----------------------------------------------------------
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)
-----------------------------------------------------------
VI. The Apology of the Augsburg Confession
48. Emperor Demands Adoption of Confutation.
The Confutation was written in the name of the Emperor. This is indicated
by the title: "Roman Imperial Confutation, _Roemisch-Kaiserliche Konfutation_."
(_C.R._ 27, 189.) And according to his declaration of July 5, demanding that the
Lutherans acknowledge him as judge, the Emperor, immediately before the reading,
announced: The Confutation contained his faith and his verdict on the Confession
of the Lutherans; he demanded that they accept it; should they refuse to do so, he
would prove himself the warden and protector of the Church. In the Epilog the
Emperor gave expression to the following thoughts: From this Confutation he saw
that the Evangelicals "in many articles agree with the Universal and also the
Roman Church, and reject and condemn many wicked teachings current among the
common people of the German nation." He therefore did not doubt that, having heard
his answer to their Confession, they would square themselves also in the remaining
points, and return to what, by common consent, had hitherto been held by all true
believers. Should they fail to heed his admonition, they must consider that he
would be compelled to reveal and demean himself in this matter in such manner as
"by reason of his office, according to his conscience, behooved the supreme warden
and protector of the Holy Christian Church." (27,228.) Immediately after the
reading, Frederick, Duke of the Palatinate, declared in the name of the Emperor
that the Confutation was the ~Emperor's answer to the Lutherans, the verdict he
rendered against their Confession; and they were now called upon to relinquish the
articles of their Confession that were refuted in the Confutation, and to return
to the Roman Church in unity of faith. (See the reports of Brenz, Melanchthon, and
the delegates from Nuernberg, _C.R._ 2, 245. 250. 253.) Thus the Emperor, who had
promised to have the deliberations carried on in love and kindness, demanded blind
submission, and closed his demand with a threat. His manifesto was Protestant; his
actions remained ~Papistical. In the estimation of the Romanists, the Emperor, by
condescending to an extended reply to the Lutheran Confession, had done more than
his duty, and much more than they had considered expedient. Now they rejoiced
believing that everything they wished for had been accomplished, and that there was
no other way open for the Lutherans than to submit, voluntarily or by compulsion.
Naturally the attitude of the Emperor was a great disappointment to the
Lutherans, and it caused much alarm and fear among them. From the very beginning
they had declared themselves ready, in the interest of peace, to do whatever they
could "with God and conscience." And this remained their position to the very last.
They dreaded war, and were determined to leave no stone unturned towards avoiding
this calamity. In this interest even Philip of Hesse was prepared to go to the very
limits of possibility. Melanchthon wrote: "The Landgrave deports himself with much
restraint. He has openly declared to me that in order to preserve peace, he would
accept even sterner conditions, as long as he did not thereby disgrace the Gospel."
(_C.R._ 2, 254.) But a denial of God, conscience, and the Gospel was precisely
what the Emperor expected. Hence the Lutherans refer to his demands as cruel,
impossible of fulfilment, and as a breach of promise. Outraged by the Emperor's
procedure, and fearing for his own safety, the Landgrave secretly left the Diet
on August 6. War seemed inevitable to many. The reading of the Confutation had
shattered the Iast hopes of the Lutherans for a peaceful settlement. They said so
to each other, and wrote it to those at home, though not all of them in the
lachrymose tone of the vacillating Melanchthon, who, filled with a thousand fears,
was temporarily more qualified for depriving others of their courage than for
inspiring courage. (Plitt, 24.)
49. Sustained by Luther.
In these days of severe trials and sore distress the Lutherans were sustained
by the comforting letters of Luther and the bracing consciousness that it was the
divine truth itself which they advocated. And the reading of the Confutation had
marvelously strengthened this conviction. Brueck reports an eyewitness of the
reading of the Augustana as saying: "The greater portion among them [the Papists]
is not so ignorant as not to have seen long ago that they are in error." (Plitt,
18.) Because of this conviction there was, as ~Melanchthon reported, a "marvelous
congratulation" among the Lutherans after the reading of the Confutation. "We
stand for the divine truth, which God cannot but lead to victory, while our
opponents are condemned by their own consciences," - such was the buoying
conviction of the Lutherans. And in this the powerful letters of Luther
strengthened the confessors at Augsburg. He wrote: "This is the nature of our
Christian doctrine, that it must be held and grasped as certain, and that every
one must think and be convinced: The doctrine is true and sure indeed and cannot
fail. But whoever falls to reasoning and begins to waver within himself, saying:
My dear friend, do you believe that it is true, etc.? such a heart will never be
a true Christian." (Plitt, 12.)
Concerning the spiritual support which the confessors at Augsburg, notably
Melanchthon, received from Luther,,Plitt remarks: "What Luther did during his
solitary stay in the Castle at Coburg cannot be rated high enough. His ideal
deportment during these days, so trying for the Church, is an example which at
all times Evangelical Christians may look up to, in order to learn from him and
to emulate him. What he wrote to his followers in order to comfort and encourage
them, can and must at all times refresh and buoy up those who are concerned about
the course of the Church." (24.) June 30 Veit Dietrich, who shared Luther's
solitude at Coburg, wrote to Melanchthon: "My dear Philip, you do not know how
concerned I am for your welfare, and I beseech you for Christ's sake not to regard
as vain the Doctor's [Luther's] letters to you. I cannot sufficiently admire that
man's unique constancy, joy, confidence, and hope in these days of most sore
distress. And daily he nourishes them by diligent contemplation of the Word of God.
Not a day passes in which he does not spend in prayer at least three hours, such
as are most precious for study. On one occasion I chanced to hear him pray' Good
Lord, what a spirit, what faith spoke out of his words! He prayed with such
reverence that one could see he was speaking with God, and withal with such faith
and such confidence as is shown by one who is speaking with his father and friend.
I know, said he, that Thou art our Father and our God. Therefore I am certain that
Thou wilt confound those who persecute Thy children. If Thou dost not do it, the
danger is Thine as well as ours. For the entire matter is Thine own. We were
compelled to take hold of it; mayest Thou therefore also protect it, etc. Standing
at a distance, I heard him praying in this manner with a loud voice. Then my heart,
too, burned mightily within me, when he spoke so familiarly, so earnestly and
reverently with God, and in his prayer insisted on the promises in the Psalms, as
one who was certain that everything he prayed for would be done. Hence I do not
doubt that his prayer will prove a great help in the desperately bad affair of
this Diet. And you, my teacher, would do far better to imitate our father, the
Doctor, also in this point. For with your miserable cares and your weakling tears
you will accomplish nothing, but prepare a sad destruction for yourself and us all,
who take pleasre in and are benefited by, nothing more than your welfare." (_C.R._
2, 158ff.;St. L. 16, 929 f.)
