----------------------------------------------------------
Historical Introductions
to the Symbolical books
of the Evangelical Lutheran Church.
by F. Bente
Published in:
_Triglot Concordia:
The Symbolical Books of the Ev. Lutheran Church_.
(St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1921)
-----------------------------------------------------------
V. The Pontifical Confutation
36. Papal Party Refusing Conciliation.
At the Diet of Augsburg, convened in order to restore the disturbed
religious peace, the Lutherans were the first to take a step towards
reconciliation by delivering their Confession, June 25, 1530. In
accordance with the manifesto of Emperor Charles, they now expected
that the papal party would also present its "view and opinion," in
order that the disuccsions might thereupon proceed "in love and
kindness," as the Emperor put it. In the Preface to their Confession
the Lutherans declared: "In obedience to Your Imperial Majesty's
wishes, we offer, in this matter of religion, the Confession of our
preachers and of ourselves, showing what manner of doctrine from the
Holy Scriptures and the pure Word of God has been up to this time set
forth in our lands, dukedoms, dominions, and cities, and taught in our
churches. And if the other Electors, Princes, and Estates of the
Empire will, according to the said imperial proposition, presentc
similar writings, to wit, in Latin and German giving their opinions in
this matter of religion, we, with the Princes'and friends aforesaid,
here before Your Imperial Majesty, our most clement Lord, are prepared
to confer amicably concerning all possible ways and means, in order
that we may come together, as far as this may be honorably done, and,
the matter between us on both sides being peacefully discussed without
offensive strife, the dissension, by God's help, may be done away and
brought back to one true accordant religion; for as we all are under
one Christ and do battle under Him, we ought to confess the one Christ,
after the tenor of Your Imperial Majesty's edict, and everything ought
to be conducted according to the truth of God; and this is what, with
most fervent prayers, we entreat of God." (39, S.)
The Lutherans did not believe that the manifesto of the Emperor could
be construed in any other way than that both parties would be treated
as equals at the Diet. Not merely as a matter of good policy, but
_bona fide_, as honest Germans and true Christians, they clung
tenaciously to the words of the Emperor, according to which the
Romanists, too, were to be regarded as a party summoned for the trial,
the Emperor being the judge. The Lutherans simply refused to take the
word of the Emperor at anything less than par, or to doubt his good
will and the sincerity of his promise. The fact that from the very
beginning his actions were in apparent contravention of the manifesto
was attributed by the Lutherans to the sinister influence of such
bitter, baiting, and unscrupulous theologians as Eck, Cochlaeus, and
Faber, who, they claimed, endeavored to poison and incite the
guileless heart of the Emperor. Thus the Lutherans would not and could
not believe that Charles had deceived them, a simple trust, which,
however, stubborn facts finally compelled them to abandon.
The Romanists, on the other hand, boasting before the Emperor that
they had remained with the true Christian faith, the holv Gospel, the
Catholic Church, the bull of the Pope, and the Edict of Worms, refused
with equal tenacity to be treated as a party summoned for trial. June
25, 1530, Elector John wrote to Luther: "Thus we and the other princes
and estates who are related to us in this matter had to consent to
submit our opinion and confession of faith. Our opponents, however, as
we are told, declined to present theirs and decided to show to the
Emperor that they adhered to the Edict [of Worms] and to the faith
which their fathers had bequeathed to and bestowed upon them, and
which they intended to adhere to even now; if, however, the Pope or,
in his place, the Legate, together with His Imperial Majesty, would
point out, and expect them to adopt, a different and new faith, they
would humbly hear the Emperor's opinion." (Luther, St. L. 16, 758.)
Thus presupposing what they were summoned to prove at Augsburg,
namely, that the doctrine of the Pope was identical with the old
Christian faith, the Romanists declared a presentation of their views
unnecessary. The Lutherans, they maintained, were convicted apostates
and rebels against Pope and Church, against Emperor and realm;
sentence was not first to be pronounced upon them, but had been
pronounced long ago, the Diet's duty merely being to confirm and
execute it; hence, there was nothing else to be done by the Emperor
than to attend to his office as warden and protector of the Church,
and, together with the princes and estates, to proceed against the
heretics with drastic measures. Also in the later discussions,
conducted with a view of effecting a reconciliation, the Romanists
refused to relinquish this position. From beginning to end they acted
as the accusers, judges, and henchmen of the Lutherans. Nor was
anything else to be expected, since, unlike the Lutherans, they
considered not God's Word, but the Pope the supreme arbiter in
religious matters. Thus, from the very outset, the gulf between the
two parties was such that it could not be bridged. Common ground was
lacking. On the one side conscience, bound by the Word of God! On the
other, blind subjection to human, papal authority! Also Romanists
realized that this fundamental and irreconcilable difference was bound
to render futile all discussions. It was not merely his own disgust
which the papal historian expressed when he concluded his report on
the prolonged discussions at Augsburg: "Thus the time was wasted with
vain discussions." (Plitt, _Apologie_, 43.)
37. Further Success Not Hoped for by Luther.
Luther regarded the public reading of the Confession as an
unparalleled triumph of his cause. Further results, such as a union
with the Romanists, he did not expect. On July 9, 1530, he wrote to
Jonas: "_Quid sperem de Caesare, quantumvis optimo, sed obsesso?_ What
can I hope of the Emperor, even the best, when he is obsessed" [by the
papal theologians]? The most Luther hoped for was mutual political
toleration. In the letter quoted he continues: "But they [the Papists]
must expect a sad, and we a happy issue. Not, indeed, that there ever
will be unity of doctrine; for who can hope that Belial will be united
with Christ? Excepting that perhaps marriage [of priests] and the two
kinds [of the Sacrament] be permitted (here too, however, this adverb
'perhaps' is required, and perhaps too much 'perhaps'). But this I
wish and earnestly hope for, that, the difference in doctrine being
set aside, a political union may be made. If by the blessing of Christ
this takes place, enough and more than enough has been done and
accomplished at this Diet. . . . Now, if we obtain also the third
thing, that we adjourn with worldly peace secured, then we shall have
clearly defeated Satan in this year." (Enders, 8, 95; St. L. 16, 927.
