
mind is connected with the 'sectarian' term Lutheran, which was used by way
' of self-preservation against the approaches toward the Reformed faith which
are historically involved in the term Melanchthonian.
5 These are the words of Charles F. Schaeffer. — Ev. Rev., I, p. 476. v. also
I, p. 473.
6 Hutter's Loci Communes Theologici is an extensive commentary on Me
lanchthon's Loci. His Compendium Theologies consists of definitions from
the Book of Concord, supplemented by passages from the older dogmaticians.
After the literature apologetic of the Book of Concord it is the first link that
connects with the Concordia rather than with the Loci.
7 Quenstedt, Theologia Didacticopolemica.
* Baier, Compendium Theologies Positwos.
57

846 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
and the development closed half a century later with
Hollazius, ' 1750.
Schmid, who aroused a modern interest in these giant
builders of living Lutheran principle, and who awakened
the American confessional development through the younger
Krauth and Schmucker just prior to the influence of the
German Lutheran Immigration in the middle of the Nine
teenth Century, happily describes the course of this Old
Dogmatik as follows: —
" Melanchthon, who stands first in the series of Lutheran theologians, in the
first editions of his Loci, discusses only what is peculiar to the doctrine of
the Lutheran Church, and even in the following editions he treats everything
that does not fall under this head, briefly and incompletely. His most celebrated
commentator, Chemnitz, already aims at more fulness of systematic arrangement;
the articles on God and the Trinity, etc., are already further developed; he em
ploys with more freedom than Melanchthon the works of the scholastics, especially
of John Damascenus. In Gerhard, finally, this prejudice, which, for other reasons
sufficiently known, was cherished against the scholastics, was so far overcome that,
in the articles that had remained unaffected by the errors of the Papacy, the theo
logical discussions of the scholastics were laid under contribution ; the whole rep
resentation of the doctrine of God, his attributes and essence, of the Trinity, of
Angels, of the Person of Christ, etc., was based upon the scholastic Theology.
" But still Gerhard did not carry out this method with uniformity, nor did he
thoroughly arrange his materials ; some subjects are only hastily sketched, as that
of the Work of Christ, or he has merely collected the raw material, as in the sub
ject of Angels. The following theologians fill up these gaps, and introduce greater
uniformity in the mode of treatment. Gerhard still arranges the whole in Loci,
and does not allow himself to reduce it to a system. Calovius first attempted
this, by introducing the so-called analytic method, which was subsequently em
ployed by all the theologians, down to Hollazius. These theologians, therefore,
first reduced Theology to a system. When these later theologians are accused of
having been so much infected with the scholastic fondness for systematizing, as to
give to Theology a form too scholastic, I am not prepared altogether to deny the
charge." 10
This development of Evangelical Dogmatik is unparal
leled in any part of Protestantism or in Rome. But it is
extra-confessional. It is the infusion of the substance of the

fl Hollazius, Examen Theologice Acroamaticas.
10 Schmid, Doctrinal Theology, tr. by Hay and Jacobs, p. 9.

UNIONISM AND CONFESSIONALISM. 847
Book of Concord and the appropriation of so much of the
old Roman material of the scholastic doctors as could flow
through Evangelical channels, in the form and under the
principle of Melanchthon's Loci. " That in ultra-orthodoxy
it developed into extreme hardness of form, and in ultra-
pietism into an extreme softness of substance, is but a testi
mony to its genuineness under the usual law of extremes.
Later centuries, while they have contributed their critical,
philosophical, historical, vital and practical advances, have
not gone beyond the confessional substance of these works,
except by way of contrast in heretical ideas and errors. The
Truth of God, the same yesterday, to-day and forever, is the
Word of Christ. It is not enlarged under the influence of
human thought. It is not an open field, with wide realms
unexplored, as we find to be the case in nature, in philoso
phy, in biology, and in science. And the attempt to further
expand and humanize the old Evangelical Catholic Faith of
the oecumenical symbols and the later Confessions of the
Book of Concord led in the further and less objective Prot
estant development of following centuries to individualism
and degeneracy. Schmid, in describing the dogmatics of the
latter part of the Seventeenth and the whole of the Eight
eenth Century is correct in saying that " without at all dis
cussing the question whether, and in how far, Pietism de
parted from the principles of Lutheranism, it is perfectly
evident that along with it there came a period of doctrinal
uncertainty, in which great mistrust was displayed in regard
to the whole previous development, both as to form and sub
stance." The rigid form, the disputatious method, the ex
altation of an orthodox intellectualism, the stress on a right
belief rather than on the salvation which is its substance,
these are not the result of the Book of Concord and the
Gospel therein confessed, but they are remnants of the old

22 Not only was the Loci the beginning of the Lutheran dogmatic system,
but it furnished the lines along which the doctrinal development of Lutheran
ism unfolded first into severe Orthodoxy in the Seventeenth, and then into
Illumination in the Eighteenth Century.

848 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
Roman scholasticism, carried down by the Praeceptor Ger-
maniae into every branch of learning,- and departing more
and more from the original intention as the real substance
of the Gospel died away.
" The orthodox Dogmatik of the Seventeenth Century
is a majestic resultant of Faith — the most painstaking and
most acute intellectual work in the history of ecclesiastical
Christianity. In the sum of its services, it is deeper than
the theology of the Church Fathers, more true than that of
the Scholastics, more scientific and candid than that of the
Roman Church. It is unexampled in its deep, fundamental
and critical illumination of the results of the Christian
Centuries. The whole spirit of the modern world and of
science poured itself out against the foundations of this
Protestant system of Faith, because, in the immense safety
and security of its upbuilding, it allowed all blows to pene
trate to the vital parts ; and dispensed with the support of the
Law and the Hierarchy." a
The censors of this Dogmatik to-day are its old enemies,
Rome, Radicalism and Rationalism; and the newer thinkers
who have freed themselves from the trammels of Calvinism
and Puritanism,13 all writers who are critics rather than
believers, and whose approach is by sight rather than by
faith, with all liberalists and unionists. The critics include
the reactionary world and the world of advanced thought.
Between these two extremes stands the Rock of Confession
alism, swept by the tides on both sides. But the critical force
of these more free and flowing liberal tides is not always just.
If it be directed against the systematization of theology as

12 Condensed from Gasz, Geschichte der prot. Dogm., I, p. 6.
13 " For Roman Catholic scholasticism and for Calvin there is an absolute
norm by which all actions can be truly and thoroughly tested, and Church
and State must apply the tests. Even opinions and doctrines held by the
individual are thus subject to an infallible review. It was therefore no
hasty or ill-considered action for Calvin to hand Servetus over to the State
for proper punishment. Calvin would have been false to his fundamental
convictions had he acted otherwise. Rome only was wrong in shedding the
blood of the martyrs because Rome was not a true Church. Given a true
Church and her duty was to insist that the State protect pure doctrine."—
Hibbert Journal.

UNIONISM AND CONFESSIONALISM. 849
such, we need only point to modern writers who have worked
their theology into a dogmatic system more detailed, more
speculative and more elaborate than the very moderately
sized Formula of Concord. Among the more prominent of
these in the Lutheran Church are Thomasius, Philippi, Mar-
tensen, Luthardt, and Valentine. Among the American
denominations, it will suffice to recall Hodge, of Prince
ton; Harris, of Yale; Clarke, of Colgate; Emanuel Ger
hard's Institutes of the Christian Religion, — to say noth
ing of such modern German writers as Schweitzer, Pfleiderer,
Lipsius, Ritschl, Kaftan, and Herrmann.
If objection be taken to the scholastic form of treatment,
we must again recall the fact that this is derived from
old methods of the Church; that it represents Aristotle as
simplified by Melanchthon, as opposed to Bacon in modern
thought; and that much of its authoritativeness is due to
the assurance of its faith, in which much of the theology
to-day is absolutely lacking. It would be quite possible to
conceive of a Lutheran Theology identical in substance with
that of the Sixteenth Century, but inductive, or Baconian,
in form. The genetic method is modern.
It is well known that Schmid of Erlangen, already quoted
a few pages earlier, who arranged Schmid's Dogmatik drawn
from the Lutheran dogmaticians of the Sixteenth Century,
did not commit himself personally to the teachings of his
work. Yet he emphatically repudiates the charge made
by Heppe against the classic Lutheran dogmaticians."
24 " I do not at all agree with Heppe's idea of an early Protestant, i. e.,
Melanchthonian system of doctrine," and of another system (that of the
Formula of Concord) diametrically opposed to this ; nor with his idea of an
universal prevalence of this M'elanchthonian system until the time of the
Formula of Concord. I agree, on the other hand, with the most widely en
tertained opinion, that there was a time in Melanchthon's history when he did
not in all respects remain true to Luther's system of doctrine, and, therefore,
the later theologians, especially Hutter, undertook to vindicate, in opposition
to Melanchthon, this doctrinal ¦ system of Luther, which had, it must be ad
mitted, been more clearly developed in the consciousness of the Church through
the controversies that preceded the Formula of Concord. There is, to be
sure, a real antagonism in certain topics, but it is not an antagonism that
runs through all the topics, and renders a sharp distinction necessary between
the early Protestant theology and that of a later time. Hence I was at liberty,
yes, it was my duty, to lay at the foundation the Melanchthonian system of
doctrine. . .

850 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
He says that their method has the advantage " of more ac
curately defining the meaning of the single doctrine and of
rendering it more difficult for heresy to screen itself." He
believes that we ought not to consider it a task " to search
for the excellent kernel within the unsightly shell." He
then goes on to declare that scholasticism is rooted not in the
later, but in the earlier, Lutheran theology. " When, how
ever," says he, " the charge of scholasticism is brought, as
is sometimes the case, against the contents and form of the
doctrines themselves, and made to refer to the dialectic devel
opment which some particular doctrines received at their
hands, we reply, this is a charge which does not lie against
the later theologians alone, nay, not even with any peculiar
force against them. This is, on the other hand, the method
which the theological writers of our Church adopted from the
very first, and which they derived from the treatment which
the doctrine of the Trinity, e. g., experienced already in the
second period." THE REACTION IN CALIXTUS.
The Reaction from Orthodoxy, referred to at the beginning
of this chapter, came with Calixtus. From the old dominion
of the Church, men were now passing through the Confes
sional Principle, to syncretism, liberalism, and rationalism.
With the triumph of rationalism over pietism, and humanism
over both, was ushered in the modern Protestantism, subject
to no authority whatsoever.
Pietism must be regarded not only as a reaction against
extreme orthodox intellectualism ; but in its better and orig
inal forms as the earnest antagonist of liberalism and ration
alism. Dr. Krauth says : " When Spener, Francke, and the
original Pietistic school sought to develop the spiritual life
of the Church, they did it by enforcing the doctrines of the

" This, it is true, merely explains, and does not vindicate, my method of
treating Doctrinal Theology. To do this I should have to write another
History of Protestantism as over against that of Mr. Heppe. Here it may
suffice for me to say, that my work is based upon a totally different con
ception of the development of Lutheran Theology from that of this writer." —
Schmid, Doctrinal Theology, Preface to the Fifth Edition.
Even the rationalistic Karl Hase repudiates the charge of an un-Lutheran
Scholasticism in the Old Dogmaticlans.

UNIONISM AND CONFESSIONALISM. 851
Church in their living power. They accomplished their
work by holding more firmly and exhibiting more completely
in all their aspects the doctrines of the Reformation, con
fessed at Augsburg. The position of them all was that the
doctrines of our Church are the doctrines of God's Word,
that no changes were needed, or could be allowed in them;
that in doctrine her Reformation was complete, and that her
sole need was by sound discipline to maintain, and by holy
activity to exhibit, practically, her pure faith. These men
of God and the great theologians they influenced, and the
noble missionaries they sent forth, held the doctrines of the
Church firmly. They wrought those great works, the praises
of which are in all Christendom, through these very doc
trines. They did not mince them, nor draw subtle distinc
tions by which to evade or practically ignore them, but, alike
upon the most severely controverted, as upon the more gen
erally recognized, doctrines of our Church, they were thor
oughly Lutheran. They held the Sacramental doctrines of
our Church tenaciously, and defended the faith of the
Church in regard to Baptism and the Lord's Supper, as they
did all her other doctrines." "
The period of degeneracy is thus summarized by Weidner :
" At the beginning of the Eighteenth Century, there was a
tendency both in the Lutheran and Reformed Churches to a
greater mildness, readily degenerating into laxity. The
Lutheran Church was influenced by Pietism, and by the
philosophic systems of Descartes, Leibnitz, and Wolff, while
the Armenian tendency gained ground in the Calvinistic
churches. Among the great Lutheran divines of the Eigh
teenth Century may be mentioned Buddeus (d. 1729), Pfaff
(d. 1760) and S. J. Baumgarten (d. 1757). The influence
of Rationalism shows itself in Semler (d. 1791), and the
later divines of this century. The influence of Kant
(d. 1804) was very favorable to Rationalism. The orthodox
system rather on the side of formal supernaturalism than in
15 Con. Ref., p. 196.

852 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
its own churchly strength, was defended by Storr (d. 1805)
and Reinhard (d. 1812)." . . .
The men who found the Confessions constrictive, and who
lived on the theory that men could be Lutherans and ignore
the doctrines of the Church or defend them with a reserved-
ness practically equivalent to a betrayal, were the men who
harbored unbelief as to the saving merits of their Lord's
work in their hearts. Semler, Bahrdt, Gabler, Wegschneider
and other Rationalists, were influenced by the all-penetrative
and overwhelming spirit of the time. They were the men
who, putting the Confessions aside, pretended to hold the
Word of God, but corrupted its sense. 18
"Then followed, toward the close of the Eighteenth Cen
tury, the far more radical reaction of Rationalism, which
broke down, stone by stone, the venerable building of Luth
eran orthodoxy, and the whole traditional system of Chris
tian doctrine." "
THE DROP INTO MODERN INDIVIDUALISM.
The rule of the Church had been rejected already in
the Reformation. The Bute of Faith had now also disap
peared in the Illumination. Every man built truth as he

16 Encyclopedia : Systematic Theology, pp. 98-99.
17 So completely does the Formula of Concord exhibit the pure Lutheran
faith, and so adequately does it express the doctrines of the Gospel, that, as
the whole later history of the church demonstrates, it was invariably found
that those who practically rejected the Formula of Concord after the days
of Semler, also rejected the whole orthodox system of doctrine contained in
the Lutheran symbols which in point of time preceded it. It would be
unphilosophic and fruitless to deny the truth of the doctrines of the last of
the four Gospels, and yet profess to believe those of the preceding three,
since all contain precisely the same Gospel, while the new matter in St.
John's Gospel is only a fuller exhibition of the spirit which alike pervades all ;
and it would be as unphilosophic and fruitless to reject, on doctrinal grounds,
which we have here no room to discuss, the last of the Lutheran symbolical
books, and yet adopt one or more of those which preceded it, since the last,
the Formula of Concord contains precisely the same doctrines which they
set forth, and is only a fuller exhibition of the divine spirit which breathes
in them. — C. F. Schaeffer, Ev. Rev. V. 203-204.
18 Yet they were not one whit worse than the Dean of the Episcopal Divinity
School at Cambridge, Mass., who in 1908 said that the problem in present
preaching is to tell the truth concerning the Scripture without affrighting the
grandmothers of the Church.
"• Schaff, Creeds of Christendom, I, p. 353.

UNIONISM AND CONFESSIONALISM. 853
thought it right in his own eyes : e. g., Schleiermacher. The
objective strength of the Gospel was gone. Each thinker was
free to think out truth as he saw it. And the truth found was
altogether outside the revelation of Christ. The system-mak
ers of the medigeval church became the philosophers of the
modern schools. They began with an analysis of conscious
ness in Descartes; with a criticism of the relation of man's
own faculties to reality and truth in Kant, with the perfect
mechanical orders of Creation in Leibnitz, with the moral
nature in Fichte, with the laws of physical nature in Schel-
ling, with the principle of all nature and all history in
Hegel, with the application of human Reason to the Scrip-
ture — the New Testament in Baur, and its application to
Dogma, with not only the Confession but the objective truth
back of it lost, — in Ritschl. Thus the birds of thought had
darted out of the Scriptural net, and, exulting in their free
dom, were flying in all four quarters of the sky.
But the power of the Gospel was not gone. There was a
reaction to the old Rule of Faith — in part in accord with the
old Confession of the Faith, and in part with the new free
dom from the Confessions of the Church. In the second
instance the Scripture became the modern " Bible," an indi
vidual source of authority, greater or less; and individual
systems of dogmatics, speculative, ecclesiastical, and even
Confessional, arose once again. In the first instance, there
was a return not only to the authority of the Word, but
also to the Confessions of the Church."" As to the Dogmatik
of the later Nineteenth and the Twentieth Centuries, and the
systems elaborated by individual writers under the influ
ence of some philosophic or historical principle (in which
we include not only the older Hegelian, but also the modern
Ritschlian development to Harnack and those after him),
it is not pretended that they represent a Church standard,

19*B. g., in Sartorius (d. 1859), Vilmar (d. 1868), Thomasius (d. 1875),
Philipp! (d. 1882), with Luthardt and Frank.

854 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
or Confessional principle. They are a personal contempo
rary apprehension, apart from church or historical neces
sity, of the divine system, as modern insight and education
conceive it. While they do influence individuals in the
Church, and ultimately reach and influence the Church doc
trine ; as they rise and flourish, and are superseded and fade
away, they have no effect on the Church's objective Confes
sion of the truth.
Yet the Lutheran Church, guided by her Confessional
Principle, has not been able to undergo a free and untram-
meled development on her basis. In some countries the
Confession was not adopted heart and soul, and was not
witnessed to and taught in the preaching of the Word. In
many of the countries it was not the pure Faith for the
Faith's sake, but the Confession was a question of the gov
ernment determined by the government, or a question of ad
vantages to be gained by or through the Faith. In nearly
all the countries, the training up in the Faith was not
wrought out by the Faith apart from the secular arm; and
in some countries we still have the anomalous spectacle of the
secular arm educating, training and appointing the preach
ers and teachers for the spiritual work. To this must be
added not merely a complete freedom from the Confession,
but an avoidance of it, for prudential reasons, in the higher
education; with a mechanical compulsion in lower spiritual
education, in the bringing up of generation after genera
tion, in which the supreme and decisive fact is not a good
confession, but conformity to tradition, or other secondary
causes. Thus the Church of the Reformation, though on a
Confessional basis, has brought forth motley hordes of indi
vidual Evangelical and Rationalistic Protestants, bearing
the name of the great Reformer, but not convinced of and
confessing the Word on which he staked his all.

UNIONISM AND CONFESSIONALISM. 855

THE SITUATION IN AMERICA.
Thus, too, America while she was spared the mixed devel
opment issuing from a combined secular and spiritual control,
and while she was blessed in having her earliest foundations
laid on the complete Confessional basis, and in the spirit of
pietism, thus escaping many of the suffocating problems
of the older situation, has nevertheless mingled in with her
own faith the ideas of surrounding beliefs, and absorbed
mongrel elements from current Protestant sources; and in
a preference for and sympathy with the common uncon-
fessional Christianity of the day, has not been either con
vinced of nor borne bold and unfailing witness to the Faith
which alone is the justification of her being, and in which
alone she can live without fear of absorption. But Provi
dence so ordained that the Lutheranism that came to Amer
ica, and that survived, was not that of a State Church, but of
the free ; and that the Faith brought here as a basis was that
of the Book of Concord.
Rationalism, unionism and nativism, both European and
American, have been the cause of the bulk of the trouble in
the Lutheran Church in America. Perhaps the most in
sidious and treacherous of these ostensible friends has been
unionism. It was the working of an imperceptible unionism
that gradually reduced to nothing the result of the Swedish
work in America, and lost to us all the churches on the Dela
ware. Muhlenberg, as we have seen, had not set his foot
on the shores of Pennsylvania for twenty-four hours before
he found himself in the conflict of his life against a gigantic
plan of unionism to absorb the whole Lutheran Church in
Pennsylvania. His fidelity prevented such absorption.
At his death, it is sad to note the tragic inroads made upon
the Church in America by these three causes, inroads from
which the Church did not recover even to the third and fourth

856 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
generation; but which at last have given way, to some ex
tent, before the power of the unchanging Confessional Prin
ciple. DOGMATIC SYSTEM AND THE CONFESSION.
We are not bound by the form or the substance of the Old
Dogmaticians, except in so far as they are of the truth and
the truth binds us. But the truth does not bind the believer :
it makes him free. The dogmaticians are voluntary individ
ual testimonies, elaborated in the form of science, valid for
those who gave them forth and for those who accept them.
They are not the iitterances of the Church; howsoever fully
they may reflect and explain the Confessions of the Church.
The Confessions do not constrict the personal utterance of
the Christian who holds fast to them. None is more free
than he. 2° He writes out of the assurance of faith, which is
freedom. The acceptance of the Confessions does not hinder
each age and each individual from gaining its own apprehen
sion afresh, and fitting its own point of view, of the revealed
Word of God. The more such adjustments of the Christian
consciousness to the Gospel the better. ' But they are not to
be adjustments of the Gospel to the individual consciousness.
They are not to run alongside the Confessions or against
them. They are not to start from a speculative centre or
from some truth in Scripture outside the clear teachings of
God's Word, and then absorb so much of the Gospel as fits
in with the theory.
And above all, Dogmatik and its spirit is not to take the

The Church is called upon not to enforce blind submission to what it
has already attained, but to use the clear truth as an instrument of appeal
to consciences, and to maintain its authority by persuasion, and not by ex
ternal force of any kind. " The Word which has created the heavens and the
earth must do the work, or nothing in the universe can do it. I will preach,
I will talk, I will write ; but never will I force any one by violence " (Luther,
Er. ed., 28: 219). "This is the difference between the two forms of govern
ment: The godly win men by means of the Word; the wicked force to a
prescribed course by means of the sword" (lb., 12:383). "Unser Herr Gott
thut nicht Grosses mit Gewalt" (lb., 57 :32). — Jacobs, Summary Christian
Faith, p 409.

UNIONISM AND CONFESSIONALISM. 857
place of Confession and its spirit. After all Dogmatik is only
a use of the truth to satisfy or to instruct the intellectual con
sciousness, whereas Confession is that use of the truth which
Christ expects of us. Dogmatik is the explanation of my
own mind, or of what I think to be the mind of the Church.
Confession is the affirmation, the testimony of that which
Christ has given His Church to proclaim, and for which it
exists. The main need in the Church, in its literature, its
institutions and its teachings is not the satisfaction of the
intellectual consciousness, but the Confession of the Gospel.
The Church needs Confessors first, foremost and always.
Christ is the truth, and Christ is all and in all. Dogmati
cians, critics, scientists, philosophers, free, fearless, and in
the position of the latest outlook in thought and knowledge
are needed by the Church in every age, but they must not
take the place, nor fail to respect the place which belongs
only to the Confessional Principle. They are individual, and
are in addition to, not instead of the Church's witness. The
Church's official work is that of testimony, and in her insti
tutions, writings, and pulpits,21 in all her teachings, she can
substitute no other principle for this. A scientific theology,
a critical theology, a Biblical theology, a historical theology,
an apologetic theology, a dogmatic theology, a practical the
ology are each and all necessary and helpful to the Church,
but only as they centre in a Confessional Theology.
"Any man, who will read thoughtfully the history of
Rationalism in. Europe, and of the Unionism which is even

a And indeed, when the minister sets himself above the congregation as a
teaching regent, though he would anxiously appear as a liberal, under the
standard of freedom of speech ; he yet arrogantly degrades his people, essentially
entrenches on their liberty of conscience, and whilst he refuses to bind
himself to their confession, he popishly wishes to keep them bound to his oflice.
The absolution of ministers from obligation to the common confession of the
church, leads either to an entire dissolution of the confessional unity of the
church at large, and especially of the individual congregations, or to a
ministerial despotism which appears wherever the congregation and the
church are made dependent on the ministry, when the ministry at the same
time refuses to be dependent on the general consciousness and confession of
the church and congregation, and seeks to rule with unlimited freedom. —
Seiss, Ev. Rev. IV, 16.

858 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
now too often its stronghold, will not wonder at the earnest
ness of true Lutheranism in maintaining a pure confession.
He will have no difficulty in comprehending its indisposition
to tolerate indifferentism, and heresy, under the guise of
union." Even Belial himself, to use the expressive phrase
of Dr. Krauth after the habit of Luther, " has been allowed
to take shelter under the hem of the garment of Christ."
A " wide-open " confession has filled the American Prot
estant Churches, Seminaries, Universities and schools of
learning with heresy to-day. Congregationalism, Presbyter-
ianism, Episcopalianism, and even Methodism glide down in
faith toward the valley of Unitarianism. Modern preaching
and teaching does not draw the confessional line, even at this
side of the Cross of Christ. It is now almost regarded as a
symptom of fossilization to be true to one's confessional
standard, and there is a sting in being termed orthodox.
The critical spirit has gone beyond gnawing away merely
the Confessions: it has demanded that the attitude of the
Christian to the authority of Scripture itself be "wide-open."
We find here in America, within a generation after Dr.
Krauth's death, the beginning of what Dr. Krauth, in his
day, recorded with horror of Germany : "The Bible was flung
after the Confession, and men were allowed to be anything
they pleased to be. The less Lutheran they were in the old
sense of the word, the more were they Lutheran in the new
sense. They not only insisted on being called Lutherans, but
insisted they were the only genuine Lutherans. Had not
Luther disenthralled the human mind ? Was not the Refor
mation simply an assertion of the powers of human reason ?
Would not Luther, if he had only been so happy as to have
lived to read their writings, certainly have been brought over
to the fullest liberty ? Who could doubt it ?"

CHAPTER XXXVIII.
THE BOOK OF CONCORD AND HISTORICAL
LLTHERANISM IN AMERICA.
Luther and the Discovery of America Contemporary — Was this Providential ? —
The Lutheran Church Coming to America — It came on the Basis of the Un
altered Augsburg Confession and the Book of Concord — The Swedes on the
Delaware — Justus Falckner — The Palatine Immigration with the Savoy Constitu
tion — John Casper Stoever — Henry Melchior Muhlenberg — The Book of Con
cord the Foundation of all Muhlenberg's Churches — The Ministerium of Penn
sylvania — The Words of Melanchthon.
DOES God order the world in Providence? Was the
Protestant Evangelical Lutheran Church — the Church
of the Reformation — included in His ordering? Is it a
chance that Luther and the New World were contemporaries,
that the one was born within the decade in which the other
was discovered ? First came Luther, in 1483, and, on his
heels, in 1492, America. A German in every fiber of his be
ing, was it the counsel of God that he should be chiefly for the
Germans, and that his work should abide within the boundary
of the Fatherland? The great Englishman, Thomas Car-
lyle, is not of that opinion. " There was born here," says
Carlyle, " a Mighty Man, whose light was to flame as the
beacon over long centuries of the world ; the whole world and
its history was waiting for this man.1 . . What were all Em
perors, Popes, and Potentates in comparison ?" 2
Is it not the very hand of God that set the two rising auspi
cious stars bf modern life, the newly discovered Gospel and

1 Carlyle is cited as an Englishman and a Protestant on the Reformed side.
'Thomas Carlyle, Lecture on Luther, May 15th, 1840.
859

860 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
the newly discovered World, Luther and America, in conjunc
tion ? Born and reared in the shadow of the Holy Roman
Church and Empire, in the heart of the old World, the Church
of the pure Gospel, of Word and Sacrament, was intended by
God to be transplanted from the old battlefields of Church and
State, for untrammeled development — Catholic, of many
races, and polyglot, in many tongues, — to shores free from
the alliance of the secular and the spiritual arm.
Some four decades after Luther's birth, the new plant
of the Gospel bloomed and ripened into the historical Augus
tana. Four decades later it bore still richer and more perfect
fruit in the Formula of Concord. Four decades after the
publication of the Formula of Concord, God wafted the first
seed of this new Catholic Evangelical Conservative faith to
the shores of America. It perished amid the snows and the
ice of the north.
After two more decades, new seeds were borne hither, some
to the Island of Manhattan, and others to the shores of the
Delaware, and a chain of churches arose along that river
and its tributary. Four decades later still, shortly after the
arrival of William Penn, the first services of the Protest
antism that is Catholic — of Lutheranism — were held here
in the English tongue, that is, in the language that was des
tined to become the Catholic language of the New World.
Four decades later still, the great German Protestant
immigrations reached this country, and with them the first
organizer of Lutheran Churches in Pennsylvania. In sev
eral decades more came the general organizer and patriarch
of the Church, under the direction of Halle, who established
sound doctrine and true piety, and whose work, seeking early
touch and union with the earlier Swedish Church, issued in
the first general Church body, Lutheran in doctrine and
American in principle, in the New World.
Forty years after the organization of this first Minis
terium of North America, which centred in the general
territory of Pennsylvania, came the establishment of a second

CONFESSIONS IN AMERICA.. 861
general body in New York State; and four decades later
still came the first English general body. And as the first
seeds of the new faith in 1517, and its first Confession in
1530, did not complete the development of the pure Lutheran
Faith, so, neither did the first seeds of congregations in
the Seventeenth Century, or of the general bodies in the
Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries, complete the plan
of God with reference to this continent. Wonderful immi
gration into the heart of our land, and four decades of
testing, in attempting to take over the faith of the fathers,
unaltered and unadulterated, into the tongue of the children,
brings us to the condition of the Church within the memory
of many still living.
It is the object of this chapter to show that the transplan
tation of Lutheranism from the Old World to North America
was on the basis of the Book of Concord and the Unaltered
Augsburg Confession.
The services held on Hudson's Bay in 1619 were unfruit
ful, but those held on the Delaware from 1638 on, together
with those held in 1657, and earlier, in New York,
were on the basis of the Unaltered Augsburg Confession.
The first English Lutheran services in America, in 1684,
were held by a minister whose copy of the Augsburg Con
fession is still extant, and it is the Unaltered Augsburg Con
fession. The Lutheran ministers in the Seventeenth Century
and in the Eighteenth Century were ministers set to preach
the doctrine of the Unaltered Augsburg Confession; and
wherever John Casper Stoever or Henry Melchior Muhlen
berg preached, their teaching and their work were founded on
the Unaltered Confession. Justus Falckner, the first faithful
Protestant pastor, so far as we know, of any denomination to
be ordained in America, a German, ordained in a Swedish
Church, in order to become the pastor of a Dutch Congrega
tion, adhered faithfully to the anti-Calvinistic basis of the
Unaltered Augsburg Confession.
Let us examine these striking facts somewhat more in
58

862 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
detail, from the beginning onward, and see if they be well
founded. The Constitution of the congregation at Amsterdam,
framed within ten years of the publication of the Book of
Concord, adopted as early as 1597 (and which, with and
through that of St. Mary's of Savoy in London, adopted in
1695) formed the basis of the Constitution of our American
congregations, in its First Part and First Article, stipulates
as follows: —
" The pastors of this congregation shall regulate and de
termine all their teaching and preaching by the rule of the
divine Word, the biblical, prophetical and apostolical writ
ings, and according to our Symbolical Books to wit, the
Unaltered Augsburg Confession delivered to Charles V.
Anno 30, the Apology, the Smalkald Articles, the Formula
of Concord, together with both Catechisms of Luther
throughout, and shall not teach or preach anything contrary
to the same, be it privately or publicly, nor shall they intro
duce or use new phrases (forme of statement) which are at
variance with the same, or contradict them. In like manner
in all points in dispute between us and others, they shall he
guided and governed by the aforesaid Scriptures and also the
aforesaid Symbolical Books, and shall decide, and judge them
by these alone, and shall plainly declare the foundation and
understanding thereof to the congregation. *
Fifteen years after the completion of the Book of Concord,
the States of Sweden subscribed the Unaltered Augsburg
Confession.1 This was in 1593, one year before Gustavus
Adolphus was born. Six years after the death of the mili-

