----------------------------------------------------------
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)
-----------------------------------------------------------
VII. Smalcald Articles and Tract concerning Power and Primacy of the Pope.
61. General Council Demanded by Lutherans.
In order to settle the religious controversy between themselves and the Papists,
the Lutherans, from the very beginning, asked for a general council. In the course
of years this demand became increasingly frequent and insistent. It was solemnly
renewed in the Preface of the Augsburg Confession. The Emperor had repeatedly
promised to summon a council. At Augsburg he renewed the promise of convening it
within a year. The Roman Curia, however, dissastisfied with the arrangements made
at the Diet, found ways and means of delaying it. In 1532, the Emperor proceeded to
Bologna, where he negotiated with Clement VII concerning the matter, as appears from
the imperial and papal proclamations of January 8 and 10, 1533, respectively. As a
result, the Pope, in 1533, sent Hugo Rangon, bishop of Resz, to Germany, to pose
that the council be held at Placentia, Bologna, or Mantua. Clement, however, was not
sincere in making this offer. In reality he was opposed to holding a council. Such
were probably also the real sentiments of his successor, Paul III. But when the
Emperor, who, in the interest of his sweeping world policy, was anxious to dispose
of the religious controversy, renewed his pressure, Paul finally found himself
compelled to yield. June 4, 1536, he issued a bull convoking a general council to
meet at Mantua, May 8, 1537. Nothing, however, was said about the principles
according to which it was to be formed and by which it should be governed in
transacting its business. Self-evidently, then, the rules of the former councils
were to be applied. Its declared purpose was the peace of the Church through the
extinction of heresy. In the Bull _Concerning the Reforms of the Roman Court_,
which the Pope issued September 23, he expressly declared that the purpose of the
council would be "the utter extirpation of the poisonous, pestilential Lutheran
heresy." (St. L. 16, 1914.) Thus the question confronting the Protestants was,
whether they could risk to appear at such a council, and ought to do so, or whether
(and how) they should decline to attend.
Luther, indeed, still desired a council. But after 1530 he no longer put any
confidence in a council convened by the Pope, although, for his person, he did not
refuse to attend even such a council. This appears also from his conversation,
November 7, 1535, with the papal legate Peter Paul Vergerius (born 1497; accused of
Lutheranism 1546; deprived of his bishopric 1549; defending Protestantism after 1550;
employed by Duke Christoph of Wuerttemberg 1553; died 1564.) Koestlin writes: "Luther
relates how he had told the legate: 'Even if you do call a council, you will not
treat of salutary doctrine, saving faith, etc., but of useless matters, such as laws
concerning meats, the length of priest's garments, exercises of monks, etc.' While
he was thus dilating, says Luther, the legate, holding his head in his hand, turned
to a near-by companion and said: 'He strikes the nail on the head.' The further
utterances of Luther: 'We do not need a council for ourselves and our adherents, for
we already have the firm Evangelical doctrine and order; Christendom, however, needs
it, in order that those whom error still holds captive may be able to distinguish
between error and truth,' appeared utterly intolerable to Vergerius, as he himself
relates. He regarded them as unheard-of arrogance. By way of answer, he asked,
whether, indeed, the Christian men assembled from all parts of the world, upon whom,
without doubt, the Holy Spirit descends, must only decide what Luther approved of.
Boldly and angrily interrupting him, Luther said: 'Yes, I will come to the council
and lose my head if I shall not defend my doctrine against all the world';
furthermore he exclaimed: 'This wrath of my mouth is not my wrath, but the wrath of
God.' Vergerius rejoiced to hear that Luther was perfectly willing to come to the
council; for, so he wrote to Rome, he thought that nothing more was needed to break
the courage of the heretics than the certain prospect of a council, and at the same
time he believed that in Luther's assent he heard the decision of his master, the
Elector, also. Luther declared that it was immaterial to him where the council would
meet, at Mantua, Verona, or at any other place. Vergerius continued: 'Are you willing
to come to Bologna?' Luther:'To whom does Bologna belong?' Vergerius: 'To the Pope.'
Luther: 'Good Lord, has this town, too, been grabbed by the Pope? Very well, I shall
come to you there.' Vergerius:'The Pope will probably not refuse to come to you at
Wittenberg either.' Luther: 'Very well, let him come; we shall look for him with
pleasure.' Vergerius: 'Do you expect him to come with an army or without weapons?'
Luther: 'As he pleases; in whatsoever manner he may come, we shall expect him and
shall receive him.' - Luther and Bugenhagen remained with Vergerius until he
departed with his train of attendants. After mounting, he said once more to Luther:
'See that you are prepared for the council.' Luther answered: 'Yes, sir, with this
my neck and head."' (_Martin Luther_, 2, 382 sq.)
62. Luther's Views Regarding the Council.
What Luther's attitude toward a general council was in 1537 is expressed in the
Preface to the Smalcald Articles as follows: "But to return to the subject. I verily
desire to see a truly Christian council, in order that many matters and persons might
be helped. Not that we need it; for our churches are now, through God's grace, so
enlightened and equipped with the pure Word and right use of the Sacraments, with
knowledge of the various callings and of right works, that we on our part ask for no
council, and on such points have nothing better to hope or expect from a council.
But we see in the bishoprices everywhere so many parishes vacant and desolate that
one's heart would break, and yet neither the bishops nor canons care how the poor
people live or die, for whom nevertheless Christ has died, and who are not permitted
to hear Him speak with them as the true Shepherd with His sheep. This causes me to
shudder and fear that at some time He may send a council of angels upon Germany
utterly destroying us, like Sodom and Gomorrah, because we so wantonly mock Him
with the council." (457.)
From a popish council Luther expected nothing but condemnation of the truth and
its confessors. At the same time he was convinced that the Pope would never permit a
truly free, Christian council to assemble. He had found him out and knew "that the
Pope would see all Christendom perish and all souls damned rather than suffer either
himself or his adherents to be reformed even a little, and his tyranny to be limited."
(455.) "For with them conscience is nothing, but money, honors, power, are
everything." (455.477.) The Second Part of his Articles Luther concludes as follows:
"In these four articles they will have enough to condemn in the council. For they
cannot and will not concede to us even the least point in one of these articles. Of
this we should be certain, and animate ourselves with the hope that Christ, our Lord,
has attacked His adversary, and He will press the attack home both by His Spirit and
coming. Amen. For in the council we will stand not before the Emperor or the political
magistrate, as at Augsburg (where the Emperor published a most gracious edict, and
caused matters to be heard kindly), but before the Pope and devil himself, who intends
to listen to nothing, but merely to condemn, to murder, and to force us to idolatry.
Therefore we ought riot here to kiss his feet or to say, 'Thou art my gracious lord,'
but as the angel in Zechariah 3, 2 said to Satan, The Lord rebuke thee, 0 Satan."
(475.) Hence his Preface also concludes with the plaint and prayer: "O Lord Jesus
Christ, do Thou Thyself convoke a council, and deliver Thy servants by Thy glorious
advent! The Pope and his adherents are done for; they will have none of Thee. Do Thou,
then, help us, who are poor and needy, who sigh to Thee, and beseech Thee earnestly,
according to the grace which Thou hast given us, through Thy Holy Ghost, who liveth
and reigneth with Thee and the Father, blessed forever. Amen." (459.)
63. Elector Opposed to Hearing Papal Legate.
From the very beginning, Elector John Frederick was opposed to a council. And
the question which particularly engaged his attention was, whether the Lutherans
should receive and hear the papal legate who would deliver the invitation.
Accordingly, on July 24, the Elector came to Wittenberg and through Brueck delivered
four (five) articles to the local theologians and jurists for consideration, with
instructions to submit their answer in writing. (_C.R._ 3, 119.) August 1,
Melanchthon wrote to Jonas: "Recently the Prince was here and demanded an opinion
from all theologians and jurists. . . . It is rumored that a cardinal-legate will
come to Germany to announce the council. The Prince is therefore inquiring what to
answer, and under what condition the synod might be permitted." (106.) The articles
which Brueck presented dealt mainly with the questions: whether, in view of the fact
that the Pope is a party to the issue and his authority to convene a council is
questioned, the legate should be heard, especially if the Emperor did not send a
messenger along with him; whether one would not already submit himself to the Pope
by hearing the legate; whether one ought not to protest, because the Pope alone had
summoned the council; and what should be done in case the legate would summon the
Elector as a party, and not for consultation, like the other estates. (119 f.)
In the preparation of their answer, the Elector desired the Wittenberg scholars
to take into careful consideration also his own view of the matter, which he
persistently defended as the only correct one. For this purpose he transmitted to
them an opinion of his own on Brueck's articles referred to in the preceeding
paragraph. In it he maintained that the papal invitation must be declined, because
acceptance involved the recognition of the Pope "as the head of the Church and the
council. According to the Elector the proper course for the Lutheran confederates
would be to inform the legate, immediately on his arrival in Germany, that they would
never submit to the authority which the Pope had arrogated to himself in his
proclamation, since the power he assumed was neither more nor less than abominable
tyranny; that they could not consider the Pope as differing from, or give him greater
honor than, any other ordinary bishop; that, besides, they must regard the Pope as
their greatest enemy and opponent; that he had arranged for the council with the
sinister object of maintaining his antichristian power and suppressing the holy
Gospel, that there was no need of hearing the legate any further, since the Pope,
who was sufficiently informed as to their teaching, cared neither for Scripture nor
for law and justice, and merely wished to be their judge and lord; that, in public
print, they would unmask the roguery of the Pope, and show that he had no authority
whatever to convoke a council, but, at the same time, declare their willingness to
take part in, and submit their doctrine to, a free, common, Christian, and impartial
council, which would judge according to the Scriptures. Nor did, the Elector fail
to stress the point that, by attending at Mantua, the Lutherans would _de facto_
waive their former demand that the council must be held on German soil. (99 ff.)