50. Copy of Confutation Refused to Lutherans.
Since the Confutation, in the manner indicated, had been presented as the
Emperor's final verdict upon the Augsburg Confession, the Lutherans were compelled
to declare themselves. Accordingly, Chancellor Brueck at once responded to the
demand for submission made through the Palatinate after the reading of the
Confutation, saying: The importance of this matter, which concerned their salvation,
required that the Confutation be delivered to the Lutherans for careful inspection
and examination to enable them to arrive at a decision in the matter. The delegates
from Nuernberg reported, in substance: After the Confutation was read, Doctor Brueck
answered: Whereas, according to their Confession, the Lutherans were willing to do
and yield everything that could be so done with a good conscience; whereas,
furthermore, according to the Confutation, some of their [the Lutherans'] articles
were approved, others entirely rejected, still others partly admitted to, be right
and partly repudiated; and whereas the Confutation was a somewhat lengthy document:
therefore the Electors, princes, and cities deemed it necessary to scan these
articles more closely, the more so, because many writings were adduced in them that
made it necessary to show to what intent, and if at all, they were rightly quoted,
and accordingly requested the Emperor, since he had promised to hear both parties,
to submit the Confutation for their inspection. The Emperor answered: "As it was
now late and grown dark, and since the matter was important, he would consider their
request and reply to it later." Hereupon, according to the Nuernberg delegates, "the
chancellor pleaded again and most earnestly that His Imperial Majesty would consider
this important and great affair as a gracious and Christian emperor ought to do, and
not deny their prayer and petition, but deliver to them the document which had been
read." (_C.R._ 2, 251.)
Now, although the ~Rornanists were in no way minded and disposed to submit the
Confutation to the Lutherans, they nevertheless did not consider it wise to refuse
their petition outright and bluntly; for they realized that this would redound to
the glory neither of themselves nor of their document. The fanatical theologians,
putting little faith in that sorry fabrication of their own, and shunning the light,
at first succeeded in having a resolution passed declaring the entire matter settled
with the mere reading. However, in order to save their faces and to avoid the
appearance of having refused the Confutation as well as "the scorn and ridicule on
that account" (as the Emperor naively put it), and "lest any one say that His
Imperial Majesty had not, in accordance with his manifesto, first dealt kindly with"
the Lutherans, the estates resolved on August 4 to grant their request. At the same
time, however, they added conditions which the Lutherans regarded as dangerous,
insinuating, and impossible, hence rendering the Catholic offer illusory and
unacceptable.
August 5 the Emperor communicated the resolutions adopted by the Catholic
estates to the Lutherans. According to a report of the Nuernberg delegates the
negotiations proceeded as follows: The Emperor declared that the Confutation would
be forwarded to the Lutherans, but with the understanding that they must come to an
agreement with the Catholic princes and estates; furthermore, that they spare His
Imperial Majesty with their refutations and make no further reply; and, above all,
that they keep this and other writings to themselves, nor let them pass out of their
hands, for instance, by printing them, or in any other way. Hereupon Brueck, in the
name of the Lutherans, thanked the Emperor, at the same time voicing the request
"that, considering their dire necessity, His Imperial Majesty would permit his
Elector and princes to make answer to the Confutation." Duke Frederick responded:
The Emperor was inclined to grant them permission to reply, but desired the answer
to be "as profitable and brief as possible," also expected them to come to an
agreement with the Catholics, and finally required a solemn promise that they would
not permit the document to pass out of their hands. Brueck answered guardedly: The
Lutherans would gladly come to an agreement "as far as it was possible for them to
do so with God and their conscience"; and as to their answer and the preservation of
the document, they would be found "irreprehensible." The Emperor now declared: "The
document should be delivered to the Lutherans in case they would promise to keep it
to themselves and not allow it to fall into other hands; otherwise His Imperial
Majesty was not minded to confer with them anylonger." Brueck asked for time to
consider the matter, and was given till evening. In his response he declined the
Emperor's offer, at the same time indicating that an answer to the Confutation would
be forthcoming nevertheless. The Lutherans, he said, felt constrained to relinquish
their petition, because the condition that the document be kept in their hands had
been stressed in such a manner that they could not but fear the worst interpretation
if it would nevertheless leak out without their knowledge and consent; still, they
offered to answer the Confutation, since they had noted the most important points
while it was read; in this case, however, they asked that it be not charged to them
if anything should be overlooked; at the same time they besought the Emperor to consider this action of theirs as compelled by dire necessity, and in no other light.
(_C.R._ 2, 255 ff.) In the Preface to the Apology, Melanchthon says: "This [a copy
of the Confutation] our princes could not obtain, except on the most perilous
conditions, which it was impossible for them to accept." (99.)
51. Lutherans on Roman Duplicity and Perfidy.
The duplicity and perfidy of the Emperor and the Romanists in their dealings
with the Lutherans was characterized by Chancellor Brueck as follows: "The tactics
of the opponents in offering a copy [of the Confutation] were those of the fox when
he invited the stork to be his guest and served him food in a broad, shallow pan, so
that he could not take the food with his long bill. In like manner they treated the
five electors and princes, as well as the related cities, when they offered to
accede to their request and submit a copy to them, but upon conditions which they
could not accept without greatly violating their honor." (Koellner, 419.) Over
against the Emperor's demand of blind submission and his threat of violence, the
Lutherans appealed to their pure Confession, based on the Holy Scriptures, to their
good conscience, bound in the Word of God, and to the plain wording of the imperial
manifesto, which had promised discussions in love and kindness. In an Answer of
August 9, _e.g._, they declared: The articles of the Augustana which we have
presented are drawn from the Scriptures, and "it is impossible for us to relinquish
them with a good conscience and peace of heart, unless we find a refutation founded
on God's Word and truth, on which we may rest our conscience in peace and
certainty." (Foerstemann, 2, 185.) In the Preface to the Apology, Melanchthon
comments as follows on the demand of the Romanists: "Afterwards, negotiations for
peace were begun, in which it was apparent that our princes declined no burden,
however grievous, which could be assumed without offense to conscience. But the
adversaries obstinately demanded that we should approve certain manifest abuses and
errors; and as we could not do this, His Imperial Majesty again demanded that our
princes should assent to the Confutation. This our princes refused to do. For how
could they in a matter pertaning to religion, assent to a writing which they had
not been able to examine, especially as they had heard that some articles were
condemned in which it was impossible for them, without grievous sin, to approve the
opinions of the adversaries?" (99.)