2 Luth. Ch. Rev., VI, p. 199.
4 In 1647 the Reichstag at Stockholm acknowledged the Formula ; In 1663
a decree of the Swedish Church was to the same effect; and in 1686 the
Council of Upsala bound the Swedish Church as follows : " In our kingdom
and in the lands belonging thereto, all shall confess only and alone the
Christian doctrine and faith, which is founded upon the Prophetical and
Apostolical Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, and is comprised in
the three chief symbols, the Apostles', the Nicene, and the Athanasian, as
well as in the Unaltered Augsburg Confession, composed in the year 1530,
received in 1593 in the Council of Upsala, and explained in the entire so-
called ' Book of Concord.' "

CONFESSIONS IN AMERICA. 863
tary hero of Protestantism on the battlefield at Liitzen, Gus-
tavus' prime minister Oxenstiern sent to our shores the first
colony of Swedes, in order to carry out the favorite plan of
Gustavus, which he advocated on German soil only a few
days before his death. One great object of Gustavus in his
colonization project was to plant the Christian religion among
the heathen; and the missionary idea was always prominent
in the spirit and in the instructions of the line of Lutheran
pastors that came from Sweden to the first settlements on the
Delaware. The first' services held in these primeval forests,
just sixty years after the adoption of the Book of Concord,
were on the basis of its full Lutheran Confession. When
Governor John Printz came over in 1643, he had instruc
tions to see that divine service be zealously conducted ac
cording to the Unaltered Augsburg Confession, but that
members of the Reformed religion be allowed religious free
dom ; that the youth be instructed and trained in the fear of
the Lord, and that Christianity be spread among the Indians.
His minister, Campanius, diligently carried out these instruc
tions, even to the holding of the daily Lutheran Matin and
Vesper services and to the translating of Luther's Small
Catechism into the language of the American Indian.
In New Netherlands the authorities had received instruc
tions "to allure the Lutherans to the Dutch Churches and to
matriculate them in the Public Reformed Religion." In
1640 a law was passed, prohibiting any other religion except
the Reformed, which Stuyvesant 'in the name of God and
the Dutch West India Company' attempted to carry out in
1647. But in 1649, on October 8th, a petition reached
Amsterdam from the members of the "Church of the Unal
tered Augsburg Confession in the New Netherlands." In
1656 the congregation appealed from Stuyvesant as follows,
"We, the united members of the Unaltered Augsburg Con
fession, here in the New Netherlands, have been obedient to
your Honors' prohibitions," etc. The West India Company
concluded "that the doctrine of the Unaltered Augsburg Con-

864 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
fession might be tolerated in the West Indies and the New
Netherland." But when the Lutheran minister, Goetwasser,
arrived, the Reformed ministers demanded his return to Hol
land. In 1664 Governor Nichols granted the Lutherans per
mission to send for ministers and to "freely and publiquely
exercise divine worship according to their consciences." " We
see here how the first beginnings of the Lutheran Church in
New York City were founded on the Unaltered Augsburg
Confession, and that its very existence was involved in a life
and death struggle in which the Reformed Protestantism of
that day was determined not to tolerate it.
Thus were the earliest Lutheran settlements in America
planted upon the foundation of the Unaltered Augsburg
Confession and the other Symbolical Books. Half a century
later when the permanent memorials of this earliest Luth
eranism, the Old Swedes Church in Wilmington and the
Gloria Dei in Philadelphia were erected, clad in robe and
surplice, three Swedish clergymen arrived from Sweden, and
held their first service " according to the true doctrines con
tained in the Augsburg Confession of Faith."
When, three or four years later, another pastor was brought
over, the Archbishop addressed a letter of the date of July
18th, 1701, to the congregation, making it their pastor's duty
to " teach God's Word purely according to the prophetic and
Apostolic Scriptures (the language of the Formula), and as
it is briefly comprehended in the recognized chief symbols of
the Lutheran Church and its other Symbolical Books."
The decree of Upsala of 1593, followed by decrees of 1647,
1663, and 1686, had formally placed the Swedish Church
upon the Book of Concord. There can be no doubt at all,
then, as to the Confessional nature of this earliest Lutheran
ism that was planted on the shores of our American World.
Justus Falckner, the first Protestant minister to be or
dained in America, and pastor of the Lutheran congregation

'History of the Lutheran Church in Pennsylvania, (Schmauk) I, pp. 19-21,

CONFESSIONS IN AMERICA. 865
at New York and Albany from 1703 on, whose "Grondlycke
onderricht " is the first Lutheran text-book published " in
America, and is referred to by Valentine Loscher as a " Com
pendium Doctrinae Anti-Calvinianum," declares that the
contents of the book are to be taken in strict conformity with
the teachings, Confession and Faith of the Lutheran Church
to which his grandparents belonged.
The immigration that came into New York and Pennsyl
vania a few years later, with Joshua Kocherthal at its head,
brought with it St. Mary's, London, Kirchen-Ordnung of
"The Unaltered Augsburg Confession," whose first and sec
ond articles are a reproduction of the phraseology of the For
mula of Concord and whose second article declares that "the
pastors shall completely and thoroughly ( "ganzlich und
durchgehends, nichts aber wider dieselbe") teach and con
fess according to our ' Symbolical Books,' namely, The Un
altered Augsburg Confession delivered to Emperor Charles
in 1530 [to doubly insure the Invariata] ; the Apology,
the Schmalkald Articles, and the Formula of Concord, to
gether with both Catechisms of Luther." This is the solid
doctrinal foundation on which the German Palatine immi
gration of the early part of the Eighteenth Century into
New York and Pennsylvania was founded.
When, nearly a quarter of a century later, John Casper
Stoever arrived in the wilds of Pennsylvania and organized
the first German congregations, and, as "the Evangelical
Lutheran Pfarrherr," gathered congregations in all the
early settlements, he planted them, one and all, upon the
Unaltered Augsburg Confession. Stoever was a stern Lu
theran of the most uncompromising kind, and the churches
founded by him in Eastern Pennsylvania were on the basis
of a Lutheranism of the stricter sort. In a certain sense, the
Lutheranism of this land founded upon the Unaltered Augs
burg Confession is a more straight and uncompromising Lu
theranism even than that founded upon the designation

•By William Bradford, New York, 1708.

866 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
of all the Symbols of the Church. For the foundation of the
Unaltered Augsburg Confession was a polemic antithesis to
every sort and kind of Melanehthonianism whatsoever, where
as the Lutheranism of the Formula of Concord and of the
Book of Concord was simply the latter's harmonic antithesis.
This fact, with the need of a short term for common use,
explains the historical significance of the early usage of the
phrase " Augsburg Confession " in our Church in America.
C. F. Schaeffer, in his report to the Ministerium of Penn
sylvania in 1853, ' after referring to the preface of
Thomasius' work on the Confessional Principle of the Evan
gelical Lutheran Church, declares " that the Formula of Con
cord is as completely a part of the Confession of the Church,
as the Augsburg Confession itself, or any other symbol is
part of it." He then continues : —
" The prominence which, in the church in the United
States, has often been given to the Augsburg Confession, and
the frequent omission of the names of the succeeding Symbol
ical Books, might produce the erroneous impression that the
former possessed a higher rank or greater authority in that
part of the church which is found in America, than the latter,
unless, in addition to the explanations which have already
been given above, respecting the origin of the historical name
of the " church of the Augsburg Confession," the following
facts are also properly appreciated; they clearly establish
this principle: That the Augsburg Confession is the repre
sentative of the whole body of the Symbolical Books, so that,
under ordinary circumstances, those who formerly named it
alone, nevertheless understood it to imply and include the
other confessional writings with which it is inseparably con
nected." Not only the illustrations given by Dr. Schaeffer,
but all others show that the Lutheran Church founded in
Pennsylvania, New York, New Jersey, North Carolina and
Georgia was founded upon the complete Lutheran principle,
and that the Augsburg Confession never excluded or reduced

2Ev. Rev., V, p. 205, 206.

CONFESSIONS IN AMERICA. 867
the remaining symbols, but represented them ; until we reach
the later stage of Rationalism.
The congregations planted upon the Stoever foundation in
clude those in Lancaster and Lancaster County, York and
York County, Dauphin County, Lebanon County, Berks
County and, to some extent, Chester, Montgomery and Phil
adelphia Counties, Pennsylvania. These foundations are all
on Lutheranism of the strictest sort.
As soon as Muhlenberg landed in Philadelphia in 1742,
he found there the beginning of a wide interdenominational
union movement which had taken possession of the congre
gation to which he had been called. Its head was the " Evan
gelical Lutheran Inspector and Pastor at Philadelphia," who
adhered to " Luther's evangelical doctrines as contained in
the Holy Scriptures and the Augsburg Confession," 8 and who
" showed his earnestness by publishing an edition of Luther's
Small Catechism." ' So nearly had this adherent of the
Augsburg Confession gained control of embryonic Lutheran
ism in Pennsylvania, that the historian Acrelius (p. 248)
says, "When Muhlenberg came to the country, Count Zin
zendorf was in a fair way to bring under him the whole Ger
man population."
Muhlenberg at once proceeded to (what he supposed was)
a private conference with this liberal Lutheran of the Augs
burg Confession, but " he found himself confronted by all
the formaltieS of a trial." M And even after he, at a regular
Lutheran Service, had exhibited his credentials, including
his call and ordination certificate, and the papers from Provi
dence and New Hanover, and had obtained the acknowledg
ment of his call from the officers of the Philadelphia congre
gation, Zinzendorf would not surrender the church record
until the courts compelled him to do so.
Such was the ominous conflict, between a professed ad-

¦ Life of Zinzendorf, p. 42.
"Jacobs, Hist, of The Luth. Ch., p. 203.
2'Ib., p. 218.

868 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
herent of the Augsburg Confession and the confessor of the
complete Lutheran faith, with which the larger ecclesiastical
history of the Lutheran Church in this country opened. For
Muhlenberg was a minister " according to the call and rule
given in the writings of the prophets and apostles, the sum
of which is contained in the three symbols — the Apostles',
Nicene, and Athanasian — in the Augsburg Confession, A. D.
1530, laid before Emperor Charles V. in the Apology of the
same, in Dr. Luther's Large and Small Catechisms, in the
articles subscribed in the Smalcald Convention and in the
Formula of Concord, written A. D. 1576, on controverted
points of doctrine." u
On Muhlenberg's way to America, derogatory reports con
cerning his Pietism had preceded him to the city of Han
over, where, however, he was invited by the president of the
Consistory to preach, after which a member of the Consistory,
who had remonstrated against his preaching, a jurist, said
that the sermon " had been in agreement with the Formula
of Concord."
Thus Muhlenberg's arrival in 1742, brought to America

11 Muhlenberg's Ordination Certificate, v. Luth. Ch. Rev. VII, p. 28, Article
on " Conservatism of Henry Melchior Muhlenberg."
It will be noticed that the very language of the confessional basis of this
Certificate of Ordination is, with two exceptions, a condensation of the sub
stance of the introduction to the Epitome of the Formula of Concord. (For the
phrase " the Augsburg Confession, A. D. 15S0 laid before the Emperor Charles
V." compare Preface to the Book of Concord, Jacobs ed., p. 14.)
The Certificate is of the date of 1739, and declares, on the part of the
Leipzig Theological Faculty, that " we examined him with care and con
vinced ourselves that he received and took hold of the sum and substance of
the Christian doctrines in a proper manner, reverently and firmly adopted
that purity of the Gospel which our Church professes with one voice and
spirit in harmony with the Catholic Church of Christ, and that he abhors
all fanatical opinions of older and of more recent date, such as the errors
of the Papists, Anabaptists, Sacramentarians [Reformed], which the judg
ment of the Catholic Church of Christ had condemned. He also promises
that in matters of doctrine he would prove himself firm and constant."
Following the enumeration of the Symbolical Books, the Certificate says,
'' He solemnly promised that he would propose to his hearers what would
be conformed and consentient to these writings, and that he would never
depart from the sense which they give. And this sacred consense we intend,
with the help of God, faithfully to defend in all our churches, and never to
adopt any documents conflicting with these doctrines. . . . We further ad
monish the said Henry Melchior Miihlenberger and the congregation en
trusted to his care that they retain the purity of the heavenly doctrine. . . We
also admonish them that they remember the divine prospect to live in accord
and union with other churches of the same sound faith."

CONFESSIONS IN AMERICA. 869
anew the basis of the Book of Concord. When he built
the old Augustus Church at Trappe, two years later, he
placed it upon the foundation of the Unaltered Augsburg
Confession. "I publicly state, you know for what objects this
Augustus Church and schoolhouse were founded, built and
designated forever in the writings of the cornerstone and in
other instruments, and to secure that object you and your
successors should strive, namely, that our holy Evangelical
doctrine according to the apostles and prophets and the
Unaltered Augsburg Confession, together with the Holy Sac
raments, be continued to the latest posterity." u
When the next minister, Brunnholtz, came in 1745, his
call was " to teach the Word of God in public and in private,
pure and incorrupt, according to the rule and guidance of the
Holy Scriptures, and also of the Symbolical Books of the
Evangelical Lutheran Church." His ordination pledge had
been : " To be faithful to the Word of God even as the same
is set forth in the three chief Symbols, and also specifically
in the Symbolical Books of the true Lutheran Church, to
wit, the Unaltered Augsburg Confession, its Apology, the
Smalcald Articles, the two catechisms of Luther, and the
special Formula of Concord, all drawn with great diligence
out of the Holy Scriptures, and that I shall, not only for
myself, by the help of God, abide steadfast in the same
until I die, but also labor with the utmost diligence to build
up the congregations which God may commit to my care,
according to this rule."
In this same year the church at Germantown was com
pleted, bearing the inscription " Augustanae confessioni haud
variatae ejusque oeconomiae."
When, in 1748, Muhlenberg .elaborated an 'agende' for the
Church in this land, it was on the basis of the strict Savoy
Kirchen Ordnung already mentioned. When in 1748 his first
large church, old St. Michael's, in Philadelphia, was conse-

vHallisehe Nachrichten, p. 1139.

870 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
crated, at the organization of the Ministerium of Pennsyl
vania, public attention was called to the fact " that the foun
dation stones of this Church were laid with the intention
that in it the Evangelical Lutheran doctrine should be taught
according to the foundation of the prophets and apostles and
the Unaltered Augsburg Confession and all the other Sym
bolical Books." " Then the whole Church and its parts,
the pulpit, the Baptismal font and altar were again conse
crated to the use of the one saving Word and the Holy Sacra
ments, according to our Symbolical Books."13
At the first meeting of the Ministerium of Pennsylvania,
the first candidate for ordination was examined by Brunn-
holtz, Handschuh, and Hartwig, and was asked, "whether
our Evangelical Lutheran is the only saving and justifying
faith, and upon what Scriptural foundations it rests." The
answer among other things contained the following: "Yea
and Amen, 1, because it teaches the Word of God in its truth
and purity; 2, becaiise we, as the children of God lead holy
lives in accordance with it. If we examine our Symbolical
Books, which contain the principles of our doctrine on reli
gion, we will find that they are taken from the Word of God
and substantiated by the Word of God." Before the Ordina
tion Kurtz signed the following pledge, " To teach nothing
else publicly or privately in my congregation except what ac
cords with the Word of God and the Symbolical Books of the
Evangelical Lutheran Church and to this end diligently to
study the same."
In 1750 Muhlenberg and Brunnholtz inserted in the con
stitution of the Augustus Congregation at the Trappe, the
earliest written constitution of these men, " that in the Au
gustus Church and school, the Evangelical doctrine, accord
ing to the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets and our
Symbolical Books, be perpetuated to our descendants."
In 1760, at the Ministerium of Lancaster, Paul Bryzelius
applied for admission to the Ministerium, and made the
13 Muhlenberg's Report, 1748, Hallische Nachrichten, M. and S. pp. 392-393.

CONFESSIONS IN AMERICA. 871
declaration that "I herewith promise to conform in all my
sermons, public and private instruction and in the adminis
tration of the Holy Sacraments, to our Symbolical Books."
When, in 1761, Lucas Raus made charges against Muhlen
berg, Muhlenberg not only declares that Raus himself did
not accept "the Word of God and our Symbolical Books,
though, in his pledge given before his ordination, he had,
with mouth, hand, and seal, solemnly promised that he would
do so ;" but he says, " I herewith challenge Satan and all his
servile lying spirits to prove against me the least point that
would be repugnant to the teachings of the Apostles and
Prophets and our Symbolical Books."
When, in 1769, the dedication of the great Zion Church
in Philadelphia, during the meeting of the Ministerium
there, took place, Muhlenberg said: "Hereby it is. dedicated
to the Triune God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit! for the
use of the German Evangelical Lutheran congregation, which
confesses the one Evangelical doctrine upon the foundation
of the apostles and prophets, the two Holy Sacraments by
Christ, according to the Unaltered Augsburg Confession and
other Symbolical Books."
In the Certificate of Ordination given by the Ministerium
of Pennsylvania to J. Christian Lepsius in 1774 and pre
served by Muhlenberg, we find the doctrine based upon " the
Three Symbols, the Unaltered Augsburg Confession, and its
Apology, the Small and Large Catechisms of Luther, and the
other Symbolical Books ;" and the pledge of Rev. Lepsius is
to bind himself to teach the doctrine " agreeable to and with
the Unaltered Augsburg Confession and the rest of the Sym
bolical Books of the Evangelical Church."
In 1783 the Ministerium of Pennsylvania required of Mr.
Hinkel, prior to permitting him preach, that he show a reg
ular call, and that he agree, " to preach the Word of God in
its purity according to Law and Gospel, as it is explained
in its chief points in the Augsburg Confession and the other
Symbolical Books."

872 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
And when, finally, in 1781, Muhlenberg prepared, and the
" Evangelical Lutheran Ministerium in North America "
adopted, its constitution, that instrument declares: "Every
minister professes that he holds the Word of God and our
Symbolical Books in doctrine and life . . . Every minister
uses the Liturgy whieh has been introduced."
As for the English Lutheran Church, when in 1795, Dr.
Kunze, our first English Theological Professor," appended
his "Account of the Lutheran Church" to the first edition of
his English Lutheran Hymn Book, he described the confes
sional basis of the Church as follows : "The Symbolical Books
of the Lutheran Church are 1. The Augsburg Confession;
2. The Apology or defence of it; 3. The Smalcaldean Arti
cles; 4. The larger, 5. The smaller Catechism of Luther;
6. The Formula of Concord." M
We see thus, how thoroughly and carefully the original
foundations of the Lutheran Church in North America were
laid with reference to an avoidance of Melanchthonian errors,
and upon the full and complete Confessional principle of the
Church as expressed in its Unaltered Augsburg Confession

14 Dr. Kunze was the father of English Lutheranism in America. He was
not only the foe of German Rationalism, but he foresaw the process of Angli-
cization that must take place in our country, and attempted to prepare for it.
He was Professor in the University of Pennsylvania, and in Columbia, then
King's College, New York. He was the first Lutheran pastor who made
provision for regular English services ; he translated Luther's Catechism into
English ; in 1795 he published the first English Lutheran Hymn-book ; and he
educated the first English Lutheran pastors in America. He attempted to
begin the first Lutheran Theological Seminary in this country, but was un
successful because .of the Revolutionary War.
Dr. Kunze's own ordination vow was no exception to the rule, but as was
the ease with all the other's, included the Formula of Concord :
" I will not only for myself abide by the pure and unadulterated Word of
God, as explained and set forth in the three Ecumenical Creeds, and es
pecially in the Unaltered Augsburg Confession, the Apology, the Smalcald
Articles, the two Catechisms of Luther and the Form of Concord, but that I
will also faithfully and conscientiously teach the congregations committed
to me by God in accordance with these Confessions." — Nicum, The Doctrinal
Development of the New York Ministerium, Luth. Ch. Rev., VI, p. 73.
,0 As our work is written in devotion to the true Lutheran Faith, and not
In the interests of any Church Body, the story of the Book of Concord and its
relation to the Church in America is brought to an end here. It might
readily be continued from this point to the present, should such a narrative
become desirable or necessary. We will, however, mention the fact that the
Liturgy of the Ministerium of Pennsylvania of 1818 directs that churches be
consecrated on the " Unaltered Augsburg Confession."

CONFESSIONS IN AMERICA. 873
and the other Symbolical Books; and how the favorable in
fluence of the Formula of Concord entered into the constitu
tional structure of our early congregational life."
We do not see how the historic Lutheran Church in Amer
ica, in whatever ecclesiastical connection it may be found,
could be asked to set aside the Formula of Concord as her
Confession. But if such request should be made, Melanch
thon has given the reply thereto. He says, "We cannot
abandon truth that is manifest and necessary to the Church.
Wherefore we believe that troubles and dangers for the glory
of Christ and the good of the Church should be endured.
. . . For it is undeniable that many topics of Christian
doctrine, whose existence in the Church is of the greatest
moment, have been brought to view by our theologians, and
explained." "

** The brief statement given here by no means exhausts the subject under
discussion ; and the writer has for years been gathering material for a full
presentation of the evidence on this important subject which, at some day,
he hopes to be able to commit to print in final form.
The confessional foundations in Georgia and in North Carolina were on the
same basis.
"Apology, 76.

CHAPTER XXXIX.
THE CONFESSIONAL PRINCIPLE OF THE BOOK
OF CONCORD AND AMERICAN
PROTESTANTISM.
Sources of Spiritual Authority — The Relation of Spiritual Forces — The Confes
sional Principle a Balance — The Confessional Principle and Liberality — Is the
Confessional Principle of the Book of Concord Accepted in all Parts of the Lu
theran Church ? — Is the Confessional Principle of the Unaltered Augsburg Con
fession that of the Book of Concord ? — What an ex animo Confession of the Un
altered Augsburg Confession Involves.
SOURCES OF SPIRITUAL AUTHORITY.
OF the four imaginable sources of spiritual authority,
some thinkers, institutions, denominations and sects
accept, if they do not officially confess, Reason, that is Nature
apprehended by the mind as Law, as the ultimate arbiter.
The truths of history, among which all documentary sources,
including Scripture, are reckoned; and the powers of tradi
tion, among which all organic sources, including the Church,
are placed, will give way, in ultimate decision, to that ex
isting order of Law and life and thought in which we find
ourselves, which we call Nature, and whose principles are
discovered and applied by Reason.
The material with which these Christians, if we may call
them such, build out their conviction, faith and testimony
is Scripture and the experience of history and the Church,
but the plumb-line with which they test the material is
Reason. In the sphere of Faith, Reason is always our most sub-
874

AMERICAN PROTESTANTISM. 875
tie and most persistent foe. Reason is. part of man's inborn
nature. Faith is the gift of God, which in many Christians
has not succeeded in entirely transforming the reason. The
greater the part that reason has been accustomed to play in
the ordering of our Faith, and in the building of our theo
logical views, the greater its influence becomes with us as
a habit. Its ways are ways that grow. It is a good servant,
but a bad master. Its only effectual check in the Church is
the Confessional Principle.
In the American Churches Reason has enlarged its power
— especially in many of the evangelical denominations — by
an unconscious and unperceived growth. The newer liter
ature and schools, the "historical method" (which is the appli
cation of the Order of Nature to Faith and to its documents
and organisms), the influence of an undenominational and
an unevangelical Christianty, has imperceptibly wrought
changes in the conviction and the daily confession of Amer
ican Christianity. A century and a half ago rationalism was
outside the American Church. A century ago it was within
the Church in open Socinian forms. To-day it is within the
Church and in Sunday-school and the undenominational
associations of Protestantism more subtly in evangelical
forms. A second source of spiritual authority which many confess
as supreme is the Visible Church. This is the real position
of Rome, also of all those Protestants — though they be Luth
erans, — who look to their Church more than they do to their
Faith, or who, at least, are intensely devoted in convic
tion and confession rather to the organism of which they
are members than to the principle for which the organism
should stand. Those who confess their allegiance to what the
Church says and does, as practically final, even if they
imagine themselves to be adherents of the most liberal Pro
testantism, are standing on the ground of Rome. The Papacy
they obey is the uncrowned and shifting one of the Organi
zation they venerate. In this they are at one with the

876 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
Modernists in the Roman world, who would not overthrow
the Church as the supreme source of authority, but only its
dogmatic content, and who introduce the new (and shifting)
Weltanschauung of the age, as being a subsidiary and obedi
ent servant of the Church.
A third source of authority in American Protestantism is
composite. Scripture joined with common sense, the Word
of God interpreted by the intellectual results of the day,
such sifted teachings of Scripture as commend themselves to
the best thought of the time, or as approve themselves to the
most sober results of investigation, are accepted as the source
of religious authority. This is the position, as to the source
of authority, of the majority of the American Protestant
Churches — more or less — as they are more or less Evangeli
cal. To the confessors of a composite source of spiritual author
ity belong also those who add the Church to Scripture and to
Reason, as a co-equal principle.
A fourth source of authority is found by other American
Churches in Scripture alone. And of these there are some
who emphasize Scripture as a Book — the Holy Bible, an
authority prescriptive, legal, to be confessed, accepted and
obeyed for what it is in itself, and to be sundered from the
organism in which it has always been found.
Others, and to these the Book of Concord, through its
Formula, belongs, accept Scripture as the only rule of faith
and life, not because it is the end in itself, but because
Christ is there: it is the Word of God bringing salvation,
a Word springing up from and given to not merely individ
uals, but given to the Church of Christ. The Book of Con
cord confesses Scripture — which is the Word of God —
which is the Gospel of Christ — which is the Law and the
Gospel — and which is testified to in the great Confessions
that have been pressed out of the tribulation of believing
witnesses in history; as the fruit of the action of the Holy
Spirit through the Word upon the hearts of believers.

AMERICAN PROTESTANTISM. 877
Thus, with the Book of Concord, "we believe, teach and
confess" the truth in the Word, which is Christ; and the
truth in the Church's Confession, of which we are convinced
that it is the reflex and effect of Christ in the long and un
broken line of believers who constitute His communion and
flock. This Confessional Principle, though it may separate
us from contemporaries of the present moment who do not
find the whole Christ or the sure Word of Christ in the
Scripture, connects us with the glorious company of the
Apostles, the goodly fellowship of the Prophets, the noble
army of martyrs, and the unbroken line of true confessors in
all ages of the holy Church throughout the world, who under
whatsoever name, or in whatsoever communion, received in
good and honest hearts the true faith once delivered to the
saints; and constitute the one, holy Catholic Christian
Church, which confesses the "one Lord, one Faith, one
Baptism, one God and Father of all, Who is above all, and
through all, and in us all."

THE RELATION OF SPIRITUAL FOECES.
Of the various possible spiritual forces described in the
preceding pages, Reason and the Scripture may be termed
centrifugal forces, i. e., their reaction has proven to be varied,
and, under Protestant influences, individualizing. On the
other hand, the Church and the Confessions are centripetal
forces, i. e., their action has proven to be of a uniting and
crystallizing character. We, as Lutherans, reject one centri
fugal force, Reason, and surely we would not set our faith
and hope on the first centripetal force mentioned, viz., the
Church, as a centre of authority.
When the Confessions are disparaged, as the Church's
witness to Scripture, there is no centripetal force remaining,
except the ecclesiastical motive. The result is that many
Protestants, thus bereft of a uniting Confessional power,
must resort to the Church, the ecclesiastical idea and fact,
59

878 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
the common name and the common external bonds of a de
nomination, to keep them together.
As Lutherans, our only rule of authority is the Scripture,
which, although, in its historical form, it be centrifugal,
nevertheless becomes centripetal in its Confessional form.
Rome, with a visible centre of authority in the Church and
in the vicar of Christ on earth, does not need a Confessional
centre. But the only spinal column that will organize and
keep the Protestant Church of the future together, is a com
mon principle from Scripture which has become the common
principle of the Church. Therefore also the Church of
the Conservative Reformation lays stress upon the Confes
sions. A sound and conservative Confessional Lutheranism seeks
to maintain the balance between the centripetal and centri
fugal forces, which draw the mind of the Protestant believer
in contrary directions. The Confessional Principle of the
Book of Concord releases him from the Church as a source
of authority, thus preserving Christian liberty; and does not
allow Reason to become a source of aiithority, thus pre
serving Christian Faith. Our Confessional Principle accepts
the Scripture as the only rule of Faith, and thus preserves
Christ ; and accepts the Confessions as the reflex of Scripture,
in the testimony of which his own heart joins, and thus ¦
preserves the Church.

THE CONFESSIONAL PRINCIPLE A BALANCE.
The Confessional Principle, into which Scripture and
individual conviction or assent enter as elements, which
meet together in the Confession, thus becomes the balance
between rationalism on the one hand and ecclesiasticism on
the other; between lawless individualism on the one hand,
and tyrannical external authority on the other; between
unprincipled indifferentism on the one hand and intolerant
bigotry on the other.

AMERICAN PROTESTANTISM. 879
Pure Protestantism, which acknowledges no authority but
Reason, or Reason and Scripture, will not hold men together
in an abiding union in a visible Church.1 Indifferent Prot
estantism, which reduces faith to opinions, and exalts unity,
fraternity and fellowship to a rule, will unite and maintain
the shell of Christianity without its substance. Federated
Protestantism, which finds its authority on a common but
not clearly-determined Scripture ground, with common but
partial and not clearly-determined recognition of individual
ities in faith ; seeks its purpose in furthering the work of the
visible church ; and its sphere of organization in a temporary
union for mutual benefit, looking to something better, and
thus draws its rule in part from Confession and in part from
the Church.
But Confessional Protestantism, taking its authority from
the Word of God alone, as reflected in the testimony, and not
in the organization, of the Church ; recognizing the priority
of conscience, and not of practical plans, is the only unity
that stands squarely on principle and conviction of the truth
and yet refrains from tyranny of organization.
THE CONFESSIONAL PRINCIPLE AND LIBERALITY.
Confessional Protestantism will not yield principle to ex
pediency. It will not extend hands as brethren at Marburg,
in view of political considerations, and continue in doctrinal
difference, private dislike, and in innuendo and the petty
spirit of proselytism. It will be tolerant to men, but not to
ambiguous measures. It will tolerate hostile convictions,
but not falsehood. It will respect and love its friend and
foe, but not compromise with either. It will be tolerant and

1 " In vain Protestants seek to make their churches as solid as the Roman.
Their basal cause of existence is fatal to unity. Acting in the direction of
Its origin, the force of Protestantism tends ever to disintegrate ; to perfect its
spirit it must destroy its organization ; while the Catholic Church naturally
moves onward in increasing centralization. Which of the two systems is
better for the world, the reader may judge for himself, but there can be no
two opinions as to which is better for itself." — Frank Crane in Open Court,
July, 1906. This writer does not take Confessional Protestantism into account.

880 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
patient as Luther was, but not disingenuous as Melanchthon
at times appeared to be.2
The Confessional principle of the Book of Concord is a
liberal principle, but its liberality is of a far-seeing, just and
thorough order. It is not the liberality of a weak, emotional
and unprincipled charity, which is capable of caressing an
ecclesiastical neighbor on the cheek one moment, and of
criticizing or condemning him at another. It is not the liber
ality of a man who gladly yields to others that which is out
worn in his own eye. The Church with the Confessional
principle of the Book of Concord treasures what the Lord
has commanded and taught, as not her own, and as not hers
to barter away.
She is not of that nature which squanders charity on
others, and is faithless to her own home and children. What
she has, as conscience tells her, direct from her Lord, she
prizes and defends, and will not allow to be hid under a
bushel, even at the risk of incurring the scorn or the dis
pleasure of others who consider it wrong in her to maintain
and defend a peculiar treasure.
As to others, she gives them liberty and love, and heartily
shares with them all the treasure she possesses which they
will really accept and not despise. But when they seek to
invade her sanctum, and to say that what is therein is of
small account, that it should be removed, and that the door
should be thrown open to a common life, she feels that a
neighbor or relative, who calls himself a brother but is so
with reservations, has trespassed on a genuine and well-
meaning good-will, and has presumed on an intimacy or
communion which he is not in a position and does not deserve
to share. Yet she abates no love to the children of the Lord,
from the rising to the setting of the sun, though they do not
2 Compare his letter to Camerarius ("Dissimulate "). Cp. also the declara
tion of Schaff in his Creeds : — " The conduct of Melanchthon weakened his
authority and influence, which had been rising higher and higher before and
after Luther's death, especially in the University of Wittenberg. Before this
unfortunate controversy, he was universally regarded as the theological head
of the evangelical Church in Germany, but now a large number of Lutherans
began to look upon him with distrust."

