PRINCETON, N. J. 
 
 BX 8069 .K72 1878 
 
THE FREE LUTHERAN DIET. 
 
 An Epoch in the Hi&tcry of the Lutheran Church in Americ; 
 
 The Essays and Discussions, read and delivered at the Free Lu- 
 theran Diet, held in Philadelphia, December 27-28, 1877, in one 
 octavo volume, stiff paper cover, postage paid, price $r.oo, or in 
 cloth binding, $1.50. 
 
 The volume is edited by Rev. Prof. H. E. Jacobs, 1). 1). 
 
 The Diet was an acknowledged success, one hundred Lutheran 
 ministers having been in attendance, and has created so marked and 
 favorable an impression as to warrant the belief that a very large 
 edition of The Proceedings will be called for. Ten thousand copies 
 should be sold. The volume should be in the library of every Lu- 
 theran. It is one of the most important Lutheran books that have 
 ever been published in America. 
 
 t^^^^<SK> -—J^^^ 
 
 "WHAT THSY SAY ABOUT IT, 
 
 "It is a very great credit to your taste and enterprise as a pub- 
 lisher. Its clear type, fine paper and general finish combine to 
 make it one of the most handsome books that have appeared in our 
 Church in this coimtry." 
 
 ^ . . ,,.. (Prof. H. E. JACOBS, D. D. 
 Secretaries ol Diet -^ ^^^, ^y ^ ^^^^^^ ^^ j^ 
 
 •■ This book meets a long felt want where our Church is little or 
 wholly unknown." Rev. L. C. GROSECLOSE. 
 
"I would not be without it under any consitlerations. All our 
 clergy should have it, as well as the laity. It should be in every 
 Lutheran family." Rkv. H. C. HOLLOWAY. 
 
 " I am much pleased with the fine papsr and type of your book. 
 I had the pleasure to be present at the Diet, but the book is the 
 more interesting. Indeed, it is a favor to have the book at even a 
 greater price." Rev. L. M HEILMAN. 
 
 " Am much pleased with your get up of the Diet report, for ex 
 cellence of paper, clearness of press work — in short, the whole of 
 the puljlisher's work, a fit dress for the very valuable papers con- 
 tained in the volume. Concerning the price — well, it is decidedly 
 much for a little." Prof. E. S. BREIDENBAUGH. 
 
 " I like the appearance of the book very much, i hope it will 
 have a large sale." Rev. E. GREENWALD, D. D 
 
 " I was surprised to see such a large and beautiful volume, and am 
 fully prepared to hear that this attractive form, together with the 
 smail cost, will induce many of our people, all over the land, to 
 purchase it and thereby to make themselves better acquainted with 
 its valuable and instructive contents. I am sure that you deserve, 
 and will receive, the thanks of the Church, for putting the proceed- 
 ings of the Diet in the hands of the people in such an attractive 
 form, and at so small a price." Rev. G. F. KROTEL, D. D. 
 
 " You have gotten it out very handsomely, and the many attrac- 
 tions of its appearance, as a mere specimen of fine book-making, 
 regardless of its valuable contents, moves me to read it just as soon 
 as possible." Rl:v. L. A. GO TWALD, D. D. 
 
 " Will try and secure some orders for copies " 
 
 Rkv. M. L. SHINDEL. 
 
 "Am pleased with it." Rev. D. KUNTZ. 
 
 "Besides the intrinsic value of the papers read before the Diet, 
 and the discussions on them given here in such life-like fiillness, the 
 unique character of the Convention, the first of the kind ever held 
 
 (ii) 
 
in the Lutheran Church of this country, discussing matters that 
 deeply concern her welfare, must of course secure for it a great deal 
 of interest. It will be of permanent value. The volume is so 
 neatly, tastefully, and substantially gotten out as to commend it 
 wherever it is seen. I hope your enterprise in the matter may be 
 suitably rewarded through a large sale of the book." 
 
 Rev. M. valentine, 1). 1). 
 
 " I am much, very much, pleased with it. I like the manner of 
 its getting up, and as for its contents, it is certainly one of the very 
 best theological documents our Church in this country has yet pro- 
 duced. From the reading of these admirable essays and the discus- 
 sions upon them, I have concluded that we are not so far apart in 
 our views as some suppose." Rev. R. WEISER, D. D. 
 