64. Elector Imbued with Luther's Spirit.
Evidently, the Elector had no desire of engaing once more in diplomatic
jugglery, such as had been indulged in at Augsburg. And at Smalcald, despite the
opposing advice of the theologians, his views prevailed, to the sorrow of Melanchthon
as appears from latters's complaint to Camerariuis, March 1,1537 (_C.R._ 3, 293) The
Elector was thoroughly imbued with the spirit of Luther, who never felt more
antagonistic toward Rome than at Smalcald, although, as shown above, he was
personally willing to appear at the council, even if held at Mantua. This spirit of
bold defiance appears from the articles which Luther wrote for the convention,
notably from the article on the Papacy and on the Mass. In the latter he declares:
"As Campegius said at Augsburg that he would be torn to pieces before he would
relinquish the Mass, so, by the help of God, I, too, would suffer myself to be
reduced to ashes before I would allow a hireling of the Mass, be he good or bad, to
be made equal to Christ Jesus, my Lord and Savior, or to be exalted above Him. Thus
we are and remain eternally separated and opposed to one another. They feel well
enough that when the Mass falls, the Papacy lies in ruins. Before they will permit
this to occur, they will put us all to death if they can." (465.) In the Pope,
Luther had recognized the Antichrist; and the idea of treating, seeking an agreement,
and making a compromise with the enemy of his Savior, was intolerable to him. At
Smalcald, while suffering excruciating pain, he declared, "I shall die as the enemy
of all enemies of my Lord Christ." When seated in the wagon, and ready to leave
Smalcald, he made the sign of the cross over those who stood about him and said:
"May the Lord fill you with His blessing and with hatred against the Pope!"
Believing that his end was not far removed, he had chosen as his epitaph: "Living,
I was thy pest; dying, I shall be thy death, 0 Pope! _Pestis eram vivus, moriens
ero mors tua, Papa!"_
The same spirit of bold defiance and determination not to compromise the divine truth in any way animated the Elector and practically all of the princes and
theologians at Smalcald, with, perhaps, the sole exception of Melanchthon. Koestlin
writes: "Meanwhile the allies at Smalcald displayed no lack of 'hatred against the
Pope.' His letters, delivered by the legate, were returned unopened. They decidedly
refused to take part in the council, and that in spite of the opinion of their
theologians, whose reasons Melanchthon again ardently defended. For, as they
declared in an explanation to all Christian rulers, they could not submit to a
council which, according to the papal proclamation, was convoked to eradicate the
Lutheran heresy, would consist only of bishops, who were bound to the Pope by an
oath, have as its presiding officer the Pope, who himself was a party to the matter,
and would not decide freely according to the Word of God, but according to human and
papal decrees. And from the legal standpoint they could hardly act differently.
Theologians like Luther could have appeared even before such a council in order to
give bold testimony before it. Princes, however, the representatives of the law and
protectors of the Church, dared not even create the appearance of acknowledging its
legality." (2,402.)
65. Opinion of Theologians.
August 6 the Wittenberg professors assembled to deliberate on Brueck's articles
and the views of the Elector. The opinion resolved upon was drawn up by Melanchthon. Its
contents may be summarized as follows: The Lutherans must not reject the papal
invitation before hearing whether the legate comes with a citation or an invitation. In
case they were invited like the rest of the princes to take part in the deliberations,
and not cited as a party, this would mean a concession on the part of the Pope, inasmuch
as he thereby consented "that the opinion of our gracious Lord [the Elector] should be
heard and have weight, like that of the other estates." Furthermore, by such invitation
the Pope would indicate that he did not consider these princes to be heretics. If the
legate were rebuffed, the Romanists would proceed against the Lutherans as obstinate
sinners (contumaces) and condemn them unheard, which, as is well known, would please the
enemies best. The Lutherans would then also be slandered before the Emperor as despisers
of His Majesty and of the council. Nor did the mere hearing of the legate involve an
acknowledgment of the papal authority. "For with such invitation [to attend the council]
the Pope does not issue a command, nor summon any one to appear before his tribunal, but
before another judge, namely, the Council, the Pope being in this matter merely the
commander of the other estates. By hearing the legate, therefore, one has not submitted
to the Pope or to his judgments.... For although the Pope has not the authority to summon
others by divine law, nevertheless the ancient councils, as, for example, that of Nicaea,
have given him this charge, which external church regulation we do not attack. And although
in former years, when the empire was under one head, some emperors convoked councils, it
would be in vain at present for the Emperor to proclaim a council, as foreign nations would
not heed such proclamation. But while the Pope, at present, according to the form of the
law, has the charge to proclaim councils, he is thereby not made the judge in matters of
faith, for even popes themselves have frequently been deposed by councils. Pope John
proclaimed the Council of Constance, but was nevertheless deposed by it." Accordingly the
opinion continues: "It is not for us to advise that the council be summarily declined,
neither do we consider this profitable, for we have always appealed to a council. What
manner of suspicion, therefore, would be aroused with His Imperial Majesty and all nations
if at the outset we would summarily decline a council, before discussing the method of
procedure!" And even if the Lutherans should be cited [instead of invited], one must await
the wording of the citation, "whether we are cited to show the reason for our teaching, or
to hear ourselves declared and condemned as public heretics." In the latter case it might
be declined. In the former, however, the citation should be accepted, but under the protest
"that they had appealed to a free Christian council," and did not acknowledge the Pope
as judge. "And if (_caeteris paribus_, that is, provided the procedure is correct
otherwise) the council is considered the highest tribunal, as it ought to be considered,
one cannot,despise the command of the person to whom the charge is given to proclaim
councils, whoever he may be. But if afterwards the proceedings are not conducted properly,
one can then justly lodge complaint on that account." "To proclaim a council is within the province of the Pope; but the judgment and decision belongs to the council.... For all
canonists hold that in matters of faith the council is superior to the Pope, and that in
case of difference the council's verdict must be preferred to that of the Pope. For there
must be a supreme court of the Church, i.e., the council." On account of the place,
however, they should not refuse to appear. (_C.R._, 31 119.)
In their subsequent judgments the theologians adhered to the view that the Protestants
ought not to incur the reproach of having prevented the council by turning down the legate.
Luther says, in an opinion written at Smaleald, February, 1537: "I have no doubt that the
Pope and his adherents are afraid and would like to see the council prevented, but in such
a manner as would enable them to boast with a semblance of truth that it was not their
fault, since they had proclaimed it, sent messengers, called the estates, etc., as they,
indeed, would brag and trump it up. Hence, in order that we might be frightened and back
out, they have set before us a horrible devil's head by proclaiming a council, in which
they mention nothing about church matters, nothing about a hearing, nothing about other
matters, but solely speak of the extirpation and eradication of the poisonous Lutheran
heresy, as they themselves indicate in the bull _De Reformatione Curiae_ [of September
23, 1536; St. L. 16, 1913ff.]. Here we have not only our sentence, which is to be passed
upon us in the council, but the appeal also with hearing, answer, and discussion of all
matters is denied us, and all pious, honorable men who might possibly have been chosen as
mediators are also excluded. Moreover, these knaves of the devil are bent on doing their
pleasure, not only in condemning (for according to the said bull launched against us they
want to be certain of that), but also in speedily beginning and ordering execution and
eradication, although we have not yet been heard (as all laws require), nor have they,
the cardinals, ever read our writing or learned its doctrine, since our books are
proscribed everywhere, but have heard only the false writers and the lying mouths,
having not heard us make a reply, although in Germany both princes and bishops know,
also those of their party, that they are lying books and rascals, whom the Pope, Italy,
and other nations believe. . . . Hence they would like to frighten us into refusing it
[the Council] ; for then they could safely say that we had prevented it. Thus the shame
would not only cleave to us, but we would have to hear that, by our refusal, we had helped
to strengthen such abominations of the Pope, which otherwise might have been righted." Such
and similar reasons prompted Luther to declare that, even though he knew "it would finally
end in a scuffle," he was not afraid of "the lousy, contemptible council," and would
neither give the legate a negative answer, nor "entangle himself," and therefore not be
hasty in the matter. (St.L. 16, 1997.) Even after the princes at Smalcald had resolved
not to attend the council, Luther expressed the opinion that it had been false wisdom to
decline it; the Pope should have been left without excuse; in case it should convene, the
council would now be conducted without the Protestants.
66. Elector's Strictures on Opinion of Theologians.
Elector John Frederick was not at all satisfied with the Wittenberg opinion of August
6. Accordingly, he informed the theologians assembled August 30 at Luther's house, through
Brueck, that they had permitted themselves to be unduly influenced by the jurists, had
not framed their opinion with the diligence required bv the importance of the matter, and
had not weighed all the dangers lurking in an acceptance of the invitation to the council.