Self-evidently the Lutherans also protested publicly that the procedure of the
Romanists was in contravention of the proclamation of the Emperor as well as of his
declaration on June 20, according to which both parties were to deliver their
opinions in writing for the purpose of mutual friendly discussion. In the Answer of
August 9, referred to above, they said: "We understand His Imperial Majesty's answer
to mean nothing else than that, after each party had presented its meaning and
opinion, such should here be discussed among us in love and kindness." Hence, they
said, it was in violation of this agreement to withhold the Confutation, lest it be
answered. (Foerstemann, 2, 184 f.) Luther expressed the same conviction, saying:
"All the world was awaiting a gracious diet, as the manifesto proclaimed and
pretended, and yet, sad to say, it was not so conducted." (St. L. 16, 1636.)
That the Romanists themselves fully realized that the charges of the Lutherans
were well founded, appears from the subterfuges to which they resorted in order to
justify their violence and duplicity, notably their refusal to let them examine the
Confutation. In a declaration of August 11 they stated "that the imperial laws
expressly forbid, on pain of loss of life and limb, to dispute or argue (_gruppeln_)
about the articles of faith in any manner whatever," and that in the past the
edicts of the Emperor in this matter of faith had been despised, scorned, ridiculed,
and derided by the Lutherans. (Foerstemann, 2, 190.) Such were the miserable
arguments with which the Romanists defended their treachery. Luther certainly hit
the nail on the head when he wrote that the Romanists refused to deliver the
Confutation "because their consciences felt very well that it was a corrupt, futile,
and frigid affair, of which they would have to be ashamed in case it should become
public and show itself in the light, or endure an answer." (St. L. 16,1635.)
52. Original Draft of Apology.
August 5 the Lutherans had declared to the Emperor that they would not remain
indebted for an answer to the Confutation, even though a copy of it was refused them.
They knew the cunning Romanists, and had prepared for every emergency. Melanchthon,
who, according to a letter addressed to Luther (_C.R._ 2, 254), was not present at
the reading of the Confutation, writes in the Preface to the Apology: "During the
reading some of us had taken down the chief points of the topics and arguments."
(101.) Among these was Camerarius. August 4 the Nuernberg delegates reported to
their senate that the Confutation, comprising more than fifty pages, had been
publicly read on August 3, at 2 P.M., and that the Lutherans had John Kammermeister
"record the substance of all the articles; this he has diligently done in shorthand
on his tablet, as far as he was able, and more than all of us were able to
understand and remember, as Your Excellency may perceive from the enclosed copy."
(_C.R._ 2, 250.)
On the basis of these notes the council of Nuernberg had a theological and a
legal opinion drawn up, and a copy of the former (Osiander's refutation of the
Confutation) was delivered to Melanchthon on August 18 by the Nuernberg delegates.
Osiander specially stressed the point that the demand of the Romanists to submit to
the decision of the Church in matters of faith must be rejected, that, on the
contrary, everything must be subordinated to the Holy Scriptures. (Plitt, 87.) In
drawing up the Apology, however, Melanchthon made little, if any, use of Osiander's
work. Such, at least, is the inference Kolde draws from Melanchthon's words to
Camerarius, September 20: "Your citizens [of Nuernberg] have sent us a book on the
same subject [answer to the ~Confutation], which I hope before long to discuss with
you orally." (383.) There can be little doubt that Melanchthon privately entertained
the idea of writing the Apology immediately after the reading of the Confutation.
The commission, however, to do this was not given until later; and most of the work
as probably done in September. For August 19 the Nuernberg delegates reported that
their "opinion" had been given to Melanchthon, who as yet, however, had not received
orders to write anything in reply to the Confutation, "unless he is privately
engaged in such undertaking." (C.R. 2, 289.)
At Augsburg the execution of the resolution to frame an answer to the
Confutation had been sidetracked for the time being, by the peace parleys between
the Lutherans and the Catholics, which began soon after the Confutation was read
and continued through August. But when these miscarried, the Evangelical estates,
on the 29th of August, took official action regarding the preparation of an Apology.
Of the meeting in which the matter was discussed the Nuernberg delegates report:
"It was furthermore resolved: 'Since we have recently declared before His Majesty
that, in case His Majesty refused to deliver to us the Confutation of our Confession
without restrictions [the aforementioned conditions], we nevertheless could not
refrain from writing a reply to it, as far as the articles had been noted down
during the reading, and from delivering it to His Imperial Majesty: we therefore
ought to prepare ourselves in this matter, in order to make use of it in case of
necessity.' In this we, the delegates of the cities, also acquiesced. . . .1,
Baumgaertner, also said: In case such a work as was under discussion should be drawn
up, we had some opinions [the theological and the legal opinions of the city of
Nuernberg], which might be of service in this matter, and which we would gladly
submit. Hereupon it was ordered that Dr. Brueck and other Saxons be commissioned to
draft the writing." (321.) The assumption, therefore, that Melanchthon was the sole
author of the first draft of the Apology is erroneous. In the Preface to the
Apology he writes: "They had, however, commanded me _and some others_ to prepare an
Apology of the Confession, in which the reasons why we could not accept the
Confutation should be set forth to His Imperial Majesty, and the objections made by
the adversaries be refuted." (101.) In the same Preface he says that he had
originally drawn up the Apology at Augsburg, _"taking counsel with others."_ (101.)
However, we do not know who, besides Brueck, these "others" were.
53. Apology Presented, But Acceptance Refused.
By September 20 Melanchthon had finished his work. For on the same day he wrote
to Camerarius: "The verdict [decision of the Diet] on our affair has not yet been
rendered. . . . Our Prince thought of leaving yesterday, and again to-day. The
Emperor, however, kept him here by the promise that he would render his decision
within three days. . . . Owing to the statements of evil-minded people, I am now
remaining at home and have in these days written the Apology of our Confession,
which, if necessary, shall also be delivered;, for it will be opposed to the
Confutation of the other party, which you heard when it was read. I have written it
sharply and more vehemently" (than the Confession). (_C.R._ 2, 383.)
Before long, a good opportunity also for delivering this Apology presented
itself. It was at the meeting of the Diet on September 22, when the draft of a final
resolution (_Abschied_) was read to the estates. According to this decision, the
Emperor offered to give the Evangelicals time till April 15, 1531, to consider
whether or not they would unite with the Christian Church, the Holy Father, and His
Majesty "in the other articles," provided, however, that in the mean time nothing
be printed and absolutely no further innovations be made. The imperial decision
also declared emphatically that the Lutheran Confession had been refuted by the
Confutation. The verdict claimed the Emperor "had, in the presence of the other
electors, princes, and estates of the holy empire, graciously heard the opinion and
confession (of the Evangelical princes), had given it due and thorough consideration,
and had refuted and disproved it with sound arguments from the holy gospels and the
Scriptures." (Foerstemann, 2, 475.)