 "Success to Diet No. 2." Rev. G. \V. ENU1:RS. 
 
 "So far as I have had time to examine it I think it first-class Lu- 
 theran literature." Rev. T- M. DUSTMAN. 
 
 '• I am much pleased with it, and iind that it contains an amount 
 of information that only could be obtained after much research else- 
 where. I think I can secure some subscribers for it." 
 
 Rkv. ENOCH SMITH. 
 
 " It's a great book — worth its weight in gold to any one pretend- 
 ing to be a Lutheran. You deserve great credit, and have my 
 thanks." Rev. R. A. FLNK, D. 1). 
 
 •' I am very much pleased with the book. It more than realizes 
 my expectations. Hope it will have a large sale." 
 
 riv. \vm. K^:LL^■. 
 
 "The subjects discussed are very important, and a wide circula- 
 tion should be secured for the book." Rev. H RJ'X'K. 
 
 "Am much pleased with it. Only sorry I did not take the 
 cloth binding. Did not think it would be so useful a book for 
 reference." Rev. J. H. WALTERICK. 
 
 (iii) 
 
" I unhesitatingly pronounce it one of the most satisfactory books 
 in setting before the reader the views held in their different aspects 
 by the Lutheran Church on those subjects that were there discussed. 
 It is Hterature of which the Church may justly be proud." 
 
 Rev. J. F. SHAFFER. 
 
 " The book gives satisfaction as far as heard from." 
 
 Rev. H. W. KUHNS. 
 
 "Am well pleased with it." Rev. R, ANDERSON. 
 
 " I am much pleased with them (the essays) as well as the man- 
 ner in which you got up the volume. If every Lutheran Diet were 
 to furnish us the same kind of spiritual treat, I think we could not 
 have too many of them." Rev. C. ALBRECHT. 
 
 " I am much pleased with it. The matter it contains is very 
 valuable." Rev. W. C. WIRE. 
 
 " I am much pleased with it." Rev. G. F. BEH RINGER. 
 
 " I am well pleased with it." Rev. S. B. HYMAN. 
 
 " Would not be without it for twice its price." 
 
 Rev. H. C. HAITHCOX. 
 
 " Am pleased with it." Rev. J. H. TURNER. 
 
 " Am much pleased with it, and will try to get more subscribers 
 for it. It is just what our members need to post themselves in the 
 history and doctrines of the Lutheran Church." 
 
 Rev. G. HURSH. 
 
 " Am well pleased with it." Rev. S. A. DIEHL. 
 
 The sale of this book has been quite encouraging. The edition 
 is limited, and those wishing copies ivill do well to order at once. 
 It ought to be in every Lutheran library. 
 Address 
 
 J. FRED'K SMITH, Pnblislier, 
 
 914 Filbert St., Philadelphia. 
 
 (iv) 
 
LUTHERAN MONOGRAPHS. 
 
 A CHRONICLE 
 
 AUGSBURG CONFESSION 
 
 Charles P. Krauth, D. D., L.L.D, 
 
 A QUESTION OF LATIN ITY, 
 
 HENRY E. JACOBS, D. D, 
 
 rilll.ADKLrillA : 
 J. FRED'K SMITH, Publisher, 
 914 FILUKRT ST., 
 187S. 
 
COPYRIGHT 
 
 BY J. FRED'K SMITH, 
 1878. 
 
 I'RESS OF 
 
 INQIIIKER P. « P. CO 
 
 LANCASTER, PA. 
 
PUBLISHER'S NOTICE. 
 
 Under the general title of Lutheran Monographs, the publisher 
 proposes to issue a series of essays on subjects of special interest to 
 Lutherans. The numbers will appear as near as may be at intervals 
 of two or three months; each number to be devoted, as the title 
 implies, to a single subject, but where there may be a connection 
 between two or more articles they will be issued together, as is the 
 case with the introductory number. 
 
 He is persuaded that a publication of this character will be 
 acceptable to the l-utheran Church in America. Every branch of 
 the Church will be represented among the contributors to the 
 Monographs , and no pains will be spared to furnish exhaustive and 
 scholarly contributions by representative men on subjects to which 
 they have devoted special study. 
 