AMERICAN PROTESTANTISM. 881
agree with her, and though their failure to prize the peculiar
truth which is her treasure grieves her greatly.
She needs hardly to say how heartily she acknowledges
that in the Evangelical Churches, in their ministry and
people, there are noble exemplifications of Christian grace,*
and that she freely admits that, " as Channing, though
a Unitarian, was more lovely morally than many a Trini
tarian, so, much more, may some particular Christians,
who are in error on the matter of the Sacraments, far
surpass in Christian grace some individuals who belong to
a Church whose sacramental faith is pure. Some men are
on the level of their systems, some rise above them, some
fall below them. A human body, in which one lobe of the
lungs is gone, may not only live, but be healthy ; another may
be sickly and die, in which the lungs are perfect. Neverthe
less, the complete lungs are an essential part of a perfect
human body. We still truly call a man a man, though he may
have lost arms and legs ; we still call a hand a hand, though it
may have lost a finger, or be distorted. While, therefore,
we freely call systems and men Christian, though they lack
a sound sacramental doctrine, we none the less consider that
doctrine essential to a complete Christian system, and to the
perfect faith of a Christian man. The man who has lost an
arm, we love none the less. If he has lost it by carelessness,
we pity his misfortune, yet we do not hold him free from cen
sure. But when he insists, that, to have two arms, is a blem
ish, and proposes to cut off one of ours; then we resist him."
This insistence of his may be gentle and lovely at the
start. He asks to share our communion, and denies part of
our Confession. For personal convenience or opinion's sake,
he is willing to have our church live with a spot of falseness
in her bosom. He asks only to be undisturbed in his private
opinions. But as these private opinions take root in other
hearts and grow, he assumes for them an equal right with

* Krauth.

882 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
the Confessional principle. It is regarded as bigotry to
assert any superior right for the doctrine of the Confession.
To make a resistance against the growing supremacy of
his tolerated opinions is said to be un-Christian. " Truth
started with tolerating: it comes to be merely tolerated.
Error claims a preference for its judgments on all disputed
points."
IS THE CONFESSIONAL PRINCIPLE OF THE BOOK OF CONCORD
ACCEPTED IN ALL PARTS OF THE LUTHERAN CHURCH ?
The great American writer on the Credal Principle in
Christianity, Schaff, declares that it is not. He tells us
that " The Formula of Concord is disowned by the Melanch
thonian and Unionistic schools in the Lutheran Church." *
There is no question that Philippists and Gnesio-Lutherans
still constitute portions of the Lutheran Church. And we
are not of those who would disown their historical right,
traced from the Reformation period, to existence. Whether
they exalt the Lutheran Church as a Church, or their own
doctrine as a doctrine, or, as Schaff declares, " disown " the
Confessional principle of the Formula of Concord, why
should they not be left to their patrimony, and be allowed the
historical right to bear the name of the great Reformer, to
whose doctrines they bear the relation of Melanchthon and
his principle. Why should not the Melanchthonian Lutheran
ism in Germany take advantage of the opportunities of the
"Union," and in America be respected as exemplifying an
historical European fact, one different from the Confessional
Principle of the Book of Concord on which the Lutheran
Church in America was founded, and which they do not all,
as Schaff says, in putting the case too strongly even for
his day, "disown." There are also Melanchthonians who,
like Chemnitz and Chytraeus, have come to see the real heart
of the Lutheran faith, and, personally, to accept the Book

1 Creeds of Christendom, I, p. 322,

AMERICAN PROTESTANTISM. 883
of Concord. These good Lutherans, however, cling to a less
specific confession, feeing that they ought make their prin
ciple tell, as leaven in the loaf of a common American Re
formed Protestantism. The old cloth is Puritanic, and the
little patch of Lutheranism sewed on with so much sacrifice,
will enlarge the rent rather than make seamless the garment.
What respect did the founder of the Evangelical Alliance,
whose fellowship in language and religion with Evangelical
Protestants was boundless, have for the fraternal Melanch
thonian Lutherans ? Not enough to prevent him from speak
ing as follows: —
" Outside of Germany the Lutheran Church is stunted in its normal growth,
or undergoes, with the change of language and nationality, an ecclesiastical trans
formation. This is the case with the great majority of Anglicized and American
ized Lutherans, who adopt Reformed views on the Sacraments, the observance of
Sunday, Church Discipline, and other points." 5
Thus did this venerable apostle of unionism in two conti
nents show the kind of fraternal spirit and brotherly love
which the Reformed principle possesses even for those under
the Augsburg Confession who were most willing to extend
the hand of fellowship at the Nineteenth Century Marburg
colloquies. He regarded them as having no substantiality, and
as only forming " the connecting link " " between the
Lutheran Confession and the Reformed. Can we expect
more of the Puritan, or the Anglican stock whose principle
of fellowship practically proves to be that of the lion and
the lamb — the hungry lion, to whom, as Schaff predicts,
fellowship means the possibility of absorption.
But the right of the Variata is really historical. It repre
sents and can stand for as much as is justified in its own past.
It cannot represent that which has been unchanging and is
genuine. Confessions cannot be altered or improved after
they have become the basis of action, even with the consent
of all the authors or signers.
6 Creeds of Christendom, I, p. 213.
•Jo., p. 214.

884 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
Neither the Declaration of Independence, nor the Ninety-
five Thesis of Luther, nor an old standard hymn, nor any
historic document of import and standing may be "altered
and improved" by subsequent generations into whose hands
it may fall.
Even the author himself, when he once has given over a
confession to the church, and the church has accepted it as
her own, has merged and given over his own private pro
perty rights, to the larger body in whose interests it has
been composed, and to whom it now belongs. Both the inter
ests of the public body, which accepts the confession as
expressing that which is most precious to itself, and also the
interests of historical accuracy prevent any private tampering
of an author with his own former workmanship. One can
not add new clauses, or take away old ones, privately, from a
mortgage, however desirable that may be, when once it is
of record.

THE CONFESSIONAL PRINCIPLE OF THE UNALTERED AUGSBURG
CONFESSION IS THAT OF THE BOOK OF CONCORD.
Historical and territorial causes led some parts of the
Lutheran Church in Europe to characterize themselves as the
Church of the Unaltered Augsburg Confession. The Con
fessional Principle of the Unaltered Augsburg Confession is
identical with that of the Book of Concord, except that it is
more positive, more determinedly and extremely Lutheran,
and less mild and expanded, than the principle of the Book
of Concord.
The Formula of Concord takes pains to identify its con
fessional principle with that of the Unaltered Augsburg Con
fession. The subjects treated in the Formula ' are only those
treated in the Augsburg Confession, and are less in number.
The very Title of the Formula is, " solid, plain and clear

' Except the Descensus.

AMERICAN PROTESTANTISM. 885
repetition and declaration of certain articles of the Augsburg
Confession." The Preface to the Book of Concord declares
that " the doctrine comprised in it " (the Augsburg Con
fession), "they have constantly judged to be the only and
perpetual consensus of the truly believing Church." The
Preface declares it to be " that godly confession, which was
built upon solid testimonies of truth unmoved and expressed
in the Word of God." They say : " It has never been our
intention to defend any new dogma, but ... to con
stantly support and retain the truth which we professed at
Augsburg in the year 1530." They call the Book of Con
cord " a repetition of our Christian faith and Confession."
They say : " We emphatically testify that we wish to em
brace the first Augsburg Confession alone." They declare
again : " It has always been our intention that in our lands,
schools and churches no other doctrine be proclaimed and
accurately set forth than that which is founded upon the
Word of God, as contained in the Augsburg Confession and
the Apology." They say again : " We mean that doctrine
which ... is contained in the Augsburg Confession
1530. . . . We have determined not to depart even a
finger's breadth from the things or from the phrases." The
Formula itself declares : " From our inmost hearts we here
with once again confess this Christian Augsburg Confession,
which is so thoroughly grounded in God's Word. We abide
by the simple, clear and plain meaning of the same." Still
again they say: "We intend, by the grace of the Almighty
to faithfully abide until our end by this Christian Confes
sion." Further they declare: " It is our purpose neither in
this nor in any other writing to compose another or new
Confession." Once again they say, "We confessionally accept the first
unaltered Augsburg Confession (not because it was composed
by our theologians, but because it has been derived from
God's Word, and is founded firmly and well therein), pre
cisely in the form in which it was committed to writing in

886 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
the year 1530." * Finally, they say, " No one who is true
to the Augsburg Confession will complain of these writings,
but will cheerfully accept and tolerate them as witnesses of
the truth." " The other writings referred to as witnesses of
the truth are the remaining symbols between the Augsburg
Confession and the Formula of Concord.
Words could not more clearly, more earnestly or more
emphatically declare the identity of the Confessional prin
ciple of the Book of Concord with that of the Augsburg Con
fession, and an examination of the bulky Church Orders and
Bodies of Doctrine out of whose confusion the Formula of
Concord was written could not more clearly testify to the
wisdom of completing the Unaltered Augsburg Confession
of 1530 by the brief repetition and declaration of the For
mula. " The whole struggle, commencing with Luther's publica
tion of the ninety-five theses in 1517, and terminating with
the publication of the Book of Concord in 1580, was the most
remarkable which the world has beheld since the age of the
Apostles. We cannot assign its termination to an earlier date
than the one when the church came forth from the struggle
as a victor, bearing as the reward of its fidelity to its great
Head the Holy Scriptures set forth in their purity and in
tegrity and shielded from misinterpretation by the holy
Confession comprised in the symbols of the church.
" It would, therefore, be equivalent to an attempt to put
asunder what God has joined together, if the church, at the
present day, forgetful alike of the history of its origin in its
present form, and of its obligations to the cause of divine
truth, would make a discrimination between the several sym
bols, and not rather receive them all as parts essentially nec
essary to its confession as an entire confession. This is the
view entertained not only by our older theologians, biit also
by those of the last and present century. It is well known

8 Book of Concord, p. 536.
"Ib., p. 538.

AMERICAN PROTESTANTISM. 887
that in the doctrinal writings of all the eminent divines of
the church, arranged as they are in various classes, character
ized by various degrees of orthodoxy and various systems of
philosophy, the evidence is found that, amid all the conflict
ing opinions which they entertain, when they find occasion
to refer to any point as either adopted or rejected by the Ev.
Luth. Church, they quote indiscriminately from one or all
of the symbols of which mention has been made above, and
which, as an aggregate, constitute The Book of Concord.
The evidence is accessible to all, and is so little liable to
contradiction, that it needs no introduction in this place.
Still, among the innumerable illustrations of this fact, a sin
gle sentence may be quoted from the preface (' Vorwort') of
a small work of Prof. Thomasius, which he published a few
years ago (November, 1848), and which we mention in pref
erence to others, simply because he had introduced into its
title, namely, ' das Bekenntnis der evangelisch-lutherischen
Kirche in der Konsequenz seines Prinzips,' the same phrase
of which this report is treating. His words are : ' I was
led to give attention specially to the relation in which the
Formula of Concord stands to the Augsburg Confession, be
cause it is this point against which, at present, opposition to
the confession is specially directed, and in reference to which
it is most frequently necessary to explain and remove mis
understandings.' When he here speaks of the ' confession
of the church,' he assumes as a fact, which no theologian
would, without grave reasons, question in the present age;
that the Formula of Concord is as completely a part of the
confession of the church, as the Augsburg Confession itself,
or any other symbol is a part of it. Indeed, no theological
work of which we have any knowledge, is Understood to have
been published by any modern German theologian, which
cordially acknowledges the doctrines of the Augsburg Con
fession, and yet rejects the succeeding symbols as capable of
being separated from the former without violence and his
torical unfairness.

888 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
" The prominence which, in the church in the United
States, has often been given to the Augsburg Confession, and
the frequent omission of the names of the succeeding Sym
bolical Books, might produce the erroneous impression that
the former possessed a higher rank or greater authority in
that part of the church which is found in America, than the
latter, unless, in addition to the explanations which have
already been given above, respecting the origin of the his
torical name of the 'church of the Augsburg Confession,'
the following facts are also properly appreciated; they
clearly establish this principle: That the Augsburg Con
fession is the representative of the whole body of the Sym
bolical Books, so that, under ordinary circumstances, those
who formerly named it alone, nevertheless understood it to
imply and include the other confessional writings with which
it is inseparably connected." "
WHAT AN EX ANIMO CONFESSION OF THE UNALTERED AUGS
BURG CONFESSION INVOLVES.
From the identity of the Confessional principle of the
Lutheran Church, as found in the earlier root and the later
fruit of the Reformation consciousness, it follows that those
who, like the authors of the Formula of Concord, "most
heartily confess the Augsburg Confession of 1530 " will also,
if candid and consistent, with equal heartiness confess the
principle of the Book of Concord; and vice versa. Such a
hearty, or ex animo, confession of the Unaltered Augsburg
Confession involves, on the part of a Lutheran Church body,
the actual teaching of the same doctrine, on points set forth
in the Confession, in all the churches of that body. This is
emphasized, not only in the Formula of Concord, by the oft-
repeated "we believe, teach, and confess;" but also in the
Augsburg Confession itself, which declares: —
" Our Churches,. with common consent, do teach" (Art. I) ;
10 C F. Schaeffer in 1863. Ev. Rev., V, pp. 204-206.

AMERICAN PROTESTANTISM. 889
"they teach;" (Art. II) ; " they teach;" (Art. Ill) ; " they
teach " (Art. IV) ; " they teach " (Art. VI) ; " they teach "
(Art. VII) ; " they teach " (Art. IX) ; " they teach " (Art.
X); "they teach" (Art. XI); "they teach" (Art. XII);
" they teach " (Art. XIII) ; " they teach " (Art. XIV) ;
" they teach " (Art. XV) ; " they teach " (Art. XVI) ; " they
teach" (Art. XVII); "they teach" (Art. XVIII); "they
teach" (Art. XIX); "they teach" (Art. XXI).
The actual and unanimous teaching of the doctrine set
forth in this Confession is therefore necessary on the part
of those who subscribe it; and a hearty and enthusiastic
unanimous teaching is necessary on the part of those who
subscribe to it ex animo.
The fact as to whether a body makes an ex animo subscrip
tion to any set of principles and doctrines or not, may be
tested in two ways: first, by the official declaration of the
body; second, by the official teaching acts of those set to
represent it.
If a synod subscribes ex animo to certain principles, it
thereby becomes their defender, and will so unmistakably
let this fact be known in its fundamental, i. e., its constitu
tional writings, that the whole world, especially its own
members and the members of all other denominations, can
make no mistake on that fact.
But, in the second place, the official teaching-acts of its
teachers, whether professors, writers, pastors, catechists, dele
gates, must truly correspond with the principle which the
body who sends them forth subscribes ex animo. While
it is quite true that a body is to be judged solely by its
official utterances; yet the fidelity and loyalty of a body to
its official utterances must be tested by the utterances of its
teaching officials, whether pastors, professors or writers — not
by what they say in their own personal capacity, but by what
they say in their pulpits, their text-books, their public state
ments on behalf of the body which they profess to represent,

890 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
and especially by what they say and do as representatives of
the Lutheran Church before Christian faiths, and other
Christians. If the body's subscription to principles is perfect, but the
teaching of the teachers is different; the case is like that of
a bank whose business principles are entirely correct, but
several of whose officers, in contrast with the principles of the
bank and in disloyalty to them, carry on their share of the
business on questionable financial principles. No matter
how often the bank may point to its faith and charter, and
how prominently it may hang its good rules on the wall,
and how unimpeachable its president and directors may be;
if it permits the questionable to continue in official acts
contrary to the rules and principles, on the plea that it
cannot interfere with the personal liberty of its employees,
then depositors and outside banking firms cannot be blamed
if they withdraw their deposits and close out their accounts
in that institution.
The real question is not what do you subscribe, but what
do you believe and publicly teach, and what are you transmit
ting to those who come after ? If it is the complete Lutheran
faith and practice, the name and number of the standards is
less important. If it is not, the burden of proof rests upon
you to show that your more incomplete standard does not in
dicate an incomplete Lutheran faith. The Augsburg Con
fession was not intended to be an explicit, adequate, and
final statement of the Lutheran faith. It closes as follows:
" Only those things have been recounted, whereof we thought
that it was necessary to speak. . . If anything further he
desired, we are ready, God willing, to present ampler infor
mation according to the Scriptures." The later Confessions
'present this " ampler information according to the Scrip
tures," which the Augsburg Confession itself promised, and
without which it is incomplete.

CHAPTEE XL.
THE CONFESSIONAL PRINCIPLE OF THE BOOK
OF CONCORD AND CHRISTIAN
COOPERATION.
Luther and Melanchthon on Federation — Federation To-day — The Sphere of the
Church in Civil Reform — The Dangers in Cooperation — The Lutheran not a
Narrow-minded Church — The True Position of the Confessional Principle in
Cooperation — The Attitude of the Confessional Principle toward Those With
out — The Principle of Fellowship — The Union Recognized by the Confessional
Principle. LUTHER AND MELANCHTHON ON FEDERATION.
LUTHER and Melanchthon were against Confederation
of any kind, — internal, as a brotherhood of Churches ;
or external, in civil and religious government. But Melanch
thon, to whom the Roman idea of visible unity always ap
pealed, would have sacrificed much for the sake of remaining
in the historic unity of Rome ; and, when that was impossible,
for the sake of preventing Protestantism from splitting up
into external divisions. Although Luther was less fanatical
and better balanced than any of the sectarian and more
radical Reformers, he was convinced that his work and duty
as a Christian pastor and Professor was to testify to the truth
— the whole truth — and become a martyr, if need be, the
same as an apostle in New Testament days. The perilous
or unpleasant consequences of the truth for the Church or
for the generation in which he lived, did not concern him.
That was God's affair, not his. God was able to take care
of the world and of the Church. Man's affair was to stand
for the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ.
891

892 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
Luther did not seem to feel that any combination of
forces, in our modern sense of the term, was important to
the Church. He relied solely, like the Lord Jesus Christ,
upon the power of the Word. Yet the activities of Philip
of Hesse, both at Augsburg and later in the Schmalkald
League, with the checks placed upon them, appear to have
been part of the plan of Providence. No human mind can
say whether, if witness alone had been relied upon, even
unto martyrdom; or if the issue between Protestantism and
Romanism had been brought to an immediate and final head
in the Sixteenth instead of in the Seventeenth Century, the
result would have been better or worse for the Truth. Not
only is Luther — but Melanchthon likewise — always with the
Church, to complicate the application of the pure Confes
sional Principle. Of one fact we may be sure, and that is
that the scenes which occurred between 1530 and 1580 were
our examples.1
There is something fascinating in a united attack of the
whole visible Church of God upon the strongholds of sin.
The advance under one banner, the use of one watchword,
the presentation of a solid front toward the wickedness of
the world, the substitution for a loose and inconsistent or
ganization, of one that is close, unbroken, consistent and
faultless; the enthusiastic crusade under an idea, instead of
patient and ineffective toil under wretched fact; the re
solving of the narrower Church into the broader Kingdom of
God; the great possibilities of accomplishing great work to
gether; the sense of being in a large enterprise, of one that
above all things is making progress, of one that has the mighty
majority with it and is already bearing the legends of
success and victory on its banner ; the one concerning which
the world — both friend and foe — is obliged to take respect
ful notice; the life with men of breadth where the whole
atmosphere is free, where there is room for plenty of work
and plenty of difference in personal opinion; where a

»I Cor. 10: 11-12.

FEDERATION AND COOPERATION. 893
distinction is made between a few great fundamentals of
Christianity and such minor matters as can be set aside, —
these are the characteristics of a confederate Christianity
which persuade many that convictions are not as important
as work to be done; that the Faith and the Truth on their
sharper sides, even if revealed and pressed on us in the
Word of God, may be sacrificed — at least in some details —
for the sake of a larger movement, which in some way will
result in a final unity in the Truth and in its success and
will justify the temporary relaxing of our conviction and the
overlooking of minor matters in the Faith.
But Luther never yielded to this view. He said of the
doctrine (which is not ours, but God's) : " We can remit not
even a jot, nor can we permit either abatement or addition.
It must be, as it were, a continuous and round golden circle.
. . . If they believed the Word to be the Word of God,
they would know that one Word of God is all His words,
and all His words are one ; likewise, one article is all articles,
and all articles are one." a " Luther," says Kostlin,3 " has
evidently no other idea than that every congregation, or
church, which desires to be faithful to its duty must pub
licly and decidedly confess all the truth which we have
found him presenting in his doctrinal writings or defending
against its assailments; and that they must do this in view
of the thoroughly Scriptural character of the positions thus
maintained and their intimate connection with the central
point of Christian doctrine. He evidently regarded it as
his unquestionable calling to labor with all his power to in
duce the Church, with whose guidance he was in part en
trusted, to make such full and open confession." . . .
" In the confession which he was then called upon to prepare
for the Church, i. e., the Schmalkald Articles, he endeavored,
without any regard whatever for such [i. e., for those persons
to whom he had shown consideration, but who were not in

2 Theology of Luther, trans, by Hay, Vol. II, p. 273.
3 lb., p. 272.
60

894 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
full accord with so important a doctrine as that of the Lord's
Supper], to confess the full round truth. Such then is the
position of Luther, as indicated by his own writings, upon
the question of the distinction between fundamental and
non-fundamental doctrines " 3* to us Lutherans of the Twen
tieth Century.

FEDERATION TO-DAY.
Federation to-day is a conclusion from two premises, in
which many important points are implicit, rather than ex
plicit, and much is taken for granted. If the Confessional
Principle, in all its bearings, were acknowledged explicitly
in advance, by a Federation of Evangelical Churches
founded upon the orthodox doctrine of the Atonement and
Redemption of Christ, with a recognition of the deep gulf
that divides our Faith and non-conservative Protestantism;
and if it were not premised, as it always is, that the Lutheran
Church is one of " some thirty orthodox Protestant denomi
nations who are fully at one in the essentials and differ only
in some doctrinal peculiarities or in gifts of administra
tion," 4 it might be possible to enter into cooperation for
definite acts along certain well-defined lines. But it is a
question whether cooperation of this character, as it could
practically be given, would be of value to the Christian
Faith, or to our country; or whether it, surrounded and
hedged in by conditions, would be appreciated by the other
parts of federated Protestantism. In order to uphold the
Evangelical Confessional Principle without cloud or com
promise, it would be necessary for non-Lutherans to under
stand and to grant that the Lutheran Church though the
mother Protestant church, is catholic, retaining the supremacy
of Scripture, and the continuity of history in doctrine, wor
ship, discipline and the like, but purging away Roman error ;
and that it differs from the other Protestant bodies of the

lb., p. 273.

« This is substantially the language, often repeated, of the Secretary of the
Federation of Protestant Churches, at its meeting in 1908.

FEDERATION AND COOPERATION. 895
Keformation, commonly called the Reformed bodies of Prot
estants, and from all more recently arising sects, in its ap
prehension of almost every point of doctrine.0 It, further,
would be necessary to permit the Lutheran Church to lodge
its protest or record its objection of conscience, to every
word and deed of the Federation which indicated Con
fessional difference from itself.
It differs from these other Protestants in the doctrines
of the Word, the Scripture, the Church, the Sacraments, the
Means of Grace, the Ministry, the operations of the Holy
Ghost, the freedom of the will (synergism), often on the
nature of justification, good works, the Church and State
in Moral Reforms, and on the Person of Christ.
These differences appear in all attempts at practical ac
tion. The Lutheran Church does not believe that it is show
ing its zeal in the cause of the Lord or is actively ushering
in the Kingdom of God by using its power as an organization
to establish divorce laws, race-track legislation, Sunday, or,
still worse — Sabbath laws, labor legislation, Temperance
Reform, and by rooting out civic corruption and immorality.
It declares that the Church externalizes itself and falls short
of its great regenerative mission when it fastens its eye on
temporal reform, wrought chiefly by the arm of law in the
State, rather than by addressing the powerful Word of God
to the consciences of its members.
THE SPHERE OF THE CHURCH IN CIVIL REFORM.
It by no means agrees with the Reformed Protestantism
of, the American Protestant Federation, as to the task of
practical reform assumed by that body. It does not agree
in enforcing such reform with stringency upon the civil
government, and in finding its justification thereunto either
in positive Biblical ordinances, or in the name of humanity.
This is admitted by Seeberg." Neither can the Lutheran
"Schaff says we are united on all essentials and differ only in the Sacra
ments. 'Cp. History of Doctrines, II, p. 415.

896 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
Church enter into relations or covenants with the civil
authority which would involve an attitude, if not a subor
dination of the State to the ordinances of the Church.
The Lutheran Church cannot enter into reforms on the
Calvinistic principle. Obedience to the sovereign will of
God is not the content of Christian life and the State and
Society at large are not agencies for the enforcement of
divine law. The Calvinistic or Reformed attitude of the
Church toward the State, with all its magnificence of holy
zeal, is that of Augustine and the Middle Ages. The Con
fessional principle of Lutheranism does not attempt to re
form the State or the world by the application of law.'
To enter the civic field and secure the amelioration of
social or spiritual conditions by legislation is not the work of
the Church. This is in the sphere of the State and belongs
to Christian citizens in their organized capacity in prac
tical politics. It is not the work of the ministry, a spiritual
office, which must not be used to the gain of even worthy
earthly ends. The Federation's conception involves ulti
mate entanglement of Church and State. "

7 " The God of Calvin is the omnipotent Will, ruling throughout the world ;
the God of Luther is the omnipotent energy of Love manifest in Christ. In
the one case, we have acts of compulsion even in the heart, subjection, law,
service ; in the other, inward conquest by the power of love, free self-surrender,
filial love without compulsion. The one does not necessarily exclude the
other ; but the tone and emphasis give rise to the differences which un
deniably exist. From the practical energy of the Reformed ideals — with which
praxis has not always been able to keep pace — the Lutheran church may learn
a valuable lesson. But when, in any age of evangelical Christianity, faith
grows dim, and love grows cold, and it seems as though the gospel were no
longer sufficient to satisfy the advanced spirit of the ' modern world ' then
will deliverance be found, not in the views of Calvin, but in return to the
gospel and the faith of Luther. Evangelical Christianity has yet much to
learn from her Luther.
"I cannot therefore agree with K. Miiller (Symbolik, 540), who regards
H as ' certain ' that in the evangelical church of the future ' the spirit of
the general Evangelical Reformed Church will be in the ascendancy,' since
Luther's contributions to the Church ' were substantially already adopted in
the sixteenth century.' Miiller has moreover acknowledged that in a certain
sense the Reformed Church stands nearer to Roman Catholicism than does
the Lutheran (p. 387a)." — Seeberg, History of Doctrines', pp. 416-417.
8 The Lutheran Church, in a Federation, would be obliged to object to
prayer that God " send down the Holy Ghost of a Christian Spirit among
us," that we may " hear the rushing of the wind among us as the disciples
did at Pentecost." It would have to object to a Sacrament " in which
Baptists, Presbyterians, and Congregationalists participated and received the
whole blessing, since they had the symbols upon the altar and the Holy
Ghost in their hearts ;" it would have to object to a definition of Lutheranism
as "a series of Church bodies who hold more or less to the Reformed doc-

FEDERATION AND COOPERATION. 897
That such a conception of the Church is diverting it from
its original purpose is discerned by the spiritual minded
soul, even though it be outside of the Evangelical Faith.
Thus one not rooted and grounded in the Gospel of Christ,
but a Unitarian,8* writes : —
"The Church is tempted to abandon its real mission in
the world. It is in danger of being misled by specious pro
grams of agitators and of transforming itself into a civic
forum, a therapeutic hospital, a dispensary of charities, an
institution for visible social betterment. The church stands
as the specific antidote of materialism, safeguards the rev
erences of life, cares for the moral visions of the soul and
pronounces every god-ward aspiration of heart and mind as
the noblest expressions of manhood and womanhood. Its
legitimate work is not to supply new social furniture, but
to make men righteously efficient, and then to trust them to
go out with wisdom and consecration to improve in their
own way the social conditions of life."
THE DANGERS IN COOPERATION.
We believe that the reader will conclude with us that our
continuous alliance or connection with an American Protest
ant Federation is out of the question. In such an environ
ment the Lutheran Church will find herself in a situation in
which she will be unable to preserve either her Confessional
principle or to conserve her practical interests. It is a fact
that all the Protestant churches in America, save our own,
are Beformed in descent, and that they together, by nature,
breathe out a Reformed spirit. Therefore, when radical
measures are adopted by a general organization to which they

trines of the Reformation, some more, some less." It would have to object,
too, to the statement, as understood by the Federation that " the Church of
Christ and the nation are vitally related each to the other ;" that " the
Church of Christ should make itself felt in American political diplomacy ;
and should organize into a power which can be applied to politics for
spiritual ends." For, thus, evil in the State will be fought with the weapons
or by the methods of Rome, and we have the spectacle of a Protestant ex-
ternalization reared to checkmate the efforts of the Roman and corrupt secular
influences in legislation.
61 J. C. Jaynes. i

898 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
all belong, even though these measures are not approved in
any instance by some part of them, they do no violence to
their fundamental Reformed principle. The plan may be
most vigorously disputed and denounced, but if it be carried
by a majority, there is no serious and deep-seated principle
injured in living under it.
But the Lutheran Church is the conservative Protestant
Church of this country. She is the Church that holds on
to the good of history, as well as of Scripture, and that can
not take into her bosom any form of radicalism. There
fore Lutheranism is capable of being injured indirectly
at almost every point, in a common attempt at organization
or action among American Protestants ; and its fundamental
principle in any such gathering is nearly always strained
by some radical action.
For every Federation or cooperation is no more conserva
tive than its weakest point. No one knows, in connection
with any such an organization (whether it be in a general
plan of action proposed, whether it be in a deliverance, per
haps highly applauded, on the floor; whether it be in the
arrangement of a mere local council), where, along the line,
the most un-Lutheran statements, practices, proposals, will
break out; or, at least, ooze out. In a union of this kind,
where we are the one branch of a different family (and, in
conventions and ecclesiastical, diplomacy particularly, the
remaining branches cleave together in spirit, expression and
action), if true to ourselves, Lutherans must be under the
appearance of putting their own views on a higher plane of
importance than those of all others. Nearly every sound
Lutheran who has been on the floor in a general body of
Protestants and tried to be consistent there, would, we sup
pose, at some moment recall some such feeling and experience.
There is a reason for all this. The Lutheran church can
not go very far with the Reformed churches without finding
something in the atmosphere, or even in the pathway, that is
prejudicial to her principles, or that becomes a strain on
them. Is there any Lutheran who really in his heart be-

FEDERATION AND COOPERATION. 899
lieves that the Puritans, the Church of England men, and the
sectarians of the East and West, will go with him, and will
follow his way in such a Federation ? If they will not, then
he must either go their way, or both must choose a new
way, — neither of which things can happen and he remain
true to his Lutheran faith.