1666.)
July 21, 1530, Luther wrote in a similar vein to Jonas: "The fact
that these frogs [the papal theologians who wrote the Confutation]
with their croakings [_coaxitatibus_ = pasquinades against Luther,
instead of answers to the Augustana] have free access [to the Emperor]
chagrins me very much in this great work in the most important
matters. . . . But this happens to prove that I am - a true prophet;
for I have always said that we work and hope in vain for a union in
doctrine; it would be enough if we could obtain worldly peace."
(16,927. 2324.) August 25, when the prolonged discussions of
reconciliation were nearing their end, he wrote to Melanchthon: "In
sum, it does not please me at all that unity of doctrine is to be
discussed, since this is utterly impossible, unless the Pope would
abolish his entire popery. It would have sufficed if we had presented
to them the reasons for our faith and desired peace. But how can we
hope that we shall win them over to accept the truth? We have come to
hear whether they approve our doctrine or not, permitting them to
remain what they are, only inquiring whether they acknowledge our
doctrine to be correct or condemn it. If they condemn it, what does it
avail to discuss the question of unity any longer with avowed enemies?
If they acknowledge it to be right, what necessity is there of
retaining the old abuses?" (16, 1404.)
Though willing to yield to the Catholic party in all other matters,
Luther refused to compromise the divine truth in any point or in any
way. For this reason he also insisted that the Emperor should not be
recognized as judge and arbiter without qualification, but only with
the proviso that his decision would not conflict with the clear Word
of God. According to Luther, everybody, Pope and Emperor included,
must submit to the authority of the Scriptures. In a letter of July 9,
1530, he wrote to the Elector: "In the first place: Should His
Imperial Majesty desire that the Imperial Majesty be permitt@d to
decide these matters, since it was not His Majesty's purpose to enter
into lengthy discussions, I think Your Electoral Grace might answer
that His Imperial Majesty's manifesto promises that he would
graciously listen to these matters. If such was not intended, the
manifesto would have been needless, for His Imperial Majesty might
have rendered his decision just as well in Spain without summoning
Your Electoral Grace to Augsburg at such great labor and expense. . . .
In the second place: Should His Imperial Majesty insist that the
Imperial Majesty be permitted to decide these matters, Your Electoral
Grace may cheerfully answer: Yes, the Imperial Majesiy shall decide
these matters, and Your Electoral Grace would accept and suffer
everything, provided only that His Imperial Majesty make no decision
against the clear Scriptures, or God's Word. For Your Electoral Grace
cannot put the Emperor above God, nor accept his verdict in
opposition to God's Word." (16,815.)
38. Papal Peace Sought by Emperor.
By their obstinate refusal to regard themselves as a party summoned,
the Romanists, from the outset, made it impossible for the Emperor to
maintain the role of an impartial judge, which, probably, he had never
really intended to be. At an rate, though earnestly desirous of
religious peace, his actions throughout the Diet do not reveal a
single serious effort at redeeming his promise and putting his
beautiful words into practise. Being bound to the Pope and the papal
party both religiously and politically, Charles did not require of the
Romanists a fulfilment of the obligations imposed upon them by his
manifesto. All the concessions were to be made by the Lutherans.
_Revoca!_ - that was the first and only word which Rome had hitherto
spoken to Luther. "Revoke and submit yourselves!" - that, in the last
analysis, was also the demand of the Emperor at Augsburg with respect
to the Lutheran princes, both when he spoke in tones friendly and
gentle and when he uttered severe and threatening words. Charles, it
is true, desired peace, but a Roman peace, a peace effected by
universal blind submission to the Pope; not a peace by mutual
understanding and concessions; least of all a peace by political
religious tolerance, such as Luther desired, and which in our days is
generally regarded as the outstanding feature of modern civilization,
notably of Americanism. To force the Lutherans into submission and
obedience to the Pope, that was the real object of the Emperor. And
the political situation demanded that this be accomplished by
peaceable and gentle means - if possible.
Self-evidently, in his endeavors to establish a Papal Peace, the
Emperor, who was haunted and tormented by the fear that all efforts
might prove futile, was zealously seconded, encouraged, and prodded on
by the papal theologians. To bring about a religious peace, such as
the Emperor contemplated, this, they flattered Charles, would be an
ever-memorable achievement, truly worthy of the Emperor, for the eyes
of all Christendom were upon him, and he had staked his honor upon the
success of this glorious undertaking. June 3 the Father Confessor of
the Emperor, Garsia, then at Rome, wrote to Charles: "At present there
is nothing so important in this life as that Your Maesty emerge
victorious in the German affair. In Italy you will be accounted the
best prince on earth if God should vouchsafe this grace unto us that
the heresies which have arisen in that nation be cured by your hand."
(Plitt, 4.) June 6 Garsia wrote: "Gracious Lord! After the letters
from the legate [Campegius, concerning the return of Christian II to
the Roman Church, the disagreement between Philip of Hesse and the
Elector, etc.] had been read at to-day's Consistorial Meeting, almost
all the cardinals said that Your Majesty was the angel sent from
heaven to restore Christendom. God knows how much I rejoiced, and
although the sun burned fiercely when I returned to mv home, how
patiently I bore it! I was not sensitive to it from sheer joy at
hearing such sweet words about my master from those who a year ago had
maligned him. My chief comfort, however, was to behold that they were
right; for it seems as if God were performing miracles by Your Majesty,
and to judge by the beginning you have made in curing this ailment, it
is evident that we may expect the issue to prove far more favorable
than our sins merit." (11. 67.)
