In the afternoon of February 11 the princes according to the report of the Stra.s.sburgers, 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 by their signatures. Thereupon they were, in a special treatise, to enlarge on the Papacy. The Stra.s.sburg delegates report: "It has also come to pa.s.s 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, _a.n.a.lecta,_ 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, whereupon 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 a.s.surance 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 pa.s.s, 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. (296.) 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. a.s.sent 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, f.a.gius, Wolfart, Fonta.n.u.s, 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 (_n.o.bis 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 Pomera.n.u.s 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 unG.o.dly 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 Stepha.n.u.s 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, 371.) As a matter of fact, however, neither a public reading nor a real discussion, nor an official adoption resulted. The Stra.s.sburg 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 Stra.s.sburgers, 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 (_ill.u.s.tres 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 place on this day nor, as already stated, at a later date.
Luther"s articles, however, were nevertheless adopted at Smalcald, 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 circ.u.mstances, 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, f.a.gius, Wolfart, Blaurer, and Fonta.n.u.s 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 a.s.sembled 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 a.s.sume that Luther"s attention was never drawn to this error of his. For Luther does not merely permit his a.s.sertion 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 t.i.tle, Booklet of the Smalcald Agreement--_Buechlein der geschehenen Schmalkaldischen Vergleichung,_ the "Articles of Agreement, Vergleichungsartikel," on which he and Melanchthon had come to an agreement in 1537, at Smalcald, with the other allied estates, scholars, and theologians. (St. L. 21b, 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, Stra.s.sburg, 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 a.s.sembled 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 G.o.d, 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 profecta 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 a.s.sent. 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 1567 the Convention of Coswig declared them to be "the norm by which controversies are to be decided, _norma decidendi 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 t.i.tle 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 t.i.tle: "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 wuerde sein, ueberantwortet werden von unsers Teils wegen._" These t.i.tles 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 Schmalkalden 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 aeterna. Ceterum 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 sec. 5, secs. 13 to 15, and secs. 25-28 of the article concerning the Ma.s.s; secs. 42-45 concerning the False Repentance of the Papists; secs. 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 Genera.n.u.s 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 discussed 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. 292f. 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 a.s.sented 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 unG.o.dly 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 doc.u.ment 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 pa.s.sed 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 t.i.tle: "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. In the official edition of 1584 it was supplanted by the original text of Melanchthon. The subt.i.tle, however, remained: "Tractatus per Theologos Smalcaldicos Congregatos Conscriptus."
To-day it is generally a.s.sumed 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 t.i.tle 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 Seckendorf, in 1564, had expressly vindicated Melanchthon"s authorship. Be it mentioned as a curiosity that the Papist Lud. Jac. a St. Carolo mentioned a certain "Articulus Alsmalcaldicus, Germa.n.u.s, Luthera.n.u.s" 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 threefold 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 a.s.sembled 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 t.i.tle 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 Augsburg 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 t.i.tle "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 a.s.sumed 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 n.o.ble 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 doc.u.ment [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."
"Seckendorf 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 Stra.s.sburg 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 transmitted _their_ criticism to the Elector and the princes." (Kolde, _a.n.a.l.,_ 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 partic.i.p.ated, 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 a.s.sertion 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 doc.u.ment, and that it was delivered by and in the name of these theologians, sufficiently warrants us to speak of the doc.u.ment as "The Tract of the Scholars at Smalcald"
with the same propriety that, for example, the opinion which Melanchthon drew up on August 6, 1536, is ent.i.tled: "The First Proposal of the Wittenberg Scholars concerning the Future Council." (_C. R._ 3, 119.)
VIII. Luther"s Efforts at Restoring Catechetical Instruction.
81. Modern Researches Respecting Luther"s Catechisms.
Besides G. v. Zezschwitz (_System der christlichkirchlichen Katechetik,_ 3 volumes, 1862 to 1874) and numerous other contemporary and later students, G. Buchwald, F. Cohrs, and O. Albrecht have, since the middle of the past century, rendered no mean service by their researches pertaining to Luther"s Catechisms. Buchwald edited the three series of sermons on the Five Chief Parts which Luther delivered in 1528, pointed out their important bearing on his Catechisms, and shed new light on their origin by discovering and exploiting the Stephan Roth correspondence. He published the results of his labors in 1894 under the t.i.tle, "The Origin of the Two Catechisms of Luther and the Foundation of the Large Catechism. _Die Entstehung der beiden Katechismen Luthers und die Grundlage des Grossen Katechismus._" F. Cohrs enriched this department of knowledge by his articles in the third edition of Herzog"s _Realenzyklopaedie,_ and especially by his five-volume work on _The Evangelical Catechism; Attempts Prior to Luther"s Enchiridion,_ in _Monumenta Germaniae Paedagogica,_ 1900 to 1907. In 1905 O. Albrecht was entrusted with the preparation of Luther"s Catechisms for the Weimar Critical Edition of Luther"s Complete Works. He also contributed the extensive historical sections of the first of the three parts of Vol.
30, where the Catechisms are treated.