If the Lutherans would be invited like the other estates, and attend, they must needs
dread a repetition of the craftiness attempted at Augsburg, namely, of bringing their
princes in opposition to their preachers. Furthermore, in that case it would also be
considered self-evident that the Lutherans submit to the decision of the majority in all
matters. And if they refused, what then? "On this wise we, for our part, would be lured
into the net so far that we could not, with honor, give a respectable account of our action
before the world. For thereupon to appeal from such decision of the council to another
would by all the world be construed against our part as capriciousness pure and simple.
At all events, therefore, the Lutherans could accept the papal invitation only with a
public protest, from which the Pope and every one else could perceive in advance, before
the council convened, that the Lutherans would not allow themselves to be lured into the
net of a papal council, and what must be the character of the council to which, they
would assent." (_C.R._ 3, 147.)
In this Protest, which the Elector presented, and which Melanchthon translated into
Latin, we read: "By the [possible] acceptance [of the invitation to the council], they
[the Lutherans] assent to no council other than a general, free, pious, Christian, and
impartial one; not to one either which would be subject to, and bound by, papal prejudices
(as the one promised by Clement VII), but to such a synod as will endeavor to bring godly
and Christian unity within the Church by choosing pious, learned, impartial, and
unsuspected men for the purpose of investigating the religious controversies and
adjudicating them from the Word of God, and not in accordance with usage and human
traditions, nor on the basis of decisions rendered by former synods that militate against
the Word of God." (152. 157.)
67. Counter-Council Disadvised.
The other matters which engaged the Elector's attention dealt primarily with measures
of defense, the convening of a counter-council (Gegenkonzil) and the preparation of
articles which all would unanimously accept, and by which they proposed to stand to the
uttermost. August 20 Brueek brought these points up for discussion. And in a "memorandum"
which the Elector personally presented to the theologians at Wittenberg on December 1,
1536, he expressed his opinion as follows: The Lutherans were not obligated to attend the
council, neither would it be advisable. One could not believe or trust the opponents.
Nothing but trickery, deception, harm, and destruction might be expected. At the council
the Lutheran doctrine would be condemned, and its confessors excommunicated and outlawed.
To be sure, the Lutheran cause was in God's hands. And as in the past, so also in the
future God would protect it. Still they must not on this account neglect anything. Luther
should therefore draw up articles from which he was determined not to recede. After they
had been subscribed by the Wittenbergers and by all Evangelical pastors at the prospective
meeting [at Smalcald], the question might also be discussed whether the Lutherans should
not arrange for a counter-council "a universal, free, Christian council," possibly at
Augsburg. The proclamation for this council might be issued "by Doctor Luther together
with his fellow-bishops and ecclesiastics, as the pastors." However, one might also
consider whether this should not preferably be done by the princes and estates. In such
an event, however, one had to see to it that the Emperor be properly informed, and that
the entire blame be saddled upon the Pope and his adherents, the enemies and opponents of
our side. (141.)
The seriousness with which the Elector considered the idea of a counter-council
appears from the details on which he entered in the "memorandum" referred to, where he
puts especial emphasis on the following points: At this free, universal council the
Lutherans were minded "to set forth their doctrine and faith according to the divine,
holy Scriptures." Every one, whether priest or layman, should be heard in case he wanted
to present anything concerning this doctrine from the Holy Scriptures. A free, safe,
Christian passport was to be given to all, even to the worst enemy, leaving it to his
discretion when to come and go. Only matters founded in the Scriptures were to be
presented and discussed at such council. Human laws, ordinances, and writings should
under no circumstances be listened to in matters pertaining to faith and conscience, nor
be admitted as evidence against the Word of God. "Whoever would submit such matters,
should not be heard, but silence enjoined upon him." To the verdict of such a holy and
Christian council the Lutherans would be willing to submit their doctrine. (141.)
The theologians answered in an opinion of December 6, 1536, endorsing the Protest
referred to above, but disapproving the counter-council. Concerning the first joint they
advised that a writing be published and sent to the Emperor and all rulers in which the
Lutherans were to "request that ways and means be considered of adopting a lawful
procedure [at the council] promoting the true Christian unity of Christendom."
Concerning the counter-council, however, they advised "at all events not to hasten with it.
For to convoke it would produce a great and terrible appearance of creating a schism, and
of setting oneself against all the world and contemplating taking the field soon.
Therefore such great, apparent resistance should not be undertaken till one intends to
do something in the matter openly and in deed." Concerning the defense, the Wittenberg
theologians were of the opinion that it was the right and duty of the princes to protect
and defend their subjects against notorious injuries (if, for example, an attempt should
be made to force upon them the Romish idolatry, or to rend asunder the marriages of their
pastors), and also against the Emperor, even after the council had condemned them as
heretics. Luther signed this opinion with the following words: "I, too, Martin Luther,
will help with my prayers and, if necessary, also with my fist." (126.)
68. Articles Drafted by Luther.
In the "memorandum" of December 1 the Elector spoke of the articles Luther was to
frame as follows: "Although, in the first place, it may easily be perceived that
whatsoever our party may propose in such a [popish] council as has been announced will
have no weight with the opposition, miserable, blinded, and mad men that they are, no
matter how well it is founded on Holy Scripture, moreover, everything will have to be
Lutheran heresy, and their verdict, which probably has already been decided and agreed
upon, must be adopted and immediately followed by their proposed ban and interdict
[decree excommunicating and outlawing our party], it will, nevertheless, be very
necessary for Doctor Martin to prepare his foundation and opinion from the Holy
Scriptures, namely, the articles as hitherto taught, preached, and written by him, and
which he is determined to adhere to and abide by at the council, as well as upon his
departure from this world and before the judgment of Almighty God, and in which we
cannot yield without becoming guilty of treason against God, even though property and
life, peace or war, are at stake. Such articles, however, as are not necessary, and in
which, for the sake of Christian 1ove, yet without offense against God and His Word,
something might be yielded (though, doubtless, they will be few in number), should in
this connection also be indicated separately by said Doctor Martin. And when Doctor
Martin has completed such work (which, if at all possible for the Doctor, must be done
between the present date and that of the Conversion of Paul [January 25], at the latest),
he shall thereupon present it to the other Wittenberg theologians, and likewise to some
prominent preachers whose presence he should require, to hear from them, at the same
time admonishing them most earnestly, and asking them whether they agreed with him in
these articles which he bad drawn up, or not, and thereupon, as they hoped for their
souls' salvation, their sentiment and opinion be learned in its entirety, but not in
appearance, for the sake of peace, or because they did not like to oppose the Doctor,
and for this reason would not fully open their hearts, and still, at a later time, would
teach, preach, write, and make public something else or advise the people against said
articles, as some have in several instances done before this." An agreement having been
reached, the articles were to be subscribed by all and prepared in German and Latin. At
the prospective meeting [at Smalcald] they should be submitted to the religious confederates
for discussion and subscription. Hence, in the invitation, every prince should be asked
"to bring with him two or three theologians, in order that a unanimous agreement might be
reached there, and no delay could be sought or pretended.'(139.) Accordingly, the Elector
planned to have Luther draw up articles which were to be accepted by all, first at
Wittenberg and then at Smalcald, without compulsion and for no other reason than that
they expressed their own inmost convictions. The situation had changed since 1530, and
the Elector desired a clearer expression, especially on the Papacy. Hence he did not
appoint Melanchthon, but Luther, to compose the articles. The truth was to be confessed
without regard to anything else.
Luther had received the order to draw up these articles as early as August 20, 1536.
September 3 Brueck wrote to the Elector on this matter: "I also delivered to Doctor
Martin the credentials which Your Electoral Grace gave to me, and thereupon also spoke
with him in accordance with the command of Your Electoral Grace. He promised to be
obedient in every way. It also appears to me that he already has the work well in hand,
to open his heart to Your Electoral Grace on religion, which is to be, as it were, his
testament." (147.) Luther, who at the time thought that his end would come in the near
future, had, no doubt, used such an expression himself. His articles were to be his
testament. In the preface to the articles he touched upon it once more, saying: "I have
determined to publish these articles in plain print, so that, should I die before there
will be a council (as I fully expect and hope, because the knaves who flee the light and
shun the day take such wretched pains to delay and hinder the council), those who live
and remain after my demise may be able to produce my testimony and confession in addition
to the Confession which I previously issued, whereby up to this time I have abided, and
by God's grace will abide." (455.)
The Elector seems also to have enjoined silence on Luther with respect to the
articles until they had been approved at Wittenberg. For in his letter to Spalatin, of
December 15, 1536, Luther wrote: "But you will keep these matters [his journey to
Wittenberg to discuss the articles] as secret as possible, and pretend other reasons for
your departure. _Sed haec secrete teneas quantum potes, et finge alias causas abeundi._"
(St.L. 21 b, 2135.) December 11 the Elector again called attention to the articles,
desiring that Amsdorf, Agricola, and other outside theologians be called to Wittenberg
at his expense to take part in the discussion. Shortly after, Luther must have finished
the articles. The numerous changes and improvements appearing in the original manuscript,
which is still preserved in the Heidelberg library, show how much time and labor he spent
on this work. Concluding his articles, Luther says: "These are the articles on which I
must stand, and, God willing, shall stand even to my death; and I do not know how to change
or to yield anything in them. If any one wishes to yield anything, let him do it at the
peril of his conscience." (501,3.)