39. Compulsion Advocated by Theologians.
All Romanists, the Emperor included, were of the opinion that the
Protestants must be brought back to the papal fold. But they differed
somewhat as to the means of accomplishing this purpose. Some demanded
that force be resorted to forthwith, while others counseled that
leniency be tried first, Campegius advised kindness at the beginning,
and greater severity only in dealing with certain individuals, but
that sharper measures and, finally, force of arms ought to follow. At
Rome force was viewed as the "true rhubarb" for healing the breach,
especially among the common people. July 18 Garsia wrote to the
Emperor: "If you are determined to bring Germany back to the fold, I
know of no other or better means than by presents and flattery to
persuade those who are most eminent in science or in the empire to
return to our faith. Once that is done, you must, in dealing with the
remaining common people, first of all publish your imperial edicts and
Christian admonitions. If they will not obey these, then the true
rhubarb to cure them is force. This alone cured Spain's rebellion
against its king. And force is what will also cure Germany's
unfaithfulness to God, unless, indeed, divine grace should not attend
Your Majesty in the usual measure. God would learn in this matter
whether you are a faithful son of His, and should He so find, then I
promise you that among all creatures you will find no power
sufficiently strong to resist you. All will but serve the purpose of
enabling you to obtain the crown of this world." (42.)
Among the open advocates of force were Cochlaeus, Eck, Faber, and the
theologians and monks who flocked to Augsburg in large numbers about
the time the Augsburg Confession was read. They all considered it
their prime duty to rouse the passions of the Emperor, as well as of
the Catholic princes and estates, and to incite them against the
Lutherans. Their enmity was primarily directed against the Augustana,
whose objective and moderate tone had gained many friends even among
the Catholics, and which had indirectly branded Eck and his compeers
as detractors and calumniators. For had not Duke William of Bavaria,
after the reading of the Confession, rebuked Eck, in the presence of
the Elector of Saxony, for having misrepresented the Lutheran doctrine
to him? The moderation of the Augustana, said these Romanists, was
nothing but the cunning of serpents, deception and misrepresentation,
especially on the part of the wily Melanchthon; for the true Luther
was portrayed in the 404 theses of Eck. Cochlaeus wrote that the
Lutherans were slyly hiding their ungodly doctrines in order to
deceive the Emperor: "astute occultari in illorum Confessione prava
eorum dogmata, de quibus ibi tacendo dissimulabant, ut in hypocrisi
loquentes Maiestati Tuae aliisque principibus imponerent." (Laemmer,
_Vortridentinische Theologie_, 39.) Thus the malice and fanaticism of
the papal theologians and the monks rose in proportion as friendliness
was shown the Lutherans by Catholic princes and the Emperor. They
feared that every approach toward the Lutherans would jeopardize the
pax Pontif&cia.
The fanaticism of the papal theologians is frequently referred to by
the Lutherans. June 26 Melanchthon wrote to Luther: "Sophists and
monks are daily streaming into the city, in order to inflame the
hatred of the Emperor against us." (_C.R._ 2, 141.) June 27: "Our
Confession was presented last Saturday. The opponents are now
deliberating upon how to answer; they flock together, take great pains,
and incite the princes, who already have been sufficiently aroused.
Eck vehementiy demands of the Archbishop of Mainz that the matter be
not debated, since it has already been condemned." (144.) June 29
Jonas wrote to Luther: "Faber is goaded on by furies, and Eck is not a
whit more sensible. Both insist in every manner imaginable that the
affair ought to be managed by force and must not be heard." (154.)
Melanchthon, July 8: "By chance Eck and Cochlaeus came to the legate
[Campegius, with whom Melanchthon was deliberating]. I heard them say,
distinctly enough, I believe, that the opponents are merely
deliberating upon how to suppress us by force." (175.) July 15:
"Repeatedly have I been with certain enemies who belong to that herd
of Eck. Words fail me to describe the bitter, Pharisaical hatred I
noticed there. They do nothing, they plan nothing else than how they
may incite the princes against us, and supply the Emperor with impious
weapons." (197.) The implacable theologians also succeeded in
fanaticizing some of the princes and bishops, who gradually became
more and more opposed to any kind of settlement by mutual
understanding. (175.)
The chief exponent of force was Cochlaeus. In his _Expostulatio_,
which appeared at Augsburg in May, 1530, he argued that not only
according to papal, but according to imperial law as well, which the
Evangelicals also acknowledged, and according to the Scriptures,
heretics might, aye, must be punished with death. The treatise
concludes as follows: "Thus it is established that obdurate heretics
may be executed by every form of law. We, however, much prefer to have
them return to the Church, be converted, healed, and live, and we
beseech them to do so. _Constat igitvr, haereticos pertinaces omni
iure interimi posse. Nos tamen longe magis optamus et precamur, ut
redeuntes ad ecclesiam convertantur, sanentur et vivant." (Plitt,
1, 5.)
Naturally Eck, too, was prominent among those who counseled the
employment of compulsory measures; indeed, he could not await the hour
when the order would be given to proceed against the heretics with
fire and sword. He lamented, in bitter terms, the fact that the
Emperor had not made use of stern measures as soon as he arrived in
Germany. For now, said he, procrastination and the conciliatory
demeanor of the Evangelicals, especially of Melanchthon and Brueck,
had made it impossible to rouse the Emperor to such a degree as the
exigency of the case demanded. (Plitt, 63.) Luther wrote: "For that
shameless gab and bloodthirsty sophist, Doctor Eck, one of their chief
advisers, publicly declared in the presence of our people that if the
Emperor had followed the resolution made at Bononia, and, immediately
on entering Germany, had courageously attacked the Lutherans with the
sword, and beheaded one after another, the matter would have been
easily settled. But all this was prevented when he permitted the
Elector of Saxony to speak and be heard through his chancellor."