Self-evidently, the Lutherans could not let this Roman boast pass by in silence.
Accordingly, in the name of the Elector, Brueck arose to voice their objections,
and, while apologizing for its deficiencies, presented the Apology. In his protest,
Brueck dwelt especially on the offensive words of the imperial decision which
claimed that the Augustana was refuted by the Confutation. He called attention to
the fact that the Lutherans had been offered a copy only under impossible conditions;
that they had heard nvertheless, on the basis of what was heard during the reading,
drawn up a "counnter-lea, or reply"; this he was now holding in his hands, and he
requested that it be read publicly; from it every one might learn "with what strong,
irrefutable reasons of Holy Scripture" the Augustana was fortified. (Foerstemann, 2,
479.) Duke Frederick took the Apology, but returned it on signal from the Emperor,
into whose ear King Ferdinand had been whispering. Sleidan relates: "Cumque hucusce
perventum esset, Pontanus apologiam Caesari defert; earn ubi Fridericus Palatinus
accepit, subnuente Caesare, cui Ferdinandus aliquid ad aures insusurraverat, reddit."
A similar report is found in the annals of Spalatin. (Koellner,422.)
By refusing to accept the Apology, the Emperor and the Romanists _de facto_
broke off negotiations with the Lutherans; and the breach remained, and became
permanent. September 23 the Elector left Augsburg. By the time the second imperial
decision was rendered, November 19, all the Evangelical princes had left the Diet.
The second verdict, dictated by the intolerant spirit of the papal theolgoians, was
more vehement than the first. Confusing Lutherans, Zwinglians, and Anabaptists,
Charles emphasized the execution of the Edice of Worms; sanctioned all dogmas and
abuses which the EvangeIicals had attacked; confirmed the spiritual jurisdiction
of the bishops; demanded the restoration of all abolished rites; identified himself
with the Confutation, and repeated the assertion that the Lutheran Confession
had been refuted from the Scriptures. (Foerstemann,2,839f.; Laemmer, 49.)
In his _Gloss on the Alleged Imperial Edict_ of 1531, Luther dilates as
follows on the Roman assertion of having refuted the Augustana from the Scriptures:
"In the first place, concerning their boasting that our Confession was refuted from
the holy gospels, this is so manifest a lie that they themselves well know it to be
an abominable falsehood. With this rouge they wanted to tint their faces and to
defame us, since they noticed very well that their affair was leaky, leprous, and
filthy, and despite such deficiency nevertheless was to be honored. Their heart
thought: Ours is an evil cause, this we know very well; but we shall say the
Lutherans were refuted; that's enough. Who will compel us to prove such a false
statement? For if they had not felt that their boasting was lying, pure and simple,
they would not only gladly, and without offering any objections, have surrendered
their refutation as was so earnestly desired, but would also have made use of all
printing-presses to publish it, and heralded it with all trumpets and drums, so
that such defiance would have arisen that the very sun would not have been able to
shine on account of it. But now, since they so shamefully withheld their answer
and still more shamefully hide and secrete it, by this action their evil conscience
bears witness to the fact that they lie like reprobates when they boast that our
Confession has been refuted, and that by such lies they seek not the truth, but our
dishonor and a cover for their shame." (St. L.16, 1668.)
54. Apology Recast by Melanchthon.
Owing to the fact that Melanchthon, immediately after the presentation of the
Apology, resolved to revise and recast it, the original draft was forced into the
background. It remained unknown for a long time and was published for the first
time forty-seven years after the Diet. Chytraeus embodied it in his _Historia
Augustanae Confessionis_, 1578, with the caption, _Prima Delineatio Caesaii Carolo
Die 22. Septembris Oblata, sed Non Recepta_ - The First Draft which was Offered to
Emperor Charles on September 22, but Not Accepted." The German and Latin texts are
found in _Corp. Ref._ 27, 275 ff. and 322. FolIowing is the Latin title: "Apologia
Confessionis, 1530. Ps. 119: Principes persecuti sunt me gratis." The German title
runs: "Antwort der Widerlegung auf unser Bekenntnis uebergeben." (245. 3~78.) Plitt
says of the original Apology: "It was well qualified to be presented to the Emperor,
and, in form also, far surpassed the Confutation of the Papists. Still the
Evangelical Church suffered no harm when the Emperor declined to accept it. The
opportunity for revision which was thus offered and fully exploited by Melanchthon,
who was never able to satisfy himself, resulted in a great improvement. The Apology
as it appeared the following year is much riper, sharper in its rebuttal, and
stronger in its argumentation." (88.)
The draft of the Apology presented at Augsburg concluded as follows: "If the
Confutation had been forwarded to us for inspection, we would perhaps have been
able to give a more adequate answer on these and additional points." (C.R. 27, 378.)
When, therefore, the Emperor had refused to accept it, Melanchthen determined to
revise, reenforce, and augment the document. September 23 he left Augsburg in the
company of the Elector; and already while en route he began the work. In his
_History of the Augsburg Confession_, 1730, Salig remarks: "Still the loss of the
first copy [of the Apology] does not seem to be so great, since we now possess the
Apology in a more carefully elalborated form. For while the Diet was still in
session, and also after the theologians had returned home, Melanchthon was
constantly engaged upon it, casting it into an entirely different mold, and making
it much more extensive than it was before. When the theologians had returned to
Saxony from the Diet, Melanchthon, in Spalatin's house at Altenburg, even worked at
it on Sunday, so that Luther plucked the pen from his hand, saying that on this day
he must rest from such work."(1, 377.) However, since the first draft was presented
to the Emperor on September 22, and Melanchthon, together with the Elector, left
Augsburg on the fo1lwing day, it is evident that he could not have busied himself
very much with the revision of the Apology at Augsburg. And that Luther, in the
Altenburg incident, should have put especial stress on the Sunday, for this neither
Salig nor those who follow him (e.g., Schaff, _Creeds_, 1, 243) offer any evidence.
In his _Seventeen Sermons on the Life of Luther_, Mathesius gives the following
version of the incident: "When Luther, returning home with his companions from
Coburg, was visiting Spalatin, and Philip, constantly engrossed in thoughts
concerning the Apology, was writing during the meal, he arose and took the pen away
from him [saying): 'God can be honored not alone by work, but also by rest and
recreation; for that reason He has given the Third Commandment and commanded the
Sabbath."' (243.) This report of Mathesius certainly offers no ground for a
Puritanic explanation of the incident in Spalatin's home.
Originally Melanchthon does not seem to have contemplated a revision on a very
large scale. In the Preface, which was printed first, he merely remarks that he made
"some additions" (_quaedam adieci_) to the Apology drawn up at Augsburg. (101.)