Toward the close of the year Luther submitted the draft to his colleagues, Jonas, Bugenhagen, Cruciger, Melanchthon, and those who had come from abroad, Spalatin, Amsdorf,
and Agricola. After thorough discussion it was adopted by all with but few changes, e. g.,
regarding the adoration of the saints, concerning which Luther had originally said
nothing. (Kolde, 44.) Spalatin reports that all the articles were read, and successively
considered and discussed. The Elector had spoken also of points in which a concession
might be possible. In the discussion at Wittenberg, Spalatin mentioned as such the
question whether the Evangelicals, in case the Pope would concede the cup to them,
should cease preaching against the continuance of the one kind among the Papists;
furthermore, what was to be done with respect to ordination and the adiaphora. Luther had
not entered upon a discussion of these questions, chiefly, perhaps, because he was
convinced that the council would condemn even the essential articles. (Compare
Melanchthon's letter of August 4, 1530, to Campegius, _C. R._ 2, 246.) After the articles
had been read and approved, Spalatin prepared a copy (now preserved in the archives at
Weimar), which was signed by the eight theologians present, by Melanchthon, however, with
the limitation that the Pope might be permitted to retain his authority "iure humano,"
"in case he would admit the Gospel." Perhaps Melanchthon, who probably would otherwise have
dissimulated, felt constrained to add this stricture on account of the solemn demand of
the Elector that no one should hide any dissent of his, with the intention of publishing
it later. (_C. R._ 3, 140.)
69. Articles Endorsed by Elector.
With these first subscriptions, Luther sent his articles to the Elector on January 3,
1537, by the hand of Spalatin. In the accompanying letter of the same date he informed
the Elector that he had asked Amsdorf, Eisleben [Agricola], and Spalatin to come to
Wittenberg on December 28 or the following days. "I presented the articles which I had
myself drawn up according to the command of Your Electoral Grace, and talked them over
with them for several days, owing to my weakness which intervened (as I think, by the
agency of Satan); for otherwise I had expected to deliberate upon them no longer than
one day. And herewith I am sending them, as affirmed with their signatures, by our dear
brother and good friend, Magister George Spalatin, to deliver them to Your Electoral
Grace, as they all charged and asked me so to do. At the same time, since there are some
who, by suspicion and words, insinuate that we parsons (Pfaffen), as they call us, by our
stubbornness desire to jeopardize you princes and lords, together with your lands and
people, etc., I very humbly ask, also in the name of all of us, that by all means Your
Electoral Grace would reprimand us for this. For if it would prove dangerous for other
humble people, to say nothing of Your Electoral Grace, together with other lords, lands,
and people, we would much rather take it upon ourselves alone. Accordingly, Your Electoral
Grace will know well how far and to what extent you will accept these articles, for we
would have no one but ourselves burdened with them, leaving it to every one whether he
will, or will not, burden also himself with them." (St. L. 21b, 2142.)
In his answer of January 7 1537, the Elector expressed his thanks to Luther for
having drawn up the articles "in such Christian, true, and pure fashion," and rejoiced
over the unanimity of his theologians. At the same time he ordered Chancellor Brueck to
take steps toward having the most prominent pastors of the country subscribe the articles,
"so that these pastors and preachers, having affixed their names, must abide by these
articles and not devise teachings of their own, according to their own opinion and liking,
in case Almighty God would summon Doctor Martin from this world, which rests with His
good will." (Kolde, 45.) In the letter which the Elector sent to Luther, we read: "We
give thanks to Almighty God and to our Lord Christ for having granted you health and
strength to prepare these articles in such Christian, true, and pure fashion; also that
He has given you grace, so that you have agreed on them with the others in Christian also
brotherly and friendly unity.... From them we also perceive that you have changed your
mind in no point, but that you are steadfastly adhering to the Christian articles, as you
have always taught, preached, and written, which are also built on the foundation,
namely, our Lord Jesus Christ, against whom the gates of hell cannot prevail, and who
shall also remain in spite of the Pope, the council, and its adherents. May Almighty God,
through our Lord Christ, bestow His grace on us all, that with steadfast and true faith
we abide by them, and suffer no human fear or opinion to turn us therefrom! . . . After
reading them over for the second time, we can entertain no other opinion of them, but
accept them as divine, Christian, and true, and accordingly shall also confess them, and
have them confessed freely and publicly before the council, before the whole world, and
whatsoever may come, and we shall ask God that He would vouchsafe grace to our brother
and to us, and also to our posterity, that steadfastly and without wavering we may abide
and remain in.them." (21 b, 2143.)
70. Melanchthon's Qualified Subscription.
In his letter to Luther the Elector made special reference also to the qualified
subscription of Melanchthon. "Concerning the Pope," he said, "we have no hesitation about
resisting him most vehemently. For if, from good opinion, or for the sake of peace, as
Magister Philip suggests, we should suffer him to remain a lord having the right to command
us, our bishops, pastors, and preachers, we would expose ourselves to danger and burden
(becaue he and his successors will not cease in their endeavors to destroy us entirely and
to root out all our posterity), for which there is no necessity, since God's Word has
delivered and redeemed us therefrom. And if we, now that God has delivered us from the
Babylonian captivity, should again run into such danger and thus tempt God, this
[subjection to the Pope] would, by a just decree of God, come upon us through our wisdom,
which otherwise, no doubt, will not come to pass." (2145.) Evidently, the Elector, though
not regarding Melanchthon's deviation as a false doctrine, did not consider it to be
without danger.
At the beginning of the Reformation, Luther had entertained similar thoughts, but he
had long ago seen through the Papacy, and abandoned such opinions. In the Smalcald Articles
he is done with the Pope and his superiority, also by human riaht: And this for two
reasons: first, becauwe it would be impossible for the Pope to agree to a mere superiority
_iure humano,_ for in that case "he must suffer his rule and estate to be overturned and
destroyed together with all his laws and books; in brief, he cannot do it"; in the second
place, because even such a purely human superiority would only harm the Church. (473, 7. 8.)
Melanchthon, on the other hand, still adhered to the position which he had occupied in the
compromise discussions at Augsburg, whence, e.g., he wrote to Camerarius, August 31, 1530:
"Oh, would that I could, not indeed fortify the domination, but restore the administration
of the bishops. For I see what manner of church we shall have when the ecclesiastical body
has been disorganized. I see that afterwards there will arise a much more intolerable
tyranny [of the princes] than there ever was before." (_C.R._ 2,334) At Smalcald, however,
his views met with so little response among the princes and theologians that in his "Tract
on the Primacy of the Pope" he omitted them entirely and followed Luther's trend of
thought. March 1, 1537, Melanchthon himself wrote concerning his defeat at the
deliberations of the theologians on the question in which articles concessions might be
made in the interest of peace, saying that the unlearned and the more vehement would not
hear of concessions, since the Lutherans would then be charged with inconsistency, and the
Emperor would only increase his demands. (_C.R._ 3, 292.) Evidently, then, even at that
time Melanchthon was not entirely cured of his utopian dream. "If the Pontiff would admit
the Gospel, _si pontifex evangelium admitteret._" A. Osiander remarked: "That is, if the
devil would become an apostle." In the Jena edition of Luther's works Melanchthon's phrase
is commented upon as follows: "And yet the Pope with his wolves, the bishops, even now
curses, blasphemes, and outlaws the holy Gospel more horribly than ever before, raging
and fuming against the Church of Christ and us poor Christians in most horrible fashion,
both with fire and sword, and in whatever way he can, like a real werwolf, aye, like the
very devil himself." (6, 557b.) The same comment is found in the edition of the Smalcald
Articles prepared 1553 by Stolz and Aurifaber, where the passage begins: "O quantum mutatus
ab illo [the former Melanchthon!" (Koellner; 448. 457.) Carpzov remarks pertinently: "This
subscription [of Melanchthon] is not a part of the Book of Concord [it does not contain
the doctrine advocated by the Book of Concord], nor was it approved by Luther; moreover,
it was later on repudiated by Philip himself." (_Isagoge_ 823. 894.)
71. Luther's Articles Sidetracked at Smalcald.
It was a large and brilliant assembly, especially of theologians, which convened at
Smalcald in February, 1537. Luther, too, was present. On January 7 the Elector had written:
"We hope that our God will grant you grace, strength, and health that you may be able to
make the journey to Smalcald with us, and help us to right, and bring to a good issue,
this (matter concerning the Pope] and other matters."
As stated above, the Elector's plan was to elevate Luther's articles to a confession
officially recognized and subscribed to by all Lutheran princes, estates, and theologians.
Accordingly, on February 10, at the first meeting held at Smalcald, Chancellor Brueck
moved that the theologians deliberate concerning the doctrine, so that, in case the
Lutherans would attend the council, they would know by what they intended to stand, and
whether any concessions were to be made, or, as Brueck put it, "whether anything good
[perhaps a deliverance on the Papacy] should be adopted, or something should be conceded."
Self-evidently, Brueck had Luther's articles in mind, although it cannot be proved
that he directly and expressly mentioned them or submitted them for discussion and adoption.