(St.L. 16, 1636.)
40. Emperor Employs Mildness.
While a number of the Catholic estates, incited by the theologians,
were also in favor of immediately resorting to brutal force, the
Emperor, for political reasons, considered it more advisable to employ
kindness. Lauding the extreme affability and leniency of Charles,
Melanchthon wrote to Luther, January 25: "The Emperor greets our
Prince very kindly; and I would that our people, in turn, were more
complaisant towards him. I would ask you to admonish our Junior Prince
by letter in this matter. The Emperor's court has no one milder than
himself. All others harbor a most cruel hatred against us. _Caesar
satis benigne salutat nostrum principem; ac velim vicissim nostros
erga ipsum officiosiores esse. Ea de re utinam iuniorem principem
nostrum litteris admonueris. Nihil ipso Caesare mitiiis habet ipsius
aula. Reliqui omnes crudelissime nos oderunt." (_C.R._ 2, 125.)
The reading of the Augustana strengthened this friendly attitude of
Charles. Both its content and its conciliatory tone, which was not at
all in harmony with the picture of the Lutherans as sketched by Eck,
caused him to be more kindly disposed toward Protestantism, and
nourished his hope that religious peace might be attained by peaceable
means. Other Catholic dignitaries and princes had been impressed in
the same manner. July 6 Luther wrote to Hausmann: "Many bishops are
inclined to peace and despise the sophists, Eck and Faber. One bishop
[Stadion of Augsburg] is said to have declared in a private
conversation, 'This [the Confession of the Lutherans] is the pure
truth, we cannot deny it.' The Bishop of Mainz is being praised very
much for his endeavors in the interest of peace. Likewise Duke Henry
of Brunswick, who extended a friendly invitation to Philip to dine
with him, and admitted that he was not able to disprove the articles
treating of both kinds, the marriage of priests, and the distinction
of meats. Our men boast that, of the entire Diet, no one is milder
than the Emperor himself. Such is the beginning. The Emperor treats
our Elector not only graciously, but most respectfully. So Philip
writes. It is remarkable how all are aglow with love and good will
toward the Emperor. It may happen, if God so wills, that, as the first
Emperor (Charles at Worms] was very hostile, so this last Emperor
[Charles at Augsburg] will be very friendly. Only let us pray; for the
power of prayer is clearly perceived." (St.L. 16, 882.) The Emperor's
optimism was, no doubt, due to the fact that, unlike his theologians,
he did not perceive and realize the impassable gulf fixed between
Lutheranism and the Papacy, as appeared also from the Augustana, in
which, however, the Emperor mistook moderation of tone for surrender
of substance.
41. Augustana Submitted to Catholic Party.
Full of hope the Emperor, on June 26, immediately after its public
presentation, submitted the Lutheran Confession to the Catholic
estates for deliberation. These, too, though not in the least inclined
to abandon their arrogant attitude, seem to have given themselves over
to the delusion that the Lutherans could now be brought to recede from
their position. Accordingly, their answer (Responsum) of June 27,
couched in conciliatory language, recommended as "the humble opinion
of the electors and estates that the Imperial Roman Majesty would
submit this great and important matter to a number of highly learned,
sensible, honest, conciliating, and not spiteful persons, to
deliberate on, and to consider, the writing [the Augustana], as far as
necessary, enumerating, on the one hand, whatsoever therein was found
to be in conformity and harmony with the Gospel, God's Word, and the
holy Christian Church, but, on the other hand, refuting with the true
foundation of the Gospel and the Holy Scripture and its doctrine, and
bringing into true Christian understanding, such matters as were found
to be against, and out of harmony with, the Gospel, the Word of God,
and the Christian Church." (Laemmer, 32.) They recommended, however,
that in this entire matter Campegius be consulted, and for that
purpose be furnished with a copy of the Lutheran Confession.
The Romanists furthermore resolved that the Lutherans be asked
whether they had any additional points to present, and, if so, to do
this immediately. The Lutherans, considering this a snare, declared,
on July 10, that in their Confession they had made it a special point
to present the chief articles which it is necessary to believe in
order to be saved, but had not enumerated all abuses, desiring to
emphasize such only as burdened the consciences, lest the paramount
questions be obscured; that they would let this [all that was
enumerated in their Confession] suffice, and have included other
points of doctrine and abuses which were not mentioned; that they
would not fail to give an answer from the Word of God in case their
opponents should attack the Confession or present anything new.
(Foerstemann, 2, 16. _C.R._ 2, 181.) No doubt, the Papists felt that
the Lutherans really should have testified directly also against the
Papacy, etc. This, too, was the interpretation which Luther put on the
inquiry of the Romanists. July 21, 1530, he wrote to Jonas: "But now I
see what the questions aimed at whether you had other articles to
present. For Satan still lives and has noticed very well that your
Apology [Augustana] steps softly and has passed by the articles
concerning purgatory, the adoration of the saints, and especially
Antichrist, the Pope." (St. L. 16, 2323; Enders, 8, 133.)
July 5 the Emperor accepted the opinion of the estates and appointed
the confutators. At the same time he declared with reference to the
Lutherans that he "was the judge of the content of their writing"
(Augustana); that, in case they should not be satisfied with his
verdict, the final decision must remain with the Council; but that
meanwhile the Edict of Worms would be enforced everywhere. (Laemmer,
34; _C.R._ 2, 175.) Thus the Emperor, in unmistakable terms, indicated
that the Roman Confutation would bring his own final verdict, which no
further discussions could modify, and that he would compel the
Lutherans by force to observe the Edict of Worms if they refused to
submit willingly. The Catholic estates endorsed the Emperor's
declaration, but added the petition that, after the Confutation had
been read, the Lutherans be asked in all kindness to return, and that,
in case this remained fruitless, an attempt be made to bring about an
agreement to be reached by a committee appointed by both parties.