Evidently, at the time when he wrote this, he had no estimate of the proportions
the work, which grew under his hands, would finally assume. Before long also he
obtained a complete copy of the Confutation. It was probably sent to him from
Nuernberg, whose delegate had been able to send a copy home on August 28, 1530.
(Kolde, 37.) Says Melanchthon in the Preface to the Apology: "I have recently seen
the Confutation, and have noticed how cunningly and slanderously it was written,
so that on some points it could deceive even the cautious." (101.) Eck clamored that
the Confutation "had gotten into Melanchthon's hands in a furtive and fraudulent
manner, _furtim et fraudulenter ad manus Melanchthonis candem pervenisse_.
(Koellner, 426.) The possession of the document enabled Melanchthon to deal in a
reliable manner with all questions involved, and spurred him on to do most careful
and thorough work.
55. Completion of Apology Delayed.
Owing to the fact that Melanchthon spent much more time and labor on the work
than he had anticipated and originally planned, the publication of the Apology was
unexpectedly delayed. October 1, 1530, Melanchthon wrote to Camerarius: "Concerning
the word 'liturgy' [in the Apology] I ask you again and again carefully to search
out for me its etymology as well as examples of its meaning." November 12, to
Dietrich: "I shall describe them [the forms of the Greek mass] to Osiander as soon
as I have completed the Apology, which I am now having printed and am endeavoring
to polish. In it I shall fully explain the most important controversies, which, I
hope, will prove profitable." (_C.R._ 2, 438.) In a similar strain he wrote to
Camerarius, November 18. (440.) January 1, 1531, again to Camerarius: "In the
Apology I experience much trouble with the article of Justification, which I seek
to explain profitably." (470.) February, 1531, to Brenz: "I am at work on the
Apology. It will appear considerably augmented and better founded. For this article,
in which we teach that men are justified by faith and not by love, is treated
exhaustively." (484.) March 7, to Camerarius: "My Apology is not yet completed. It
grows in the writing." (486.) Likewise in March, to Baumgaertner: "I have not yet
completed the Apology, as I was hindered, not only by illness, but also by many
other matters, which interrupted me, concerning the syncretism Bucer is stirring
up." (485.) March 17, to Camerarius: "My Apology is making slower progress than the
matter calls for." (488.) Toward the end of March, to Baumgaertner: "The Apology
is still in press; for I am revising it entirely and extending it." (492.) April 7,
to Jonas: "In the Apology I have completed the article on Marriage, in which the
opponents are charged with many real crimes." (493.) April 8, to Brenz: "We have
almost finished the Apology. I hope it will please you and other good people."
(494.) April 11, to Camerarius: "My Apology will appear one of these days. I shall
also see that you receive it. At times I have spoken somewhat vehemently, as I see
that the opponents despise every mention of peace." (495.) Finally, in the middle
of April, to Bucer: "My Apology has appeared, in which, in my opinion, I have
treated the articles of Justification, Repentance, and several others in such a
manner that our opponents will find themselves heavily burdened.. I have said
little of the Eucharist." (498.)
These letters show that Melanchthon took particular pains with the article of
Justification, which was expanded more than tenfold. January 31, he was still hard
at work on this article. Kolde says: "This was due to the fact that he suppressed
five and one-half sheets [preserved by Veit Dietrich] treating this subject because
they were not satisfactory to him, and while he at first treated Articles 4 to 6
together, he now included also Article 20, recasting anew the entire question of
the nature of justification and the relation of faith and good works. Illness and
important business, such as the negotiations with Bucer on the Lord's Supper,
brought new delays. He also found it necessary to be more explicit than he had
contemplated. Thus it came about that the work could first appear, together with
the Augustana, end of April, or, at the latest, beginning of May!' (37.) According
to the resolution of the Diet, the Lutherans were to have decided by April 15, 1531,
whether they would accept the Confutation or not. The answer of the Lutherans was
the appearance, on the bookstalls, of the Augustana and the Apology, and a few days
prior, of Luther's "Remarks on the Alleged Imperial Edict, _Glogsen auf das
vermeinte kaiserliche Edikt_."
56. German Translation by Jonas.
The Apology was written in Latin. The _editio princeps_ in quarto of 1531
contained the German and the Latin texts of the Augsburg Confession, and the Latin
text of the Apology. From the very beginning, however, a German translation was, if
not begun, at least planned. But, though announced on the title-page of the quarto
edition just referred to, it appeared six months later, in the fall of 1531. It was
the work of Justus Jonas. The title of the edition of 1531 reads: _"Apologie der
Konfession, aus dem Latein verdeutscht durch Justus Jonas, Wittenberg._ Apology of
the Confession done into German from the Latin by Justus Jonas, Wittenberg." For a
time Luther also thought of writing a "German Apology." April 8, 1531, Melanchthon
wrote to Brenz: _"Lutherus nunc instituit apologiam Germanicam._ Luther is now
preparing a German Apology." (_C.R._ 2, 494.501.) It is, however, hardly possible
that Luther was contemplating a translation. Koellner comments on Melanchthon's
words: "One can understand them to mean that Luther is working on the German
Apology." _Instituit_, however, seems to indicate an independent work rather than
a translation. Koestlin is of the opinion that Luther thought of writing an Apology
of his own, because he was not entirely satisfied with Melanchthon's. (_Martin
Luther_ 2, 382.) However, if this view is correct, it certainly cannot apply to
Melanchthon's revised Apology, to which Luther in 1533 expressly confessed himself,
but to the first draft at Augsburg, in which, _e.g._, the 10th Article seems to
endorse the concomitance doctrine. (_Lehre und Wehre_ 1918, 385.) At all events,
Luther changed his plan when Jonas began the translation of the new Apology.
The translation of Jonas is not a literal reproduction of the Latin original,
but a version with numerous independent amplifications. Also Melanchthon had a
share in this work. In a letter of September 26, 1531, he says: "They are still
printing the German Apology, the improvements of which cost me no little labor."
(_C.R._ 2, 542.) The deviations from the Latin original therefore must perhaps be
traced to Melanchthon rather than to Jonas. Some of them are due to the fact that
the translation was based in part not on the text of the _editio princeps_, but on
the altered Latin octavo edition, copies of which Melanchthon was able to send to
his friends as early as September 14. See, for example, the 10th Article, where the
German text follows the octavo edition in omitting the quotation from Theophylact.
The German text appeared also in a separate edition, as we learn from the letter of
the printer Rhau to Stephen Roth of November 36, 1531: "I shall send you a German
Apology, most beautifully bound." (Kolde, 39.) German translations adhering
strictly to the text of the _editio princeps_ are of a much later date.