Perhaps, he felt from the very beginning that the Elector would hardly succeed with his
plans as smoothly and completely as anticipated. For Luther, desiring to clear the track
for the whole truth in every direction, the Reformed as well as the Papistic, both against
the "false brethren who would be of our party" (Preface to Sm. Art. 455,4), as well as
against the open enemies, had in his articles so sharpened the expressions employed in the
Wittenberg Concord of 1536 concerning the Lord's Supper that the assent of Philip of Hesse
and the attending South German delegates and theologians (Bucer, Blaurer, Wolfart, etc.)
was more than doubtful. Luther's letter to the adherents of Zwingli, December 1, 1537,
shows that he did not at all desire unnecessarily to disturb the work of union begun by the
Wittenberg Concord. (St. L. 17, 2143.) Still, he at the same time endeavored to prevent a
false union resting on misunderstanding and self-deception. And, no doubt, his reformulation
of the article on the Lord's Supper was intended to serve this purpose. Besides, owing to a
very painful attack of gravel {kidney stones?}, Luther was not able to attend the sessions,
hence could not make his influence felt in a decisive manner as desired by the Elector.
This situation was exploited by Melanchthon in the interest of his attitude toward the
Zwinglians, which now was much more favorable than it had been at Augsburg, 1530. From the
very outset he opposed the official adoption of Luther's articles. He desired more freedom
with regard to both the Romanists and the Reformed than was offered by Luther's articles.
The first appears from his subscription. Concerning the article of the Lord's Supper,
however, which the Strassburgers and others refused to accept, Melanchthon does not seem to
have voiced any scruples during the deliberations at Wittenberg. Personally he may even have
been able to accept Luther's form, and this, too, more honestly than Bucer did at Smalcald.
For as late as September 6, 1557, he wrote to Joachim of Anhalt: "I have answered briefly
that in doctrine all are agreed, and that we all embrace and retain the Confession with the
Apology and Luther's confession written before the Synod of Mantua. _Respondi breviter,
consensum esse omnium de doctrine: amplecti nos omnes et retinere Confessionem cum Apologia
et confessione Lutheri scrpta ante Mantuanam Synodum._" (_C.R._ 9, 260.) But, although
Melanchthon, for his person, accepted Luther's article on the Lord's Supper, he nevertheless
considered it to be dangerous to the Concord with the Southern Germans and to the Smalcald
League. Privately he also made known his dissatisfaction in no uncertain manner. And in so
doing, he took shelter behind Philip of Hesse, who, as at Augsburg, 1530, still desired to
have the Zwinglians regarded and treated as weak brethren.
Kolde relates: "On the same day (February 10) Melanchthon reported to the Landgrave:
'One article, that concerning the Sacrament of the Holy Supper, has been drawn up somewhat
vehemently, in that it states that the bread is the body of the Lord, which Luther at first
did not draw up in this form, but, as contained in the [Wittenberg] Concord, namely, that
the body of the Lord is given with the bread; and this was due to Pomeranus, for he is a
vehement man and a coarse Pomeranian. Otherwise he [Melanchthon] knew of no shortcoming or
complaint in all the articles.' . . . 'He also said' (this the Landgrave reports to Jacob
Sturm of Strassburg as an expression of Melanchthon) 'that Luther would hear of no yielding
or receding, but declared: This have I drawn up; if the princes and estates desired to yield
anything, it would rest with them,' etc. The estates, Melanchthon advised, might therefore
in every way declare that they had adopted the Confession and the Concord, and were minded
to abide by them. At the same time he promised to demand at the prospective deliberation of
the theologians, 'that the article of the Sacrament be drawn up as contained in the Concord.'
Melanchthon's assertion that Bugenhagen influenced Luther's formulation of the article on the
Lord's Supper is probably correct. At any rate, it can be proved that Luther really changed
the article. For a glance at the original manuscript shows that he had at first written, in
conformity with the Concord, 'that the true body and blood of Christ is under the bread and
wine, but later on changed it to read: 'that the bread and wine of the Lord's Supper are the
true body and blood of Christ."' (48.) Melanchthon was diplomatic enough to hide from the
Landgrave his strictures on Luther's articles about the Pope, knowing well that in this
point he could expect neither approval nor support.
72. Articles Not Discussed in Meeting of League.
As the Southern Germans regarded Luther's formulation of the article on the Lord's
Supper with disfavor, the Landgrave found little difficulty in winning over (through Jacob
Sturm) the delegates of Augsburg and Ulm to Melanchthon's view of declaring adherence only
to the Confession and the Wittenberg Concord. Already on February 11 the cities decided to
"decline on the best grounds" the Saxon proposition. Following were the reasons advanced:
It was not necessary at present to enter upon the proposition, since the council would make
slow progress, as the Emperor and the King of France were not yet at peace. They had not
understood this (the adoption of the Saxon proposition) to be the purpose of the invitation
to bring scholars with them. They had a confession, the Augustana, presented to the Emperor.
It was also to be feared that deliberations on the question whether any concessions should be
made, might lead to a division; nor would this remain concealed from the Papists. If the
Elector desired to present some articles, he might transmit them 'and they, in turn, would
send them to their superiors for inspection. (Kolde, Analecta, 296.)
In the afternoon of February 11 the princes, according to the report of the Strassburgers,
expressed their satisfaction with the resolution of the cities. At the same time they declared
that they were not minded to make any concessions to the Papists, nor to dispute about, or
question, anything in the Confession or the Wittenberg Concord, "but merely to review the
Confession, not to change anything against its contents and substance, nor that of the
Concord, but solely to enlarge on the Papacy, which before this, at the Diet, had been
omitted, in order to please His Imperial Majesty and for other reasons"; that such was the
purpose of the deliberation for which the scholars had been summoned; and that this was not
superfluous, since "they were all mortal, and it was necessary that their posterity be
thoroughly informed as to what their doctrine had been, lest others who would succeed to
their places accept something else." The report continues: "The cities did not object to
this." (296.) According to this report, then, Luther's articles were neither discussed nor
adopted at the official meeting of the princes and estates belonging to the Smalcald
League. Without mentioning them, they declared in their final resolution: Our scholars
have "unanimously agreed among themselves in all points and articles contained in our
Confession and Apology, presented at the Diet of Augsburg, excepting only that they have
expanded and drawn up more clearly than there contained one article, concerning the Primacy
of the Pope of Rome." (Koellner, 468.) Koestlin remarks: "Since the princes decided to
decline the council absolutely, they had no occasion to discuss Luther's articles." (2, 403.)
73. Meeting of Theologians.
At Smalcald the first duty imposed upon the scholars and theologians was once more
to discuss the Augustana and the Apology carefully, and to acknowledge both as their own
confessions bv their signatures. Thereupon they were, in a special treatise, to enlarge on
the Papacy. The Strassburg delegates report: "It has also come to pass that the scholars
received orders once more to read the articles of the Confession and to enlarge somewhat
on the Papacy, which they did." (Kolde, Analecta, 298.) However, since neither the Augustana
nor its Apology contained an article against the Papacy, the demand of the princes could only
be satisfied by a special treatise, the "Tractatus de Potestate et Primatu Papae," which
Melanchthon wrote and completed by February 17, where upon it was immediately delivered to
the princes.
The princes had furthermore ordered the theologians, while reviewing and discussing the
Augustana (and its Apology), to reenforce its doctrine with additional proofs. Owing to lack
of time and books, this was not carried out. February 17 Osiander reports to the Nuernberg
preachers: "We are enjoying good health here, although we traveled in stormy weather and
over roads that offered many difficulties, and are living under a constantly beclouded sky,
which unpleasantries are increased by troublesome and difficult questions in complicated
matters. . . . The first business imposed on us by the princes embraces two things: first,
to fortify the Confession and the Apology with every kind of argument from the Holy
Scriptures, the fathers, councils, and the decrees of the Popes; thereupon, diligently to
discuss in detail everything concerning the Primacy, which was omitted in the Confession
because it was odious. The latter we completed so far to-day that we shall immediately deliver
a copy to the princes. The former, however, will be postponed to another time and place,
since it requires a longer time, as well as libraries, which are lacking here." (_C.R._ 3,
267.)
The discussion of the Confession was also to serve the purpose of obtaining mutual
assurance whether they were all really agreed in doctrine. This led to deliberations on the
doctrine of the Lord's Supper as well as on the question what concessions might be made
to the Romanists. According to a report of Melanchthon, March 1, the theologians were to
discuss the doctrines, not superficially, but very thoroughly, in order that all
disagreement might be removed, and a harmonious and complete system of doctrines exist in
our churches. They were to review the Confession in order to learn whether any one deviated
in any article or disapproved of anything. But Melanchthon remarks that this object was not
reached, since the special request had been voiced not to increase the disagreement by any
quarrel and thus to endanger the Smalcald League. (_C.R._ 3, 292.) In a second letter of the
same date he says that a real doctrinal discussion had never come to pass, partly because
Luther's illness prevented him from taking part in the meetings, partly because the timidity
of certain men [the Landgrave and others] had prevented an exact disputation, lest any
discord might arise. (295.) March 3 he wrote to Jonas in a similar vein, saying that the
reports of violent controversies among the theologians at Smalcald were false. For
although they had been in consultation with one another for the purpose of discovering whether
all the theologians in attendance there agreed in doctrine, the matter had been treated
briefly and incidentally. (298.)