NOT A NARROW-MINDED CHURCH.
This is not narrowness — it is a historical fact. We have
not invented the fact — it has thrust itself upon us; and if
there be any criticism of narrowness against us, it must not
be with reference to the fact, but with reference to our
recognition of it. The Lutheran Church is not a narrow-
minded Church. She is above and beyond all, a church that
stands for clear fact, rather than for pure logic on the one
hand, or for mixed sentiment on the other. The Lutheran
Church can co-operate in many matters, but not on general
sentiment, and only and always where definite limits are
set. She is not a diplomatic church; and, because she does
violence to her open-minded nature in ecclesiastical diplo
macy, she is nearly always worsted when she engages in it.
We believe the Federation of Churches will do good to
Reformed Protestantism. It will draw together those who
belong together. It should persuade those who are united
on every essential doctrine, and divided by nothing but
sectarian or denominational particularity, to give up the lat
ter, and become one mighty American religious brotherhood.
We believe, too, that it will help the Lutheran Church.
Those Lutherans who prize the aims of a Federation which
is essentially a Reformed Protestant body in objects and
methods, above the object, teaching and method of the
Lutheran Church, will be kept busy in vain in refining the
Reformed oil out of a Reformed mass ; or will find that the
Lutheran oil is being simply absorbed in the Reformed mass.
Let us sum up the reasons why the Confessional Lutheran
Church stands firm against amalgamation, alliance, or

900 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
federation. First of all, she is not on a common foundation
with all other Protestant Evangelical denominations. This
has been made to appear sufficiently. In the second place,
she has had large experience in all these proposals, and has
rejected chem generations ago. Her very birth, her youth,
and the crises of her manhood were involved in this very
question. It was the great question that arose, with the birth
of Protestantism, at the Diet of Spires. It was the question
at the Marburg Colloquy. It was the question urged tena
ciously by Philip of Hesse at Augsburg. The Augsburg Con
fession excluded the Reformed Principle. It was the ques
tion for whose successful solution Bucer lived in vain. It
was the question of the Variata of 1540. It was the ques
tion of the extreme Philippists and Crypto-Calvinists. It
was the question of the princes at the Frankfort Recess. It
was the question of the Electors at the Convention at Naum
burg. It was the question that split and disintegrated the
Church, until it was settled, gently but firmly, in the best
spirit of Luther and the best spirit of Melanchthon, in the
Concordia of 1580.
THE TRUE POSITION OF THE CONFESSIONAL PRINCIPLE IN
COOPERATION.
The true position of the Lutheran Church in the midst
of bland Romanism and active Protestantism, is firmness
without unfriendliness; love without laxity. She should
strive for all movements whose aim is unity, up to the point
where it becomes evident that unity does not exist. She
should shun all movements whose aim is union, that is, the
cover or bond of unity thrown over diversity of principle.
Wherever there is common ground, there is possibility of
cooperation. But no cooperation is possible whose practical
or ultimate effect is to slight or ignore even the least central
and most insignificant outpost of Lutheran principle. For
the truth is organic, and it is the duty of the body to stand
by, and not to sacrifice, even its smallest and most remote

FEDERATION AND COOPERATION. 901
member — its little finger, which is faithful in the discharge
of duty. The principle formulated in the sphere of love by
our Saviour, applies here in the sphere of faith : " Inas
much as ye have not done it unto the least of these, ye have
not done it unto me." — " He that is faithful in little will be
faithful in much." This organic nature of the faith is the
key that solves the relations of fundamental and non-funda
mental, and that has practically been used by the Formula of
Concord to determine the principle of the adiaphora.
Common ground is either neutral ground or a spot at
which the inner unity of the communion of saints flashes out
into visibility. It is not union ground. There never was a
union of Christendom in the sense usually referred to, un
less the mediaeval union of external rule under the papacy be
meant thereby, and, we do not believe there will ever be a
permanent earthly re-union of Christendom. The antithesis
will ever be operative. But there is at this time a unity of
all Christians, the unity of Christ Himself, and it constitutes
the communion of saints. This unity should more and more
be realized and made visible, but it must start from within
outward ; and outer organization must honestly express, and
not cover up, the inner condition of truth and principle. It
is the mistake of our age, for any spiritual religion whose
strength is in Faith and communion with God, to lay all
stress upon an external organization and a surface appearance
of unity. It is a still greater mistake to degenerate dis
tinctive faiths into a low minimum of common faith, or to
attempt a union of the common minimum with a tenacious
but individual preservation of what is distinctive.
If Protestantism were to combine, by way of elimination,
or of absorption of peculiar principle, it would be the be
ginning of the end of Faith. The genus without the species
is an abstraction. When you broaden a stream by sacrificing
its positive life-currents, you gain a marshland and not a
mighty river. It is dangerous to unite in parallel action,
without parallel and common conviction — for the thin par-

902 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
titions of custom or half-dead conviction will soon wear
away, and there will be formless coalescence. The only safe
combination is by common conviction.

THE ATTITUDE OF THE CONFESSIONAL PRINCIPLE TOWARD
THOSE WITHOUT THE LUTHERAN CHURCH.
The Lutheran Church bears an open and loving and help
ful, not a closed attitude toward those without^ i. e., toward
those seeking the truth, or those upholding honest convictions
in the fear of God and with uncorrupt will. It is the nature
of our Church to be patient, suffering all things, having pleas
ure in approval rather than condemnation; in concord
rather than in discord. The first of our Confessions — that
of Augsburg, — and the last — the Form of Concord — in sub
stance and in tone, and our own history, are set in evidence
on that point. We are willing and anxious to. co-operate for
the saving of souls and the upbuilding of Christ's kingdom
with all of God's children wheresoever they be found.
Yet we are prevented from co-operating if thereby an in
jury is done to our conscience; or if we thereby compromise
an iota of our prized and precious Faith, for which we have
been called into existence ; a treasure which is blood-bought,
and above all price; and for which thousands of confessors
have laid down home, friends, worldly success and life.
This treasure is the pure doctrine of salvation. With
those to whom the purity of the Faith, the truth as it is in
Christ Jesus, means much, we will walk up to the point
where both conclude we must part. But with those to whom
the purity of the Faith means little, or less than all; less
than friendship, blood, practical success, the spirit of the
age, and similar considerations, we are always in danger.
Our chief treasure they do not so highly regard, and we
cannot entrust it to them with the feeling that it is safe.
They place other things on a par with this treasure, or above
it, and this is a case where no man can have two masters:

FEDERATION AND COOPERATION. 903
for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else
he will hold to the one, and despise the other.
Since, then we believe we exist for the pure Gospel prin
ciple, and all other things are subordinate, not even our best
friends outside (and still less our enemies) can asjs us
to commit ourselves to association with any people, plan,
teachings, or temperament which would derogate from our
doctrine; or which would convey the impression to the way
faring man that we have loosened our hold and relaxed our
standard of the truth."
If this be true, we are in a position to lay a rule for co
operation on the part of the Church, viz., the Church can
cooperate in all matters in which it can openly apply its
principles or Confession as a basis ; and only in these. The
Church must not ignore the issues of the day, or excuse her
self from this responsibility, because she differs from a com
mon Protestantism as to the end or the means ; but she must
bear her share of the public burden in some measure, and
must find a way to do it.
And this temper of the sympathetic mind but the strong
grasp and honest heart, the temper which is true at once to
faith and to charity, is the only one of service in dealing
with the most difficult problem of modern Protestantism, and
of a common Christianity^a problem, be it remembered,
which we did not create and which God Himself will have
a hand in solving.
' Wherever we can work with a common Christianity, or with a common
Lutheranism, with the assurance that no harm, immediate or remote, will
come to our one great purpose of testimony to the truth, or to our integrity
of conscience, we are ready to do so with joy ; but wherever we are in doubt
as to such a happy issue, — and we must be our own judges, — it is right and
reasonable for us to decline to run any risk of exposing our highest good to
danger, for the sake of attaining a lower and less important good ; and no
one in his fair and honest heart can blame us for failing to join in such a
common movement.
We do attach the greatest Importance to every Word of God ; but we do
not attach the greatest importance, except as a matter of high ideal, effective
work, and wise expediency, to unity of ecclesiastical organization. Our un
willingness to cooperate with others, if it be an honest and conscientious thing,
is not to be taken as a sign of dead orthodoxy, but as a sign of a living faith ;
it is not to be regarded as an evidence of a narrow outlook, but as a willing
ness to stand by one's convictions ; it is not to be branded as a love of de
nomination or of Church above Christ, but is to be respected as an unswerving
loyalty to Christ and His truth as we see it.

904 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
Since we may not rush into either extreme, but are obliged
to see good wherever it may be found, and to see evil wher
ever it may be found; and since we cannot join in free and
broad laxity on the one hand, nor resort to wholesale con
demnation on the other, we must expect criticism and dis
satisfaction with us from both sides, and must be satisfied
patiently to bear the scorn that comes to those who try to be
loving as well as just.
THE PRINCIPLE OF FELLOWSHIP.
Fellowship is a far more intimate thing than cooperation.
Cooperation is a combined support in prosecution of a busi
ness plan; but fellowship is a life together. Cooperation is
a limited association for definite ends; but fellowship is an
unlimited association in spiritual life. Fellowship throws
open all the doors, unlocks all the strong boxes, and bids the
other one abide in our soul and heart.
Modern Christianity greatly abuses the principle of fel
lowship ; and, in so far, destroys both its value and its sacred-
ness. On the grounds of a broad humanity, it would admit
to the heart of the Church even those who despise the
precious merits of the Head of the Church. On the ground
of a Christian brotherhood, it will admit to its fellowship
those with whom it will not cooperate. The less one prizes
the realities of love, the more ptiblicly can fellowship be
offered. True fellowship is with those with whom we are
one in the life of the truth or fact on the basis of which
the fellowship is enjoyed.
We believe that the feeling against Lutherans who do not
participate in the Sacrament with all Christians, rests upon
a misconception. Properly understood, we do not see. how
anyone who respects our belief would have us do otherwise.
The Sacrament to us, it need scarcely be said, is not a sacred
rite, but a solemn reality, in which we receive the body and
blood of Christ. Therein, and in nothing else, lies its value
to us. God's substantial pledge to us of salvation, a divine

FEDERATION AND COOPERATION. 905
act, must not suffer evaluation with our acquiescence and
consent. It is not, to us, a mere mark of fellowship between Chris
tians. It is, in truth, not a mark of fellowship at all, except
in its unity. The only fellowship it expresses is between
Christ and my soul, and not even that primarily. Primarily
the Sacrament is the gift to me of my Saviour's body and
blood for the forgiveness of my sin. It is the most sacred
mystery and most holy reality of my faith. It is of the
nature of miracle. It is the mystery of Sacrament. It is
the " holy of holies " in my religion and worship, and means
to me the eating unto life or the eating unto death.
My friends cannot claim to share all the most holy and
most solemn acts of my soul. Marriage is not so holy as a
sacrament, yet marriage separates me with another in its
mystery from all the world; and my friends do not take it
amiss if I fail to ask them to share in that holy communion.
My membership in an ancestral society, in a guild peculiar
to my vocation, in a discipline for the restoration of my
bodily health, separates me from all except such as I am, —
those who feel the need of what I need, those who wish to
receive what I wish to receive. Do others think hard of me
because I excuse myself from their fellowship, and go my
way toward what I know I need ?
If my convictions are with the historic democratic political
party, but my sons and brothers and all my relatives are
of the stalwart republican type, do they think any the less
of me because on election day I separate myself from them,
and vote in accordance with my convictions ? Is the matter
of family fellowship and manifestation to others that our
family is in a unity, regarded as of more import than the
exercise of my convictions at the polls ? Do I insult and fail
to show toleration and respect to the position of my relatives
because I go my own way to vote ?
Is the Lord's Supper the place to display my toleration, my
Christian sympathy, or my fellowship with another Chris
tian, when that is the very point in which most of all we

906 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
differ ; and in which the difference means for me everything —
means for me, the reception of my Saviour's atonement ? Is
this the point to be selected for the display of Christian
union, when in fact it is the very point in which Christian
union does not exist ?
If I will not take the sacrament myself without having
been absolved at the special service held for that purpose, in
the fear of being unworthy and held guilty of the body and
blood of the Lord, am I kind to my neighbor, and kind to
my Lord, in asking the former to come to the sacrament
without such worthiness as I feel to be necessary, for safety's
sake, in my own case? Am I willing to place him in the
way of risk which I am not willing and dare not assume
myself? Am I kind to him, and just to him, and to the
Lord, in asking him to a participation as thus offered ?
Our Saviour said nothing of the Sacrament as the mark
of union between Christians. He said it is the forgiveness
of my sins in His blood given for, and to us, and is the com
memoration of Himself. The Apostle Paul declares we are
one body in the communion, but — in the "communion of
the blood of Christ," and in the " communion of the body
of Christ." That is the communion which we Lutherans
celebrate in the sacrament; and will those who believe that
this is not the essence of the sacrament, desire to partake
of it with us? Or, shall we desire to partake of it with
them? If they should, they are giving up nothing except respect
for our convictions; and they are willing that we should be
placed in the position of seeming to give up all that is most
precious to us. If we should desire to participate with them
in their sacrament, we are willing — in order to celebrate the
mystery with them — to seem to be robbing it of the chief
significance with which, in our conviction, it has been in
vested by our Lord.
Let us show our belief in the character of our friend and
our participation in such brotherhood as can exist in Christ,

FEDERATION AND COOPERATION. 907
in a more practical way. Let us trust his word. Let us
praise his faith where we can. Let us demonstrate our
entire absence of jealousy of him. Let us not only tolerate
his church in our midst, but encourage him to worship in
accordance with his convictions. Let us convince him that
we believe he values his convictions; and that, though we
are not in unison with him in our principles, yet we do not
thereby set up ourselves as better Christians than he is. Let
us be humble in his presence and in the sphere of love show
him the respect and depth of an everlasting love. If we are
faithful to our unity with our Lord, and our brethren in
blood are faithful to their unity in the Lord, the Lord will
take care of the proper adjustment of our unity to each
other.
THE UNION RECOGNIZED BY THE CONFESSIONAL PRINCIPLE
OF THE BOOK OF CONCORD.
Our union is in the grace of God, which has chosen us in
Christ. It is in the blood of Christ, which has been shed
for us, and has delivered us from sin. It is in the Holy
Spirit, Who has entered our heart, through the Word of
Christ, and made us one.
It is in our faith, by which we apprehend, and rest in, the
merit of Christ. It is in the communion of Christ's body,
of which we have become a part. It is in the very body and
blood of Christ, which is given an entrance into each of us,
for the remission of sin and the renewal of life.
Our Union, the real union of Christ's Church with itself,
and of the various units with each other, is an inner one,
is mediated through Christ, and is not marked outwardly,
according to our Augsburg Confession, except by agreement
touching the doctrine of the Gospel. This doctrine of the
Gospel, which is the voice of Christ, should so influence every
member of His body, that they all speak the same thing, and
are perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the
same judgment.

908 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
This "speaking the same thing" is, the Church's Con
fession. It is the result of the Church's unity, and not the
cause of it. It is not the judge, or arbiter, or determinant
of the Church's unity, but only the witness, the explanation
and the proof of that union.
, In actual fact, whatever be the reason, it is found that
the Confession differs among Christians; and this brings
difference in outward organization. Difference of Confes
sion, which implies an acknowledgment of error somewhere,
is the one valid ground for difference in organization.
Our Lutheran difference in ¦ Conf ession, in contrast with
Rome, is that the unity of the Church is a unity in doctrine
and faith and in the sacraments, and not in any external
person or thing. Our Lutheran difference in Confession,
in contrast with the Protestantism around us, is that the
unity of the Church is a real invisible unity of the body with
the Head, through Word and Sacrament; and not a depend
ency of each individual unit mediated directly, nor an out
ward and voluntary banding together of units into organiza
tion under some indefinite influence of the Holy Spirit.
Our unity has been established from all eternity by God
the Father. It is rooted in Christ. It is mediated through
Word and Sacrament. It connects all ages of the world and
all true believers in every clime. It is not Lutheranism, nor
any such outward ism or body. We are sure that the
Lutheran faith is the perfect apprehension of that eternal
unity, and corresponds with its revelation in Scripture ; and
we know by our faith that the Lutheran Confession is its
most perfect expression.
If we Lutherans would witness to the Faith in its purity, —
and to this we are driven, if we are true believers, — we
must witness through the form of the Lutheran Confession.
The unimportant parts of the doctrine become important
in our witness, where they are attacked; because they, even
though unimportant, come to stand for the intrinsic value
and the integrity of the whole.

FEDERATION AND COOPERATION. 909
The expressions of the inner unity in visible form, other
than the truth or Confession, e. g., in name, in ecclesiastical
constitution and government, and in united action in the
name of Christ — though these seem vital to us at our short
range of vision — are of infinitely less importance than our
adherence to the real inner unity in the body of Christ, as
apprehended by a pure faith and as expressed by a pure
principle. For in these latter alone lie the salvation and hope of the
kingdom of God even upon earth. They are the realities.
They will determine the future. They will save the world.
The world will never be saved by " a union of human
effort." Our united outward actions, no matter how well
meant, or how well organized, or how imposing and demon
strative, or how accordant, are a vain thing, if they are not
rooted in the inner unity in Christ; and are pernicious, if
they are not in accord with our expressed consciousness of
that inner unity in the faith. That expressed consciousness
is our Confession.

CHAPTER XLI.
THE CONFESSIONAL PRINCIPLE OF THE BOOK
OF CONCORD AND THE BROTHERHOOD
OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH.
The Confessional Principle of the Book of Concord and Christian Love and Charity
— The Question of Tolerance — The Question of the Manifestation of the
Church's Essential Unity — The Question of the Majority in Religion — The
Question of a Visible Unity in Protestantism — The Attitude of Lutherans
Toward the Confessional Principle Revealed in their Attitude Toward Denomi
national Protestantism.
THE QUESTION OF CONSCIENCE, CONFESSIONAL PRINCIPLE,
AND CHARITY.
EVERY Church that has a conscience, like every man in
business life who has a conscience, will be obliged at
some point and at some time to take its stand on principle.
To remain firm in principle, and appear gracious and true in
love, is not easy, even where all the elements of Christian
love are really present. Where selfishness, partisanship and
other considerations abound, the situation becomes even more
difficult. Every Church Body that is honestly trying to be
firm in principle and gracious in love may expect to be
misrepresented by those in whose pathway its principle is an
unpleasant obstacle.
When deep conviction on the one side, and the lack of
it on another, is revealed between those who love, it is
possible, in the things of earth, to put the rock of offense out
of sight, and sod it over into a beautiful and inviting lawn.
910

TOLERANCE AND BROTHERHOOD. 911
But if such convictions concern fundamental facts of char
acter, or precious principles which God Himself has revealed
for man's salvation, if they concern the Person of our blessed
Lord, the communication of His strength in Word and
sacrament, the preservation of His Church from the bondage
of Pelagian or humanistic error, the evaluation of means
that He has given to us in the application of the sacrifice
which He has made, a difference in Confessional conviction
cannot be put out of sight. It is not a barrier artificially set
up, but a deep and narrow gulf which really divides.
The Christian world to-day no longer sets such lofty
value on principle. The great idea of the age is that
Christians should, as the world states it, "get together."
Every conviction that stands in the way of a cultivation, a
manifestation, or a realization of brotherhood between those
whose convictions would oblige them to differ, as Melanch
thon and Luther did from Zwingli and Bucer at Marburg,
can look to no other fate, no matter how wide its charity
and how honorably its love flow out toward its neighbor, than
to be regarded as narrow in outlook, sectarian in faith, big
oted in spirit, and intolerant in action.

THE QUESTION OF TOLERANCE.
There is no subject more difficult to treat confessionally
than that of tolerance. The earnestness of men in their
faith, according to the nature of the old Adam, varies in
versely with their willingness to endure men of another faith.
Conversely, the laxity of men in their religious convic
tions varies directly as their temperament to be broad of
vision, gracious in communication, and sympathetic in feel
ing toward those of another party. Hence a celebrated
English writer has told us that "The responsibility of toler
ance lies with those who have the wider vision;" and a
celebrated French writer, whose humanity may be estimated
at its maximum, and his spirituality at its minimum, has

912 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
declared that "Tolerance is the best religion;" while a clas
sic essayist in the sphere of social order has observed that
"Tolerance is the only real test of civilization."
Archbis'hop Whately, with some insight once remarked that
"Tolerance is rather a matter of temper than of principle,"
but he felt himself constrained to admit — an admission
which is the opposite of what is usually expected — that " As
far as principles are concerned, certainly the latitudinarian
is the more likely to be intolerant, and a sincerely conscien
tious nian tolerant." It requires the very highest degree of
Christian conviction, Christian sympathy, and Christian
tactfulness to be both firm and tolerant. Mere tolerance in
itself, as already has been intimated, is not a mark of religion
at all, but of civilization; Isidor van Cleff was not entirely
in the wrong when he pointed out that "Tolerance does not
mark the progress of a religion. It is the fatal sign of its
decline." Thomas Carlyle takes the same view, in touching
on this very point in his discussion of Martin Luther and
John Knox. He says: "We blame Knox for his intole
rance." " Well, surely, it is good that each of us be tolerant
as possible. Tolerance is to be noble, measured, just in its
very wrath, when it can tolerate no longer. But we are not
altogether here to tolerate! We are here to resist and van
quish withal. We do not ' tolerate ' iniquities when they
fasten on us ; we say to them, ' Thou art false.' We are here
to extinguish Falsehoods in some wise way ! I will not quar
rel so much with the way ; the doing of the thing is our great
concern. Order is Truth, — each thing standing on the basis
that belongs to it. Smooth Falsehood is not Order. Order
and Falsehood cannot subsist together." In speaking of
Luther before the Diet at Worms, Carlyle pictures him as
respectful, wise, honest, — submissive to whatsoever could
claim submission, "not submissive to any more than that."
"Great wars and contentions and disunion followed out
of this Reformation ; which last down to our day, and are yet
far from ended. Great crimination has been made about

TOLERANCE AND BROTHERHOOD. 913
these.- But after all, what has Luther or his cause to do
with that? Luther and his Protestantism is not responsible
for wars. Luther answered Falsehood with No! not count
ing the costs. Union, organization, far nobler than any
Popedom, is coming to the world ; but on Fact alone, not on
Semblance will it be able to come and to stand. With union
grounded on falsehood we will not have anything to do. A
brutal lethargy is peaceable, the noisome grave is peaceable.
We hope for a living peace, not a dead one !
"I will add now that the controversy did not get to fight
ing so long as Luther was living. How seldom do we find
a man who has stirred up some vast commotion, who does
not himself perish, swept away in it! Such is the usual
course of revolutionists. Luther held it peaceable, continued
firm at the centre of it. A man to do this must have the
gift to discern where the heart of the matter lies and to plant
himself on that as a strong true man. Luther's clear deep
force of judgment, of silence, of tolerance and moderation,
are very notable.
"Tolerance, I say; a very genuine kind of tolerance. A
complaint comes to him that such and such a Reformed
preacher 'will not preach without a cassock.' Well, answers
Luther, what harm will a cassock do the man ? 'Let him have
a cassock to preach in ; let him have three cassocks if he find
benefit in them !' His conduct in the matter of Karlstadt's
wild image-breaking; of the Anabaptists; of the Peasants'
War, shows a noble strength, very different from spasmodic
violence. With sure prompt insight he discriminates what
is what : a strong just man, he speaks forth what is the wise
course, and all men follow him in that."
For humanity Luther had tolerance, but not for men of
impure motives. For heretics he had tolerance, but not for
politicians. For the Emperor Charles V., who was arrayed
against him, he had tolerance, but not for "the wolves with
whom he was surrounded." Luther had no tolerance for
dishonesty or corruption. For men who were willing to con-

914 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
ceal, or abate from their principles in order to unity, he had
nothing but contempt.
He did not see the importance or necessity of union or
federation in the forces of the Kingdom of God. The strat
egic marshaling of the earthly forces of the Church were of
no account to him. The power with which he shook the
world was not union, but Confession ; while the lack of power
in which Melanchthon failed to impress the world was not
Confession, but the attempt at union. When he believed in
the integrity of the Pope, of Zwingli, of Bucer, of Melanch
thon, Luther was patient and tolerant ; but when his eye was
opened to the corruption of the Papacy, his outbursts of
indignation were tremendous. Luther, by his outspoken
sincerity, has gained the reputation for intolerance, while
the Pope who was more intolerant of Luther than Luther was
of him, is able to pose in history in the attitude of cultured
tolerance.
The Question of the Brotherhood of the Chris
tian Church and the Manifestation of its Essential
Unity. The judgment as to the Christian Church is almost univer
sal, that it is her duty to be more than tolerant toward ecclesi
astical organizations whose doctrine she may not approve.
The great duty of the Christian Church, in the eyes of the
world, is to express the Essential Unity in which all its
separate organizations must, in their view, be grounded,
and to emphasize the Brotherhood which they constitute.
From our point of view, this identification of the visible
ecclesiastical organizations now claiming to be the visible
Church of Christ on earth, or parts thereof, is neither neces
sary, possible, nor desirable.
It is not the organization, but the principle, which ex
presses the unity. To insist on the visibility of the unity,
and to emphasize the visible unity of Christianity as the
goal of Christian endeavor, is to fall once again into the

TOLERANCE AND BROTHERHOOD. 915
ancient and destructive error of Rome. The Kingdom of
God cometh not with observation. The visualization of the
Church means its externalization. To emphasize the idea
of the visible Church, and the importance of its earthly
union, is one of the colossal short-sighted mistakes of this
age. The only unity of the Church that is vital is the unity
of the Faith, and the oneness of the objects of that Faith.
We do not establish this unity. It is already, and has
ever existed. It does not depend upon the coming together of
the visible denominations on earth that call themselves the
Church of Christ. The way in which the visible Churches
are to realize and represent the invisible and original spir
itual unity is for each of them to approximate and reproduce
it in completeness. To approximate other visible Churches,
which are themselves inferior to the original, and only imper
fect images of it, is a great mistake.
This mistake is productive of three evil results. First,
we get on earth a composite picture or imitation of the orig
inal (in which extent and quantity count for more than
quality) instead of a vital reproduction of the original unity.
Second, we lay undue emphasis, in line with the Roman
Church, on the visibility of the Kingdom of God, at the
expense of the inner conviction of the individual conscience,
and of the absolute supremacy, in the Kingdom of God, of
Testimony to the Truth, by the Scriptural activity of Con
fession of Faith. This was the exact force of the point of
our Saviour against Pontius Pilate, when Pilate, with the
visible grandeur of imperial Rome back of him, scoffed at the
supremacy of purely spiritual power, manifest through Testi
mony, and exclaimed, " What is Truth ? " Jesus had told
him, "My Kingdom is not of this world: if my Kingdom
were of this world, then would my servants fight." Pilate
asked Him, "Are you really King ?" Jesus answered, "Thou
sayest that I am a King. To this end was I born, and for
this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness
unto the Truth. Every one that is of the Truth, heareth my

916 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
voice." The Kingship of Christ, and the Kingdom of God,
according to these words, are not of the order of earthly or
ganization, but are a Kingship and a Kingdom of Truth,
which is established simply and solely by the power of
" Witness," or " Confession."
The third mistake in the attempt to represent the Kingdom
of God by drawing the Churches together into an earthly
brotherhood is, that, in so far as the undertaking proves to
be a success, it will also prove to be the setting up of an
ecclesiastical rule by a majority, as the major centripetal
force ; and will thus, for the sake of an aggregate of earthly
power residing in a majority, override the supremacy of the
Confessional force of the Truth as it resides in the real but
small group of consciences that believe and confess alike ; and
will therefore be in danger of sacrificing the Truth and our
apprehension of it, the Faith, which is the power of the
Church, for the sake of a visible demonstration of a unity
which does not exist in conscience and in the Confessional
principle of the Truth.
THE QUESTION OF MAJORITY IN RELIGION.
Thus we come to a new Romanism in the Protestant
World, in which decisions in the sphere of faith, instead
of being made by those in spiritual unity, will,- for the sake
of the additional power which the weight of numbers confers,
and of a combined action in external unity, be determined by
the new American religious papacy, whose name is The Ma
jority. Questions of Truth, Right, Faith, and spiritual action
in the Church of Christ cannot be settled by the external
and legal method of vote, but must be determined by the
vital and voluntary method of Confession.
THE DREAM OF A VISIBLE CHURCH.
The fundamental unity of the whole Christ in Christianity
will not be exhibited in visible organic form. The Greek

TOLERANCE AND BROTHERHOOD. 917
and the Roman establishments will not exhibit it except on
terms to which the Protestant cannot in conscience accede;
and if all Protestants in the world were to combine into
organic fraternity, they could exhibit the fundamental unity
of Christianity only as a part, and not as a whole. If we ex
clude the ecclesiastical frame of authority from this at
tempted unity, we still find the rationalistic frame among us
as Protestants. If we exclude the rationalistic frame of au
thority, Lutheranism is still confronted with fundamental di
vergencies in Protestantism, — as to the great principles of the
Word and Sacraments, as to the Person of Christ, as to justi
fication by faith alone and not by works (Synergism, Salva
tion by Law) , as to the nature of the Church, as to the separa
tion of civil affairs from the things of God, — on which we
cannot unite, and as to which we cannot — without the most
thorough understanding and respect for each minor part —
work in common, without being bound in conscience.
The stand thus taken by Confessional Lutheranism is a
stand for conscience. It is not a stand for legal Confession
alism, but a stand for the gospel Confession.
THE QUESTION OF A VISIBLE UNITY OF PROTESTANTISM.
The Saviour nowhere emphasizes the fundamental unity
of Protestant Christianity. He points to an ultimate unity,
and he prays that it may be realized: "That they may all
be one;" but He does not justify its manifestation where it
does not exist.
And He does not say "That they may all be one." He says,
"That they may all be one ; as thou, Father, art in me, and
I in thee, that they also may be one in us." He emphasizes
the absolute unity. The point is not a mere relative or
approximate unity, an occasional interchange of courtesy,
but an inner union of substance and nature. He takes fur
ther pains to show what kind of oneness He refers to. He
prays, "that they may be made perfect in one." And He

918 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
shows us the only source of that oneness. " Sanctify them
through thy truth. Thy word is truth. Neither pray I for
these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me
through thy word."
The source of this unity is the Word. Its character is a
unity of faith on the basis of the Word. It is not a unity
based on "the amenities of religious people toward each
other." It is not a unity which says, " It is of no concern
what you believe, we all are one ;" but it is a unity that says,
"We are all one, for we all have the one faith, the one bap
tism, the one God and Father of all." All true believers do
have one Faith. But are all faiths one ?
It is not true that all Christians are one; but it is true
that there is a true unity in the Faith. For this, it is our
duty to make every sacrifice. You say, " Let us forget our
differences, and be neighborly." We say, " Let us resolve
our differences, and be one." The denominations cannot
" all be one," unless they give up that which they have no
intention of giving up. It is impossible for parts of the
visible church to reproduce the inner and essential unity
of the invisible Church, and still intend to continue a di
vided denominational life. If a man and a woman claim
they are in unity with each other, it is not for them to
be satisfied "with an occasional interchange of courtesies,"
or with semi-annual meals of friendship in social union;
but one of them must make up her mind to give up her
name, and both must give up all else and realize their life
in a common home.
The unity that Christ asks is not a unity of occasional
courtesy, or merely a unity of name, or a unity of diplomatic
poise of separate forces ; but He wants a unity of conviction,
a unity of teaching, a unity of principle, a unity of doctrine.
We are to be one in the faith.
An occasional interchange of courtesies, a sending of one
man into the pulpit of another denomination to preach one
sermon, who comes back unchanged and CDntinues to preach

