The History of the Augsburg Confession: From Its Origin Till the Adoption of ...

Front matter

It has survived long enough for the copyright to expire and the book to enter the public domain. A public domain book is one that was never subject to copyright or whose legal copyright term has expired. Whether a book is in the public domain may vary country to country. Public domain books are our gateways to the past, representing a wealth of history, culture and knowledge that's often difficult to discover.

Marks, notations and other marginalia present in the original volume will appear in this file - a reminder of this book's long journey from the publisher to a library and finally to you.

Google is proud to partner with libraries to digitize public domain materials and make them widely accessible. Public domain books belong to the public and we are merely their custodians. Nevertheless, this work is expensive, so in order to keep providing this resource, we have taken steps to prevent abuse by commercial parties, including placing technical restrictions on automated querying.

Chapter I. Preparations For The Diet At Augsburg 1

CHAPTER IL

GENESIS OP THE AUGSBURG CONFESSION 24

CHAPTER m.

AIM OP THE PROTESTANTS IN PREPARING THE CON- FESSION 63

CHAPTER IV.

READING OP THE CONFESSION 66

CHAPTER V.

THREATENING ASPECT OF AFFAIRS AFTER THE READ- ING OP THE CONFESSION 80'

CHAPTER VL

THE PAPAL CONFUTATION OP THE AUGSBURG CONFES- SION 97.

VU

Vlll CONTENTS.

CHAPTER Vn.

EARNEST EFFORTS TO COME TO AN AGREEMENT ON THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE CONFESSION AND THE CONFUTATION Ill

CHAPTER Vm.

THE RECESS AND THE CLOSE OF THE DIET. 134

CHAPTER IX.

THE DOCTRINE OF THE LORD'S SUPPER AT AUGSBURG 151

CHAPTER X.

MBLANCHTHON'S ALTERATIONS OF THE CONFESSION... 172

CHAPTER XI.

AUTHORITY OF THE CONFESSION DURING THE REFOR- MATION..., 209

CHAPTER Xn.

PREPARATION AND ADOPTION OP THE FORMULA OP CONCORD 24«

APPENDIX ^ 314'

J

NTRODUCTION.

Thb histdry of the great Confession of Protestantism is, in a certain sense, the history of the Reformation itself; for in that Oonfession, as in a focns, are concentrated the rays of light discovered before its preparation, so that with it are connected the reformatory efforts preceding it ; and it is also connected with the events of the Reformation sncceeding its presentation to the diet at Augsburg, and was in fact the cause or occasion of many /of those events. The Augsburg Confession is thus the fruit that grew in , ^530 on the tree which was planted in 1517 . and then this fruit became the seed from which sprang other plants. It is its intimate relation to * the Reformation, and the important part it played in the whole history of

the Evangelical Church, as well as its intrinsic importance, that give such interest and significance to the history of the Augsburg Confession. And this history is not only important in studying the doctrinal development of the Reformation, but also in studying its religious life ; for in that period of the Church's regeneration doctrine and life were so insep- ^ arably connected that that which /ffected the one also influenced the

other. To say that the Reformation was a revival of pure, scriptural doctrines, would be as imperfect as to say that it was a xevival of a religious life J it was a revival of living scriptural faith, which includes both doctrine and life. And the study of this period, pregnant with a faith that was earnest and vital, full of the Scriptures and of the Holy Ghost, is of the utmost importance to an age like ours, in which there is such a sad lack of genuine faith, and in which sometimes written systems of faith are made to take the place of the lost faith, sometimes faith is made to mean an orthodoxy which has lost its vitality as much as the wood that is petrified, and sometimes faith is made to mean a mere superficial excitement of religious emotions which has not even substance enough for faith to subsist on, much less to grow on.