As far as the Lord's Supper is concerned, Melanchthon's report concerning the
superficial character of the doctrinal discussions is little, if at all, exaggerated. He
himself was one of those timid souls of whom he spoke, having from the beginning done all
he could not only to bar Luther's articles from the deliberations, but also to prevent any
penetrating discussion of the Lord's Supper. Assent to the Wittenberg Concord was considered
satisfactory, although all felt, and believed to know, that some of the Southern Germans
did not agree with the loyal Lutherans in this matter. Of the attending theologians who were
under suspicion, Bucer, Blaurer, Fagius, Wolfart, Fontanus, and Melander, only the first two
took part in the deliberations. (292.) March 1 Melanchthon wrote to Camerarius: "Bucer spoke
openly and clearly of the Mystery (the Lord's Supper], affirming the presence of Christ. He
satisfied all of our party, also those who are more severe. Blaurer, however, employed such
general expressions as, that Christ was present. Afterward he added several more ambiguous
expressions. Osiander pressed him somewhat hotly; but since we did not desire to arouse any
very vehement quarrel, I terminated the discussion. Thus we separated, so that agreement was
restored among all others, while he [Blaurer] did not seem to contradict. I know that this
is weak, but nothing else could be done at this time, especially since Luther was absent,
being tortured by very severe gravel pains." (292.) This agrees with the report Veit Dietrich
made to Foerster, May 16, stating: At the first meeting of the committee of the theologians
they completed the first nine articles of the Augustana. Blaurer, Wolfart, and some others
of those who were doctrinally under suspicion (_nobis suspecti de doctrina_) were present.
"However, when the article of the Lord's Supper was to be discussed on the following day,
the meeting was prevented, I do not know by whom. It is certain that the princes, too,
desired another meeting, because they feared a rupture of the [Smalcald] Alliance, if any
doctrinal difference should become evident, which, however, would occur if the matter were
thoroughly discussed. Since the disputation was prevented, we were commissioned to write on
the Power of the Pope, in order to have something to do. Report had it that Blaurer did
not approve the Concord of Wittenberg; certainly, he asked Philip for expressions of the
Fathers (which are now in my possession), in order to be better furnished with arguments.
This prompted Pomeranus and Amsdorf again to convene the theologians against Melanchthon's
will. Then the Lord's Supper was discussed. Bucer indeed satisfied all. Blaurer, however,
while speaking vaguely of the other matters, nevertheless publicly attacked the statement
that the ungodly do not receive the body of Christ." Wolfart declared that he was present
at the Concord made at Wittenberg, and had approved it. It was unpleasant for him
[Dietrich] when hereupon Stephanus Agricola and then Wolfart rehashed some old statements,
_vetera quaedam dicta._ (370.)
74. Luther's Articles Subscribed.
As to the articles of Luther, Veit Dietrich reports that they were privately circulated
at Smalcald and read by all. They were also to be read at the meeting of the theologians
on February 18. (_C.R._ 3, 37 1.) As a matter of fact, however, neither a public reading
nor a real discussion, nor an official adoption resulted. The Strassburg delegates report:
"Doctor Martin Luther has also drawn up some special articles, which he purposed to send
to the council on his own accord, copies of which we have designated with W." The
Strassburgers, then, were in position to send home a copy of these articles. Furthermore,
Osiander relates in a letter dated February 17: "Besides this, Luther has also written
articles at Wittenberg, short indeed, but splendid and keen (_illustres et argutos_), in
which everything is summed up in German wherefrom we cannot recede in the council without
committing sacrilege. To-morrow we shall read them publicly in our meeting, in order that
any one who wishes to add anything to them may present this in the presence of all. They
will also, as I hope, deliberate on the [Wittenberg] Concord in the matter concerning the
Lord's Supper. I regard Bucer as being sincerely one of us; Blaurer, however, by no means.
For Philip tells of his having remarked that he was not able to agree with us." (268.) On
February 18, however, Luther was taken ill, and an official, public reading and discussion
of his articles did not take pface on this day, nor, as already stated, at a later date.
Luther's articles, however, were nevertheless adopted at Smaleald, though not by the
South Germans. When all other business had been transacted, they were presented for
voluntary subscription. Bugenhagen had called the theologians together for this purpose.
He proposed that now all those who wished (_qui velint_) should sign the articles Luther
had brought with him. Hereupon Bucer declared that he had no commission to do this.
However, in,order to obliterate the impression that he declined to subscribe because of
doctrinal differences, he added that he knew nothing in Luther's articles which might be
criticized. Blaurer of Constance, Melander of Hesse, and Wolfart of Augsburg followed his
example in declaring that they had no commission to sign the articles. In order not to
endanger the Smalcald League Bugenhagen, as appears from his proposition, refrained from
urging any one to sign. This was also the position of the other theologians. Veit
Dietrich reports: "Bucer was the first to say that he had no orders to sign. He added,
however, that he knew of nothing in these articles that could be criticized, but that
his magistrates had reasons for instructing him not to sign them. Afterwards Blaurer,
Dionysius Melander, and your Boniface [Wolfart of Augsburg] said the same [that they
had not been authorized by their superiors to sign]. The thought came to me immediately
why Bucer, who taught correctly, should have been the first to refuse his signature, since
it was certain that the others, Blaurer and, if you will, also your man, would not
subscribe because they did not approve of the dogma of the Lord's Supper. This would have
led to an open doctrinal schism, which the Elector, Ernst of Lueneburg, and the Counts
of Anhalt would, under no circumstances, have tolerated among the confederates. But,
since Bucer did not subscribe, it was not necessary to dispute about the doctrine. When
we saw this, I was also pleased that Luther's articles received no attention [in the
official subscription], and that all subscribed merely to the Augustana and the Concord.
And there was no one who refused to do this." (371.)
While thus Bucer, Fagius, Wolfart, Blaurer, and Fontanus refused to affix their
signatures, the attending loyal Lutheran theologians endorsed Luther's articles all the
more enthusiastically. And while the signatures affixed to the Augustana and the Apology
total 32, including the suspected theologians, 44 names appear under Luther's articles.
Among these is found also the abnormal subscription of Melander of Hesse: "I subscribe
to the Confession, the Apology, and the Concord in the matter of the Eucharist," which
is probably to be interpreted as a limitation of Luther's Article of the Lord's Supper.
Although, therefore, the subscription of the Smalcald Articles lacked the official
character and was not by order of the Smalcald League as such, it nevertheless is in keeping
with the actual facts when the Formula of Concord refers to Luther's Articles as "subscribed
at that time [1537] by the chief theologians." (777, 4; 853, 7.) All true Lutheran pastors
assembled at Smalcald recognized in Luther's articles their own, spontaneous confession
against the Papists as well as against the Zwinglians and other enthusiasts.
75. Endorsed by Princes and Estates.
The Thorough Declaration of the Formula of Concord makes the further statement that
the Smalcald Articles were to be delivered in the Council at Mantua "in the name of the
Estates, Electors, and Princes." (853, 7.) Evidently this is based on Luther's Preface to
the Smalcald Articles, written 1538, in which he says concerning his Articles: "They have
also been accepted and unanimously confessed by our side, and it has been resolved that,
in case the Pope with his adherents should ever be so bold as seriously and in good faith,
without lying and cheating, to hold a truly free Christian Council (as, indeed, he would be
in duty bound to do), they be publicly delivered in order to set forth the Confession of
our Faith." (455.)
Kolde and others surmise that Luther wrote as he did because, owing to his illness, he
was not acquainted with the true situation at Smalcald. Tschackert, too, takes it for
granted that Luther, not being sufficiently informed, was under the erroneous impression
that the princes and estates as well as the theologians had adopted, and subscribed to, his
articles. (300. 302.) Nor has a better theory of solving the difficulty hitherto been
advanced. Yet it appears very improbable. If adopted, one must assume that Luther's
attention was never drawn to this error of his. For Luther does not merely permit his
assertion to stand in the following editions of the Smalcald Articles, but repeats it
elsewhere as well. In an opinion written 1541 he writes: "In the second place, I leave
the matter as it is found in the articles adopted at Smalcald; I shall not be able to
improve on them; nor do I know how to yield anything further." (St.L. 17, 666.)
The Elector, too, shared Luther's opinion. In a letter of October 27, 1543, he urged
him to publish in Latin and German (octavo), under the title, _Booklet of the Smalcald
Agreement - Bucchlein der geschehenen Schmalkaldischen Vergleichung_, the "Articles of
Agreement, Vergleichungsartikel," on which he and Melanchthon had come to an agreement
in 1537, at Smaleald, with the other allied estates, scholars, and theologians. (St. L.
21 b, 2913.) October 17, 1552, immediately after he had obtained his liberty, the Elector
made a similar statement. (_C.R._ 7, 1109.) Nor did Spalatin possess a knowledge in this
matter differing from that of Luther and the Elector. He, too, believed that not only the
theologians, but the princes and estates as well, with the exception of Hesse, Wuerttemberg,
Strassburg, etc., had subscribed to Luther's articles. (Kolde, 51.)
Evidently, then, Luther's statement was generally regarded as being substantially and
approximately correct and for all practical purposes in keeping, if not with the exact
letter and form, at least with the real spirit of what transpired at Smalcald and before
as well as after this convention. It was not a mere delusion of Luther's, but was generally
regarded as agreeing with the facts, that at Smalcald his articles were not only subscribed
by the theologians, but adopted also by the Lutheran princes and estates, though, in
deference to the Landgrave and the South German cities, not officially and by the Smalcald
League as such.