TOLERANCE AND BROTHERHOOD. 919
as he did before in his own pulpit, an authorization of a
member in one denomination to commune occasionally in a
denomination of different faith, not only fails to show the
inner unity which Christ "desires; but deceives the people
as to the nature of the unity that Christ desires. That is
the kind* of union which rests on nothing; is responsible
for nothing; and accomplishes nothing; but simply makes
people " feel good ! " They delude themselves in a unity that
has ignored, not cleansed, its falsehoods; that has forgotten,
not resolved, its differences.
Their union has no intention of becoming even a thorough
going external union ; much less does it touch the inner hurt.
It says : " The bones are broken : it is too painful to set them :
let us bind and mollify the skin, that the world may behold
that we are one."
We say, The Christian Church is the one important organ
ism in the world. Its bones are its. principles, its doctrines,
its truth. With the advent of the New Theology into Amer
ican Christianity, the broken bones are numerous. They
include the following principles : the Scriptures, the Word of
God, the Trinity, Original Sin, the Person of Christ, the
Offices of Christ, the Work and Merits of Christ, Justifi
cation, Sanctification, the Means of Grace, the Sacraments,
Judgment and Eternal Life.
With these broken principles, American Protestantism is
a very weak man, as a Christian unity, and the device, Alli
ance, Association, Federation is an elastic silk band, tied
with a beautiful white ribbon, to hold the members in unity,
" that they may all be one."
To set the bones right, at any cost, to prevent a false union,
to break up every pseudo process,, to keep up the pain until
the original' lines of juncture are recovered, to be satisfied
with nothing temporary, is it not harshness and narrow-
mindedness on the physician's part ? But is he not right ? Is
he a " mere bigot " because, in lack of sweet and proper
comity, he refuses to postpone the pain of a proper operation,

920 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
appreciates the importance of doing things right, and will
not sew up the skin neatly and say, " Your bones are one."
Is the invisible Church of Christ less important than the
human body ? Can its broken bones be united by occasional
bands of interdenominational courtesy? May the Children
of the Lord say: Let us forget the broken bones, and bring
the body together? Is it scientific or practical to attempt
to unite a broken Christendom, except by starting at the
original lines of fracture? Is not all sincere Christendom
foolish to suppose that the breaks are merely a matter of
temperamental feeling in the patient, and that the unity can
be knit together by applying an occasional bandage, but leav
ing the bones still fractured? The unity for which the
Saviour prayed was not one of name or feeling or work, but
one of nature and principle : "as We are One."
It is not a divided Christendom, but a partisan Christian
ity, which is the disgrace of the Christian religion. It is not
staunchness in type of Faith, but selfishness in an aggressive
competition, that undermines the cause of Christ in both
home and foreign fields. It is not those who are satisfied
with their Faith, and labor and live purely and peaceably
under its conviction, who are the mischief-makers of Christ-
endom. To reunite Christendom with divided Faiths is to
empty the union of everything but its name. To reunite
Christendom by sacrificing Faith is to sacrifice what is most
precious in Christendom. To reunite Christendom by unit
ing or growing into one Faith, and heartily confessing the
same, is a consummation devoutly to be wished. It is the
only kind of union the Saviour prayed for: "That ye may
all be one, as the Father and I are one." This is a unity from
conviction, and one which will never be manufactured in con
vention by compromise, concession, and diplomatic arrange
ment. We teach in glaring contrast with many of the American
denominations about us, that the one important and supreme
thing in a church is the saving Faith. We believe that the

TOLERANCE AND BROTHERHOOD. 931
true and ultimate church is the church of the pure Faith.
"No particular church has, on its own showing, a right to
existence, except as it believes itself to be the most perfect
form of Christianity, the form which of right should and
will be universal. That communion which does not believe
in the certainty of the ultimate acceptance of its principles
in the whole world has not the heart of a true church. That
which claims to be Catholic de facto claims to be universal
de jure."*
THE ATTITUDE OF LUTHERANS TOWARD DENOMINATIONAL
PROTESTANTISM.
The different values placed upon the Confessional principle
in the Lutheran Church of America come to light most
clearly in connection with her varied attitude toward other
Protestants, and particularly toward other Evangelical bodies.
These relations, especially in later days, are looked to in
view of a possibility of the future solution of the divisions
of Protestantism; and the solution proposed has been of
three possible kinds, first, alliance leading to amalgamation;
second, federation leading to centralization; third, co-oper
ation with an emphatic recognition of Confessional differ
ences, and with a frank recognition and acceptance on each
side of the limits of co-operation. These solutions have al
ready been treated.
The first two classes of relationship, viz., amalgamation
and federation, proceed upon the assumption that essential
unity already exists in the Protestant Faith, — and that an
essential oneness underlies all the Protestant denominations.
It is assumed, that there is little difference in fundamentals
between those who hold different denominational tenets, and
that the distinctive tenets to be preserved are denominational
peculiarities. In any event whether the denominational in
dividuality is, or is not, worth saving, there is at least a

1 C. P. Krauth.

922 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
common Protestant foundation beneath all the Evangelical
denominations. The great motto for those whose faith rests on this basis
is, in necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas.
The first clause of this saying is sound, and its last clause is
equally commendable. But a great fallacy lies concealed in
its middle clause. To confine liberty to merely doubtful
things is giving it a very narrow berth indeed. There must
be liberty, and deep conviction arrived at and held in Scrip
tural liberty, in necessary things. This is absolutely essential
for the existence and for the maintenance of the truth. And
there must also be liberty in the exercise of charity, that is,
it must spring from the free will and intent of the heart.
But as the motto is generally used, the central clause be
comes a catch-all into which to consign all principles and
doctrines that are likely to give trouble. This becomes the
significant feature of the whole motto and is promotive of
doctrinal indifferentism. It is not true that our faith is di
vided into necessary things and doubtful things. It may be
divided into necessary things and unnecessary things, or
adiaphora. But a man may hold doubts on every one of the
most important of all the articles of faith. The second clause
of this motto will undermine the first. There should be con
viction on all points on which it is possible to reach it ; and
faith, in liberty, should stretch its wing over other points.
The last clause is admirable. As Dr. Schaff says, " Honest
and earnest controversy promotes true and lasting union.
Polemics looks to irenics — the aim of war is peace."

CHAPTER XLII.
THE CONFESSIONAL PRINCIPLE OF THE BOOK
OF CONCORD AND THE FUTURE OF THE
CHURCH IN AMERICA.
The Field of the Confessional Principle in America — It is to leaven all Re
lations — The three separated spheres of Faith, Love, and Law, and the three
separate institutions of Church, Home and State, not properly Distinguished by
Radical and Reformed Protestantism — The Lutheran Solution of Religious
Problems in America — Reformed Results — Lutheran Results — The Confessional
Principle not a Hindrance to the Future Church — Will Broaden the Church —
Recapitulation of the Argument of this book — Conclusion.
HERE in America the Confessional Principle of the
Book of Concord will find a free field for baptizing
and teaching the nations, for its own implantation, and for
the guidance and control of the whole Christian life. In this
land the State has as yet laid no hand on the Church or on
the Home, except that there is a growing tendency on its
part to the assumption of the right of an exclusive hold on
all public higher and lower education.
And the door is open to the Church to enter with its full
strength and in its own way to prosecute the work of the king
dom of God. Our Confessional principle can labor for right
eousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost, without let or
hindrance. The power of the Confessional principle must
and should penetrate and leaven all relations, spiritual, so
cial, ecclesiastical, civil, national, municipal, educational,
commercial, and physical. The principle of Christianity, with
923

924 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
its laws of family, personal, and brotherly relations, includes
in its scope the whole of human life, and our Confession fully
realizes this fact.
Christ is a universal principle, and nothing in the spirit
ual or social order can escape accountability to Him. Our
Christianity provides a life complete in all its aspects and
relations. It is itself the life that is most full and whole.
To live it here on earth is life eternal. The Sermon on the
Mount, which deals no less with the social than with the more
spiritual and religious relations of men in the Church of
God, shows us that the Church has universal obligations, and
has to do with the ideals, the hopes, and the laws of hu
man society, in so far as these present-themselves in personal
and spiritual form.
Christ has set up not merely a spiritual, but a social claim
tipon the individual, as a member in particular of His Body,
and it is a necessary part of the Christian's life to see that
Christian standards are upheld and are extended, in their
true application to economic, industrial, and political forms,
whether in neighborhoods, states or in nations.
For Christians, from the pastor, as primus inter pares,
down to the humblest member, to hold themselves aloof from
the actual and real life of men and nations, and, for fear of
committing or entangling themselves, not to engage in the
political, social, industrial or economic problems of the day,
is a sectarian, and not a Lutheran principle, as not only the
sixteenth article of the Augsburg Confession proves, but also
the twelfth chapter of the Formula of Concord.
If we believe that all true progress along spiritual and
moral lines in modern civilization is the result of Christian
ideals worked out into practice, the Christian conscience
needs to be as active to-day against great sins and moral in
fection, and the word and act of the Christian need to be as
strong and decided in behalf of the law of God, as they ever
were in the heroic ages of the past. The Church, too, as the
body of Christ, needs to keep herself clear from the apparent

THE FUTURE. 925
or passive acceptance of a controlling order of society, which,
while it may be willing to minister to ecclesiastical comfort,
in its own pathway does violence to the laws and the purpose
of the kingdom of our God.
The distinction so plausibly made in the ethical life of
many Christians, between religion and business, between pol
itics and Christianity, between society and the Church, has
no foundation in the Lutheran Confession. To the Lu
theran there is no such possibility as the separation between
the spiritual, moral and confessional principles of the Church
on the one side, and the principles of earthly life on the
other. There is no deed or aspiration of our life as Chris
tians, whether private or public, into which the full content
of our Christian Confession does not enter as the determin
ative factor. Our institutional, social, corporate, or other
organized power in this world, our influence on society, the
application of our activities to the affairs of the day, are to
be determined solely by our ultimate spiritual, that is our
confessional principle. We are to work and to work to
gether in the real and actual things of life, under the Confes
sion which we maintain as members of the Church of Christ.
Yet this is not to say that the Church is to be organized
into a solid body for moral interests or for the ex
ecution of such higher social, political, philanthropic,
or economic theory as would seem to be a great im
provement on existing institutions. The Church is not
here to work out, in a corporate or organized capacity, the
great political, industrial, social, and moral problems that
face men and society at every turn. It is surprising that the
advanced religious thinkers of this age, conscious in other
lines of the necessity of a strict application of the modern
doctrine of differentiation of function to the forms of a com
plex civilization, do not see the importance of its application
in the religious sphere. It is amazing to note how passively
they permit the functions of the State and the Home in the
warfare for righteousness, to decline to a rudimentary stage,
63

926 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
and how actively they throw all the duties of public life,
reform and training upon the Church.1
To make use of the social and corporate power of the
Church as a public lever to apply to the reform of abuses, and
the uplifting of social institutions, leads straight to Rome.
The visible unity of God's people on earth, maintained and
applied politically and diplomatically, and in an organized
and corporate way, for the uplifting of society, the attempt
to assemble the whole Family of God as a visible and organ
ized community, into one movement, cannot but shatter many
principles, among which are liberty of conscience, the essen
tial spirituality of religious faith, and the invisible and
eternal order of the kingdom of God. There is a way in
which the Confessional Principle of Lutheranism is funda
mentally contributory to the upbuilding of the social and
moral life of the nation, but it is not a way humanly planned
and devised; it is the old, the substantial, the solid way
pointed out by the Word of God itself.
The great confusion in American religious life and effort,
under the control of Reformed Protestant ideas, in which the
Lutheran Confessional principle seems decidedly out of joint
with the times, has been the failure to distinguish clearly
between the spheres of the three divine institutions, the
Church, the Home and the State, and their intrinsic activi
ties. Hence the degeneracy of the Home and the corruption of
the State in this age roll in upon the Church, and, under the
Reformed principle, demand to be lifted away mechanically
and immediately, instead of being resolved spiritually and
gradually under the transforming and upbuilding power of
the Law and the Gospel in the conscience and the heart in
accord with God's unfailing processes of vital growth. Re-

1 The explanation of this situation is to be found in the disproportionate
estimate of the value of the things of our earthly life here and now, in com
parison with the things of eternal life. The life of God seems to be
almost absorbed and fulfilled in the religion of the day in the life toward
our neighbor.

THE FUTURE. 927
form by overthrow, the radical principle, can organize for
destructive triumph, but vital unity is required for the nat
ural growth of constructive and permanent triumph.
The Lutheran Confession has a solution for our American
social problems, and a sphere for the constructive activities
of the Christian spirit. This solution, which is not of the
order of a galvanic spasm induced to regulate or restore vir
tue falling into ruins in the land, is as deep and thorough
going, as conservative and real as its own nature. It is not
dependent upon great conventions and grand effects repre
senting — nominally — so many millions of people, but it can
be begun wherever two or three persons are gathered to
gether as a congregation in the name of Jesus, who, instead
of sending on a delegation to influence the Senate and Repre
sentatives at Washington, set themselves humbly at work to
transform their own patch of wilderness, until it shall bloom
and blossom as the rose.
The very first step in this work under the Confessional
Principle is a clear and abiding distinction between the three
great divine institutions, the Home, the State, and the
Church. This involves also the distinction between the ob
jects, the powers and the methods of each institution.
The work, of the Church is in the sphere of faith ; the
work of the Home is in the sphere of love; the work of the
State is in the sphere of law.
The object of the Church is the upbuilding of the spirit;
the object of the Home is the upbuilding of the man in him
self and in his relation to society; and the object of the State
is the upholding of liberty, equity, stability of organic and
individual equilibrium, protection of property and life, pub
lic justice. The real power in the Church is Spiritual Re
generation ; the power in the Home and Society is intelligent
conjoint development in Love; the power of the State is in
telligent preventive, education, and incitation by Law. Ex
cept as a matter of public justice or public order, the State
as such possesses neither the power nor the right to advance

928 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
personal righteousness, nor to fix the ethical goal of person
ality. The mode of the Church is Spiritual; the mode of the
Home is Social and Civil ; the mode of the State is Civil and
Political. The principle of the Church is Confessional, by witness
to the truth; the principle of the Home is Constructive, by
deeds issuing into character and into social result; the
principle of the State is Regulative, by equitable and in
flexible adjustment of physical, social, and political condi
tions. In the Church, the distinctive emphasis is on faith, with
love and action included. In the Home, the distinctive em
phasis is on love, with faith and reliable action included.
In the State — as civil or as Society — the distinctive emphasis
is on reliable action with faith and love included. In the
State — as political — the distinctive emphasis is on Law, with
faith in the natural form of dependence on the invisible
source of Truth and Righteousness, and Love in the social
form of equal rights for the weakest and the strong.
The State has no right to compel us to love, and the Church
has no right to compel us to act. The Home, in its wider
sense, as the center of our personal and unorganized life, as
the place from which radiate forth our work, our recreation,
and our social contacts, has the right to train and to urge us
both as to the inner love and the outer act. In the Home
center all educational, all intellectual, and reading agencies.
Above it hover all personal and social ideals. It receives
strength and inspiration from the Church, it gives strength
and quality, quality moral and physical, to the State. The
work of the Home or Family cannot be done successfully
by either the Church or the State. An institutional Church
is a poor substitute, in its offer of work, of recreation and
rest, of social relationships, for the Home. A socialized
State, with its offer of concern for the maintenance and the
welfare of the individual, will never beeome a practical sub-

THE FUTURE. 929
stitute for the Home. The most difficult work of the Church
in our stage of civilization is not co-operation or control in the
State; neither is it the finding of devices or the offering of
itself as a substitute for the weaknesses of the Home; but it
is the planting and protection of the Christian Home as over
against the encroachments of sin, society, civilization, com
mercial and corporate life, and against false socialistic ideas
of Church and State.
The inner mission work is an emergency, and is always
most necessary; but it is not to be compared in importance
and power with the regularly ordained work of the Church.
A home is worth more than a settlement, more than
an orphan asylum, more than a hospital. The hope of our
country lies in the maintenance of its homes, and a great
hope for our Church is to be found in the fact that its
membership values the Home as a spiritual and a divine
institution. The breakup of the Home under the influ
ence of modern commercialism, and the influx of a lighter
and more mobile civilization, is a symptom of social disin
tegration not less serious in its way than extreme lawlessness
cropping out in large centers of population are symptoms of
political anarchy.
The work of the Church is the work of testimony. It is
not mere words. It is the faithful application of the Law and
the Gospel to the soul and the conscience. Its work is spirit
ual, and therefore all the more powerful. It deals not in
ideas, or in plans, but in the destroying and saving Truth of
God. Witness is the greatest of realities, and therefore the
greatest of powers. It knows no distinctions of earthly posi
tion. It may involve but does not seek martyrdom. It is
objective, and fearlessly separates the false from the true. It
is the light shining into the darkness. It condemns corrup
tion by its word; and, in its own sphere, which is the con
gregation, by its deed, by discipline. Yet it condemns not
for the sake of the Law, or of meting out deserts and justice,
59

930 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
but for the sake of the Gospel. And this fact, that the Church
does not bear the sword, but only the truth in love, holds in
it a problem not yet fully solved by any ecclesiastical polity
on earth.
The Confessional Principle of the Book of Concord has
many lessons to teach the religious life of America, and
its Church should begin, in this teaching, in accordance with
its own spirit, with itself, and in its own congregations.
The first of these truths is that the Church can save the
world best by attempting to be what it is in its own nature,
rather than by allowing its own sphere and power to degen
erate, and by reaching out for power and for work into
spheres set by God for other agencies. The Church should put
the Home and the State upon their feet by filling the hearts
of faith with the wisdom and invincible power of God, but
should not encroach upon the sphere of Home and the State
by reaching in and assuming under its own name, either the
work or the methods of either.
The Church is the voice of God in Christ, and not the
voice of Society or Law. Its appeal is to the greatest of all
fountains of strength, the conscience and the heart; but it
should not rob the manhood and automatize the citizenship of
its members by directing the act.
The Church deals in principles and not in measures, and
however threateningly the floodtide of iniquity rolls up, it
should abide by the use of its own spiritual means, which,
if less spectacular, are more powerful in the final result, and
do not vitiate and debase the inner fibre of the Church or
State. The new covenant is not a theocracy. Apparent great
ness of need, or seeming certainty of success, should not
tempt the Church to the use of methods foreign to her
nature. If the Church would keep the world from the adoption of
the pernicious principle that success is the best justification
of any project, it should not itself act on the principle that
the end justifies the means.

THE FUTURE. 931
The Protestant Church in America under the Reformed
Principle is a spectacle. Instead of meeting the corrupt
politician and dealing with him singly on its own ground
the Churches institute a union Reform movement and organ
ize a campaign to meet him on his own ground. Instead of
aPPlying tne I^aw of God, which is the invincible truth, in the
fearless power of faith, in its own congregation where it has
rights, it goes out to apply the Law of the State at the ballot
box and in the Court where it has no right.
The Church, instead of faithfully applying the Word and
Sacrament as Christ commanded, periodically confesses itself
a failure in training the youth and the life of the land, and
puts itself under the direction of lay evangelists experienced
in business methods of reaching the soul; and gives itself
over to the laymen's church, where worship, education, and
recreation, are combined into a unity, and where the soul will
be saved by the salvation of the mind and the body !
The Church, instead of establishing the Home in the power
of its own strength and life with the daily presence there of
the Word of God, acquiesces without continued witness
against the destruction of the Home by the modern corpora
tion in business, and while the ministry goes on marrying men
and women, not as pastors, but as officials recognized by the
State, the Church cries out to the State to save the institu
tions of Matrimony and the Home by the passage of more
stringent laws of divorce!
The Church, without teaching the Home that the primary
duty of Education lies with it, and the secondary but equally
justified rights of Education lie with Church and State,
passively gives over all primary Education to the State,
fails to teach the Home as to its rights and duties, and,
.falling behind the secular pedagogues in a realization that
Education is a slow process of gradual and toilsome growth,
commits its serious responsibilities of teaching to an un
trained lay institution, which, to succeed, must be largely
social rather than spiritual, must reduce instruction in the

932 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
Word of God to a minimum, and ignore instruction in the
Catechism, that is the training of the child of God into the
habitude of a truly spiritual life in the Law and the Gospel.
What a field for the exercise of the Confessional Principle
of the Lutheran Church! That Faith, not works; spirit,
not laws; testimony, not ideas, is the victory that over-
cometh the world. That Faith grows by the Word of God,
Law and Gospel, visible and audible ; that the sphere of the
Church is the sphere of Faith, which sacrifices even
life for the Truth. That Faith goes out and builds
Homes where love sacrifices business interests to the
growth of Faith and Love into character and deed.
That Faith and Love go out into the civil and political
relations of life and purify and uplift every part of the
world and society by the personal relations they enter into in
business, society and politics, and by the abstract relations
they enter into and undertake in corporate, representative,
elective, executive, legislative and judicial functions, in
which the truth and righteousness of the testimony in the
sphere of faith, the kindliness in the sphere of love, and
the energy and effectiveness in the sphere of action, combine
to the complete and ultimate unification of life in Christ.
What congregations, what homes, what institutions, what
business principles, what a quality of men, what citizens,
what schools, what children, what liberty, what virtue, what
independence, what justice, what charity, what a patriotism
the Confessional Principle of the Book of Concord will build,
by faith alone, without compromise, and the unity of those
in this Principle will not be federate, but final : " One, as
the Father and the Son are One."
THE CONFESSIONAL PRINCIPLE A STRENGTH TO THE CHURCH. *
Bodies weak in backbone and lacking in native strength,
feel the need of support, and throw out their arms toward
stronger entities. Bodies strong in their own nature will
not need alliance without. The Church true to the Confes-

THE FUTURE. 933
sional Principle of the Book of Concord, will be strong in
her own kind of spiritual life. The reality of eternal life
is growing within her. She will not need to ask or seek
power from without. It will not be a help to her to unite
in fellowship with others "who insist on partaking of the
same dish with us, and yet always put in the seasoning to
suit themselves." *
Our Church possesses the most positive and distinct of
Protestant Faiths. She is not made up of a common Christi
anity with a number of doctrinal peculiarities added on, but
is woven of one fiber and without seam from centre to cir
cumference. Her life is sharply limited by her Confession. She stands
in clear antagonism toward those who make Church govern
ment the mark of a pure Church, as well as toward those who
are indifferent to quality of Faith except on some such point
of method as " immersion " or " conversion." She is not
an Anglican Church, or a New England Church, or a Ger
man Church, or a Church organized by some pious man,
but she is a Scriptural Church of an unalterable Confession.
Forms, ceremonies, governments, racial heredity and denomi
national name count for little. Our Faith counts for every
thing. Our Confessions are not a dead letter, or antiquated
in parts, but they are operative in all points, and are charg
ing and holding up our modern and latest life. We have no
intention of setting them aside. The intellect and the piety
of our church accept them. Among these, there is no longing
for a revision. They are not a mill-stone about our necks,
but a banner above our heads/ The colors of the Lutheran
Faith will not be struck until the last man is down.
There will be no compromise or yielding up of Faith, to
furnish a working basis for union. Yet we trust that on
every point and in every attitude which does not involve
such a compromise of Faith, our Church will learn to show
a breadth of vision, a patience under provocation and a

*Cp. M. H. Richards.

934 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
charity in demeanor which will be worthy of Christianity
and of the Church herself. For she is not a narrow church.
A great non-Lutheran scholar bears the following testimony
to this fact : " I am not able to locate the Lutheran Church
among any of the one-sided developments of the religious life ;
because she combines all the elements which are presented
elsewhere in isolation and antagonism; they are united in
her." THE LUTHERAN CHURCH A BROAD CHURCH.
The Confessional Church is a broad Church, not a narrow
Church. She does not suggest the necessity of anything but
the real essence, as the basis of unity. The agreement which
is needed is agreement in the Word and the Sacrament. Out
ward matters, such as government, ecclesiastical constitution,
hereditary history, different ceremonies and customs in the
Church, differences of language, thought, taste, ritual, or
anything external or incidental whatever, are not a suffi
cient basis for separation. She is ready to sacrifice all ex
cept that which her Lord teaches and commands her, the
sacrifice of which would be unfaithfulness to Him. This
is a broad basis. It throws all prejudices, customs, circum-
stantialities, and all earthly ecclesiastical things whatso
ever overboard, and leaves only the difference, where there
is a difference, of conscience. It acknowledges true faith
wherever found, and though it be outside her own communion.
The Lutheran Confession is not a live dog, who snaps
and snarls and interferes in the pathway of his master, to be
called off, cursed, condemned or apologized for, when he leaps
on the benevolent and progressive Ahab whom we have in
vited to walk in our garden ; nor a dead lion, whose glory is
of a bygone age, whose usefulness is chiefly in his carcass,
whither honey has been brought by golden- winged insects
from lovelier zones of life and sweetness; and whose bones
should be mounted and placed in an historical museum at the
disposal of the student of comparative religious archaeology.

THE FUTURE. 935
But our Confession is the Word of God beating in the heart
of those who have lived and died for. the Truth.
If the Church of the living God is to stand on principles
of pure gold and not on toes of iron and clay, as sincere and
clear as the Word of her Lord, and as true and free from
compromise, as was He, in all her words and deeds; if it
was not justifiable for her to bend toward Judaism or toward
Gnosticism in the first century ; nor to reconcile Arianism and
Athanasianism into Semi- Arianism in the Fourth Century ;
nor to lean to Nestorianism or Eutychianism in the Fifth
Century; nor to unite Pelagianism and Augustinianism on
the platform of Semi-Pelagianism in the Fifth Century ; nor
to mingle Romanism and Lutheranism in the Augsburg Con
fession of the Sixteenth Century; nor to combine Predesti-
narianism and Arminianism in the Seventeenth Century ; nor
to commingle Rationalism and Pietism in the Eighteenth
Century; nor possible to assimilate a live Confessionalism
with a fervid Emotionalism in the Nineteenth Century, it
also is never possible to coalesce the truth as it is in Christ
Jesus with the humanism of Zwingli, or the mediaeval spir
itualism of Calvin.
If Melanchthon was right in compromise," Lutheranism
should compromise to-day for unity's sake, and give up her

B Melanchthon's mind was in motion, but was brought to steady anchor for
a time, at the fateful moment of the Church's Confessional birth. " It was
a matter of divine Providence holding control over our Confession, that it
was made at a time in which Melanchthon was just as far from the deter
ministic thoughts of the beginning of his career, as he was from the syner
gistic ideas of his later years." — Die Augsburgische Konfession in ihrer
Bedeutung fur das kirchliche Leben der Gegenwart, p. 14.
Of the action of Providence in all our Confessions, Mueller says, "We
do not hesitate to express the conviction that divine Providence has been
active in the composition of the Confessions, so that they have come into
being, with prayer to God Almighty to his honor and praise, through the
especial grace of the Holy Spirit (Book of Concord, p. 9) (Compare Walch's
Introduction to the religious Controversies in the Lutheran Church, Part II,
p. 141ff.)" Mueller's Introduction, p. 27-28.
That Melanchthon was not the representative of an ideal Lutheranism is
proven by his words to Campeggius :
" We hold no doctrine different from the Roman Church. . For no
other reason do we bear much odium in Germany than because we with the
greatest constancy defend the doctrines of the Roman Church. Such fidelity
to Christ and to the Roman Church we will, please God, show to the last
breath." — C. R. II. 168 sq.

936 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
being for a common synergistic Protestantism; but if Me
lanchthon was wrong in compromise, Lutheranism should to
day embrace the Lutheranism that is real and hearty, that
accepts not only the foundation but the roof-tree of her con
fessional structure. She should clothe herself in her own
garments, not put together in theological patchwork, but
woven throughout without seam.

THE CONCLUSION.
The reader has come with us a long way. Beginning with
the New Testament, we have traced the Confessional Princi
ple of Christianity through the winding course of history.
Beginning with the Reformation, we have traced the Confes
sional Principle of the Conservative Evangelical Faith from
its first fountain-head to its last testimony in the Formula
of Concord, and have attempted to make such applications
as might seem serviceable to present conditions.
We have emphasized the fact that the Word of God is the
only rule of Faith and life, by which our reason and all the
regulative conceptions of our age, its speculative thoughts
and ideas, its customs, progress, and standards, its teach
ings, traditions and usages, its suggestions, methods and
plans, are being tested. We have emphasized an open and
unambiguous Confession of God's complete Word, and of
Christ in it, as the Church's first duty, her loftiest privilege,
her chief joy, and the leading source of her strength.
We have declared our assurance that the Church is strong
as she is strong within, strong in conviction and Confession
of the Principle and the Person on which she was founded ;
and that she will be preserved and saved by her Faith (sola),
whose reality comes to manifestation in Confession.
We have urged, as we believe, with Christ, with Paul, with
Luther, with the Augsburg Confession, with the Formula
of Concord, that the chief practical thing in Christianity is

THE FUTURE. 937
not organization, of union, or tradition, or usages, but testi
mony. Fidelity in the Confessional Principle is what estab
lishes and maintains the Church of Christ, and adds the
increase that is permanent.
What has been presented up to this point is, it is hoped,
historical in method and result. But the Principle that
lies beneath the presentation, if it be of value, is above his
tory. It is the Truth. We believe, teach, and confess the
Gospel of Jesus Christ, which is the same yesterday, to-day,
and forever. Time can never cause it to decay, and pro
gress can never bring -it to change. As a fact in history,
and as a Body of Principles, it is complete in the past, and
was revealed -in the fulness of time. In its application to
the human race, and in its unfolding to ultimate triumph, it
belongs to the future.
It has been obliged to meet and has been able to vanquish
the errors and half-truths of every age, which have always
and from the very beginning in the New Testament arrayed
themselves against it.
The Gospel has lived, and been active, and brought con
viction to the mind, and salvation to the soul, by the power
in its faithful Witness. This witness has been of the single
congregation, through the ministration of the Word and
Sacraments, and through the lives of its members; it has
also been of the whole Church through the precious declar
ations of faith and solemn testimony to the truth uttered
by the believing hearts faithful in time of severe trial and
great peril.
The first and simplest summary of the faith, testifying
to the pure Gospel, is the Apostles' Creed, which, with the
Nicene Creed and the Athanasian Creed, are the "brief,
plain Confessions " of the Church to the facts of the Gospel,
which we also believe and teach, and confess as binding upon
us, and reject all principles and teachings that are contrary
to these Confessions.
The Witness of these confessions, as the substance of

938 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
Scripture, saved the Church from heathenism; but when the
Church itself became overladen with heathen and human
elements, the Witness of the Augsburg Confession, in the
face of Rome, saved the Gospel. We believe, teach and
confess the principles of the Gospel, as they are found in this
Witness at Augsburg, together with its Apology, and the
articles composed at Schmalkald, and with the two outlines
of the Gospel composed by Luther, called the Small and
Large Catechisms, which constitute the Bible of the laity.
When, after the recovery of the Evangelical principle at
Augsburg, the new standpoint had developed in its weak
ness and strength, and the errors of Protestantism had had
time to spring up during the Reformation age as the errors
of Romanism sprang up in the Middle Age; there came the
further and final witness to the truth, which connected the
Apostolic and Catholic witness of old to the evangelical
witness of Protestantism, and which at the same time dis
associated the evil developments of the spirit of freedom
from those that are truly evangelical. The confessional sub
stance of the final confession is the same as that of the first
confession of the Church.
From our inmost hearts, therefore, we once again confess
the ancient creeds, the Christian Augsburg Confession so
thoroughly grounded in God's Word, and the Formula of
Concord, as the sum and substance of Gospel truth, and as
the essence of the faith, doctrine and confession of us all,
for which we will answer, at the last day, before the just
Judge, our Lord Jesus Christ.
The Confession of the Gospel, which is God's Word as
similated and pulsating in the Church and condensed into
public standards, which constitute the common principles
of its faith, and the common framework of its doctrine, which
is the common mark of our membership and the common
flag of our loyalty, is the Christian's greatest and most pre
cious privilege.
Such Confession does not constrict individual investigation,
bind individual consciences and suppress individual liberty,

THE FUTURE. 939
but gives each of these human prerogatives a worthy ideal
and goal. Such' Confession draws the line between truth
and error, in our day, just as the Saviour and the Apostles
drew the line in their day.
This mighty Witness of the Christian Church to the
fundamental facts that control its origin and purpose, is
not put together by agreement of its members, and is not
of the essence of contract, but is the Church's continuous
and connected testimony to the substantial unities of salva
tion and everlasting life in Christ.
These Confessions have the right to claim cheerful and
hearty loyalty from those who profess to teach their prin
ciples, and who accept office on their foundations.
They connect us directly with the Apostolic Witness in
Scripture and with that of the Church in all ages. They
point the pathway to the future, as they have been the high
way of safety in the past, amid the winds and waves of doc
trine and the shifting changes of philosophic thought. This
Witness of the Evangelical Church is found most fully in
the Formula of Concord.
"Here the Church, in the maturity of its powers, examines
and judges itself. It subjects its conceptions of the faith to
rigid analysis and discriminating criticism, and frames and
fixes the terminology of theological definitions, which under
its decisions lose the ambiguity that at many points had
caused confusion and controversy. In it, the positive and
negative elements are most carefully balanced. The pre
dominant characteristics of the Formula are its scientific
exactness and the judicial poise with which it keeps the
golden mean between the extremes on both sides, which it
states at the beginning of the discussion of every topic." *
This Confessional Witness of the Book of Concord is the
Faith historically established in the early Swedish, Dutch
and German immigration to America. It was the Confes
sion of Campanius, Falckner, Kocherthal and Berkemeier,

•Jacobs, Summary of Christian Faith, p. 452.