. The elements that entered into the Reformation, making it possible and making it what it was, were numerous and various. So rich is it in variety, that it has often happened that persons have imagined themselves the true children of the Reformation, when in reality they had only adopted some of its ideas which they developed in a one-sided manner j so rich is it, that numerous sects have boasted of their spiritual wealthi when in fact they had but taken a small part of its treasures, and by no means always the most valuable ones. And this variety makes it so difficult to understand fully the work of reforming the Church in the sixteenth century. Whilst it may be easy to follow a single branch from its source

ix

X INTRODUCTION.

throngh its meanderings, it is diffionlt to trace the great stream of the Reformation from its origin through all its windings, to understand the oharaoter, strength and effect of all its tributaries, and to determine the influences that purify or muddy the stream in its onward course. And though it may oe easy so to generalize the results of the Reformation as to express them in a few brief sentences, it is difficult to comprehend all the complicated processes in the minds of the reformers and in the Church at large by means of which these results were attained.

Before it can bring forth good fruit the tree itself must be made good ; a man must himself be light before he can give light to others ; so Luther oould not restore the truth, nor reform the church, until he himself had discovered the truth and had been reformed. The part he took in t^e Reformation was but the expression of that which he himself had experienced. One that felt as deeply and inti»nsely as Luther, could not hold giving expression in words and deeds to\is inward experience. And to the depth and intensity and energy of his nature, as well as to the fact that the way was in his day prepared for the Reformation more fully than before, we must ascribe the greater suceess of the work he commenced than that of his predecessors. His severe struggles through doubt to faith made all the truths acquired a matter of experience ; they were not the result of demonstration merely, but also of feeling, and hence they were a possession of the heart as well as of the head. The truth thus became a part of his being, so that in expressing that truth he expressed himself; and he oould no more deny that truth than he oould deny himself. This harmony in Luther's being, the harmonious action and reaction of head and heart on each other, had much to do with making the Reformation so healthy, and with preventing the triumph of the extreme tendencies which here and«ithere began to appear. He was not like Eras, mus, a mere scholar, nor did he, like the Mystics, lose himself in emotions . but he combined in himself the elements of both.

As the sun's rays give' both light and heat, so to him all truth was light and heat, illuminating the mind and warming the heart. As a hard student he tried to appropriate the results of learning; but at the Same time he was an ardent admirer of the Mystics, and really had more in common with them than with the mere intelleotualist. As the logic of Aristotle had become a mere plaything for scholastics, he had no taste for it ; and though it entered so largely into the lectures delivered at all the various universities of that age, Luther dared to slight it and go directly to the living word of God. That logic had become a mere abstraction, a mere shell without the kernel ; and what he sought was not a lifeless formula, but something that contained and gave life. Whilst others made various branches of learning ends in themselves, Luther used them merely as means for the attainment of more spiritual light and life. Reuchlin and Erasmus deserve great credit for their part in the work of reviving the study of the Hebrew and the Greek languages ; but Luther at once used these languages to ascertain the true sense of the sacred Scriptures, so that he' might transfer their living seeds into his living heart. He thus made the revival of letters the means for the revival of the study of the Bible. Much has been said about the preparation for the Reformation by the invention of printing, the new impulse given to the arts, the revival of the study of the classics and of every department of learning ; but these not only prepared the way for the Reformation, but their effect on Luther also prepared him for the great work. He was receptive as well as creative. The age made him that he might make the age. But, as is the

INTRODUCTION. XI

case with every great original mind, his own mental energy determined the nature of the effects that were produced by the various causes operating on him. In this consists Lutner's greatness. He was creatively receptive ; that is, he not merely received impressions, as the ear conveys mere sound, but in passing through his mind and heart he gave them his own coloring and wrought them into his being as part of Luther. He himself, as regenerated by the divine Spirit, was the leaven, and all influences exerted on him were the meal he leavened. He infused himself into all that was infused into him ; like a master mind, he controlled circumstances more than they governed him. And this leavening power in the great reformer accounts for the fact that there was so much of Luther in the Reformation. As the influences exerted on him affected the whole man, so he gave himself entirely to his work. To do him justice he must be viewed in his entireness. He probably had his superiors in every department of scholarship. Erasmus was a greater classical scholar ; Melanchthon was more philosophical and rhetorical; Calvin was more systematic ; but Luther was the most comprehensive, the most energetic, the most living, the most harmonious, and the deepest nature. In his Ufe and in the Beformation we find this combination of various characteristics, this harmony and this entireness. The religious elements that entered into his own being also entered into the Reformation. The change wrought in him produced a new life which developed gradually.