57. Alterations of Apology.
Melanchthon, who was forever changing and improving, naturally could not leave
the Apology as it read in the first edition. This applies to both the German and
the Latin text. He was thinking of the Latin octavo edition when he wrote to Brenz,
June 7, 1531: "The Apology is now being printed, and I am at pains to make some
points in the article of Justification clearer. It is an extremely great matter,
in which we must proceed carefully, that Christ's honor may be magnified." (2, 504.)
The same edition he had in mind when he wrote to Myconius, June 14, 1531: "My
Apology is now in press, and I am endeavoring to present the article of
Justification even more clearly; for there are some things in the solution of the
arguments which are not satisfactory to me." (506.) Accordingly, this octavo
edition, of which Melanchthon was able to send a copy to Margrave George on
September 14, revealed important alterations: partly improvements, partly
expansions, partly deletions. The changes in the 10th Article, already referred to,
especially the omission of the quotation from Theophylact, attracted most attention.
The succeeding Latin editions likewise revealed minor changes. The Apology
accompanying the Altered Augsburg Confession of 1540, was designated by Melanchthon
himself as "_diligenter recognita_, diligently revised." (_C.R._ 26, 357. 419.)
Concerning the German Apology, Melanchthon wrote to Camerarius on January 1,
1533: "I have more carefully treated the German Apology and the article of
Justification, and would ask you to examine it. If you have seen my Romans
(Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans], you will be able to notice how exactly
and methodically I am endeavoring to explain this matter. I also hope that
intelligent men will approve it. For I have done this in order to explain necessary
matters and to cut off all manner of questions, partly false, partly useless."
(_C.R._ 2, 624.) About the same time he wrote to Spalatin: "Two articles I have
recast entirely: Of Original Sin and Of Righteousness. I ask you to examine them,
and hope that they will profit pious consciences. For in my humble opinion I have
most clearly presented the doctrine of Righteousness and ask you to write me your
opinion." (625.) Kolde says of this second revision of the German text of 1533:
"This edition, which Melanchthon described as 'diligently amended,' is much sharper
in its tone against the Romanists than the first and reveals quite extensive changes.
Indeed, entire articles have been remodeled, such as those Of Justification and Good
Works, Of Repentance, Of the Mass, and also the statements on Christian perfection."
(41.) These alterations in the Latin and German texts of the Apology, however, do
not involve changes in doctrine, at least not in the same degree as in the case of
the Augustana Variata of 1540. Self-evidently, it was the text of the first edition
of the German as well as the Latin Apology that was embodied in the Book of Concord.
58. Purpose, Arrangement, and Character of Apology.
The aim of the Apology was to show why the Lutherans "do not accept the
Confutation," and to puncture the papal boast that the Augustana had been refuted
with the Holy Scriptures. In its Preface we read: "Afterwards a certain decree was
published [by the Emperor], in which the adversaries boast that they have refuted
our Confession from the Scriptures. You have now, therefore, reader, our Apology,
from which you will understand not only what the adversaries have judged (for we
have reported in good faith), but also that they have condemned several articles
contrary to the manifest Scripture of the Holy Ghost; so far are they from
overthrowing our propositions by means of the Scriptures." (101.) The Apology is,
on the one hand, a refutation of the Confutation and, on the other hand, a defense
and elaboration of the Augustana, presenting theological proofs for the correctness
of its teachings. Hence constant reference is made to the Augsburg Confession as
well as the Confutation; and scholastic theology is discussed as well. On this
account also the sequence of the articles, on the whole, agrees with that of the
Augustana and the Confutation. However, articles treating of related doctrines are
collected into one, _e.g._, Articles 4, 5, 6, and 20. Articles to which the
Romanists assented are but briefly touched upon. Only a few of them have been
elaborated somewhat, _e.g._, Of the Adoration of the Saints, Of Baptism, Of the
Lord's Supper, Of Repentance, Of Civil Government. The fourteen articles, however,
which the Confutation rejected are discussed extensively, and furnished also with
titles, in the _editio princeps_ as well as in the Book of Concord of 1580 and 1584.
In Mueller's edition of the Symbolical Books all articles of the Apology are for
the first time supplied with numbers and captions corresponding with the Augsburg
Confession.
In the Apology, just as in the Augsburg Confession, everything springs from,
and is regulated by, the fundamental Lutheran principle of Law and Gospel, sin and
grace, faith and justification. Not only is the doctrine of justification set forth
thoroughly and comfortingly in a particular article, but throughout the discussions
it remains the dominant note, its heavenly strain returning again and again as the
_motif_ in the grand symphony of divine truths - a strain with which the Apology
also breathes, as it were, its last, departing breath. For in its Conclusion we
read: "If all the scandals [which, according to the Papists, resulted from Luther's
teaching be brought together, still the one article concerning the remission of sins
(that for Christ's sake, through faith, we freely obtain the remission of sins)
brings so much good as to hide all evils. And this, in the beginning [of the
Reformation], gained for Luther not only our favor, but also that of many who are
now contending against us." (451.)
In Kolde's opinion, the Apology is a companion volume, as it were, to
Melanchthon's _Loci Communes_, and a theological dissertation rather than a
confession. However, theological thoroughness and erudition do not conflict with
the nature of a confession as long as it is not mere cold intellectual reflection
and abstraction, but the warm, living, and immediate language of the believing
heart. With all its thoroughness and erudition the Apology is truly edifying,
especially the German version. One cannot read without being touched in his inmost
heart, without sensing and feeling something of the heart-beat of the Lutheran
confessors. Jacobs, who translated the Apology into English, remarks: "To one
charged with the cure of souls the frequent reading of the Apology is invaluable; in
many (we may say, in most) parts it is a book of practical religion." (_The Book of
Concord_ 2, 41.) The Apology does not offer all manner of theories of idle minds,
but living testimonies of what faith, while struggling hotly with the devil and
languishing in the fear of death and the terrors of sin and the Law, found and
experienced in the sweet Gospel as restored by Luther. In reading the Apology, one
can tell from the words employed how Melanchthon lived, moved, and fairly reveled
in this blessed truth which in opposition to all heathen work-righteousness teaches
terrified hearts to rely solely and alone on grace. In his _History of Lutheranism_
(2, 206) Seckendorf declares that no one can be truly called a theologian of our
Church who has not diligently and repeatedly read the Apology or familiarized
himself with it. (Salig, 1, 375.)
59. Moderate Tone of Apology.
The tone of the Apology is much sharper than that of the Augsbura Confession.