940 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
Stoever, Bolzius, and Muhlenberg. It is the Confession
which alone will give to the Lutheran Church the vitality
of its own nature, and the strength that need not be drawn
from foreign sources. The greatest dangers through which
the Lutheran Church has passed in America are those con
nected with the undervaluation and abatement of this Princi
ple. We do not believe, with the broad-visioned and frater
nally-minded founder of the Evangelical Alliance, that the
Lutheran Church in America will ultimately be absorbed
in the Reformed Principle; but it is our belief that what
has prevented this from being more fully the case up to the
present, despite the enormous defections in every generation,
has been the Confessional Principle of the Unaltered Augs
burg Confession and the Book of Concord; and that this
Principle is the bulwark of the Church for the future.
We regard the Lutheran name, the Lutheran history, the
Lutheran blood and Lutheran customs as a weak defence
against the tides of Puritan, Reformed, and Humanitarian
religion whose waves are moving toward conquest, as they
ever have been in this American land. The one strength, the
sling of David, which the Lutheran Church possesses, is her
Faith, her conviction, her testimony.
Our Confessions are not our idols. Historically, they are
not any more to us than the name, the land, the people from
which they sprang. But their Principle is the very Word
of God. While they are not to be worshipped any more than
the flag of our country is to be worshipped, they are to be
treasured and valued, as the flag is, for what of Truth and
power and salvation they represent: not merely Truth and
power potent in a historical past, but as a dynamic factor
in the present and as a tried and sure standard for the future.
Shall we Lutherans in this American World of the Twenti
eth Century, where we are free to work out the spirit of the
Church of the pure Word and Sacraments, repeat the internal
strife and the mistakes of the Lutherans of the Sixteenth
Century? Shall we use up our strength in placating and

THE FUTURE. 941
compromising with a non-Lutheran Christianity and be torn
asunder into insignificant pieces, rather than live out our own
principles and become their most perfect exemplification ?
Shall we allow the old and time-worn standards to lie
unknown, moth-eaten and covered over with dust; or, when
they are brought forth, instead of unfurling them at the
head of our columns, shall we give them a quasi-recog-
nition — nay, stand by and see our own children disown
them, spit upon them, and trample them in the dust ?
Shall this be done! Shall we permit this to be done! in
the name of Christian unity ! and by a latitudinarianism that
is our own heritage, which rises ever anew from the embers
of the past to find such veiled support and strength in the
citadel of Zion that Confessionalism is told to whisper low in
Jerusalem lest she be heard on the streets of Gath.
With the Word of God and a continuous line of testimony
behind us, let us lift up our great banner and press forward
into the future. What a loss to the Christian Church to go
back to Christ and reject the intervening experience mediated
by Providence through the Holy Ghost in the contact of the
Word with many generations. What a loss to the Lutheran
Church to go back to the Augsburg Confession and ignore the
Formula of Concord. What an unhistorical sense to select
a single point, though it be our greatest, and allow the change
of every wind and tide to move and make sport of our faith
since then. Those who accept the prophets and ignore the
patriarchs of the Old Testament as mythical; those who
accept the Gospels and ignore the Epistles as private com
ments on the doctrine of Christ, do scant justice to the
testimony of God's Word.
The Confessional question of our Church was the Con
fessional question of the early Christian Church: Are we
to be limited to one Creed, viz., the Apostolic, and to one
Confession, viz., the Augsburg Confession; or Shall we ac
cept the further Creeds that fulfil and summarize the orig
inal principle in further development ? Is the Confessional
63

942 THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS.
principle of the Evangelical Church, as Lutheranism compre-1
hends it, one continuous and connecting line of development
from the Scripture to the present day ; or is it a certain spot
in that line?
Is the Lutheran Church in America to accept her own com
plete historical foundation, and to come to her own on that
basis, or is she to surrender portions of that basis in the hope
of coming to Protestantism's own, on a not as yet fully
determinate basis ? The Word of God itself should decide.
The whole Reformation period was a providential era, in
which the faith first brought to the surface in the Augsburg
Confession was wrought out through Providence in the
history and experience of the Church, and reached complete
expression in the Book of Concord.
The Evangelical principle will never die. The Confession
of the Book of Concord must not, shall not be disowned in
America by the children of the fathers in whose faith and
churches it was maintained. It is useless to expect continued
renewals of immigration from the Fatherland or other foreign
shores. These sources of our strength are well-nigh spent,
and if the Church shall not have established itself in her own
Evangelical Faith of the living Gospel, in the life and lan
guage and blood of the generations that are to come, her
children will walk, as did Israel of old, in the ways of sur
rounding nations. Her priests will sit at her altars desolate,
and her prophets will mourn and weep in vain.
Yet even then, our eye shall not be filled with sorrow.
For we are sure that the Word of the Lord will prevail. We
look for a city which hath foundations. We look unto
Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith. We hold fast
the Confession of our faith without wavering, for we are not
come in it unto an earthly Zion, but we are come to the Heav
enly Jerusalem and unto the city of the living God, and to
His Son our Lord Jesus Christ, in Whom we trusted, after
we heard His Word of Truth, the Gospel of our Salvation.

THE FUTURE. 943
We are come to the strength and glory of the kingdom of
Heaven, with its soaring and radiant pinnacles of divine
5 promise, and its silent sweeps of measureless mystery,
bridged, from crystal sphere and lofty cloud beyond, to
bruised heart and lowly earth beneath, only by the unerring
footprint of the Son of Man, Who shall appear in His glory,
and purge away the darkness of doubt, the vagueness of
error, and the blackness of heresy, and Who shall, in the
truth of His own Person, illumine and order and animate
the city of the living God, and its united society. We are
come to the King and the Kingdom of the Truth, the pure
realm in which God's power prevails in the inward parts, and
the bright Word, spiritually discerned, shines as the sun,
credible in its own clearness, to the believing heart; and
brings the mind to utterance, for very joy at the strength of
the King in His beauty, Who is the head of the Church ; and
of and through Whom only, of all truths in Heaven and earth,
by the certainty of faith, our Confession is sure.
"Die Losung unsreu Kirche in diesem Kampfe kann nub
sein: Halts was du hast, auf dass dir
NlEMAND DEINE KrONE RAUBE, UnSRE
Krone ist unser Beicenntniss."

INDEX

NOTE — For names of authors and titles of works see the Bibliography
in Table op Contents.

ABSOLUTION. 44.
ABSOLUTION, PRIVATE, ,n Aug.
Conf., 262.
ABUSES, in Aug. Conf., 173, 254,
265-282.
in Formula of Concord, 819.
ACRELIUS, 867.
"ADMONITION TO CLERGY." See
Luther.
^JPINUS, 657.
AGRICOLA, JOHN, 171, 307f, 329ff,
411f, 441, 453, 458, 481, 581,
588 598 763.
AGREEMENT. See Contract, Symbol.
denned, 55, 66ff.
and contract, 68.
classified, 55.
various kinds of, 66.
the true, 61.
pre-existent, 56f.
and Christian unities, 58.
ALBA, DUKE, 536f, 540.
ALBERT US MAGNUS, 765.
ALEXANDER OF HALES, 157.
ALLEGIANCE, OATH OF, 35.
ALLCEOSIS, 794fl.
ALTENBURG, 171, 646, 649.
ALTAR-FELLOWSHIP. See Fellow
ship.
AMBROSE, 269, 776, 789, 813.
AMERICA, Lutheranism in, 855.
Historical Lutheranism in, 859.
First English Lutheran Services
in, 860.
Future of Lutheran Church in, 940.
Confession of the Book of Concord
in, 942.
AMERICAN PROTESTANTISM and
the Bible, 139.
and Book of Concord, 874-890.
and the Church, 139.
and Lutheranism, 138, 141ff, 858.
AMMON, G. F., 685.
AMSDORF, NICHOLAS, 596, 598.
AMSTERDAM, Constitution of Con
gregation at, 862. Introduction.
ANABAPTISTS, 51, 173, 178, 181,
231, 256, 260, 262, 263f, 348,
416, 675.
Carlyle on Luther's conduct toward,
913
ANARCHY, 21.
ANDREAE, JACOB, 534, 597. 638f,
648ff, 669, 674, 715, 721ff, 742,
832
ANHALT, 657, 673, 724.
ANHALT, PRINCE OF, 185, 211, 239,
293, 358, 396, 403, 406, 422,
426, 465.
ANSBACH, 183, 373, 671.
ANSBACH MANUSCRIPT. See Augs
burg Conf. (945)

ANSELM, 757, 774.
APOLLINARIS, 107, 775.
APOLOGY TO AUGS. CONF., purpose
of, 63, 74.
Melanchton's relation to, 74, 285
511, 515, 519, 524f, 542f, 566,
570, 622, 627, 634.
and Augsburg Conf., 63, 339f, 357,
523, 525, 531, 696, 697f, 730.
and Naumburg Diet, 556f.
and Charles V, 519, 570f.
and Rome, 710.
and Lutheranism, 570f.
and the Controversialists, 644ff.
as a Confession, Introduction.
APOSTLES' CREED. See Creed.
AQUILA, KASPAR, 171.
AQUINAS, THOMAS, 625, 777.
ARISTOTLE, 618f, 765, 849.
ARMINIANISM, 747, 935.
ARNDT, J., 135,..
ATHANASIAN CREED. See Creed.
ATHANASIUS, 788n.
AUGSBURG, 2, 126, 672, 701, 704,
709 718 782
Diets ' at, 119, ' 169ff, 194ff, 241,
285f, 291, 302f, 318K, 324ff,
414ff, 523, 539, 543, 570, 633,
635, 712f, 723, Introduction.
" Schrift Aus." See Melanchthon.
peace of, 552, 559, 591, 606, 637,
644.
AUGSBURG INTERIM, 591, 819n.
AUGSBURG CONFESSION. See In
troduction.
authorship of, 117ff, 284, 431ff.
and Providence, 25n, 57, 117, 121,
283-435, 521.
true historical estimate of, 428ff,
521.
and (Ecumenical Creeds, 121f, 776.
and Protestantism, 121, 122, 131.
Confessional Principle in, 117-143.
presentation of, 190, 342, 425.
when final completion of was he-
gun, 205ff, 213.
Spalatin's text of, 207, 224, 244ff,
555, 561, 568.
Ansbach manuscript of, 194, 207,
244f.
gradual formation of, 223ff, 284.
Schornbaum's discovery of manu
script of, 225.
and landgrave of Hesse, 183, 211,
235ff, 373, 391f, 419. 422, 434f.
and Nuremberg delegates. See
Nuremberg Delegates.
text of, 242ff. 522-569, 727, 728.
on abuses, 254, 265.
on private absolution, 262,
on baptism, 262.
on bishops. 276ff.
on Christology, 260.
on Canons, 2&2f, 272ff.

946

INDEX.

AUGSBURG CONFESSION and Chan
cellor Briick, 120, 127, 187, 190,
210, 224, 243, 335, 357, 368,
418, 434f, 464, 565.
Confessional content of, 123f.
objective universality in, 124f.
and liberty of conscience, 128.
and Brentz, 126.
and Spalatin, 126.
and Jonas, 126, 170f, 187f, 243,
320ff, 379, 418.
oldest known form of, 177ff, 221-
250, 251-282, 380.
and Eck, 173f, 179, 343f, 348, 352f,
433f, 530, 535, 540, 543, 565,
583.
when completed, 189.
origin of, 168-191.
and evangelical estates, 118, 182ff,
234, 241ff, 373ff, 391, 398, 4181,
434, 464f, 552ff, 565.
new light on, 285.
on faith, 260f.
on good works, 261.
on gospel, 127f.
on God, 259.
on Holy Ghost, 260.
on Holy Days, 257, 263, 281.
on justification, 127, 260.
a growth, 284.
a Church Confession, 339.
Confessional limitation of, 122f,
339f, 693.
greatness of, 124.
historical occasion of, 124.
Luther's opinion of, 124n, 174, 250,
356, 358f, 466ff.
and Rome, 122, 123f, 132f, 176,
480, 710, 747.
general confessional characteristics
of, 124ff.
spirit of Catholic continuity in,
125, 127.
expression of faith of entire Lu
theran Church, 126.
and personal salvation by faith,
127f.
and the gospel, 127f.
first so-called Confession, 25.
chief purpose of, 56, 60, 63, 74.
distinctive features of, 122.
Confessional advance in, 122.
Melanchthon's introduction to. See
Melanchthon.
and the Church, 125, 261, 276ff.
and Lutheran Church, 11, 84, 133,
427f, 822f.
and Reformed Churches, 134.
and Church and State, 129f, 276ff.
a symbol of Protestantism, 131.
simplicity of its teaching, 132.
political influence of, 134.
as a basis for union of Protestant
ism, 135f.
and Torgau Articles. See Torgau
Articles.
signing of, 422f.
real power in content, 427.
reason for influence of, 515.
editions of, 522-569.
the editio princeps, 523f, 531, 540,
555f, 562f, 565ff, Introduction.
Variata, 135f, 488, 504, 525ff, 577,
582, 603. 606, 623, 624.
German original of, 535, 537, 540,
560ff.
Latin original of, 536f, 540, 565.

and Naumburg Diet, 53L 553ff,
563, 604.
and communicatio idiomatum, 813.
and the Controversialists, 644ff.
not sufficient, 693ff, 708.
and Scripture, 749f.
and Luther. See Luther.
and Melanchthon. See Melanch
thon.
and Elector John. See Elector
John.
and Charles V. See Charles V.
and Formula of Concord.
usage of the phrase in the early
American church, 866.
and problems of the day, 924.
AUGSBURG CONFESSION UNAL
TERED, in America, 86 Iff.
in Amsterdam and St. Mary's of
Savoy Constitutions, 862.
basis of the Constitution of our
American Constitutions, 862.
Sweden and the, 862.
settlements on the Delaware and
the, 863.
New Netherlands and the, 863.
historical significance of, 865, 866,
884.
German Palatine Immigration and
the, 865.
John Casper Stoever and the, 861.
865, 867.
Muhlenberg and the, 869.
Brunnholtz and the, 869.
Ministerium of Pennsylvania and
the, 870-872.
exanimo subscription to, 888-890.
unalterable, Introduction.
Augsburg Confession not intended
to be an adequate and final
standard, 890.
AUGUSTINE, 264, 271, 275, 626, 755,
774, 776, 788f, 791, 896.
AUSTRIA, 580, 677.
AUTHORITY and democracy, 40.
four sources of, 874.
reason and, 875.
the Church and, 875.
Scripture and, 876.
Lutheran Confessionalism and, 875,
876.
Confessional Principle and external
authority, 878.

"BACK TO CHRIST," 27.
BACON, LORD, 849.
BADEN, 654, 671.
BADEN, MARGRAVE CHARLES OF,
557, 654.
BAIER. 845.
BAIREUTH, 671.
BAPTISM, original formula of, 97f.
in Augs. Conf., 262.
See also Sacraments and Luther's
Catechism.
BARBY, 672.
BARCELONA, PEACE OF, 304, 341.
BASEL, COUNCIL OF, 258.
BASIL, ST., 813.
BAUMGARTEN, S. J., 851.
BAUMGARTNER, J., 177, 228, 499f,
502, 516 (Biog.).
BAUR, F. C, 142, 853.
BAVARIA, 532, 580, 705.
Duke William of, 358, 361.

INDEX.

947

BENTHEIM, 677.
BERG, 677.
BERGEN, 658f, 830.
BERGEN BOOK, 640, 658ff.
See Boofc of Concord.
BERKEMEIER, 939.
BERLIN, 669.
BERN, HANS, 345.
BERNARD, ST., 765.
BEYER, CHR., 190, 425.
BEZA, 640, 675, 840.
BIBERACH, 672.
BIBLE. See Scripture, Word.
not a Creed, 28ff.
as the rule of faith, 32.
and faith, 55.
and Confession, 55.
place in American Protestantism,
139.
the holy as a source of authority,
876.
BIEL. Introduction.
BIGOTRY, 878, 911.
Cp. " Tolerance."
BINDSEIL, 223, passim.
BISHOPS, in Aug. Conf., 276ff.
in Formula of Concord, 820.
BLACKSTONE, definition of con
tract, 68.
BOHEMIA, 258, 361, 580, 677.
BOHEMIAN BRETHREN, 792.
BoHME, JACOB, 765.
BOLOGNA, 168, 287, 304, 311ff, 341.
BOLZIUS, 940.
BONAVENTURA, 765.
BOOK OF CONCORD, preface to, 832.
testimony of preface to Augsburg
Confession, 884-886, and Eigh
teenth Century. 726.
title of, 74, 835f.
and Lutheranism, 822, 824.
Lutheran Confessions in, 834f.
origin and publication of, 832.
editions of, 836ff. V. also Bibliog
raphy, XXXVI.
and historical Lutheranism in
America, 859, 861.
and the Formula, in Amsterdam
and St. Mary's of Savoy Consti
tution, 862.
and Sweden, 862, 864 V. also In
troduction.
and Palatine Immigration, 865.
and phrase "Augsburg Confession,"
866.
and Muhlenberg, 868.
and Brunnholtz, 869.
and Ministerium of Penna., 870,
871, 872.
component parts of, 11.
name and title, 72, 74.
use of word " symbol," 73, 158.
See Formula of Concord, use of In
Theological Seminaries. 76.
text of Augsburg Confession in,
535ff, 560ff, 719, 837. V. also
Introduction.
and Naumburg Diet, 559.
and the Corpus Doctrinae, 646.
assent to, 664ff.
discussed more than Augs. Conf.,
667.
bulk of, 697f.
and American Protestantism, 874-
890, 939, 940.
and future of Lutheran Church in
America, 923.
need of. See chap. 25.

origin of. See chaps. 25, 26.
introduction signing and adoption
of. See chap. 27.
the objections offered against it.
See chap. 28.
BOPFINGEN, 672.
BRANDENBURG, 209, 671, 724.
BRANDENBURG, ELECTOR JOA
CHIM OF, 358, 361, 462, 474,
489f, 535, 563, 837.
BRANDENBURG MARGRAVE
GEORGE OF, 182ff, 188f, 208,
211, 236f, 293, 369, 373f, 391f.
396ff, 403, 406, 410, 422, 465,
474, 486f, 493, 500, 513.
BRAUNSCHWEIG, 639, 647.
BREMEN, 599, 673, 724.
BRENTZ, JOHN, 126, 237, 307, 441,
453, 457, 487, 492ff, 507, 551,
554, 577, 588, 599, 605, 638, 645,
648, 719, 723, 833.
BRESLAU, 580.
BRIEG, 676.
BRIEGER, defense of Melanchthon,
193ff.
date of beginning of final comple
tion of Confession, 205ff.
reply to, 195ff, 205ff, 213f.
investigations of, 218, 223f, 335.
BROTHERHOOD, Preface.
BRUCK, CHANCELLOR. 120'. 127.
169f, 176, 183, 187, 190, 196,
202, 204, 210, 214, 216ff, 224,
236, 243, 320, 328, 335, 357,
359, 362, 368, 371f, 374, 379,
404, 417f, 424, 426, 434, 443,
457, 464, 488ff, 493, 500, 511,
514, 518f, 546f, 554, 565, 581,
584, 633, 668.
BRUNNHOLTZ and the Symbolical
Books, 869, 870.
BRUNSWICK, 651, 653, 671ff, 715,
723f.
Duke of, 198f, 392, 407, 462.
Duke Julius of, 651, 653, 655f,
673f, 723f.
BRUSSELS, 536f, 540, 565.
BUCER, MARTIN, 481, 494, 574ff,
577, 621f, 624, 628, 632, 768,
782, 793f. 796, 810. 900.
BUCHHOLZER, A., 327.
BUDDEUS, 851.
BUGENHAGEN, JOHN (POMERA-
NUS), 170, 321, 546f, 577, 597,
719, 793.
BULLINGER. 723.
BURGER, VON, 89, 92.
BUTLER, NICHOLAS MURRAY, 685.

C
CAJETAN, 197, 350f.
CALIXTUS, 840, 850.
and the Confessions, 149n, 150.
CALOVIUS. 845f.
CALVIN, 105n, 134n, 142, 494, 534,
575, 588, 598f, 602, 606n, 622,
625. 632, 643. 647. 656. 681
767ff, 782, 796, 809f, 827, 841,
848n. 935.
CALVINISM' AND ROMANISM. 141f.
Crypto-, 534, 597, 599. 60of, 640,
653, 668, 676, 693. 839.
rise of, 643.
and Lutheranism. 77? 824
CALVTNISTS, 530. P31C 6<tn ""9,
663, 675, 681, 716. 723, 725. 728.

948

INDEX.

CALVINISTS. Calvinistic attitude
to the State, 896.
crypto, 900.
CAMERARIUS, 196f, 201, 219f, 337,
391, 413, 421f, 479, 495f, 577,
579, 597, 627n.
CAMPAMUS, 863, 939. .
CAMPEGGI, CARDINAL, 176, 186,
192ff-201, 206, 21off, 326, 361,
394f, 399, 408, 417, 424, 448,
471f, 503f, 614.
CANON, church after completion of,
32.
after death of apostles, 32.
" of the Truth," lOlf.
CANONS, THE, in Augs. Conf., 267f,
272ff.
CARLSTADT, 173, 614, 675, 792.
CARLYLE, THOMAS, on Luther, 859.
on tolerance 912.
CARPZOV, lOn, 16n, 156, 728.
CASSEL, 577, 578n, 581.
CASTELL, 672.
CATECHISM, Luther's, 24, 56, 63,
75f, 81, lllff, 533, 645, 649, 675,
678, 684, 695f, 697f, 730, 778f,
781, 797, 835, 837, 863ff-872,
932.
Heidelberg, 532, 558, 640, 646.
Wittenberg, 714.
CELLARIUS, 359.
CENTRIFUGAL AND CENTRIPETAL
FORCES, the confessional prin
ciple preserving the balance, 877,
878.
CENTURY, SIXTEENTH, and Con
fession, 1.
and Luther, 28.
Melanehthonianism in, 624, 635f.
the Lutheran Confession in, 637,
688f.
Lutheranism in, 700ff.
CENTURY, SEVENTEENTH, Confes
sion in, 1, 149.
Melanchthon and Lutheran theol
ogy of, 624f.
Lutheran Dogmatik in, 845ff.
CENTURY, EIGHTEENTH, Confos-,
sion in, 2, 150, 155.
and Socialism, 69.
and the term " Symbolical Books,"
74.
Melanchthon and theologians of,
614, 625.
and Book of Concord, 726.
Lutheran Dogmatik in, 847, 851.
CENTURY, NINETEENTH, and Con
fession, 2.
CENTURY, TWENTIEH, and Con
fession, If.
and Formula of Concord, 683ff,
751ff, 828f.
CHALCEDON, SYMBOL OF, 788.
CHARITY, conscience and confes
sional principle, 910, Preface.
CHARLES V., relation to A"ptr. Conf.,
118, 124, 169ff, 204, 208ff, 251ff,
342ff, 396ff, 420, 425f. 432ff,
461f, 490ff, 522, 539, 565.
disposition toward Evangelical
Party, 195, 288f, 304, 309, 318,
325, 405, 414, 486, 489, 513,
520, 571f, 580, 583, 590f.
character of, 287f.
call for Diet at Augsburg, 169,
28R.
and Henry VIII., 289n.

and Christian of Denmark, 325.
and Clement VII, 168, 287, 292,
304, 306, 312ff, 341, 386n, 462.
coronaUon of, 168, 305f, 341.
achievements of, 306.
and appeal for a Christian Council,
311ff, 513.
and apology to Aug. Conf., 519,
570f.
his " commissions," 491ff, 5111.
and Paul III, 590, 593.
his rescript, 518, 520, 538.
at Bologna, 312-318.
at Innsbruck, 319, 325-393.
at Augsburg, 393-521.
and Luther. See Luther.
and Melanchthon. See Melanch
thon.
CHEMNITZ, 547, 597, 601, 606,
624n, 639, 647, 651ff, 669, 674,
706, 715, 724ff, 743, 781, 836ff,
845f.
CHILIASM, 178.
CHRIST, the centre of the Lutheran
Confession, 138, 771, 777, 876,
877, Preface, Introduction.
and various kinds of Protestantism,
140.
the high priest of our Confession,
147.
and the Confession of Faith, 147.
in Formula of Concord, 75l, 754,
761f, 764ff, 820.
and the Reformation, 772, 784.
person of, 770-816, Introduction.
and unionism, 2.
Confession as to Himself, 96.
and condemnation, 49.
and conviction, 95.
and confession, 95.
CHRISTIAN and witness-bearing, 20.
and Bible, 28.
and Law, 79.
and Confession, 28.
how brought to faith, 29.
CHRISTIANITY, modern, 32, 34ff,
38ff.
and discipline, 53.
Confessional, 96.
original "Article of Faith " of, 97.
unity of, 917, 918.
a life complete, 924.
and problems of the day, 924.
and its four-branched Confession,
CHRISTENDOM, reuniting of, 919.
CHRISTOLOGY, in Augs. Conf., 260,
778f.
and the Lord's Supper, 764ff, 792ff.
Luther's, 771ff.
in Formula of Concord, 779ff, 817-
820, 826.
CHRYSOSTOM, 270, 813.
CHURCH, the apostolic, 21, 32.
post-apostolic, 21, 32.
defined, 19f, 37, 112.
and confessions, 12f, 82, 88, 95.
main function of, 77.
and creeds, 96.
marks of, 20, 48, 84.
unity of, 36.
design of, 36, 41.
historical aspect of, 21n.
and the denominations, 38, 59.
modern view of, 39.
and error, 41.
and State in Europe, 56n.
not based on contract, 69.

INDEX.

949

CHURCH and choice, 69.
and conscience, 80.
foundation of, 87, 95f.
Pentecost, 96.
cannot compromise her doctrine,
935.
sphere of as distinguished from
Home and State, 927.
the principle and mode of its ac
tivity, 928.
worth of, 929.
in Augsburg Confession, 125, 261,
276ff.
Church and State in Augsburg
Confession, 129f, 276ff.
in Roman Confession, 137.
in American Protestantism, 139.
in Lutheran Confession, 139.
a living witness, 139.
as source of truth, 54, 139.
and the Word, 139, 261, Preface.
and Calvin, 142.
and Zwingli, 142.
Lutheran idea of, 142. N
Confessional principle in, 144-155,
165.
properties of, 894.
difference between Lutheran and
other Protestant churches, 895.
and Living Confession of Faith, 166.
and Sacraments, 261.
In Formula of Concord, 819.
a supposed source of spiritual au
thority, 875.
the one church, 877.
preserved by the confessional prin
ciple, 878.
visible, 892, 893, 896.
a difference between Lutheran and
Reformed Christianity, 896.
institutional, 897.
unity of, 908, 914, 915.
brotherhood of, 914.
visibility of, 914.
visualization of, 915.
visible, 917.
Roman, 917.
Greek, 917.
body of Christ, 919.
and society, 924-926.
its nature and duties under the
confessional principle, 930.
the true, 942.
CHURCH OF ENGLAND, 108n, 682.
CHYTRAEUS, 291n, 305n, 311n, 360,
407, 533, 535, 554, 560f, 597,
639, 647, 651f, 655f, 658, 715,
726f, Preface.
CIVIL AFFAIRS. See State.
civil government and the church,
895.
CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA, 765.
CLEVE, 677.
COBURG, 172, 174, 224, 242, 249,
324, 327ff, 635, 671.
COCHL.EUS, 196f, 384, 491, 494f,
503f.
COLESTIN, 535, 537, 560, 563, 567f,
727. See also in chaps. XIX,
XX, Preface.
COLOGNE, 579, 584.
COMITY vs. UNITY, 918.
COMMISSIONS, THE IMPERIAL,
491ff, 511f.
COMMUNICATIO IDIOMATUM, 599,
605, 659, 780ff, Introduction.

CONCORDIA. See Formula of Con
cord.
CONDEMNATION, not popular, 39.
and Lutheran Church, 44ff.
of wrong doctrines, 890.
CONFESSIONAL PRINCIPLE, the
vid. "Principle." vid. Preface,
and Introduction.
co-operation of, toward those with
out, 902.
and conscience, 910, 917.
and denominational Protestantism,
921.
and future of Lutheran Church, in
America, 923.
and social life, 925, 926.
breadth of, 934.
and its extremes, Introduction.
its social results, 932.
a source of strength to the church,
932, 940.
CONFESSIONAL HISTORY of the
Lutheran Church, The. Preface,
and Introduction.
CONFESSION. See Question, Con
fessional.
defined, 16.
province of, 16.
loyalty to, 17, Preface.
and creeds, 32.
differentiated from Scripture, 30f.
why necessary, 32.
and doctrine, 32.
and heresy, 32.
and condemnation, 53.
and conscience, 55, 58.
and truth, 54.
binding power of, 55, 88, 91, In
troduction.
subscriptions to, Introduction.
purpose of, 55, 60, 62ff, 71.
and doctrine, 55.
legal aspect of, 56.
not a contract, 57.
value of and grace of God, 58.
why common, 58.
and the Christian unities, 58.
and Providence, 62.
contents of, 65n.
and the oppressed, 78f.
and Christ, 95.
causes of rebellion, 79.
and limitations, 80ff.
and children, 85.
essence of, 90, Introduction.
unalterable, Introduction.
and faith, 94.
Pentecost, 96f.
original "Article," 97.
and Paul's summaries, 98.
apostolic insistence on, 100. '
and New Testament, 99.
and tradition, 101.
and Apostolic Fathers, 10 Iff.
first, 102.
Roman form of, 102f.
and faith, 144f.
public, ,1441.
and extension ot the church, 145.
and Word of God, 145.
of Peter, 145.
power of personal, 146.
of the Church, 146.
and " Symbols," 146.
Christ the High Priest of, 147.
development of in the church, 147f,
165.

950

INDEX.