The Reformation, too, is a life formed and developed by various elements. It was by no means one-sided, but universal in its character. Indeed, one of the most remarkable features of the Reformation is the fact that it is so free from those extremes into which men are apt to fall in great crises, or in leaving another extreme. There is in its leading men, as well as in the Reformation itself, a remarkable union of the speculative and the practical, of the negative and the positive, of the conservative and the progressive, of doctrine and of life ; and in most instances it is difficult to say which of these predominates, so perfectly are they united. Luther at first thought that his efforts to reform abuses were in perfect harmony with the spirit of the Romish church, and that the abuses were practised in spite of that church, not by its authority. And when he found that that church had itself become corrupt, he did not at once reject it, but tried to reform it. And when he discovered that many ojf her "doctrines were erroneous, he did not reject all she taught, but, recognizing in her still many elements of truth, he commenced the sifting process, attempting to separate the error from the truth. His cautiousness in this process is well known ; it was not a sudden, but a gradual process. He was so slow and careful because he feared lest he might root up the wheat with the tares. It was a process, too, which cost him much pain and anxiety, for doctrines and practices long and fondly cherished had to be rejected. And though some may be disposed to blame him for being so slow in some respects, we find in this a reason for greater confidence in his work. This conservative element made the work a reformation and not a revolution ; that is, it brought to light again principles already established by Christ, and at all times existing to some extent in the Christian church ; he did not overthrow the whole order ot things, foundation and superstructure, for the purpose of establishing somethiag entirely new. Luther wanted to restore the old, which was nevertheless new to many. To bring the Church back to its primitive purity, such as Christ and his Apostles had mode it, that was his aim. And because his work was not a revolution, but a reformation, therefore he retained so much that was believed by

B

XU INTRODUCTION.

every Catholic. He did not break with the past, but on a historioal basis he planted himself and his work. He was very conservatire ; but he did not, like the Papists, Want to conserve all that existed in the Bomish Church. He was critical as well as conservative (he was critically conservative). By means of criticism he wanted the chaff swept away; by means of conservatism he wanted the wheat carefully preserved. The Papists wanted to retain all the doctrines that the Bomish Church taught; Luther wanted only those retained which had their authority in the Scriptures. Mere human inventions which burden the conscience and obscure the Scriptures, are regarded by him as abuses ; these must be rejected. Whilst therefore thcBeformation preserved some things it at the same time destroyed others. It was destructive as well as conservative ; it was negative as well as positive. And yet the destructive and negative elements oi the Beformation are not those of infidelity, simply because they are limited by the conservative and positive elements. Just as its negative elements distinguish the Beformation from the Bomish Church, so its positive elements distinguish it from infidelity. But the Beformation not merely conserved the truth still held by the papacy, but it aimed also to restore other truths of Scripture, which haa oeen lost sight of. Bome's errors were rejected to make room for the restoration of the doctrines of Scripture. The Beformation w{ts thus destructive for the sake of being constructive ; it destroyed a rotten superstructure to build a more perfect one in its place.