Evidently, the estates as well as the Emperor expected the Lutherans
to yield and surrender. Still, for the present, they were willing and
preferred to attain this end by mild and gentle means.
42. Rabid Theologians Appointed as Confutators.
Canipegius, to whom the entire matter was entrusted, manipulated
things in such a manner that the result was the very opposite of what
the Emperor and estates bad resolved upon. To be sure, he made it
appear as though he were entirely neutral, leaving everything to the
discretion of the German princes. He knew also how to hide his real
sentiments from the Lutherans. Jonas, for example, reports that in his
address of June 24 Campegius had said "nothing harsh, or hateful
(nihil acerbe, nihil odiose) against the Lutherans." Spalatin reports:
"Some one besought the Legate and Cardinal Campegius to assist in
obtaining peace for the cause of the Gospel. To this he responded:
Since the papal power was suspicious to us, the matter rested with the
Emperor and the German princes. Whatever they did would stand."
(Koellner, _Symbolik_, 403.) Thus Campegius created the impression of
absolute neutrality, while in reality he was at the same time busy
with secret intrigues against the Lutherans.
Among the Confutators (Brueek mentions 19, Spalatin 20, others 22,
still others 24), selected by Campegius and appointed by the Emperor,
were such rabid, abusive, and inveterate enemies of Luther as Eck,
Faber, Cochlaeus, Wimpina, Colli (author of a slanderous tract against
Luther's marriage), Dietenberger, etc. The first three are repeatedly
designated as the true authors of the Confutation. In his _Replica ad
Bucerum_, Eck boasts: "Of all the theologians at Augsburg I was chosen
unanimously to prepare the answer to the Saxon Confession, and I
obeyed. _Augustae ab omnibus theologis fui delectus unanimiter, qui
responsum pararem contra confessionem Saxonicam, et parui_."
(Koellner, 407.) July 10 Brenz wrote to Myconius: "Their leader
(_antesignanus_) is that good man Eck. The rest are 23 in number. One
might call them an Iliad [Homer's Iliad consists of 24 books] of
sophists." (_C.R._ 2, 180.) Melanchthon, too, repeatedly designates
Eck and Faber as the authors of the Confutation. July 14 he wrote to
Luther: "With his legerdemain (_commanipulatione_) Eck presented to
the Emperor the Confutation of our Confession." (193.) August 6: "This
Confutation is the most nonsensical of all the nonsensical books of
Faber." (253.) August 8, to Myconius: "Eck and Faber have worked for
six entire weeks in producing the Confutation of our Confession."
(260.) Hence also such allusions in Melanchthon's letters as
"confutatio Fabrilis," "Fabriliter scripta," and in the Apology:
"Nullus Faber Fabrilius cogitare quidquam posset, quam hae ineptiae
excogitatae suiit ad eludendum ins naturae." (366, 10.) Brueck was
right when he said that some of the Confutators were "purely partial,
and altogether suspicious characters." (Koellner, 411.)
43. Confutation Prepared.
The resolution which the Catholic estates passed June 27 was to the
effect that the imperial answer to the Lutheran Confession be made "by
sober and not spiteful men of learning." The Emperor's Prolog to the
Confutation, accordingly, designated the confutators as "certain
learned, valiant, sensible, sober, and honorable men of many nations."
(_C.R._ 27, 189.) At the same time they were told to couch their
answer in winning, convincing, moderate, and earnest terms. The
imperial instruction read: "To this end it is indeed good and needful
that said document [the Augustana] be carefully considered and
diligently studied by learned, wise" and sober persons, in order that
they [the Lutherans] be shown in all kindness (_durch gute Wege_)
where they err, and be admonished to return to the good way; likewise,
to grant them whatsoever may be serviceable and adapted to our holy
Christian faith; and to set forth the errors, moderately and politely,
with such good and holy arguments as the matter calls for; to defend
and prove everything with suitable evangelical declarations and
admonitions, proceeding from Christian and neighborly love; and at the
same time to mingle therewith earnestness and severity with such
moderation as may be likely to win the five electors and princes, and
not to destroy their hope or to harden them still more." (Koellner,
403.)
However, inspired by Campegius and goaded on by blind hatred, the
Confutators employed their commission for the purpose of casting
suspicion on the Lutherans and inciting the Emperor against them. They
disregarded the imperial admonition for moderation, and instead of an
objective answer to the Augustana, they produced a long-winded
pasquinade against Luther and the Evangelical preachers, a fit
companion piece to the 404 theses of Eck, - a general accusation
against the Protestants, a slanderous anthology of garbled quotations
from Luther, Melanchthon, and other Evangelical preachers. The
insinuation lurking in the document everywhere was that the Confession
of the Lutheran princes was in glaring contradiction to the real
doctrine of their pastors. The sinister scheme of the Romanists, as
the Elector in 1536 reminded the Lutheran theologians, was to bring
the princes in opposition to their preachers. (_C.R._ 3, 148.) The
mildness and moderation of the Augustana, they openly declared, was
nothing but subtle cunning of the smooth and wily Melanchthon, who
sought to hide the true state of affairs. In a book which Cochlaeus
published against the Apology in 1534, he said that the open attacks
of Luther were far more tolerable than the serpentine cunning and
hypocrisy of Melanchthon (_instar draconis insidiantis fravdes
intendens_), as manifested in particular by his demeanor toward
Campegius at Augsburg in 1530. (Laemmer, 56; Salig, 1, 376.) Thus the
Roman Confutators disregarded their commission to refute the Augustana,
and substituted a caricature of Luther and his doctrines, designed to
irritate the Emperor.