CONFESSION and the Reformation,
148.
and Lutheranism, 148.
Lutheran Confession, History of,
Preface.
orthodoxy and indifferentism in,
148ff, 154, 624.
and Calixtus, 149n, 150.
historical study of, 151ff.
and rationalism, 155.
relation of Lutheranism to, 155.
and " Symbol," 159.'
Luther's attitude towards, 164f.
weakness of a living, 166.
in Augsburg Confession, 257, 269.
and Dogmatics, 856ff.
a " wide-open," 858.
fidelity to, 942, 943.
CONFESSIONS defined, 9ff, 58.
and Scripture, 9ff.
and unity, 77.
origin of, 21f.
further development necessary, 14,
unalterable, 61n.
uses of, 21.
value of, 73f.
historical aspect of, 21f.
transient and permanent, 22.
multiplicity of, 691ff.
active in daily life, 933, 939.
not our idols, 25, 940.
confessional question, 941.
CONFESSIONS, LUTHERAN, 11.
See Respective Titles.
ties.
defined, 74.
origin of, 76.
purpose of, 56, 74ff.
earliest, 111.
an organism, 25.
sum of Lutheran doctrine, 63f.
utility of, 15, 24f.
validity of, 76.
and Confession, 54.
and orthodoxy, 59.
why more than one, 15.
and obligation, 74.
and Lessing, 59.
and Carl Hase, 59.
between death of Luther and For
mula of Concord, 605.
political influence in, 667ff.
and the Melanchthonians, 748.
and (Ecumenical Creeds, 832ff.
in Book of Concord, 834f.
CONFESSION, LUTHERAN, 15, 25,
31. 33ff, 54, 94n, 138, 163-167,
637, 679, -688ff.
penetrating our social life, 925.
CONFESSION, REFORMED, and
Lutheran, 94n.
place of God in, 137.
CONFESSION, ROMAN, position of
the church in, 137.
CONFESSIO SAXONICA, 532, 555f,
588, 595, 833.
Suevica, 833.
CONFESSION, STRASBURG, 579.
CONFESSION, TETRAPOLITAN, and
Lutheranism, 126.
and Bucer, 576.
CONFESSION, ZWINGLIAN, and Lu
theranism, 126.
CONFIRMATION, 81.
CONFUTATION, THE, 462f, 474,
478f, 481ff, 489, 511, 519, 525,
570, 634.

CONGREGATION, 39, 65n, 87.
CONSCIENCE, 54f, 58, 80, 89.
and Confessional Principle, 910.
and problems of the day, 924.
CONSENSUS DRESDENSIS, 714.
CONSTANCE, 182, 295.
CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED
STATES, 19, 35, 69.
CONTRACT. See Symbol, Agreement,
tT., 61, 65ff.
CONTROVERSIES, the causes of,
593f, 642f.
and Melanchthon, 591f, 596ff, 624,
642f.
and Lutheranism, 592ff, 701ff.
and Formula of Concord, 591, 593,
641, 668f, 70Sf, 718f, 747f.
and Leipzig Interim, 595f.
the two great parties, 597f, 602f.
and the Lutheran Confessions,
644ff.
eucharistic, 596, 599, 605, 641.
antinomistic, 533, 581, 598, 641,
763. -
Crypto-Calvinistic, 534, 597, 599,
605f.
Synergistic, 600f, 638, 641.
adiaphoristic, 533, 591, 596, 600,
641, 644.
Osiandrian, 596, 599, 638, 641,
753, 757, 759.
Majoristic, 596, 598, 638, 641.
CONVICTION, 35, 85, 91, 95, 910,
911.
CO-OPERATION, possibility of, 900,
901.
impossibility of, 902.
dangers of, 897, 898.
rule for, 903.
compared with fellowship, 904.
CORDATUS, 323, 412, 439, 466f, 519.
CORPORA DOCTRINE, 533f, 637f,
645ff, 673ff, 693, 710, 714, 833.
CORPUS CHRISTI, 185, 186, 195,
285, 377, 386f, 395f, 399, 400ff.
CORPUS DOCTRINE PHILIPPI
CUM, 532ff, 605, 639, 646, 649,
705 714 833
CORPUS JULIUM, '605, 673, 696, 705.
COUNCIL, appeal to, 188, 241, 294,
310ff, 337, 380.
CREED, APOSTLES', 104ff.
origin of, 22.
form of, 70.
foundation of, 98, 101.
and New Testament, 100.
and Luther's Small Catechism, 112.
" symbol " as title of, 156f.
as confession, 161.
and A. C, 380.
not universally accepted, 6661.
and Athanasiau Creed, 738.
CREED, ATHANASIAN, 107ff.
origin of, 22.
not universally accepted, 666.
and other oecumenical creeds, 107,
738.
GENERAL, expression of faith, 28.
defined, 30, 96.
necessary, 30ff.
NICENE, 105ff.
origin of, 22.
foundation of, 98.
and Reformed Church, 105n.
Melanchthon's explanation ol, 588.
only universal creed, 106.
conditions leading to, 666f.

INDEX.

951

NICENE and Athanasian Creed, 738.
personal, 29.
defined, 18.
differentiated from Bible and faith,
32.
CREEDS. See Respective Names of,
and Abuses. 18n.
origin of, 20, 22.
and faith, 28, 32.
results of experience, 31.
historical aspect of, 19, 23.
multiplication of desirable, 23.
necessary, 24f.
contain God's plan, 23.
objections to, 23ff, 27, 33f.
differentiated from Scripture, 31.
purpose of, 31.
and Christianity, 32.
and Confession, 32, 937, 938.
CECUMENICAL, defined, 62.
purpose of, 62.
connection with Augsburg Confes
sion, 121f, 776.
and public confession, 148.
not really oecumenical, 666.
and the communicatio idiomatum,
812f.
adoption of in Lutheranism, 62,
831ff.
"of Christendom," Preface.
CRELL, 597, 668, 839.
CRUCIGER, 597, 668.
CURRUS, 653.
CYPRIAN, 156f, 266, 268, 289n,
290n, 374, 376«, 391, 417n,
421n, 434, 475n, 503, 543, Pre
face.
CYRIL, 790.

D

D'AILLY, Introduction.
DANISH CHURCH, 673.
DECLARATION OF INDEPEN
DENCE, 19.
DELAWARE, settlements on,
confessional basis of, 863f.
DELITZSCH, FRIEDRICH, 2.
DEMOCRACY and authority, 40.
DENMARK, 672f, 724.
Christian of, 325.
Christian III of, 712.
DENNY, 98n.
DENOMINATIONS and the commu
nion of saints, 36.
and the Church, 38.
and rivalry, 38.
and degrees of truth, 59.
respective confessions unalterable,
61n, 920.
denominational Protestantism, 920.
DESCENSUS, 657, 753.
DIETRICH, VEIT, 351, 446, 448,
450, 453.
DIFFERENTIATION of function in
church, State and home, 925,
926.
DISCIPLINE, CHURCH, 44ff, 53, 929,
930.
DOCTRINE and toleration, 38.
rule of, 55.
DOCTRINES, unity of Christian, 759ff.
DOGMATICS and Formula of Con
cord, 741f.
Lutheran, 845ff.
in seventeenth century, 845ff.
in eighteenth century, 847, 851.

critics of, 848ff.
and Confession, 856ff.
DOLTZIG, HANS VON, 335, 362f.
DOMINICANS, 349.
DONATISTS, 261.
D0NAUW6RTH, 672.
DORNER, 840.
DORT, CANONS OF, 735.
DOUBT and Lutheran Church, 84.
DOUBTFUL THINGS, liberty in, 922.
DRESDEN, 647, 657f, 712, 832, 835f.
DUNS SCOTUS, 765.

E

EASTERN CHURCH and Lutheran
ism, 788.
EBER, 597.
EBERSTEIN, 672.
ECCLESIASTICISM, 877, 878.
ECK, JOHN, 173, 174, 179, 195, 229,
326, 343f, 348, 350ff, 433f, 474,
491, 494, 502, 506, 511. 530,
535, 540, 543, 549f, 582, 616.
ECKHART, 765.
EDITIO PRINCEPS, Introduction.
See Augsburg Confession.
EDICTS, PAPAL, 109.
EDUCATION, 931.
EINBECK, 672.
EISLEBEN, 171, 581.
ELECTOR JOHN OF SAXONY, rela
tion to Augsburg Confession, 117f,
169ff, 236ff, 303, 320ff, 354f,
396, 417ff, 433f, 511, 515, 543,
565, 633, 728, 822, Introduction.
and Melanchthon, 170ff, 179ff, 229ff,
302f, 320ff, 355, 384f, 417, 471,
613, 633.
and Luther, 172, 174ft, 294, 300ff,
320ff, 328, 335ff, 349f, 353f, 356,
358ff, 359, 371f, 411, 463, 485f,
507, 510f, 516f, 520.
and Charles V., 169, 176f, 185, 199,
285ff, 302ff, 326, 334ff, 344f,
359, 362f, 369ff, 385f, 394ff, 426,
476ff, 486, 489, 513ff.
and Chancellor Briick, 1691, 183,
236, 320, 328, 335, 359, 362,
371f, 374, 379, 42S. 500.
and the Federation, 295f, 301.
character of, 300f.
and Philip of Hesse, compared, 301.
and Schmalkald League, 571.
at Torgau, 320-324.
at Weimar, 324.
at Coburg, 324, 327-330.
at Augsburg, 334-521.
letters of to Luther, 349f, 354,
382, 4451
ELIZABETH, QUEEN, 640, 662, 682n,
844n.
EMERSON, 765.
ENGLISH LUTHERAN CHURCH,
Kunze the founder of, 872.
ENVIRONMENT, 80.
EPICURUS, 69.
ERASMUS, 194, 612, 617n, 624, 626,
765.
ERFURTH, 672.
ERROR and church, 41.
and word, 42.
ESSLINGEN, 672.
ESTATES, EVANGELICAL, the, 118,
168, 182ff, 199, 234, 241, 243f,
246, 293, 304, 310, 373ft, 385f,
391, 398, 4021, 414, 4181, 434,

952

INDEX.

4641, 4981, 530, 55211, 571ff,
657ff, 662ff, 714, 832, 836, 838.
EUNUCH, the baptism ol, 98.
EUTYCHIANISM, 107.
EXAMEN ORDINANDORUM, 532,
588, 705.
EXCLUSION and the Lutheran
Church, 44ff.
EXCLUSIVENESS, 34, 36.
EXCOMMUNICATION, 451, 53.
EXEGESIS PERSPICUA, 650, 653.
EXORDIUM, Introduction. See Me
lanchthon, Introduction to Augs
burg Confession.

FABRICIUS, 568, 728.
FAITH, the Evangelical, 1.
expressed in a creed, 28.
how produced, 29.
confession of, 29.
differentiated from Bible and Creed,
32.
rule of, 32, 55.
and Lutheran Church, 84.
defined, 93.
and testimony, 93.
and history, 93.
as source of Confession, 1441.
in Aug. Conl., 2601.
and Reason, 875.
the one, 877.
unity in, 918, 932.
FALCKNER, JUSTUS, 861, 939.
FALL, THE. See Original Sin.
FAMILY, 69. See chapter 42.
FANATICISM, 29.
FEDERATION, 183, 295ff, 309, 879.
Luther and Melanchthon on, 891.
Federation to-day, 894, 895, 898.
American Protestant, 895f, 919.
FELLOWSHIP, 900.
altar, 34, 904, Luther on, Intro
duction.
the true principle of, 904ff.
based on an eternal unity, 908.
FENELON, 765.
FERDINAND, ARCHDUKE, 291,
293f, 303, 305f, 319, 325, 341,
361, 386, 394, 396ff, 424, 519,
551.
FILIOQUE, 105f.
FLACIUS, 216, 588, 596f, 598, 600,
604, 641, 644ff, 701, 724f.
FORMS and Lutheran Faith, 7.
FORMULA OF CONCORD, complimen
tary, 25, 64.
title of, 72.
validity of, 105, 106n, Introduc
tion.
and Confession, 72f, 161, 678f, 681-
698, 699.
and Augsburg Confession, 53, 357,
534, 560, 562, 594f, 6771, 714,
719, 731, 736f, 740, 751ff, 817ff,
821ft, 834.
and Naumburg Convention, 559,
604.
and Athanasian Creed, 1071.
occasion ol, 591, 593ff, 641, 669,
700ff, 718ff, 7471.
authors ol, 597, 721ff, 73211.
and Providence, 593, 662, 700-716,
829ff.
influence of Melanchthon in, 617n,
743, 744n, 829.

introduction ol, 661-680.
origin of, 52, 57, 83, 637-660, 71211.
effect ol introduction ol, 6791.
and the Estates, 657ff, 662ff.
testing of, 662, 711.
subscription to, 659f, 662ff, 716.
no one forced to sign, 664f, 669tf,
Introduction.
and Rome and Emperor, 661.
objections to, 6621, 672ff, 6S2f.
symbolical authority of, 678f.
extent of adoption, 669, 67 If, 678f,
716.
real confessional validity of, 679.
opponents of, 6811.
reply to objections, 683ff.
and the twentieth century, 68311,
751ff, 828f.
and progress, 686f.
danger in rejecting, 685.
verdict of history to, 688ff.
not simply for theologians, 689.
and Lutheranism, 667, 67Sf, 688ff,
7421, 821-831, 852n.
conlessional importance ol, 690.
need ol, 24, 691ff, 703ff.
the call for, 711ff.
and Elector Augustus of Saxony,
712ff.
one object of, 704.
motive ol, 717ff.
and unionism, 824ff.
and Protestantism, 8291.
preface to, 57n, 717-720, 7411, 745.
purpose of, 53, 56, 64, 74, 83, 729.
external form of, 729-^745.
as a Commentary, 730f, 740.
and Luther, 733f, 743, 781ff, 820,
829.
as a "new confesson," 732ff.
antagonism of, 737ff.
not a treatise on dogmatics, 741f.
subject matter of, 746-769.
and Scripture, 749f.
unity of doctrine in, 759ft.
on the Word, 752, 826.
on original sin, 752, 754f.
on free will and synergism, 752,
755, 827.
on justification by faith, 753, 755ff,
827.
on good works, 753, 762, 829.
on law and gospel, 753, 763f, 826ff.
on Lord's Supper, 753, 764ff, 827f.
christology of,. 779ff.
its doctrine of Christ's person not
new, 781ff.
on Christ, 751, 754, 7611, 764ff,
817-820, 826.
on the descensus, 753.
on Ecclesiastical Rites, 753f.
on Predestination, 819.
confessed in America, 865-873.
and problems ol the day, 924, 939,
940, 941.
EPITOME, definition ol "Symbol,"
159.
origin ol, 658.
and Solida Declaratio, 6971, 7301,
744.
author of, 7511.
and modern religious problems,
7791.
SOLIDA DECLARATIO, use ol term
" symbol," 160.
origin of, 659.
FORREST, 803.

INDEX.

953

FORSTEMANN, 223, 245, 322, 335.
See chapter XIX.
FRANCIS I., 575.
FRANK, 690, 732.
FRANKFORT, 580, 656, 662f, 676,
718.
FRANKFORT RECESS, 551, 556, 606,
645, 833, 900.
FUNK, 668.

G
GALATIANS, Luther on, 714.
GALLUS, 597.
GENOA, 304.
GERHARD, 845f.
GEORGE, DUKE, 176, 195, 326, 350,
358, 361, 458, 462, 485, 511.
GERSON, 271, 276, 765.
GINGEN, 672.
GLEICHEN, 672.
GNESIO-LUTHERANS, 529f, 554,
597ff, 642, 645ff, 693, 724, 742,
768, 824.
GNOSTICISM, 101, 765, 935.
GOD, in Augsburg Confession, 259.
in Reformed Confession, 137.
in various Protestant systems, 141.
GOOD WORKS, in Aug. Conf., 261.
in Formula of Concord, 753, 762,
829.
See also chapters on Augsburg Con
fession.
GOSLAR, 672, 674.
GOSPEL, in Augsburg Confession,
1271 937.
GoTTINGEN, 672, 674.
GRUMBACH, 668.
GUSTAVUS ADOLPHUS, 830.
GUYON, 765. H
HAGENAU, 580, 672.
HALBERSTADT, 677.
HALLE, 672.
HAMBURG, 599, 651, 657, 672, 724.
HAMELN, 672.
HANAU, 672.
HANNOVER, 672, 674.
HARNACK, 103, 666, 702, 773.
HARTWIG and the Symbolical Books,
870.
HASE, CARL, 59.
HAUSMANN, NICHOLAS, 323, 329.
See also chap. XIX.
HEGEL, 67.
HEILBRONN, 182, 522, 672.
HELLER, 487, 4931, 500, 511.
HENNEBERG, 654, 671.
Count Ernest ol, 654.
HENRY VIII., 289n, 575.
HERESY, 32, 41.
HERETICS, 42.
HERZBERG, 671.
HESHUSIUS, 597, 657.
HESS, COBAN, 329.
HESSE, 209, 646, 673, 6761, 724.
Landgrave of, 120, 169, 183ff, 1981.
211, 2341, 237ff, 241, 244, 246,
292f, 295ff, 301f, 306ff, 310, 340,
357ff, 373f, 3911, 3951, 399, 403,
406, 415, 419, 422, 434, 465,
490, 500, 512, 543, 551f, 557,
572, 576, 582, 585, 590, 892,
900, Introduction.

HESSE CASSEL, LANDGRAVE
WILLIAM OF, 648f, 663.
HILDESHEIM, 672.
HOHENLOHE, 672.
HOFSTATTER, 504ff.
HOLLAZIUS, 73f, 846f.
HOLY DAYS, in Aug. Conf., 257,
263, 280.
HOLY GHOST, 20.
in Aug. Conf., 260.
HOLSTEIN, 657f, 672, 674, 676.
HOME and problems of the day, 925,
926.
degeneracy of and the church, 926.
sphere of. as distinguished from
Church and State, 927.
the principle and the mode of its
activity, 928.
worth of, 929.
HONIUS, 792.
HoRNIA, 672.
HORST, 668.
HOSPINIAN, 681, 722, 800.
HOYA, 653, 672.
HUGO OF ST. VICTOR, 765.
HUNGARY, 361, 672.
HUTTER, 670, 845.

ILLYRICUS, 656.
IMMIGRATION, Lutheran to America
in 19th century, 860f.
INDIFFERENTISM, Protestant, 878,
879
INDIVIDUALISM, 39ff, 47, 91,
852ff.
INDULGENCES and Luther, 180, 231,
254f.
INFUSED RIGHTEOUSNESS, 756,
827
INGOLDSTADT, 172f, 229, 343.
INNSBRUCK, 176, 185, 319, 325f,
335, 345, 350, 358, 360ff, 381,
393
INSTITUTIONS, and authority, 40.
teachers' loyalty, 85.
INSTALLATION, 81.
INSTRUCTION, 55f.
"INTER-CHANGE," 70.
INTERNATIONAI LUTHERAN CON
FERENCE, 3.
INVESTIGATION, 88ft.
INVESTITURE, 169, 477f.
ISSNY, 672.

JACOBS, H. E:, 6n, 61n, 110, llln,
134f, 138, 571n, 624, 679, 691,
7521, 764f, 803f, 815.
JANSENISM, 747.
JENA, 554, 597, 6491, 724.
JEROME, 813.
JESUITS, Society of, 704.
" JESUS THE MESSIAH," 97.
JONAS, JUSTUS, 126, 170f, 187,
200f, 243, 320ff, 329ff. ?-¦
410, 412, 418, 439, 442, 444,
450, 453, 459, 464, 469, 473,
4801, 502, 509, 514, 523, 596,
616.
JUDEX, 597.
JUSTIFICATION in Augsburg Con
fession, 127, 260.
in Formula of Concord, 753, 755ff,
827.
a fundamental doctrine, 761n.

954

INDEX.

K
KAHNIS, 118, 120n, 636.
KAISER, LEONARD, 572.
KANT, 67f.
KARNTHEN, 672.
KATTENBUSCH, 103.
KAUFBEUERN, 672.
KAWERAU, Introduction.
A KEMPIS, THOMAS, 765.
KEMPTEN, 522, 672.
KNOX, 912.
KOCHERTHAL, 939.
KOLDE, Preface.
KOLLNER, 88n, 678.
KORNER, 656, 658.
KRAIN, 672.
KRAUTH, C. P., 846.
Analytical Bibliography, Preface.
Chronicle, Preface.
The Conservative Reformation, Pre-
on Lutheran Confessions, 6971, 801,
858, cp. also 28n.
on Scripture and Confession, 30, 32.
on Word of God, 33.
on tolerance of Lutheran Church,
42-44.
on Augsburg Confession, 130f, 132f,
563ff, 727.
on Melanchthon's letter to Luther,
May 22nd, 367f.
on Formula of Concord, 594, 691,
694, 703f, 830.
on Melanchthon, 705f.
on Chemnitz, 725f.
on two natures of Christ, 797n,
798f, 805n, 812.
on Sacrament, 828n.
on Pietism, 850f.
KULMBACH, 671.
KUNZE, J. W., 102n, 103.
KUNZE, J. C.
the founder of English Lutheran
ism, 872.
and the symbolical books, 872.
KURTZ and the Symbolical Books,
870. L
LAMBETH CONFERENCE, 2.
LANDAU, 672.
LATITUDINARIANISM, 41.
See also chaps. XXXIX-XLI.
LAUENBURG, 672.
LAUSITZ, 677.
LAW, ecclesiastical, 55.
and love, 79.
and service, 80.
and Gospel in Formula of Concord,
753, 763f„ 82b.
in Formula of Concord, 753, 763,
826f.
LEGALISM, 29.
LEIGNITZ, 676.
LEININGEN, 672.
LEIPZIG, 532, 552, 597, 600, 647,
649, 656, 726, 838.
Theological Faculty confesses Sym
bolical Books in Muhlenberg's
Ordination Certificate, 868.
Interim, 2, 488, 504, 530, 588, 591f,
595f, 603, 625, 637, 641, 643,
819n.
LEPSIUS and the Symbolical Books,
871.
LESSING. 59, 153.

LEUTKIRCH, 672;
LIBERALISM. See Liberty.
cause of, 38 ff.
See also chaps. XL-XLII.
LIBERALITY, 879, 880. See tolera
tion, true and false, 880.
LIBERTY, and superficiality, 28.
misused, 23f.
and Luther, 24.
illustrated, 78.
and law, 80.
Christian, preserved by the Confes
sional Principle, 878.
in doubtful things, 922.
LICHTENBERG CONVENTION, 656,
714f, 725.
LIGHT, INNER, and the sects, ISn.
and the Quakers, 30.
LIMBURG, 672.
LIMITATIONS, a necessity, 79.
LINDANUS, WILLIAM, 536f.
LINDAU, 672.
LINDSAY, 306, 571n, 772, 786n,
801If.
LINK, W., 3291, 381, 518.
LITURGY, in Aug. Con!., 257.
LOCI. See Melanchthon.
LOESCHER, VALENTINE, 151.
LOOFS, Introduction.
LORD'S SUPPER, the main consid
eration in, 7.
and its fellowship, 34.
in Aug. Conf., 262, 266, 269.
in Formula of Concord, 753, 764ff,
827f. See Luther.
Schwenkfeldt's teaching of, 760.
and Melanchthon. See Melanch
thon.
in Lutheranism vs. other systems,
769, 827, Introduction.
See communicatio idiomatum.
See Ubiquity.
See Controversies, Eucharistic.
rooted in Person ol Christ, 764ff,
770, 792ff, Introduction.
essence of, 904, 905, 906.
See also Sacraments and Fellowship.
LOVE and Law, 79.
personal, 93.
and confessional principle, 910, 932.
LOWENSTEIN, 672.
LOY, M., 506f.
LOYALTY, and pastors and teachers,
84ff.
LUBECK, 672, 724.
LUNEBURG, 209, 645, 671f, 724.
Dukes of, 185, 188f, 211, 239, 2!",
396, 403, 406, 422, 426, 465,
837.
LUTHER (See Catechism and For
mula of Concord).
as a confessor, 17n.
and the Sixteenth Century, 28.
on ecclesiastical tyranny, 42.
on Athanasian Creed, 107.
how he became a Protestant, 24.
and liberty, 24.
first confessional acts of, llOl.
on the Small Catechism, 1121.
on the sacraments, 113.
on Confessional obligation, Intro
duction.
confessional development, 113.
and Lutheranism, independent, 6n.
loyalty of, 23f.
development of Lutheran Confes
sion after death of. 25.

INDEX.

955

LUTHER and America, 859, 860.
relation to Augs. Conf., 1151, 1171,
121f, 126, 170ff, 191, a24f, 2481,
254ff, 2841, 300, 320ff, 327ff,
335ff, 353ff, 363ff, 375, 432ff,
439ff, 466ff, 510f, 529, 545, 563,
667.
on Aug. Conf., 9n, 124n, 174, 250,
356, 358f, 466ff, 545.
and rationalized Protestantism, 143.
and word " symbol," 157.
and indulgences, 180, 231, 254f.
the Living Confession ol his
Church, 163, 166.
and Melanchthon compared, 439,
573 574.
and Melanchthon, HOf, 116, 174f,
199, 234, 254ff. 301, 327ff,
338, 350ff, 359, 363ff, 372, 384,
392, 408, 430f, 438ff, 470, 472ff,
501ff, 529, 545, 573ff, 610ff,
841ff.
attitude toward Rome, 191, 254f,
338, 340, 438, 440ff, 480, 502,
508ff, 580.
attitude toward Confessions. 164f.
Confessional value of utterances of,
167.
and Schwabach Articles, 173, 310.
"Admonition to Clergy assembled
at Diet at Augsburg," 195, 285,
326, 333f, 339f, 388-390, 434.
reports of Jonas to, 200.
the Confession submitted to him.
May 11th. 175f, 224f, 248, 355f;
May 19-22, 363, 367.
on Decree ol Diet ol Spires, 294.
and the Federation, 295f, 2981.
and Marburg Colloquy, 297, 307,
578.
against war with Charles V., 304f,
310.
and Lord's Supper, 307ff, 584,
644f, 777, 786f, 790ff.
political influence ol, 310.
and Zwingli, 3071, 7811, 790, 792ff.
heroism of, 440ff.
and tradition, 476.
and Charles V., 288ff, 319, 463.
at Coburg, 327-521, 635.
and the Reformation, 573.
and Bucer, 576ff, 584.
and Wittenberg Concord, 5771.
and Schmalkald Articles, 580.
death of, 585.
foresees reaction, 590n.
hero-worship of, 610n.
and Wimpina, 346f.
his Christology, 771ff.
on federation, 891, 893.
unable to abate a jot of doctrine,
893.
Carlyle on, 912-914.
Luther's tolerance, 913, 914.
letters of. Preface.
letters of. to nil wife, ?<17, 516, 519.
to Agricola, 307f, 411f, 441, 458,
481.
fo Landgrave of Hesse. 298. 308.
to Elector John, 296. 297, 319,
358f, 360. 441. 468f. 520.
to Jonas, 321. 331. 412. 442, 459f,
464, 469, 473, 480f, 509.
to Hausmann, 323, 329.
to Cordatus, 323, 412, 439, 466f,
519.
to Coban Hess, 329.

to W. Link, 329f, 381, 518.
to Melanchthon, 330, 333f, 384,
441, 452ff, 460f, 4661, 4731, 477,
- 479, 4821, 484, 507ff, 510, 514f,
517.
to Spalatin, 332, 4561, 510.
to table companions in Wittenberg,
333.
to Jacob Probst, 383.
to Zwilling, 412.
to Brenz, 441, 457.
to John Frederick, 458f.
to Archbishop of Mayence, 4671.
to Spangler, 501, 520.
LUTHERAN CONFESSION, History
LUTHERANS, what they should re
member, 24.
and private judgment, 43.
LUTHERANISM defined, 6n, 33, Pre
face.
pastors and teachers of, 84ff.
independent of Luther and Melanch
thon, 6n.
prospective, 82, 84.
and rationalism, 83f, 848, 85111.
and individualism, 43.
and unity, 43.
and legalism, 42.
and error, 42f.
and condemnation, 44ff.
and exclusion, 44ff.
and the State, 48n.
and Zwinglian Confession, 126.
and Tetrapolitan Confession, 126.
and Augsburg Confession, 126, 133,
427f, 822f. .
and the Reform, 134, 1361, 781ft,
827, 843f.
and American Protestantism, 138,
141ff.
and Confession, 148, 155, 845.
and the Melanchthonian Principle,
635f.
in Apology to Augs. Con., 570f.
and the Controversies, 592H, 701ff.
Phillipists and extreme Lutherans,
597f, 602ff.
checked by political situation, 606f.
efforts to secure unity in, 644ff.
Formula of Concord as confession
of, 667, 678f, 688ff, 742f, 821-
831.
multiplicity of confessions in, 691ff.
in Sixteenth Century, 700ff.
vs. all other Protestantism, 772,
777.
and Eastern Church, 788.
misrepresentation of, 800ff, 858.
and Book of Concord, 822, 824.
and individualism, 853f.
in America, 855.
from Book of Coneord to present
day. 840-858.
historical in America, 859.
capable of being injured. 898.
not narrow-minded, 899, 908.
and church, state and home, 926-
928.
and social problems, 927.
LYRA, 20. M
MAGDEBURG, 671, 676, 724.
MAJOR, 597f, 641, 644.
MAJORITY, the question of in re
ligion, 916.

956

INDEX.

MAN, the doctrine of, in modern re
ligious thought, 138.
in Formula of Concord, 751.
MANICH.EANS, 259.
MANSFELD, 585, 653, 672.
Count Albrecht of, 330.
MANTUA, Ambassador of, his report
concerning the Lutheran princes,
215.
MANUEL, JUAN, 289.
MARBACH, 715.
MARBURG ARTICLES, 113f, 173,
191, 544, 713.
Colloquy, 2, 168, 297, 306ff, 576,
578, 628, 782, 791n, 794, 809,
842, 843n, 879, 900, Introduction.
MARHEINECKE, 153f.
MARIUS, 196, 198.
MARK, Earldom of, 677.
MARTENSEN, 849.
MARTHA, confession of, 95.
MATRIMONY, in Aug. Conf., 267,
273ff 931
MASS, THE, in Aug. Conf., 268.
MAULBRONN FORMULA, 654f, 714.
MAURENBRECHER, 193.
MAXIMILIAN II., 711, 724.
MAYENCE, 535, 537, 540, 560ff.
Archbishop of, 189, 198, 385, 394,
401, 415, 420, 424, 462, 467f,
474, 486, 535, 579.
MEATS, DISTINCTION OF, in Aug.
Conf., 263, 270.
MECKLENBURG, 653, 671, 715, 724.
Ulrich of, 554, 557.
MEISSEN, 671.
MELANCHTHON on, condemnation,
45f.
relation to Aug. Conf., 57, 59n, 116,
118ff, 126, 170ff, 191, 193f, 205ff,
224f, 228ff, 242ff, 2841, 320ff,
327f, 336, 338f, 350ff, 363ff,
375ff, 417ff, 432ff, 436ff, 467,
470«, 487, 492ff, 504ff, 523ff,
538f, 542ff, 563ff, 580, 621, 627,
631, 6331, 7061, 767, Introduc
tion.
attitude toward Rome, 119f, 134,
355, 379, 381, 384f, 392, 417,
437f, 443, 470ff, 487f, 491ff, 588,
623, 631, 6331.
attitude toward Reformed churches,
119f, 134, 574ff, 588, 623, 625,
631f, 708.
and Charles V., 119, 179f, 201, 213,
234, 251ff, 287, 355, 380, 391,
417, 419, 504f, 538, 633.
on Marburg Colloquy, 297.
severity against sacramentarians,
179. 338, 347.
secret correspondence of, 198, 385,
516.
relation to Apology to A. C. See
Apology to Aug. Conf.
and Unionism, 1191. 134, 438, 488,
492, 574ff, 584, 588f, 615, 620,
629, 630ff.
and the Confessional Principle, 120,
628f.
and the word "symbol," 157.
his "introduction," 172. 175, 177.
179-181f, 184, 187ff, 22SK, 233f,
237ff, 251-259, 327, 336, 348,
351, 355, 398, 418, Introduction.
negotiations with Valdes and
Rome, 186, 192ff, 201, 203ff,

211ff, 215, 2191, 378f, 401f, 408ff,
413, 417f, 420ff.
and Elector John, 179ff, 229ff,
302f, 320ff, 355, 471.
his "Loci" 525, 528, 532, 542,
573f, 577, 58o, 613n, 614, 622ff,
705, 743, 845ff.
spirit of, 587.
later negotiations with Papists, 588,
819n.
Brieger's defense ol, 193.
Tschaekert on, Introduction.
lack of sympathy with Zwinglians,
197, 237f, 308, 338, 621, 631,
842.
opinions of, 499f, 502ff, 516.
and Bucer, 574f£, 621f, 624, 628,
632, 768, 794.
and the Reformation, 573.
position on Lord's Supper, 528,
574ff, 580f, 684, 59Sf, 603, 621i,
627f, 632, 645, 767f.
and Schmalkald Articles, 580.
on Luther, 585f.
failure as diplomat, 197ff, 633f.
charges of Cochlaeus against, 197f.
relation with Schepper, 186, 200.
relation with Campeggi and Rome,
192ff, 201, 206, 215ff, 471f,
503f, 538f, 614, 633.
report of Nuremberg delegates con
cerning. See Nuremberg Dele
gates.
report of the "Schrift aus Augs
burg," 202n, 214.
and Briick, 187, 214, 216f, 633.
consequences of His negotiations,
215, 417.
and Venetian ambassador, 216f.
and Leipzig Interim, 488, 504, 530,
588, 591f, 595, 603, 625, 643.
works of, 532, 588, 617n, 618.
as leader, 587ff, 602.
and Augsburg Interim, 591.
and the controversies, 592f, 624,
642f.
a synergist, 597, 600f, 623, 708,
755, 827.
death of, 602.
father of both parties in Lutheran
ism, 602ff.
scholastic method in, 603, 618,
624f, 630, 642.
character of, 602, 610ff.
as humanist, 610, 612, 617ff.
as teacher, 612f, 616f, 620f.
practical ' tendency of, 614.
his "Rhetoric," 618.
and philosophy, 619n.
and the Lumen Naturale, 6l9f.
the two contradictory principles ol,
620, 624, 626.
theology of, 618ff.
and the Reformation, 626ff.
lack of faith, 627.
mild rationalism of, 628.
timidity and anxiety of, 629f, 6341,
et passim.
willingness to compromise, 629. '
the Melanchthonian principle, 626ff,
705ff.
and Flacius, 644f.
bulk of works of, 705, 748.
uncertainty in language of, 705,
748.
the doctrinal movement of his mind,
935.