Bomanism wanted a development of its entire system of doctrine and practice, of its errors as well as its truths ; the reformers wanted genuine progress, which eonsists in rejecting errors, developing old truths and discovering new ones.* And the various elements that entered into the Beformation, are the very elements of all healthy progress. And it is the forcible separation of these elements, the adoption of some whilst others are rejected, that destroys the fruit of the Beformation. And the one-sided development of some of the elements to the rejection of the others, has been a fruitful source of modem errors. Some, like the Bomanists, adopt only the conservative element, whilst they reject the critical. They want to conserve all that the Beformation has produced, just as if there were no errors lef^ to be rejected. They regard the results of the Beformation just as the Papist regards the results attained by*the Bomish Church, as matter for preservation, not of criticism. And if this papistical conservatism regards itself as a genuine product of the Beformation, it only proves that.it is less candid, or more ignorant of its own character than Bomanism. But, on the other band, some have adopted the negative element to the rejection of the positive. There have, in fact, been Bationalists who claimed to be genuine Protestants, because they looked on Protestantism as a mere negation. But the Protest presented at Spires is a protest against Bome's corruptions in the name of the authority ot the Scriptures. Bationalism and all infidelity, consequently, rejects a fundamental part of the Protest in denying the supreme authority of the sacred scripture by subjecting its teachings to the authority of reason, falsely so called.

But it may be asked, to what did the various processes, the destructive, negative, conservative, constructive and progressive tendencies that en-

♦ DeTelopment is not necessarily progrem ; for there is a development of error and evil as well as o\ truth and Rood. Development may be retrogression as well as progress. In the growth of tnith and Rood, and in the destruction of error and evil, consists true progress. The Komlsh Chu:ch aimed at development; the Beformation aimed at progress.

INTRODUCTION. Xlll

tered into the Reformation, lead ? JnQjb as the tendencies at work in the Reformation were totally different from thoee of Romanism, so the result of these tendencies will give the radical difference between Protestantism and the papacy. The radical difference between the two consists in thei different relations in which they place the Christian to Christ. Accord-] ing to Romanism the Christian's relation to Christ is not immediateJ bat is brought about by the church, the hierarchy ; just as if Christ haci made the church a repository of His treasures, to which one must acoord4 ingly go for their attainment, and not directly to Christ himself. And aa the pope was made the head of the church, Christ's vicegerent and repre-l sentatire on earth, everything became dependent on the pope, who was the embodiment of the hierarchy. The history of Romanism proves how fruitful of evil such a theory may be. The hierarchy could make fasting, vows, pilgrimages, alms, indulgences, absolution and other things the condition of salvation, with which all must comply or else be lost. Luther could find no peace in this system, as it gave no reliable assurances of pardon. What he needed was an immediate relation to Christ, without the intervention of a third party. This immediate and intimate relation of the Christian to Christ is the very essence of Evangelical Christianity, and is the great doctrine that distinguishes it from Romanism. This distinction being given, it is not difficult to give the other cardinal differ-^ ences, which naturally result from this one.

Protestantism is based onl this immediate relationship; Romanism is based upon the idea that Christ Effects the Christian through the church. Romanism, therefore, very consistently claims that the church is inspired and must interpretf I the Scriptures for the individual ; Protestantism claims that Christ givesjl His Spirit to every Christian which enables him to interpret the Scriptures. The reformers, therefore, claimed that every Christian has the right to interpret for himself God's Word, and that he is not dependent on the church for his interpretation. The Romanists taught that a particular class had special prerogatives, namely the hierarchy; the Evangelical church taught that all Christians are priests. But whilst Christ, His Spirit, and His Word may be the immediate possession of the Christian, wnat is the condition required of him ? The answer is, not the institutions of the church, but that which Christ Himself has instituted. This is not certain ordinances, nor meritorious works, but simply faith. Salvation is offered to all by Christ, but it only becomes a gift when we accept it by faith. But this faith is not made a meritorious work, but it is wrought in us by God's Spirit working through the Word of God. From the immediate relation of the Christian to Christ two other doctrines are accordingly drawn, which played so important a part in the Reformation — the doctrine that the Scriptures are the supreme authority for the individual Christian, and the doctrine that we are justified by grace through faith. The former freed him from the bondage of Rome, the latter gave him the seed which contained the whole of Christianity and which need but be developed to evolve the entire system. These two doctrines were most persistently maintained by the reformers and were as obstinately opposed by Rome since they endangered its authority. Rome was willing to have the Scriptures regarded as the supreme authority, if she was allowed to interpret them for all. But the doctrine, that the Spirit of God is given to every Christian and enables him to interpret the Bible, robbed her of that prerogative. But whilst Protestantism thus rejected Romish tyranny and arrogance, it at the same time guarded against the errors of the fanatics, such as Carlstadt and the Anabaptists. The fana-