44. A Bulky, Scurrilous Document.
The Confutation, compiled by Eck and Faber from various contributions
of the Confutators, was ready by the 8th of July, and was presented to
the Emperor on the 12th or 13th. The German translation was prepared
by the Bavarian Chancellor, Leonhard von Eck. July 10 Brenz had
written: "It is reported that they are preparing wagonloads of
commentaries against our Confession." (_C.R._ 2, 180.) Spalatin
reports that the Confutators delivered to the Emperor "a pile of books
against Doctor Martin with most scurrilous titles." The chief document
was entitled: "Catholic and, as it were, Extemporaneous Response
concerning Certain Articles Presented in These Days at the Diet to the
Imperial Majesty by the Illustrious Elector of Saxony and Certain Other
Princes as well as Two Cities. _Catholica et quasi extemporanea
Responsio super nonnullis articulis Caesareae Maiestati hisce diebus
in dieta imperiali Augustensi per Illustrem Electorem Saxoniae et
alios quosdam Principes et duas Civitates obtatis." It was
supplemented by nine other treatises on all manner of alleged
contradictions and heresies of Luther and Anabaptistic as well as
other fruits of his teaching. (Laemmer, 37; C. B. 2, 197.) The
pasquinade with its supplements comprised no less than 351 folios, 280
of which were devoted to the answer proper. Cochlaeus also designates
it as "very severe and extended, _acrior extensiorque_" July 14
Melanchthon reported he had heard from friends that the Confutation
was "long and filled with scurrilities." (193. 218.) July 16: "I am
sending you [Luther] a list of the treatises which our opponents have
presented to the Emperor, from which you will see that the Confutation
is supplemented by antilogs and other treatises in order to stir up
against us the most gentle heart of the Emperor. Such are the
stratagems these slanderers (_sycophantae_) devise." (197.)
The effect of the Confutation on the Emperor, however, was not at all
what its authors desired and anticipated. Disgusted with the miserable
bulky botch, the Emperor convened the estates on July 15, and they
resolved to return the bungling document to the theologians for
revision. Tone, method, plan, everything displeased the Emperor and
estates to such an extent that they expunged almost one-third of it.
Intentionally they ignored the nine supplements, and demanded that
reflections on Luther be eliminated from the document entirely;
moreover, that the theologians confine themselves to a refutation of
the Augustana. (Laemmer, 39.) Cochlaeus writes: "Since the Catholic
princes all desired peace and concord, they deemed it necessary to
answer in a milder tone, and to omit all reference to what the
[Lutheran] preachers had formerly taught and written otherwise than
their Confession stated." (Koellner, 405.) In a letter to Brueck he
declared that such coarse extracts and articles [with which the first
draft of the Confutation charged Luther] should not be mentioned in
the reply to the Confession, lest any one be put to shame or defamed
publicly. (Laemmer, 39.)
In his Annals, Spalatin reports: "At first there were perhaps 280
folios. But His Imperial Majesty is said to have weeded out many
folios and condensed the Confutation to such an eitent that not more
than twelve folios remained. This is said to have hurt and angered Eck
severely." (St.L. 21 a, 1539.) In a letter to Veit Dietrich, dated
July 30, Melanchtbon remarks sarcastically: "Recently Eck complained
to one of his friends that the Emperor had deleted almost the third
part of his treatise; and I suspect that the chief ornaments of the
book were rooted out, that is, the glaring lies and the most stupid
tricks, _insignia mendacia, et sycophantiae stolidissimae." (_C.R. 2,
241.) Brenz regarded this as an evidence of the extent to which the
Augustana had perturbed the opponents, leaving them utterly helpless.
July 15 he wrote to Isemann: "Meanwhile nothing new has taken place in
our midst, except that I heard that the confession of the sophists was
to-day returned by the Emperor to its authors, the sophists, and this
for the reason that it was so confused, jumbled, vehement,
bloodthirsty, and cruel (_confuse, incondita, violenta, sanguinolenta
et crudelis_) that he was ashamed to have it read before the Imperial
Senate. . . . We experience daily that we have so bewildered, stunned,
and confused them that they know not where to begin or to end." (198.)
"Pussyfooting (_Leisetreten_)! - such was the slogan at Augsburg; and
in this Melanchthon was nowhere equaled. Privately also Cochlaeus
elaborated a milder answer to the Lutheran Confession. But even the
friends who had induced him to undertake this task considered his
effort too harsh to be presented to the Emperor.
The first, rejected draft of the Confutation has been lost, with the
sole exception of the second article, preserved by Cochlaeus. On the
difference between this draft and the one finally adopted, Plitt
comments as follows: "The Confutation as read simply adopted the first
article of the Confession [Augustanal as in complete agreement with
the Roman Church. The original draft also approved this article's
appeal to the Council of Nicaea, but added that now the Emperor should
admonish the confessing estates to accept everything else taught by
the Catholic Church, even though it was not verbally contained in the
Scriptures, as, for example, the Mass, Quadragesimal fasting, the
invocation of the saints, etc.; for the wording of the doctrine of the
Trinity could be found in the Scriptures just as little as that of the
points mentioned; furthermore, that he also call upon them to
acknowledge said Synod of Nicaea in all its parts, hence also to
retain the hierarchical degrees with their powers; that he admonish
them to compel their preachers and teachers to retract everything
which they had said and written against that Synod, especially Luther
and Melanchthon, its public defamers. Refusal of such retraction would
invalidate their appeal to that Synod and prove it to be nothing but a
means of deception. Finally, they were to be admonished, not to
believe their teachers in anything which was against the declarations
of the Church Catholic. Such was the form in which the first draft of
the Confutation was couched. Everywhere the tendency was apparent to
magnify the differences, make invidious inferences, cast suspicion on
their opponents, and place them in a bad light with the Emperor and
the majority. This was not the case in the answer which was finally
read." (37.)