INDEX.

957

MELANCHTHON, his leaning to
Romanism, 935.
on not abandoning truth necessary
to the Church, 873.
and Luther, 880.
on Federation, 891.
letters of to the Elector, 297, 613.
to Luther, 350f, 353f, 448, 4501,
472, 4751, 481ff, 501.
to Veit Dietrich, 351.
to Camerarius, 413, 449.
to Myconius, 413.
to Luther, May 22nd, 364ff.
See Tractatus de Potestate Papae.
See Nicene Creed.
See Corpus Philippicum.
See Confessio Saxonica.
See Examen Ordinandorum.
MEMMINGEN, 672.
MERCURINUS, CHANCELLOR, 185,
316, 342, 362, 364, 383, 386f,
387, 398, 402.
plea for a Council, 312-314.
attitude to Lutheran cause, 314,
326, 361, 365.
MEYRICK, FREDERICK, 53.
MINISTERIUM, PENNSYLVANIA,
860.
and the Symbolical Books, 870, 871,
872, and the whole of Chapt.
XXXVIII.
MINISTRY, 86f.
MODERNISM, 876.
MOMPELGARD, 671.
MONASTERIES, 273ff.
MOLLER, 668.
MORLIN, 597.
MUHLENBERG, HENRY MELCHIOR,
135, 841, 855, 861, 867-872,
940.
MuHLHAUSEN, 672.
MtJLLER, 77, 82, , 109, 670f.
MUNICH, 387, 393.
UNSTER, 672.
MUSCULUS, 656, 658, 726.
MYCONIUS, 196f, 413, 627.
MYSTICISM, 765.

N

NORDHEIM, 672.
NORDLINGEN, 672.
NOVATIANS, 262.
NUMBER (of Confessors) and Valid
ity, 54, 61f.
NUREMBERG, 169, 172, 183f, 187ff,
328f, 337, 366, 369, 372ff, 392,
422, 671, 676.
peace of, 572.
NUREMBERG DELEGATES', 183.
reports of, 176, 196, 203ff, 212,
213f, 226, 368, 379f, 408, 413,
419, 496.
relation to Aug. Conf., 177, 183,
193, 208f, 226f, 236ff, 356, 38C,
410, 413, 421f, 488.

O

OATH, TEACHING, 88n.
OBJECTOR, characterized, 231.
objections of, 27, 33f.
answered, 24, 28ff.
"OBLIGATION," 56, 68.
OBLIGATION and Lutheran Confes
sion, 74.
defined, 91.
and pastors and teachers, 84ff, 92.
and investigation, 89.
CECOLAMPADIUS, 307, 572, 627,
632, 793, 796.
OETTINGEN, 672.
OLDENBURG, 653, 672.
OPINION, Lutheranism not a matter
of, 6n.
OPPRESSION of the mind by con
fessions, 78f.
ORDER GOOD in the Church, 35.
ORDINATION, 81, 86, 88n.
ORIGEN, 178, 264, 765.
ORIGINAL SIN, in Aug. Conf., 259f.
in Formula of Concord, 752, 754f.
ORTENBURG, 677.
ORTHODOXY, 59, 148, 858.
OSIANDER, 205f, 307, 596, 599f,
624, 638, 641, 643f, 756f, 760f,
827, 833, 838. '
OSNABRUCK, 677.

NAME, LUTHERAN, and Confessional
question, 5.
and rationalism, 84.
NASSAU, 677.
Count of, 326, 344, 350, 369f, 374,
477.
NATHANAEL, 94.
NATURE, HUMAN Partisan's feel
ing in. 39.
NAUMBURG, Diet of, 531. 553ff,
563, 568, 604, 606, 645, 647, 710,
900.
Princes of. 663.
NEANDER, 97, 840f.
NEO-PLATONISM, 765.
NESTORIANISM, 107, 935.
See also Chap. XXXIII.
NEUBURG, 671.
NEUENAR. COUNT OF, 369f. 374.
NEW NETHERLANDS, Confessional
basis of the Lutheran Church in,
863-865.
NEW YORK. See New Netherlands.
NIC^SA, COUNCIL OF, 259.
NICODEMUS, 94.
NICUM, Doctrinal development of — .
New York Ministerium, 872,
64

PACK. 234, 292.
PALATINATE, FREDERICK OF,
414, 477, 513, 531f, 552ff, 645f.
Count Wolfgang, 5olff.
Count John Casimir, 662, 673.
Elector, Louis of, 663, 673, 836f.
PALATINATE, 671, 673.
PAPACY. See Rome, Pope.
PARABLE OF WHEAT AND TARES,
41f.
PARENTS Training children in loy
alty to the faith. 85.
PARLIAMENT OF RELIGIONS, 2.
PASSAU AGREEMENT, 606.
PAST and present, 14, 19, 23.
PASTOR, requisites, 84.
PAUL, on Church discipline, 45.
and condemnation, 49.
confession of, 146.
auoted in Aug. Conf., 260-261,
266ff, 270, 272, 275, 277ff.
PEASANTS' WAR, 291, 416.
PEGEL. 668.
PELAGIANISM, 51f. 138, 755, 935.
PENNSYLVANIA, Lutheran churches
in, 860.

958

INDEX.

PENNSYLVANIA confessional basis
of Stoever's churches, 865, 867.
PERSON OF CHRIST. See Christ.
"PERSONA" (use of this term in the
doctrine of the Trinity), 107.
PETER and Church's foundation, 87.
confession of, 94ff, 145.
quoted in Aug. Conf., 280, 282.
PEUCER, 597, 668.
PFAFF, 562, 564, 851.
PFEFFINGER, 597, 600, 641.
PHILIP. See Landgrave of Hesse.
See Melanchthon.
PHILIP II., of Spain, 536f.
PHILIPPISTS, 534, 597ff, 642, 645ft,
663, 676, 681, 693, 723ff, 742,
748, 804, 810, 824f, 900.
PHILIPPI, 849.
PHILOSOPHY. See Introduction.
and Melanchthon, 619n.
Modern, 853.
PHOTINUS, 765, 775.
PHRASE, significance of a single,
106.
PIETISM, 847, 850.
PILATE, PONTIUS, and truth, 915.
PLAN, GOD'S, is set forth in creeds,
23.
and Luther, 23.
and the Christian era, 28, 31.
PLANCK, 151ff, 664, 670, 677f, 723,
725.
PLATFORM' defined, 59.
PLATO, 619, 765.
PLITT, 14n, 21n, 165, 432, 544n,
614.
POLEMICS, 41.
Schaff on and Irenics, 922.
POLITICS, 35.
not a decisive factor in Lutheran
Confessions, 667ff.
and check of Lutheranism, 606f.
POMERANIA, 646, 657f, 672, 675f,
724.
POMERANUS. See Bugenhagen.
POPE, Clement VII., 168„ 218, 312ff,
325f, 337.
Gelasius, 266.
Hadrian VI., 290.
Paul III., 590f.
Pius II., 267.
Pius IV.. 552.
POSSEVINUS, 728.
PRAGUE, 724.
PREACHER, main function of, 77.
and the Confession, 77. 8fi.
PREACHING is a confession, 144ff.
referred to in Aug. Conf °57.
PREACHING. PROTESTANT, in
Augsburg, 177, 184f, 194f, 207,
285, 326, 328, 347, 349, 351f,
355, 358f, 361, 369H, 382, 397,
402ff.
PREDESTINATION, 754, 819, In
troduction.
PREJUDICE, 90.
PRESBYTERIAN, old-line, 13.
PRESENT, relation to past and fu
ture, 14, 19, 23.
perverse tendency. 14n.
PRIESTS, MARRIAGE OF, In Aug.
Cnnf.. 266f. passim.
PRINOIPLE, THE CONFESSIONAL,
prior, at and subsequent to
PpnteTist. 96f.
silent interval of, 108.
and the Creeds, 104ff.

and the Reformation, 109.
development of in America, 48n.
manifestations different, 15.
rise of, 93ff.
and Melanchthon, 120.
in Augsburg Confession, 117-143.
in the Church, 104-116, 144-155,
609.
one of conscience, 679.
the truth of Scripture, 679.
the Formula of Concord, 667, 679.
in Lutheranism, 845.
and authority, 874, 877.
and American Protestantism, 875.
uniting the true invisible Church,
877.
a balance, 878, 879.
and liberality, 879-882.
how accepted in America, 882, 883.
cannot be varied, 883, 884.
identical in the Unaltered Augsburg
Confession and in the Book of
Concord, 884-888.
properly upheld, 888-890.
PRINCIPLE, THE MELANCHTHON
IAN. See Melanchthon.
PRINCIPLES, COMMON OF FAITH,
presupposed in common service, 12.
developed into a system, 13f.
result from reaction of Scripture,
15.
organized into Confessions, 15.
PROBST, JACOB, 383.
PROGRESS, 91. See Formula of Con
cord.
PROMISE, defined, 67n. 68.
PROTEST, right of, 90.
PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL CHURCH.
See Church of England.
PROTESTANTISM and unionism, 2f.
abiding unity of, 10.
divided, Introduction.
principal extravagance of, 23.
and rivalry, 38.
modern view of, 39.
and the Confessions, 82.
prospective, 82.
and right of investigation, 88ff.
in Augsburg Confession, 121, 131.
133.
difference between systems of, 136ff.
and the historical Church, 140.
and Scripture, 140.
Pelagian, 140f.
semi-Pelagian, 141.
Augustinian, 140f.
and Naumburg Diet, 558.
growth of, 579f.
break-up of, 589ff.
history of, from 1530 to 1560, 570-
608.
and Melanehthonianism', 706f.
and Formula of Concord, 829f.
American Protestantism and Book
of Concord, 874-890.
Protestantism without Confessional
ism is a disintegrative force,
877-879.
issue between Protestantism and
Romanism, 892.
most difficult problem of, 903.
unity of, 917.
divisions of, 921.
PROTESTANTS, the name, 293.
PROVIDENCE and Augsburg Confes
sion, 57. 117, 121, 283-435, 521.
stress of, 61.

INDEX.

959

PROVIDENCE and Formula of Con
cord, 593, 662, 700-716, 829ff.
ordering the development of Lu
theranism in the new world, 859,
860.
action of in our confessions accord
ing to Mueller, 935, 941.
PRUSSIA, 657. 671.
PUNISHMENT, ETERNAL, in Aug.
Conf., 264. Q
QUAKERS, 30.
QUEDLINBURG CONVENTION, 663,
838
QUEDLINBURG, 671.
QUENSTEDT, 845.
QUESTION. CONFESSIONAL, 1, 7.
defined. 5ff.
an old problem, 1.
present setting of, If, 4, 7.
history of. If, 6.
how to be discussed, 5, 7.
rightful solution of, 4.
See Confessional Prindiple.

RADICALISM, 24, 848.
RATIONALISM, 21.
and social contract. 69.
effect on Confessions, 155.
and Formula of Concord, 682.
and Lutheranism, 83f, 848, 851ff,
935.
See Preface and Introduction.
RATISBON, 585.
RAVENSBERG, 677.
REASON and the sects, 18n.
as a source of authority, 874, 875,
877, 879.
REFORM', Lutheran Church and, 895.
Reformed Church and, 896.
dangers of, 897.
REFORMATION, HOf, and Confes
sion. 109, 148.
first act of, 110.
and Evangelical Princes, 572f.
and Luther, 573.
and Melanchthon, 573.
and Christ, 772.
REFORMED CHURCHES and Nicene
Creed, 105n.
and Lutheran Church, 136f, 772,
781ff, 827, 843f. 897.
in relation to society, 137.
and Augsburg Confession, 134.
the Reformed Principle, 897, 898,
899, 940.
as it works practically in American
Protestantism. 931.
Protestantism and problems of the
day, 926.
REGENSBURG, 550, 580. 583, 672,
723
REINSTEIN, 672
RELIGION, saving truth of, revealed
in Scripture, 16.
organized in Confession, 16.
of to-day, historical development,
14.
a serious matter, 34.
and Christian order, 35.
RENAN, 726. 781.
REPENTANCE, in Augsburg Confes
sion, 262,

RESCRIPT, THE IMPERIAL, of
Charles V., 518, 520, 538.
RESERVATION, in Confessional sub
scription, 87.
RESURRECTION, THE, in Augsburg
Confession, 264.
REUCHLIN, 611f, 617n.
REUSS-SCHONBURG CONFESSION,
533f.
REUTLINGEN, 1S3, 185, 188f, 235f,
373f, 42lf, 672.
RHEGIUS, URBANUS, 706, 719.
RICHARD OF ST. VICTOR, 765.
RITES, ECCLESIASTICAL, in Aug.
Conf., 263.
in Formula of Concord, 753f.
RIVALRY, PROTESTANT, 38.
ROMAN CHURCH, unity of, 43.
and Council of Trent, 61n.
and Peter, 87.
Augsburg Confession in its relation
to, 122, 123f, 133f, 176, 480,
710, 747.
and Calvinism, 141f.
issue between Romanism and Pro
testantism, 892.
ROME. See Augsburg Confession,
Apology to Aug. Conf., Formula
of Concord. Luther. Melanchthon.
Roman Church, Pope Clement
VII.. etc.
ROSTOCK, 647, 651f, 726.
ROTACH. 295. 298. 355, Introduction.
ROTHENBURG, 672.
RUCKERT, 328.
RUDIGER. 668.
RUFFINUS, 156f.
RURER, JOHN, 198, 385.
RUYSBROCK, 765.

SAALFELD, 171.
SABELLIANISM, 107.
SACRAMENTS, in Aug. Conf., 256,
260. 263.
and the Church, 261.
See also chap. XXXV.
and chap. XL. on Fellowship.
and Lord's Supper.
SACRAMENTARIANS, 176, 188, 240,
344, 419, 533. 646, 7«6.
SAINTS, COMMUNION OF, 36, 39.
SALERNO, ARCHBISHOP OF, 415.
SALIG, 293, 374ff, 386n, 395n, 495ff,
502f. 511f.n, Preface.
SALVATION, 16.
SALZBURG, CARDINAL OF, 198.
SARTORIUS, 82, 86f, 161f, 686f,
830n.
SAVOY, St. Mary's in London, 862.
constitution of, 862.
SAVIGNY, 68.
SAXON COUNSEL, THE. and Mel
anchthon's Introduction, 179.
a private eonfessi"n 182.
and Landgrave of Hesse, 237.
and the Evangelical Estates, 182ff.
and Melanchthon, 631.
SAXON VISITATION, 626.
SAXONY, 181, 183f, 209, 234, 238,
253f, 378, 533, 558, 579f, 607,
646, 649, 670ff, 715, 75>4, S^p.
Elector Augustus of, 534f, 537,
551ff, 639f, 650, 653ff, 666, 669,
684, 712ff. 724. 726. 836ff.
Duke Maurice ol, 585, 590, 592,
819n,

960

INDEX.

SAXONY, Christian I of, 839.
Christian II of, 838f.
Frederick William of, 839.
George of, 176, 195, 579.
Henry of, 579.
Elector John of. See Elector.
John Frederick of, 180, 230, 301,
358, 422, 453, 45Sf, 514, 525f,
532, 545ff, 550, 552ff, 572, 5s0,
585, 590, 646, 668, 728.
SAVONAROLA, 142n.
SCHiBFFER, C. F., 684, 737, 852n,
866, 886-888.
SCHAFF, PHILIP, 153, 301n. 572f,
575n, 581, 582n, 590, 5911, 597,
610n, 636, 70S, 767f, 7S5n, 788,
895.
"Creeds of Christendom," Preface.
error of, in Creeds of Christendom,
6n.
on solution of Lutheran Confes
sional question, 4.
on Creeds, 18n, 55, 96, 106f.
on Lutheran Confession and doc
trine, 56, 800f, 803ff.
on the Filioque and Schism, 106.
on Augsburg Confession, 118, 120n,
135f, 749.
on doctrinal difference between Lu
theranism and Reform, 136f.
on Formula of Concord, 593n, 601n,
690, 703, 735, 749, 824f.
on polemics and irenics, 922.
on Synergism, 600.
definition of Confession, 743f.
on Unionism, 578f, 840ff.
on Melanchthon, 880.
on disowning the Formula, 882.
on American Melanehthonianism,
883.
SCHEPPER, CORNELIUS, 186, 200,
402, 449.
SCHLEIZ, Introduction.
SCHLESWIG, 677.
SCHLESWIG-HOLSTEIN, 724.
SCHLEIERMACHER, 853.
SCHMID, 846f, 849f.
SCHMALKALD ARTICLES, 63, 74,
357, 532f, 543, 554ff, 580, 644f,
649, 658, 675, 678, 684, 696,
710, 749, 762, 776, 781, 817, 835.
Diet of, 526, 528, Introduction.
League, 526f, 571f, 576, 580, 585,
643, 892, Introduction.
war, 585, 723.
SCHMIDT, 74.
See chap. XXXVII.
SCHMUCKER, S. S., 840, 846.
attempt to introduce new Confes
sion, 694f.
SCHNEPF, ED., 358, 375, 487f, 492ff,
501.
SCHOLASTICISM defined, 109.
SCHONBURG, 672.
SCHORNBAUM, KARL, his discovery
of and manuscript of the Augs
burg Confession, 225f.
SCHUBERT v. Introduction.
SCHWABACH ARTICLES, 114, 173,
177, 191, 195, 236, 309f, 323,
326, 345, 352, 366, 544, 565,
713, 794
SCHWARZBURG, 672.
SCHWEINFURT, 672.
SCHWENKFELDT, 588, 760f, 765.
SCIENCE and nature, 151.

SCRIPTURE. See Bible, Word, the
main consideration, 8.
and Confession, 13f, 16, 30.
anil Creed, 31.
and historical order, 22.
and condemnation, 48ff.
reactions of on men, 14.
in pure Protestantism, 140.
and Luther, 163f, 167, 791.
original manuscripts of, 541.
and the Confessional Principle, 679,
749.
and the Lutheran Confessions,
749f£.
as a source ol authority, 874, 876-
879.
SECKENDORF, 399, 549.
SECTARIANISM and the true Church,
38.
Sectarians, 754, 911.
SECTS and Creeds, 18n.
SEEBERG, ldlf, 142n, 600, 606, 625,
690, 693f, 709f, 735, 744n, 794n,
800n, 814n, 823f, 841, 895.
SEISS, 87, 684.
SELNECKER, 533, 537. 547, 597,
601, 647, 650, 656, 658, 669, 724,
726, 834, 837.
SEMLER, 851f.
SEMINARY, THEOLOGICAL, purpose
of, 76.
SENTIMENT, 40.
SERMON ON THE MOUNT, 924.
SERVETUS, 42, 532, 705.
SERVICE and law, 80.
SERVICE, COMMON, how and why
formulated, 12f.
historical aspect, 14.
adapted to occasion, 15.
and Apostles' Creed, 104.
SIMPLICITY, 29, 31.
SIN, 21.
Augsburg Confession on. 265.
" SIX SERMONS," 639, 650ff, 724.
SOCIALISM, origin of, 69.
modern, 69.
ecclesiastical, 69.
SOCIETY, church and laws of, 924.
church and, 925.
social problems and the Lutheran
Confession, 927, Preface.
SORBONNE, 626.
SPALATIN, GEORGE, 126, 171, 184,
207, 224, 244ff, 329ff, 399f, 453,
510, 554f, 615f.
SPENER, 135, 154, 840f.
SPENGLER, LAZARUS, 499, 501,
516, 520.
SPIRES, Diets at, 168, 240, 291f, 292,
303, 309, 322, 338, 407, 419,
461, 627, 631, 634f.
Protest at, 293, 309, 635.
SPIRES, 676.
SPIRIT, HOLY. See Holy Ghost.
STANCAR, 532, 588, 705,' 761.
STANLEY, DEAN, on Athanasian
Creed, 107.
STATE, and Lutheran Church, 4Sn.
a spiritual fact, 69.
not based on contract. 69.
Church and State in Augsburg Con
fession, 129, 130, 276ft.
in Augsburg Confession, 263f.
not in Formula of Concord. 81 9.
relation between State and Church,
896,

INDEX.

961

STATE the, and education, 923.
and problems of the day, 925.
corruption of, 926. ¦
sphere of as distinguished from
Home and Church, 927.
the principal mode of its activity,
928.
STEIERMARK, 672.
STCEVER, JOHN CASPAR, 861, 940.
STRASBURG, 182, 295, 576, 676.
STRJIGEL, 597, 600.
STUMP, J., 585, 634f.
STURM, JACOB, 195, 198.
STUTTGART, 652, 723.
" STUTTGART THEOLOGIANS' CON
FESSION," 648.
SUBSCRIPTION, 56.
formal, 6n, 7.
different forms of, 88n.
two kinds differentiated, 6n.
what is involved in an ex animo
subscription, 888, 890.
SULZBACH, 671.
SUPERNATURALISTS, 614.
SWABIAN CONCORDIA, 639, 652f,
833f.
3WABIAN-SAXON CONCORDIA,
653ff, 714.
SWEDEN and Unaltered Augsburg
Confession, 862.
Formula and Book of Concord, 672,
862, 864.
and the colony on the Delaware,
863, 864.
SWEDENBORG, 765.
SWISS, 188, 239, 295ff, 338, 474,
575f.
SYMBOL, significance of, 72.
purpose of, 62ff.
the implied agreements, 66.
not a contract, 69. See Agree
ment, Contract.
how obligatory upon the minister,
86.
confessional use of word, 69, 156-
162.
definition of, 65f, 72f, 146, 161.
and Church's Confessions, 146.
meaning of, 157.
its use before the Reformation, 156f.
its use in the Reformation, 157f.
earliest appearance in the Refor
mation, 157.
origin of the term, 156.
use in the Book of Concord, 158.
defined in Formula of Concord,
159, 160.
use in Symbolical Books of the
Church, 161.
and Symbolical writings, 161.
SYMBOLICAL BOOKS, objectors to,
27ff.
use of " Symbol " in Lutheran, 161.
first use of in Lutheran Church,
605. use of term, 73, 74.
SYMBOLICS, defined. 72.
development of, 151ff.
name, by whom given, 153.
SYNERGISM. 597, 6001, 623, 677,
682, 708, 752f, 827.

TAUFBUCHLEIN AND TRAUBUCH-
LEIN, 111, 836f.
TEACHER, main function of, 77,

and the Confession, 43, 77.
requisites of, 84.
and loyalty, 85.
TE DEUM, 107, 157, 834.
TECKLENBURG, 677.
TERTULLIAN, 101, 789.
TESTAMENT, OLD, and condemna
tion, 49ff.
TESTIMONY, validity of, 54.
and the truth, 69.
individual, 93ff.
formal, 94.
documentary, 94.
TEXT (Documentary, of Scripture and
Confessions) defined, 541.
THEOPHYLACT, 531, 556, 813.
THESES, NINETY-FIVE, 110, 121f.
THIRTY YEARS' WAR, 4S0, 8„U.
THOMAS, 95.
THOMASIUS, 677f, 720f, 731, 758n,
761n, 849.
quoted by Schaeffer, 887, 888.
THURINGIA, 650, 671.
TIEPOLO. See Venice, Ambassador
of.
TIMANN, 597.
TOLERATION, 905, 906, 911-914.
and doctrine, 38.
and Scripture, 50.
TORGAU, 169f, 303, 320, 322, 713,
715, 718.
TORGAU ARTICLES, 322f.
and Augsburg Confession, 115, 170,
223f. 229, 242, 335f, 348, 51,5.
and Melanchthon, 172f, 322, 336,
365f.
and Luther, 191, 249, 322.
TORGAU BOOK, 640, 656ff, 715.
TRACTATUS DE POTESTATE
PAP^E, 527.
TRADITION, 18n, 101, 476.
TRENT, COUNCIL OF, 531, 535, 540,
551, 558, 590, 704, 705, 725, 735,
833
TRINITY, DOCTRINE OF, 30, 32.
in Augs. Conf., 259.
TRI-THEISM, 107.
TRUTH, unorganized in nature, 15.
and science, 16.
unsystematized in Scripture, 16.
and faith, 29.
approximations and counterfeits, 38.
and controversy, 41.
and Confession, 16, 37, 54.
and Church, 54.
and testimony, 69, 916, 937.
Carlyle on, 912.
TSCHACKERT, on Confessional Prin
ciple, 'Introduction.
on Melanchthon, Introduction.
on Formula of Concord, Introduc
tion.
Critical Text of, Introduction.
TUBINGEN, 611, 638, 648, 652, 838.
TULLOCH, J., 106n, 109f.
TYRANNY and Lutheranism, 42.

U

"UBIQUITY," 603, 605, 648, 780,
783, 786, 800ff, Introduction.
ULM'. 182, 295, 672.
UNION, 4.
and Lutheran Church, 31.
and Protestantism, 3.
and unity differentiated, 36,

962

INDEX.

UNION. The real union of Christ's
Church, 907.
UNIONISM defined, 2, 36.
and compromise, 2, 4, 36.
history of, 2,
Delitzsch's and other proposals of,
2.
illegitimate, 36.
in Melanchthon, 119f, 134, 438,
488, 492, 574ff, 584, 588f, 615,
620, 629, 630ff.
on basis of Augsburg Confession,
135f.
and Charles V., 287f.
fallacies in Schaff's, 578f, 840ff.
and Formula of Concord, 824H.
UNITARIANISM, 30.
UNITIES, CHRISTIAN, and unity, 77.
UNITY, defined, 6n.
invisible, 36.
basis of, 44.
requisites of, 10, 84.
and different churches, 36.
and Lutheran Church, 43.
and confessions, 77.
in necessary things, 922.
UNIVERSITY, Leipzig, 580.
Jena, 643.
Wittenberg, 643.
Rostock, 726.
UPSALA, 672.
See Introduction.
URSINUS, 640, 681.
USINGEN (Catholic theologian), 196,
198.

VALDfiS, ALPHONSO. 186, 192«,
201, 203ff, 211ff, 215, 217, 219f.
VALENTINE, M., 752, 755, 785, 803,
805f, 849.
VALIDITY in witness, 54.
depends on Scripture, 55, 61.
legal aspect of, 55.
and testimony, 62.
and Confessional element, 76.
VARIATA AND VARIANT, difference
between, 541.
VARIATA, see Introduction.
VARIATA OF AUG. CONF. See
Augsburg Confession.
its right is historical, not actual,
883 884 900
VENICE, AMBASSADOR OF (Tie
polo), intercourse with Melanch
thon, 216f, 496.
VISITATION, ARTICLES OF, 838f.
VOGLER, CHANCELLOR, 183, 185,
193, 207, 210, 236, 239, 245,
374, 379, 391, 399, 403, 500.
\TOGT, 205f.
VOW, 55, monastic, in Aug. Conf.,
263, 272ff. W
WARFIELD, R., 431f.
WEBER, 223, 337f, 540, 546ff, 561f,
564, 567ff, 726ff, Preface.
WEIDNER, 851.
WEISSENBURG, 522.
WEIMAR, 229, 324, 557, 606, 645,
671.
WESTPHAL, J., 597, 599, 651.

WESTPHALIA, PEACE OF, 559.
WIEDEBRAM, 668.
WHATELY, ARCHBISHOP, on tole
rance, 912.
WIGAND, 597, 646, 657.
WILL, FREEDOM OF, in Augsburg
Confession, 264.
in Formula of Concord, 752, 755.
WINDSHEIM, 522.
WIMPFEN, 672.
WIMPINA, 346, 434, 491.
WINDSCHIED, 67.
WINER, 154.
WITTENBERG, 170f, 322, 324, 333,
381, 388, 507, 523, 529, 534,
552, 577, 581, 584f, 597, 603.
610ff, 635, 642f, 649f, 701, fj.5,
724 833.
Concord, 2,' 526ff, 577ff, 598, 632,
794.
Reformation, 585.
WITNESS, 54, 916, 929, 937, 938,
939.
-bearing, 20f.
WOHLAU, 676.
WOLFENBtiTTEL, 647.
WORD OF GOD. See Bible, Scrip
ture.
in Scripture and Creed, 31.
and Apostolic Church, 32.
after completion of Canon, 32,
and human explanation of, 33.
and Lutheran Confession, 33.
and the Church, 139, 261, Preface.
in Aug. Conf., 260.
in Formula of Concord, 752, 826.
as testified to in the Confessions,
876, 877, 936.
WORMS, 288ff, 302f, 329, 371, 373,
416f, 420, 462, 478, 518, 580,
582f, 584, 634, 645, 676, 701.
Carlyle on Luther at Diet of, 912-
914.
WORMS COLLOQUIUM, 530-551.
WURTEMBERG. 5E9. 639, 648, 653,
655, 671, 715, 723.
Duke Christopher of, 551ff, 648.
Duke Ludwig of, 654.

YOUNG MEN'S CHRISTIAN AS
SOCIATION, 3,

ZEALOT, danger of, 41.
ZERBST, 649.
ZINZENDORF, 840f, 867.
ZOCKLER, O., 133.
ZWEIBRUCKEN, 673, 677.
ZWILLING, 412.
ZUICHEM, VIGLIUS, 536f.
ZWICKAU, 613, 622.
ZWINGLI, 127, 142, 173, 297, 307f,
338, 357, 380, 481, 512, 572,
628, 632, 644, 765, 767, 769,
781f, 788, 790, 792ff, 809, 814,
827, 840, 842, 935.
ZWINGLIANS, 119, 185, 197f, 235,
237f, 244, 246, 301, 306, 359,
392, 403, 433, 584, 621, 628,
631f, 675, 681, 706, 716.