XIV INTRODUCTION.

ties claimed to have the Spirit of God, and to it ascribed all their vagaries ; but the trae Protestant doctrine avoided this dangerous fanaticism, bj teaching that the Spirit works on the individual through the Word of God. In opposition to the inspiration of the Romish Church, Protestantism, accordingly, maintains the inspiration of every Christian ; and in opposition to fanaticism, it maintains the authority of God's Word as the test of all truth. Not what the hierarchy teaches is the truth ; not what fanaticism imagines is communicated by God's Spirit is truth ; but that is truth which the Word of God reveals to the mind illumined by the Spirit of God. The doctrine of justification by faith was liable to two abuses — that faith would itself be regarded as meritorious, and th%t faith might be regarded as a mere intellectual assent to the truth, a dead faith. The former error was avoided by ascribing faith itself to God, regarding it as His work, not our own. The latter error was avoided by the very definition of faith. The efforts of the Papists, especially at Augsburg, to make the Protestants acknowledge that we are not saved by faith alone, but by faith, love, hope and good, works, failed, because the reformers looked upon faith as including every Christian grace, and they regarded good works as the necessary product of faith. Just as the fruit is the perfection of the plant, with which all that belongs to the plant is necessarily in some way connected, so faith is the perfection of religion in the individual, in which everything Christian is included, and with which everything spiritual is necessarily connected. And just as faith includes every Christian grace, so the doctrine of justification by faith through Christ includes every other Christian doctrine. It recognizes Christ as the Son of God, and His work of atonement; it recognizes the Spirit of God as the source and perfecter of Christ's work in the heart; it recognizes man's depravity and need of redemption, and, in, fact, contains in epitome the whole Christian system of doctrine. And he who has this doctrine, in its purity and in its power, has the Gospel.

Whilst now we regard the Reformation as an effort to bring the Christian into immediate relation to Christ, and whilst we regard the doctrine of the supreme authority of the sacred Scriptures, and the cardinal doctrine of the Scriptures that we are justified by grace through faith, as the means used to bring about this relation ; we must not suppose that these truths were at once distinctly enunciated at the beginning of the Reformation. Luther did not at once distinctly grasp these ideas and follow them to all their consequences. In his own mind and in the Re- \ ^ formation these ideas developed gradually, like the mustard seed. And I i this growth was spontaneous, faith being the seed, the Word of God the 1 soil, and the Spirit the light and heat to promote the growth. The Re- J formation was not the result of human calculation, and it was not promoted by human plans. There was in it an inward and divine necessity which worked out the great results according to the divine will and plan. As is the case in all such great divine movements, much was done by the leading human actors of which they themselves were not fully conscious, and results were reached which they neither aimed at nor even desired. Occasions themselves brought out the truth. The great currentlbore on the ^^ reformers themselves, often tearing them away from positions to which they fondly held and which they unwillingly relinquished. The great works of the Reformation all bear this stamp of spontaneity and divine necessity; they are such as men of the world call accidental, brought about by circumstances, but which the Christian calls providential. In tracing briefly

' INTRODUCTION. XV

the first doctrinal deyelopment of the Reformation, this spontaneous character and gradual growth of the Reformation viiil become more evident.