45. Confutation Adopted and Read.
Only after repeated revisions, in which Campegius and the imperial
counselors Valdes and Granvella took part, was an agreement reached
regarding the form of the Confutation. July 30 the Emperor received
the fourth revision, and on August 1 he presented it to the bishops,
princes, and estates for their opinion. There still remained offensive
passages which had to be eliminated. A fifth revision was necessary
before the approval of the Emperor and the estates was forthcoming. A
Prolog and an Epilog were added, according to which the Confutation is
drawn up in the name of the Emperor. Thus the original volume was
boiled down to a comparatively small document. But, to speak with
Kolde, even in its final form the Confutation is "still rather an
accusation against the Evangelicals, and an effort to retain all the
medieval church customs, than a refutation of the Augustana." (34.)
August 6 Jonas wrote to Luther: "The chaplain [John Henkel] of Queen
Maria informed us that they had five times changed their Confutation,
casting and recasting, minting and reminting it, and still there
finally was produced nothing but an uncouth and confused
conglomeration and a hodgepodge as when a cook pours different soups
into one pot. At first they patched together an enormous volume, as
Faber is known to be a verbose compiler; the book grew by reason of
the multitude of its lies and scurrilities. However, at the first
revision the Emperor eliminated the third part of the book, so that
barely twelve or sixteen folios remained, which were read."(St.L. 21a,
1539.)
On August 3, 1530, in the same hall in which the Augsburg Confession
had been submitted thirty-eight days before, in the presence of all
the estates of the empire, the Augustanae Confessionis Responsio,
immediately called Confutatio Pontificia by the Protestants, was read
in the German language by Alexander Schweiss, the Imperial Secretary.
However, the reading, too, proved to be a discreditable affair. Owing
to the great haste in which the German copy had been prepared, an
entire portion had been omitted; the result was that the conclusion of
Article 24 as well as Articles 25 and 26 were not presented.
Furthermore, Schweiss, overlooking the lines of erasure, read a part
which had been stricken, containing a very bold deliverance on the
sacrifice of the Mass, in which they labored to prove from the Hebrew,
Greek, and Latin that the word _facite_ in the institution of the
Sacrament was synonymous with "sacrifice." (Kolde,,34.) August 6,
1530, Jonas wrote to Luther: The opponents presented their Confutation
to the Emperor on July 30, and on the 3d of August it was read in the
presence of the Emperor and the estates, together with a Prolog and an
Epilog of the Emperor. "The reading also consumed two entire hours,
but with an incredible aversion, weariness, and disgust on the part of
some of the more sensible bearers, who complained that they were
almost driven out by this utterly cold, threadbare songlet
(_cantilena_), being extremely chagrined that the ears of the Emperor
should be molested with such a lengthy array of worthless things
masquerading under the name of Catholic doctrines." (St.L. 21 a,
1.539.) August 4 Brenz wrote to Isemann: "The Emperor maintains
neutrality; for he slept both when the Augustana and when the
Confutation was read. _Imperator neutralem sese gerit; nam cum nostra
confessio legeretur obdormivit; rursus cum adversariorum responsio
legeretur, iterum obdormivit in media negotii actione." (_C.R._
2, 245.)
The Confutation was neither published, nor was a copy of it delivered
to the Lutherans. Apparently the Romanists, notably the Emperor and
the estates, were ashamed of the document. True, Cochlacus reports
that toward the close of the Diet Charles authorized him and Eck to
publish it, but that this was not done, because Duke George and the
Emperor left Augsburg shortly after, and the printer also moved away.
(Koellner, 414.) All subsequent pleading and imploring, however, on
the part of Eck and others, to induce the Emperor to publish the
Confutation fell on deaf ears. Evidently Charles no longer took any
interest in a document that had so shamefully shattered his fond
ambition of reconciling the religious parties. What appeared in print,
early in 1531, was merely an extract prepared by Cochlacus, entitled,
Summary of the Imperial Answer, etc. The first Latin edition of the
Confutation appeared as late as 1573; the first German edition, in
1808. All previous German impressions (also the edition of 1584) are
translations of the Latin edition of 1573. (_C.R._ 27, 25. 82.)
Concerning the German text of the Confutation Kolde remarks: "Since
changes were made even after it had been read, we have even less
definite knowledge, respecting details, as to what was read than in
the case of the Augustana." (35.) One may therefore also speak of a
Confutatio Variata. The doctrine of the Confutation does not differ
essentially from that which was later on affirmed by the Council of
Trent (1545-1563). However, mays Kolde, "being written by the German
leaders of the Catholic party under the eye of the Papal Legate, and
approved by the Emperor, the German bishops, and the Roman minded
princes, it [the Confutation] must be reckoned among the historically
most important documents of the Roman Catholic faith of that day."
46. Confutation Denounced by Lutherans.
In the opinion of the Lutherans, the final draft of the Confutation,
too, was a miserable makeshift. True, its tone was moderate, and, with
few exceptions, personal defamations were omitted. The arrangement of
subjects was essentially the same as in the Augustana. Still it was
not what it pretended to be. It was no serious attempt at refuting the
Lutheran Confession, but rather an accumulation of Bible-texts,
arbitrarily expounded, in support of false doctrines and scholastic
theories. These efforts led to exegetical feats that made the
Confutators butts of scorn and derision. At any rate, the Lutherans
were charged with having failed, at the public reading, to control
their risibilities sufficiently. Cochlaeus complains: "During the
reading many of the Lutherans indulged in unseemly laughter. _Quando
recitata fuit, multi e Lutheranis inepte cachinnabantur." (Koellner,
411.) If this did not actually occur, it was not because the
Confutators had given them no cause for hilarity.