76. Symbolical Authority of Smalcald Articles.
The importance attached to the Smalcald Articles over against the Reformed and
Crypto-Calvinists appears from a statement made by the Elector of Saxony, October 17,1552
(shortly after his deliverance from captivity), in which he maintained that the Lutheran
Church could have been spared her internal dissensions if every one had faithfully abided
by the articles of Luther. He told the Wittenberg theologians that during his captivity he
had heard of the dissensions and continued controversies, "which caused us no little grief.
And we have therefore often desired with all our heart that in the churches of our former
lands and those of others no change, prompted by human wisdom, had been undertaken nor
permitted in the matters (doctrines) as they were held during the life of the blessed
Doctor Martin Luther and during our rule, and confirmed at Smalcald, in the year 1537, by
all pastors and preachers of the estates of the Augsburg Confession then assembled at that
place. For if this had been done, no doubt, the divisions and errors prevailing among the
teachers of said Confession, together With the grievous and harmful offenses which resulted
therefrom, would, with the help of God, have been avoided." (_C.R._ 7, 1109.)
In the Prolegomena to his edition of the Lutheran Confessions, Hase remarks concerning
the symbolical authority of Luther's articles: "The formula of faith, drawn up by such a
man, and adorned with such names, immediately enjoyed the greatest authority. _Fidei formula
a tali viro protects talibusque nominibus ornata maxima statim auctoritate floruit._" To
rank among the symbolical books, Luther's articles required a special resolution on the part
of the princes and estates as little as did his two catechisms; contents and the Reformer's
name were quite sufficient. Voluntarily the articles were subscribed at Smalcald. On their
own merits they won their place of honor in our Church. In the situation then obtaining,
they voiced the Lutheran position in a manner so correct and consistent that every loyal
Lutheran spontaneously gave and declared his assent. In keeping with the changed historical
context of the times, they offered a correct explanation of the Augsburg Confession, adding
thereto a declaration concerning the Papacy, the absence of which had become increasingly
painful. They struck the timely, logical, Lutheran note also over against the Zwinglian and
Bucerian [Reformed and Unionistic] tendencies. Luther's articles offered quarters neither
for disguised Papists nor for masked Calvinists. In brief, they gave such a clear expression
to genuine Lutheranism that false spirits could not remain in their company. It was the
recognition of these facts which immediately elicited the joyful acclaim of all true Lutherans.
To them it was a recommendation of Luther's articles when Bucer, Blaurer, and others, though
having subscribed the Augsburg Confession, refused to sign them. Loyal Lutherans everywhere
felt that the Smalcald Articles presented an up-to-date touchstone of the pure Lutheran
truth, and that, in taking their stand on them, their feet were planted, over against the
aberrations of the Romanists as well as the Zwinglians, on ground immovable.
In the course of time, the esteem in which Luther's articles were held, rose higher and
higher. Especially during and after the controversies on the Interim, as well as in the
subsequent controversies with the Crypto-Calvinists, the Lutherans became more and more
convinced that the Smalcald Articles, and not the Variata, contained the correct exposition
of the Augsburg Confession. At the Diet of Regensburg, in 1541, the Elector, by his delegates,
sent word to Melanchthon "to stand by the Confession and the Smalcald Agreement [Smalcald
Articles] in word and in sense." The delegates answered that Philip would not yield anything
"which was opposed to the Confession and the Smalcald Agreement," as he had declared that
"he would die rather than yield anything against his conscience." (_C.R._ 4, 292.) In an
opinion of 1544 also the theologians of Hesse, who at Smalcald had helped to sidetrack
Luther's articles, put them on a par with the Augustana. At Naumburg, in 1561, where Elector
Frederick of the Palatinate and the Crypto-Calvinists endeavored to undermine the authority
of Luther, Duke John Frederick of Saxony declared that he would abide by the original
Augustana and its "true declaration and norm," the Smalcald Articles.
Faithful Lutherans everywhere received the Smalcald Articles into their _corpora
doctrinae._ In 1557 the Convention of Coswig declared them to be "the norm by which
controversies are to be decided, "_norma docendi controversias._" Similarly, the Synod of
Moelln, 1559. In 1560 the ministerium of Luebeck and the Senate of Hamburg confessionally
accepted the Articles. Likewise, the Convention of Lueneburg in 1561, and the theologians
of Schleswig-Holstein in 1570. The Thorough Declaration could truthfully say that the
Smalcald Articles had been embodied in the confessional writings of the Lutheran Church,
"for the reason that these have always and everywhere been regarded as the common,
unanimously accepted meaning of our churches, and, moreover, have been subscribed at that
time by the chief and most enlightened theologians, and have held sway in all evangelical
churches and schools." (855, 11.)
77. Editions of Smalcald Articles.
In 1538 Luther published his Articles, which _editio princeps_ was followed by
numerous other editions, two of them in the same year. In the copy of the Articles which
Spalatin took at Wittenberg the title reads: "Opinion concerning the Faith, and What We
Must Adhere to Ultimately at the Future Council. _Bedenken des Glaubens halben, und worauf
im kuenftigen Konzil endlich zu beharren sei._" The _editio princeps_ bears the title:
"Articles which were to be Delivered on Behalf of Our Party at the Council of Mantua, or
Where Else It Would Meet. _Artikel, so da haetten aufs Konzilium zu Mantua, oder wo es
muerde sein, ueberantwortet werden von unsers Teils wegen._" These titles designate the
purpose for which the articles were framed by order of the Elector. In the edition of 1553,
published by John Stolz and John Aurifaber, Luther's Articles are designated as "prepared
for the Diet of Smalcald in the year 1537, _gestellt auf den Tag zu Schmalkaiden Anno
1537._" Says Carpzov: "They are commonly called Smalcald Articles after the place where
they were composed [an error already found in Brenz's letter of February 23, 1537, appended
to the subscriptions of the "Tract on the Power and Primacy of the Pope" (529). See also
Formula of Concord 777, 4; 853, 7] , as well as solemnly approved and subscribed, since
the articles were composed by Luther and approved by the Protestants at Smalcald, a town
in the borders of Saxony and Ducal Hesse, and selected for the convention of the Protestants
for the reason that the individuals who had been called thither might have an easy and safe
approach." (_Isagoge_, 769.)
The text of the Smalcald Articles, as published by Luther, omits the following motto
found in the original: "This is sufficient doctrine for eternal life. As to the political
and economic affairs, there are enough laws to trouble us, so that there is no need of
inventing further troubles much more burdensome. Sufficient unto the day is the evil
thereof. _His satis est doctrinae pro vita aetema. Caeterum in politia et oeconomia satis
est legum, quibus vexamur, ut non sit, opus praeter has molestias fingere alias quam
miserrimas [necessarias]. Sufficit diei malitia sua._" (Luther, Weimar 50, 192. St.L. 16,
1918.) Apart from all kinds of minor corrections, Luther added to the text a Preface
(written 1538) and several additions, some of them quite long, which, however, did not
change the sense. Among these are {sections} 5, 13 to 15, and 25-28 of the article
concerning the Mass; {sections} 42-45 concerning the False Repentance of the Papists;
{sections} 3-13 about Enthusiasm in the article concerning Confession. The editions of 1543
and 1545 contained further emendations. The German text of Luther's first edition of 1538
was received into the Book of Concord, "as they were first framed and printed." (853, 7.)
The first Latin translation by Peter Generanus appeared in 1541, with a Preface by Veit
Amerbach (later on Catholic Professor of Philosophy at Ingolstadt). In 1542 it was succeeded
by an emended edition. In the following year the Elector desired a Latin-German edition in
octavo. The Latin translation found in the Book of Concord of 1580 was furnished by Selneccer;
this was revised for the official Latin Concordia of 1584.
78. Tract on the Power and Primacy of the Pope.
Melanchthon's "Tract Concerning the Power and Primacy of the Pope, _Tractatus de
Potestate et Primatu Papae_," presents essentially the same thoughts Luther had already
discused in his article "Of the Papacy." Melanchthon here abandons the idea of a papal
supremacy _iure humano_, which he had advocated at Augsburg 1530 and expressed in his
subscription to Luther's articles, and moves entirely in the wake of Luther and in the
trend of the Reformer's thoughts. The Tract was written not so much from his own conviction
as from that of Luther and in accommodation to the antipapal sentiment which, to his grief,
became increasingly dominant at Smalcald. (_C.R._ 3, 270. 292 f. 297.) In a letter to Jonas,
February 23, he remarks, indicating his accommodation to the public opinion prevailing at
Smalcald: "I have written this [Tract] somewhat sharper than I am wont to do." (271. 292.)