The Reformation did not commence with a distinct confession of faith ; such a confession wad not yet possible. The Reformation is a great epoch in which are contained many crises. And as is usual in such epochs, there was at first much confusion, indistinctness, doubt and hesitation. The Romish church had no well-defined and systematic statement of its doctrines with which the EvangeiicJ party could compare their views. Protestantism, with all its critical elements, was positive enough to give a clear and full confession of its faith even before the Romish church fixed its doctrines at the council of Trent.* And because so many doctrines were not definitely stated by Rome, the difference between it and the reformers could only be brought out by controversy, in which the doctrines themselves were developed, and in which the lines between the papacy and Protestantism were drawn.

The nailing of the ninety-five Theses on the door of the castle-church at Wittenberg, Oct. 31st, 1517, is generally regarded as the first overt act of the Reformation. But in Luther's own heart the work had been progressing for years. In his lectures at the university at Wittenberg, in which he was appointed professor in 1508, he had directed special attention to the study of the Scriptures. His lectures on the Psalms, Romans, and Galatians, made the importance of faith specially prominent. In 1516 he wrote a letter to George Spenlein, in which he clearly states the doctrine of justification by grace through faith in Christ. Thus the positive elements of the Reformation were already working in him before he commenced to oppose the Romish church. Indeed, this first overt act was not intended to oppose the Romish church, but practices and doctrines which he thought were in direct opposition to the teachings of that church. The theses refer chiefly to the nature of repentance, the value of indulgences, and the power of the pope to pardon sin ; but many kindred subjects are also reierred to. In these theses the germs of the Reformation are found, but they at the same time still contain Romish errors which Luther afterwards rejected. But a few need be given to show how far Lather's mind had already advanced beyond the views generally held. The first thesis reads : '' As our Lord and Master Jesus Christ says : Repent, etc., therefore he wants the whole life of believers on earth to be a constant and unceasing repentance." 2. '' He, however, does not want to apply this to internal repentance merely ; yea, inner repentance is useless, and no repentance, if it does not externally work the entire killing ol the flesh.'' 32. ** Those who think that by means of indulgences they shall be assured of salvation, shall go to the devil." 36. " Every Christian who has true repentance and sorrow on account of sin, has full remission of punishment and guilt, even without letters of indulgence." 62. " The real treasure of the church is the holy Gospel of the grace and glory of God." 04. ^' Christians should be exhorted to strive to follow their leader, Christ, through tribulation, death and hell."

Tetzel/, the vender of indulgences, published counter theses which were prepared by Conrad Wimpina, professor of theology at Frankfurt j and afterwards he published a secona series against a sermon on indulgences preached by Luther. These theses opened Lather's eyes on many subjects,

* It was the Evangelical Church that made Romanism ftilly conscious of Itself.

XVI INTRODUCTION.

since they revealed to him the real sentiments of his opponents. The third thesis of the second series against Lather reads :* " Christians should be taught, that the pope, on account of the supremacy of his power, is above the entire universal church and the councils, and that in all submissiveness his precepts are to be obeyed." 4. " Christians should be taught][ that the pope alone has power to decide in matters of faith, also, tbat he alone, and no one else, has the authority to interpret the sense of the sacred Scriptures, and to justify or condemn all the words and works* of others.'' 5. " Christians should be taught, that the pope's decision in matters which pertain to faith, and which are necessary to salvation, can by no means err." 7. " Christians should be taught, that they ought to rely more on the pope's opinion in matters of faith given by him in (spiritual) courts, than on the opinions of all wise men which they take from the Scriptures."

Other replies to Luther's theses served to bring out the views of Papists and to incite Luther to new attacks. Sylvester Prierio, a Dominican friar at Home, attacked him severely, and ascribed unlimited power to the pope.f In his reply to Prierio, in 1518, Luther said : " If this is the doctrine taught publicly and with impunity at Rome, with the knowledge and under the direction of the pope and the cardinals, then I publicly confess with this writing, (whicn 1 do not hope,) that the veritable antichrist sits in the temple of God and reigns at Kome in the real Babylon, Rev. xviii. 16, and that the court of Rome is the synagogue and school of Satan, Rev. iii. 6."