The situation had changed; hence the manner of dealing with the opposition also
changed. The Romanists had fully revealed themselves as implacable enemies, who
absolutely refused a peace on the basis of truth and justice. In the Conclusion of
the Apology we read: "But as to the want of unity and dissension in the Church, it
is well known how these matters first happened, and who caused the division, namely,
the sellers of indulgences, who shamefully preached intolerable lies, and afterwards
condemned Luther for not approving of those lies, and besides, they again and again
excited more controversies, so that Luther was induced to attack many other errors.
But since our opponents would not tolerate the truth, and dared to promote manifest
errors by force, it is easy to judge who is guilty of the schism. Surely, all the
world, all wisdom, all power ought to yield to Christ and his holy Word. But the
devil is the enemy of God, and therefore rouses all his might against Christ to
extinguish and suppress the Word of God. Therefore the devil with his members,
setting himself agains teh Word of God, is the cause of the schism and want of
unity. For we have most zealously sought peace, and still most eagerly desire it,
provided only we are not forced to blaspheme and deny Christ. for God, the
discerner of all men's hearts, is our witness that we do not delight and have no
joy in this awful disunion. On the other hand, our adversaries have so far not
been willing to conclude peace without stipulating that we must abandon the saving
doctrine of the forgiveness of sin by Christ without our merit, though Christ would
be most foully blasphemed thereby." (451.)
Such being the attitude of the Romanists, there was no longer any reason for
Melanchthon to have any special consideration for these implacable opponents of
the LUtherans and hardened enemies of the Gospel, of the truth, and of religious liberty and peace. Reconciliation with Rome was out of the question. Hence he
could yield more freely to his impulse here than in the Augustana; for when this
Confession was written, an agreement was not considered impossible. In a letter of
July 15, 1530, informing Luther of the pasquinaades delivered to the Emperor,
Melanchthon declared: "If an answer will become necessary, I shall certainly
remunerate these wretched, bloody men. _Si continget, ut respondendum sit, ego
profecto remunerabor istos nefarios viros sanguinum." (_C.R._ 2, 197.) And when
about to conclude the Apology, he wrote to Brenz, April 8, 1531: 'I have entirely
laid aside the mildness which I formerly exercised toward the opponents. Since
they will not employ me as a peacemaker, but would rather have me as their enemy,
I shall do what the matter requires, and faithfully defend our cause." (494.)
But while Melanchthon castigates the papal theologians, he spares and even
defends the Emperor.
In Luther's _Remarks on the alleged IMperial Edict, of 1531, we read: "I,
Martin Luther, Doctor of the Sacred Scriptures and pastor of the Christians at
Wittenberg, in publishing these Remarks, wish it to be distinctly understood that
anything I am writing in this booklet against the alleged imperial edict or
command is not to be viewed as written against His Imperial Majesty or any
higher power, either of spiritual or civil estate .... I do not mean the pious
Emperor nor the pious lords, but the traitors and reprobates (be they princes or
bishops) and especially that fellow whom St. Paul calls God's opponent (I should
say God's vicar), the arch-knave, Pope Clement, and his servant Campegius, and
the like, who plan to carry out their despearte, nefarious roguery under the
imperial name, or, as Solomon says, at court." (16, 2666.) Luther then continues to
condemn the Diet in unqualified terms. "What a disgraceful Diet," says he, "the
like of which was never held and never heard of, and nevermore shall be held and
never heard of, on account of such disgraceful action! It cannot but remain an
eternal blot on all princes and the entire empire, and makes all Germans blush
before God and all the world." But he continues exonerating and excusing the
Emperor: "Let no one tremble on account of this edict which they so shamefully
invent and publish in the name of the pious Emperor. And should they not publish
their lies in the name of a pious Emperor, when their entire blasphemous,
abominable affair was begun and maintained for over six hundred years in the name
of God and the Holy Church?" (16, 1634)
In a similar manner Melanchthon, too, treats the Emperor. He calls him
"_optimum imperatorem_," and speaks of "the Emperor's most gentle disposition,
_mansuetissimum Caesaris pectus," which Eck and his party were seeking to incite
to bloodshed. (_C.R._, 2, 197.) In the Preface he says: "And now I have written
with the greatest moderation possible; and if any expression appears too severe, I
must say here beforehand that I am contending with the theologians and monks who
wrote the Confutation, and not with the Empeeror or the princes, whom I hold in
esteem." (101.) In Article 23 Melanchthon even rises to the apostrophe: "And these
their lusts they ask you to defend with your chaste right hand, Emperor Charles
(whom even certain ancient predictions name as the king of modest face; for the
saying appears concerning you: 'One modes in face shall reign everywhere')." (363.)
The Confutators, however, the avowed enemies of turth and peace, were spared
no longer. Upon them Melanchthon now pours out the ly of bitter scorn. He excoriates
them as "despearte sophists, who maliciously interpret the holy Gospel according to
their dreams," and as "coarse, sluggish, inexperienced theologians." He denounces
them as men "who for the greater part do not know whereof they speak," and "who dare
to destroy this doctrine of faith with fire and sword," etc. Occasionally Melanchthon
even loses his dignified composure. Article 6 {?} we read: "Quis docuit illos asinos
hanc dialecticam?" {"Who taught these asses this logic?"} Article 9 {?}: "Videant isti
asini." {"See those asses."} In his book of 1534 against the Apology, Cochlaeus
complains that the youthful Melanchthon called old priests asses, sycophants, windbags,
godless sophists, worthless hypocrites, etc. In the margin he had written: "Fierce
and vicious as he is, a barking dog toward those who are absent, but to those who
were present at Augsburg, Philip was more gentle than a pup. _Ferox et mordax est,
latrator in absentes, in praesentes erat Augustae omni catello blandior Philippus._"
(Salig, 1, 377.)
On this score, however, Cochlaeus and his papal compeers had no reason to
complain, for they had proved to be past masters in vilifying and sladering the
Lutherans, as well as implacable enemies, satisfied with nothing short of their blood
and utter destruction. As a sample of their scurrility W. Walther quotes the
following from a book written by Duke George of Saxony: {"He [Luther] is certainly
possed by the Devil, along with the whole legion which Christ had driven out of the
possessed and had permitted to enter into the swine. This legion has made his
tonsured skull to rage and be addicted to commotion. You restless, faithless and
lying cowled knave. You alone are the greatest, coarsest ass and fool, you damned
apostate. From this anyone can see the treason and falsehood of your bloodthirsty
heart, your vengeful spirit and devilish will, so you, Luther, venture to rave
without ceasing against your neighbor, like a foolish dog with an open mouth. You
faithless knave and devilish monk! You obvious Mameluke and damned deceiver {lit.,
"Zweidam", 'two-bowel'}, nine of whom are not worth a pick-axe. I say especiallly that
you yourself are a most foolish drunken reveller and a crooked {lit., "zehneckichte',
'ten-cornered'} _"Cornut"_ {?} and beast. You lying, fiathless and honorless
evil little boy {Fleischboesewicht}! Shame to you now, you irreligious man, who
discharges monks and nuns, who is the brotherl keeper of deserting priests and all
the rebellious. Indeed, Doctor Shame-Luther! My doctor arch-ass, I will give you a
prophecy, that the almighty God will soon break your entrenchments and your malicious,
coarse and assinine leisure. You evil sow {Saubose}, Doctor Pig-trough! Doctor great-ass!