"Altogether childish and silly" - such is Melanchthon's verdict on
many of their exegetical pranks. August 6 he wrote letter after letter
to Luther, expressing his contempt for the document. "After hearing
that Confutation," says Melanchthon, "all good people seem to have
been more firmly established on our part, and the opponents, if there
be among them some who are more reasonable, are said to be disgusted
(_stomachari_) that such absurdities were forced upon the Emperor, the
best of princes," (_C.R._ 2, 252.) Again: Although the Emperor's
verdict was very stern and terrible "still, the Confutation being a
composition so very puerile, a most remarkable congratulation followed
its reading. No book of Faber's is so childish but that this
Confutation is still more childish." (253.) In another letter he
remarked that, according to the Confutation, in which the doctrine of
justification by faith was rejected, "the opponents had no knowledge
of religion whatever." (253.)
August 4 Brenz wrote to Isemann: "All things were written in the
fashion of Cochlaeus, Faber, and Eck. Truly a most stupid comment, so
that I am ashamed of the Roman name, because in their whole Church
they can find no men able to answer us heretics at least in a manner
wise and accomplished. _Sed omnia conscripta erant Cochleice et
Fabriliter et Eccianice. Commentum sane stupidissimum, ut pudeat me
Romani nominis, quod in sua religione non conquirant viros, qui saltem
prudenter et ornate nobis haereticis responderent._" (245.) August 15
Luther answered: "We received all of your letters, and I praise God
that he made the Confutation of the adversaries so awkward and foolish
a thing. However, courage to the end! _Verum frisch hindurch!" (Enders,
8,190.)
47. Luther on the Confutation.
Derision increased when the Papists declined to publish the
Confutation, or even to deliver a copy of it to the Lutherans for
further inspection. This refusal was universally interpreted as an
admission, on the part of the Romanists, of a guilty conscience, and of
being ashamed themselves of the document. In his Warning to My Beloved
Germans, which appeared early in 1531, Luther wrote as follows: "But I
am quite ready to believe that extraordinary wisdom prompted them [the
Papists at Augsburg] to keep this rebuttal of theirs and that splendid
booklet [Confutation] to themselves, because their own conscience
tells them very plainly that it is a corrupt, wicked, and frigid thing,
of which they would have to be ashamed if it were published and
suffered itself to be seen in the light or to endure an answer. For
I very well know these highly learned doctors who have cooked and
brewed over it for six weeks, though with the ignorant they may be
able to give the matter a good semblance. But when it is put on paper,
it has neither hands nor feet, but lies there in a disorderly mass, as
if a drunkard had spewed it up, as may be seen, in particular, in the
writings of Doctor Schmid and Doctor Eck. For there is neither rhyme
nor rhythm in whatsoever they are compelled to put into writing. Hence
they are more sedulous to shout and prattle. Thus I have also learned
that when our Confession was read, many of our opponents were
astonished, and confessed that it was the pure truth, which they could
not refute from the Scriptures. On the other hand, when their rebuttal
was read, they hung their heads, and showed by their gestures that
they considered it a mean and useless makeshift as compared with our
Confession. Our people, however, and many other pious hearts were
greatly delighted and mightily strengthened when they heard that with
all the strength and art which our opponents were then called upon to
display, they were capable of producing nothing but this flimsy
rebuttal, which now, praise God! a woman, a child, a layman, a peasant,
are fully able to refute with good arguments taken from the Scriptures,
the Word of Truth. And that is also the true and ultimate reason why
they refused to deliver [to the Lutherans a copy of] their refutation.
Those fugitive evil consciences were filled with horror at themselves,
and dared not await the answer of Truth. And it is quite evident that
they were confident, and that they had the Diet called together in the
conviction that our people would never have the boldness to appear,
but if the Emperor should only be brought to Germany in person, every
one would be frightened and say to them: Mercy, dear lords, what would
you have us do? When they were disappointed in this, and the Elector
of Saxony was the very first to appear on the scene, Lord, how their
breeches began to ------! How all their confidence was confounded!
What gathering together, secret consultations, and whisperings
resulted! . . . The final sum and substance of it all was to devise
ways and means (since our men were the first joyously and cheerfully
to appear) how to keep them from being heard [block the reading of the
Augustana]. When also this scheme of theirs was defeated, they finally
succeeded in gaining the glory that they did not dare to hand over
their futile rebuttal nor to give us an opportunity to reply to it! .
- - But some one might say: The Emperor was willing to deliver the
answer to our party, provided they would promise not to have it
published nor its contents divulged. That is true, for such a pledge
was expected of our men. Here, however, every one may grasp and feel
(even though he is able neither to see nor hear) what manner of people
they are who will not and dare not permit their matter to come to the
light. If it is so precious a thing and so well founded in the
Scriptures as they bellow and boast, why, then, does it shun the
light? What benefit can there be in hiding from us and every one else
such public matters as must nevertheless be taught and held among
them? But if it is unfounded and futile, why, then, did they, in the
first resolution [of the Diet], have the Elector of Brandenburg
proclaim and publish in writing that our Confession had been refuted
(by the Confutation] with the Scriptures and stanch arguments? If that
were true, and if their own consciences did not give them the lie,
they would not merely have allowed such precious and well-founded
Refutation to be read, but would have furnished us with a written copy,
saying: There you have it; we defy any one to answer it! as we did and
still do with our Confession.... What the Elector of Brandenburg said
in the resolution [read at the Diet], that our Confession was refuted
with the Scriptures and with sound arguments, is not the truth, but a
lie. . . . For this well-founded refutation [Confutation] has as yet
not come to light, but its perhaps sleeping with the old Tannhaeuser
on Mount Venus (_Venusberg_)." (St.L. 16, 1635.)
_________________________________________________________________
This text was converted to ascii format for Project Wittenberg by
Rev. Theodore Mayes and is in the public domain. You may freely
distribute, copy or print this text. Please direct any comments
or suggestions to:
Rev. Robert E. Smith
Walther Library
Concordia Theological Seminary
E-mail: cosmithb@ash.palni.edu
Surface Mail: 6600 N. Clinton St., Ft. Wayne, IN 46825 USA
Phone: (219) 452-2123 Fax: (219) 452-2126
_______________________________________________________________