Melanchthon always trimmed his sails according to the wind; and at Smalcald a decidedly
antipapal gale was blowing. He complains that he found no one there who assented to his
opinion that the papal invitation to a council ought not be declined. (293.) It is also
possible that he heard of the Elector's criticism of his qualified subscription to Luther's
articles. At all events, the Tract amounts to a retraction of his stricture on Luther's view
of the Papacy. In every respect, Smalcald spelled a defeat for Melanchthon. His 'policy
toward the South Germans was actually repudiated by the numerous and enthusiastic
subscriptions to Luther's articles, foreshadowing, as it were, the final historical outcome,
when Philippism was definitely defeated in the Formula of Concord. And his own Tract gave
the _coup de grace_ to his mediating policy with regard to the Romanists. For here
Melanchthon, in the manner of Luther, opposes and denounces the Pope as the Antichrist, the
protector of ungodly doctrine and customs, and the persecutor of the true confessors of
Christ, from whom one must separate. The second part of the Tract, "Concerning the Power
and the Jurisdiction of the Bishops, _De Potestate et Iurisdictione Episcoporum," strikes an
equally decided note.
The Tract, which was already completed by February 17, received the approval of the
estates, and, together with the Augustana and the Apology, was signed by the theologians
upon order of the princes. (_C.R._ 3, 286.) Koellner writes: "Immediately at the convention
Veit Dietrich translated this writing [the Tract] into German, and (as appears from the fact
that the Weimar theologians in 1553 published the document from the archives with the
subscriptions) this German translation was, at the convention, presented to, and approved by,
the estates as the official text, and subscribed by the theologians." (464.) Brenz's letter
appended to the subscriptions shows that the signing did not take place till after February
23, perhaps the 25th of February. For on the 26th Melanchthon and Spalatin refer to it as
finished.
With reference to the Concord of 1536, let it be stated here that, although mentioned
with approval by the theologians and also included in Brenz's and Melander's subscriptions
to the Smalcald Articles, the princes and estates nevertheless passed no resolution
requiring its subscription. Melanchthon writes that the princes had expressly declared that
they would abide by the Wittenberg Concord. (_C.R._ 3, 292.) Veit Dietrich's remark to
Foerster, May 16, 1537, that only the Augustana and the Concord were signed at Smalcald, is
probably due to a mistake in writing. (372.)
79. Authorship of Tract.
The Tract first appeared in print in 1540. A German translation, published 1541,
designates it as "drawn up by Mr. Philip Melanchthon and done into German by Veit Dietrich."
(_C.R._ 23, 722.) In the edition of the Smalcald Articles by Stolz and Aurifaber, 1553, the
Tract is appended with the caption: "Concerning the Power and Supremacy of the Pope,
Composed by the Scholars. Smalcald, 1537." In the Jena edition of Luther's Works the
Smalcald Articles are likewise followed by the Tract with the title: "Concerning the Power
and Supremacy of the Pope, Composed by the Scholars in the Year 37 at Smalcald and Printed
in the Year 38." (6, 523.) This superscription gave rise to the opinion that the German was
the original text. At any rate, such seems to have been the belief of Selneccer, since he
incorporated a Latin translation, based on the German text, into the Latin edition of his
Book of Concord, privately published 1580. Apart from other errors, this Latin version
contained also the offensive misprint referred to in our article on the Book of Concord (p.
5). In the official edition of 1584 it was supplanted bv the original text of Melanchthon.
The subtitle, however, remained: "Tractatus per Theologos Smalcaldicos Congregates
Conscriptus."
To-day it is generally assumed that by 1553 it was universally forgotten both that
Melanchthon was the author of the Tract, and that it was originally composed in Latin.
However, it remains a mystery how this should have been possible - only twelve years after
Dietrich had published the Tract under a title which clearly designates Melanchthon as its
author, and states that the German text is a translation. The evidence for Melanchthon's
authorship which thus became necessary was furnished by J. C. Bertram in 1770. However,
before him Chytraeus and Seekendorf, in 1564, had expressly vindicated Melanchthon's
authorship. Be it mentioned as a curiosity that the Papist Lud. Jac. a St. Carole mentioned
a certain "Articulus Alsmalcaldicus, Germanus, Lutheranus" as the author of the Tract. In
the Formula of Concord and in the Preface to the Book of Concord the Tract is not enumerated
as a separate confessional writing, but is treated as an appendix to the Smalcald Articles.
80. A Threefold Criticism.
On the basis of the facts stated in the preceding paragraphs, Kolde, followed by
others, believes himself justified in offering a three-fold criticism. In the first place,
he opines that Luther's Articles are "very improperly called 'Smalcald Articles."' However,
even if Luther's Articles were not officially adopted by the Smalcald League as such, they
were nevertheless, written for the Convention of Smalcald, and were there signed by the
assembled Lutheran theologians and preachers, and privately adopted also by most of the
princes and estates. For Luther's Articles, then, there is and can be no title more
appropriate than "Smalcald Articles." Tschackert remarks: "Almost all [all, with the
exception of the suspected theologians] subscribed, and thereby they became weighty and
important for the Evangelical churches of Germany; and hence it certainly is not
inappropriate to call them 'Smalcald Articles,' even though they were written at Wittenberg
and were not publicly deliberated upon at Smalcald." (302.)
"It is entirely unhistorical," Kolde continues in his strictures, "to designate
Melanchthon's Tract, which has no connection with Luther's Articles, as an 'Appendix' to
them, when in fact it was accepted as an appendix of the Augustana and Apology." (50.) It
is a mistake, therefore, says Kolde, that the Tract is not separately mentioned in the Book
of Concord, nor counted as a separate confessional writing. (53.) Likewise Tschackert: "On
the other hand, it is a mistake to treat Melanchthon's Tract as an appendix to the Smalcald
Articles, as is done in the Book of Concord. The signatures of the estates have rather given
it an independent authority in the Church." (302.) However, there is much more of a
connection between Luther's Articles and the Tract than Kolde and Tschackert seem to be aware
of. Luther's Articles as well as the Tract were prepared for the Convention at Smalcald. Both
were there signed by practically the same Lutheran theologians. The fact that in the case of
the Smalcald Articles this was done voluntarily rather enhances, and does not in the least
diminish, their importance. Both also, from the very beginning, were equally regarded as
Lutheran confessional writings. The Tract, furthermore, follows Luther's Articles also in
substance, as it is but an acknowledgment and additional exposition of his article "Of the
Papacy." To be sure, the Tract must not be viewed as an appendix to Luther's Articles, which,
indeed, were in no need of such an appendix. Moreover, both the Articles and the Tract may
be regarded as appendices to the Auasburg Confession and the Apology. Accordingly, there is
no reason whatever why, in the Book of Concord, the Tract should not follow Luther's Articles
or be regarded as closely connected with it, and naturally belonging to it. Koellner is right
when he declares it to be "very appropriate" that the Tract is connected and grouped with
the Smalcald Articles. (469.)
Finally, Kolde designates the words in the title "composed, _conscriptus_, by the
scholars" as false in every respect. Likewise Tschackert. (303.) The criticism is justified
inasmuch as the expression "composed, _zusammengezogen, conscriptus_, by the scholars"
cannot very well be harmonized with the fact that Melanchthon wrote the Tract. But even
this superscription is inappropriate, at least not in the degree assumed by Kolde and
Tschackert. For the fact is that the princes and estates did not order Melanchthon, but
the theologians, to write the treatise concerning the Papacy, and that the Tract was
presented in their name. Koellner writes: "It is certainly a splendid testimony for the
noble sentiments of those heroes of the faith that the Elector should know of, and partly
disapprove, Melanchthon's milder views, and still entrust him with the composition of this
very important document [the Tract], and, on the other hand, equally so, that Melanchthon
so splendidly fulfilled the consideration which he owed to the views and the interests of
the party without infringing upon his own conviction." "Seekendorf also," Koellner adds,
"justly admires this unusual phenomenon." (471.) However, Koellner offers no evidence for
the supposition that the Elector charged Melanchthon in particular with the composition of
the Tract. According to the report of the Strassburg delegates, the princes declared that
"the scholars" should peruse the Confession and enlarge on the Papacy. The report continues:
"The scholars received orders . . . to enlarge somewhat on the Papacy, which _they_ did,
and thereupon transmittal _their_ criticism to the Elector and the princes." (Kolde,
_Anal._, 297.) This is corroborated by Melanchthon himself, who wrote to Camerarius, March
1, 1537: "We received orders (iussi sumus) to write something on the Primacy of Peter or
the Roman Pontiff." (_C.R._ 3, 292.) February 17 Osiander reported: "The first business
imposed on _us_ by the princes was . . . diligently to explain the Primacy, which was
omitted from the Confession because it was regarded as odious. The latter of these duties
_we_ have to-day completed, so that _we_ shall immediately deliver a copy to the princes."
(3, 267.) These statements might even warrant the conclusion that the theologians also participated, more or less, in the drawing up of the Tract, for which, however, further
evidence is wanting. Nor does it appear how this view could be harmonized with Veit
Dietrich's assertion in his letter to Foerster, May 16: "Orders were given to write about
the power of the Pope, the primacy of Peter, and the ecclesiastical jurisdiction. Philip
alone performed this very well." (3, 370.)
However, entirely apart from the statement of Osiander, the mere fact that the
theologians were ordered to prepare the document, and that it was delivered by, and in the
name of, these theologians, sufficiently warrants us to speak of the document as "The Tract
of the Scholars at Smaleald" with the same propriety that, for example, the opinion which
Melanchthon drew up on August 6, 1536, is entitled: "The First Proposal of the Wittenberg
Scholars concerning the Future Council." (_C.R._ 3, 119.)
_________________________________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________________________
�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������