Doctor Jester {lit, 'felt-hat'}! Seventy-two devils will lead you alive into the
abyss of heell. I will see to it that you as a hell-houne will belch forth fire,
and you yourself will burn endlessly. I will despatch you to the raging devil and his
whore-mother with a bloody head into the abyss of hell."}
Desite the occasional asperity referred to, the Apology, as a whole, is written
with modesty and moderation. Melanchthon sought to keep the track as clear as possible
for a future understanding. In the interest of unity, which he never lost sight of
entirely, he was conservative and not disposed needlessly to widen the existing
gulf. In the Preface to the Apology he declares: "It has always been my custom in these
controversies to reatin, so far as I was at all able, the form of the customarily
received doctrine, in order that at some time concord could be reached the more
readily. Nor, indeed, am I now departing far from this custom, although I could justly
lead away the men of this age stil farther from the opinions of the adversaries." (101.)
This irenic feature is perhaps most prominent in the 10th Article, Of the Lord's Supper,
where Melanchthon, in order to satisfy the opponents as to the orthodoxy of the
Lutherans in the doctrine of the Real Presence, emphasizes the agreement in such a
manner that he has been misunderstood as endorsing also the Romish doctrine of
Transubstantiation.
60. Symbolical Authority of Apology
The great importance ascribed to the Apology appears both from its numerous reprints
and the strenuous endeavors of the oppnents to oppose it with books, which, however, no
one was willing to print. The reception accorded it by the Lutherans is described in a
letter which Lazarus Spengler sent to Veit Dietrich May 17: "We have received the
Apology with the greatest joy and in good hope that it will be productive of much profit
among our posterity." Brenz declares it worthy of the canon [worthy of symbolical
authority]: "Apolgiam, me iudice, canone dignam" (_C.R._ 2, 510), a phrase which Luther
had previously applied to Melanchthon's _Loci_. The joy of the Lutherans was equaled
only by the consternation of their enemies. The appearance of the Apology surprised
and perturbed them. They keely felt that they were again discredited in the public
opinion and had been outwitted by the Lutherans. On November 19 Albert of Mayence sent
a copy of the Apology to the Emperor in order to show him how the Catholic religion
was being destroyed while the Confutation remained unpublished. Cochlaeus complained
that, to judge from letters received, the Apology found approval even in Rome, whereas
no printer could be found for the Catholic replies to the Apology. He wrote: "Meantime,
while we keep silence, they flaunt the Apology and other writings, and not only insult us, but cause our people and cities to doubt and to grow unstable in the faith." (Kolde, 40.)
The Apology, as revised and published by Melanchthon, was a private work. His name,
therefore, appeared on the title-page of the edition of 1531, which was not the case with
respect to the Confession and Apology presented at Augsburg. The latter were official
documents, drawn up by order of the Lutheran princes and estates, while the revised
Apology was an undertaking for which Melanchthon had received no commission. Accordingly,
as he was not justified in publishing a work of his own under the name of the princes,
there was nothing else for him to do than to affix his own signature. In the Prefact to
the Apology he says: "As it passed through the press, I made some additions. Therefore
I give my name, so that no one can complain that the book has been published anonymously."
(100.) Melanchthon did not wish to make any one beside himself responsible for the
contents of the revised Apology.
Before long, however, the Apology received official recognition. At Schweinfurt,
1532, in opposition to the Papists, the Lutherans appealed to the Augustana and Apology
as the confession of their faith, designating the latter as "the defense and explanation
of the Confession." And when the Papists advanced the claim that the Lutherans had
gone farther in the Apology than in the Augustana, and, April 11, 1532, demanded
that they abide by the Augustana, refrain from making the Apology their confession,
and accordingly substitute "Assertion" for the title "Apology," the Lutherans,
considering the Apology to be the adequate expression of their faith, insisted on the
original title. April 17 they declared: "This book was called Apology because it was
presented to Caesar after the confession; nor could they suffer its doctrine and the
Word of God to be bound and limited, or their preachers restricted to teach nothing
else than the letter of the Augsburg Confession, thus making it impossible for them to
rebuke freely and most fully all doctrinal errors, abuses, sins, and crimes. _Nominatum
fuisse Apologiam scriptum illud, quod Caesari post Confessionem exhibitum sit, neque
se pati posse, ut doctrina sua et Verbum Dei coangustetur, imminuatur et concionatores
astringantur, ut nihil aliud praedicent quam ad litteram Augustanae Confessionis,
neque libere et plenissime adversue omnes errores doctrinae, abusus, peccata et crimina
dicere possint._" Hereupon the Romanists, on April 22, demanded that at least a
qualifying explanation be added to the title Apology. Brueck answered on the 23rd:
"It is not possible to omit this word. The Apology is the correlate of the Confession.
Still the princes and their associates do not wish any articles taught other than
those which have so far begun to be discussed. "_Omitti istud verbum non posse;
Apologiam esse correlatum Confessionis; nolle tamen Principes et socios, ut alii
articuli docerentur, quam hucusque tractari coepti sint._" (Koellner, 430.)
In his Letter of Comfort, 1533, to the Leipzig Lutherans banished by Duke
George, Luther says: "There is our Confession and Apology.... Adhere to our
Confession and Apology." (10, 1956) Membership in the Smalcalk League was conditioned
on accepting the Apology as well as the Augustana. Both were also subscribed to in
the Wittenberg Concord of 1536. (_C.R._ 3, 76.) In 1537, at Smalcald, the Apology
(together with the Augustana and the Appendix Concerning the Primacy of the Pope)
was, by order of the Evangelical estates, subscribed by all of the theologians
present, and thereby solemnly declared a confession of the Lutheran Church. In 1539
Denmark reckoned the Apology among the books which pastors were required to adopt.
In 1540 it was presente dtogether with the Augustana at Worms. It was also received
into the various _corpora doctrinae_. The Formula of Concord adopts the Apology,
saying: "We unanimously confess this {Apology] also, because not only is the said
Augsburg Confession explained in it as much as is necessary and guarded [against
the slanders of the adversaries], but also proved by clear, irrefuatable testimonies
of Holy Scripture." (853,6.)
_________________________________________________________________
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
��������������������������������������������������������������������������������