 The initial number of the Lutheran Monographs, containing 
 two such important documents as "The Chronology of the 
 Augsburg Confession," by Rev. C. P. Krau h, D. D. LL. D. , and 
 "A Question of Latinity," by Rev. H. R. Jacobs, I). I)., cannot 
 fail to attract general attention ; and the publisher hopes that he 
 may be able to gratify the expectations that such articles will 
 awaken for the series. The Chronology of the Augsburg Con- 
 KE.SSION must become a necessity to all who would be informed as 
 to Reformation history, and " A Quistion of I>atinitv" must 
 conuiiand the admiration of all scholarly readers. 
 
 J. Frederick. Smith, Publisher. 
 
 August, r8j8. 
 
A CHRONICLl^. OF THE AUGSBURG CONFESSION. 
 
 I. INTRODUCTORY. 
 
 '^T^HIS Chronicle of the Augsburg Confession in its rise, progress 
 1 and completion, is designed to be supplementary, in some sense, 
 to the " Conservative Reformation," and to the Essays and Debates 
 of the "First Free Lutheran Diet in America, Philadelphia, Decem- 
 ber 27, 28, 1877." It proposes to bring together more completely 
 than has hitherto been attempted, in English at least, those docu- 
 mentary annals, which shed light upon some of the unsettled ques- 
 tions in regard to our great Confession — the " apple of our Church's 
 eye." This monograph is a vindication in the form of a Chronicle : 
 and as the greatest confusion has arisen, and has been perpetuated, 
 in some cases even for ages, by lack of observance of the chronology 
 of the events involved, this Chronicle is made rigidly chronological. 
 Chronology and geography have been called the eyes of history, 
 yet the handling of history seems often to begin with putting out 
 her eyes. But history without her eyes, is mere romance, at best, 
 and at the worst, is misleading falsehood. 
 
 Fidelity in seemingly little things is important. This is especially 
 true in history, and most of all in the history of the Church. God 
 is in history. It forms, with Nature and the Word, the great 
 Trilogy of His Revelation. The three are to be interpreted in the 
 same general spirit. We are to bring to them a close and reverent 
 observation of God's teaching, even to its minutest parts ; a sancti- 
 fied and cautious use of reason. We are to avoid credulity, but 
 no less rationalism, in construing evidence. Credulity dispenses 
 with reason ; rationalism abuses it. The wideness of history tempts 
 error to put forth strong efforts to corrupt it. If history be aban- 
 doned to Rationalism, the Word itself will be in serious danger. 
 The defence of the citadel begins at the outposts. 
 
 11. TIIK (jUESriON: ITS SM.M.LNESS AND CIREATNESS.' 
 
 If the (jucstions to which we devote this discussion were simply 
 and solely (juestions of chronology, involving minute points of his- 
 
 (9) 
 
lO • CHRONOLOGY. 
 
 tory, only as they interest tlie exact scholar, they would be, indeed, 
 relatively small. Yet even in that case they would not be unimport- 
 ant, for whatever is associated with love of truth for truth's own sake. 
 and with accuracy in little matters, as tributary to truth, is great in 
 principle, though the instance may seem trivial. But the Confes- 
 sion of a great Church, such a confession as is the Augsburg Confes- 
 sion, of such a Church as is the Lutheran, gives importance to 
 any question in which it is involved. Not, however, merely for the 
 historic importance of their association, but because of their doc- 
 trinal and practical bearings, should the questions be thoroughly dis- 
 cussed and determined which the enemies of our Church have raised 
 in their assaults on our palladium. 
 
 in. ASSAULTS ON THE AUGSBURG CONFKSSIGN AND PERVER 
 SIGNS OF IT. 
 
 These assaults have come from eight sources : Romanism, the 
 Calvinistic-Reformed Church, Fanaticism, Separatism, Sectarian- 
 ism, Rationalism, Unionism, and aimless ignorant vanity. These 
 assaults, though seemingly in various and conflicting interests, have 
 been very much alike. They have been brought into unity by the 
 common desire of the parties to weaken the Confession so as to fit 
 it to their ends, or failing in this to put it out of tlie way. In 1579 
 appeared the letter of the Belgian ministers, the assault of Herdesian 
 [under the jiseudonym of Ambrose Wolf], and of Sturm; in 1581, 
 and later, of Danaeusand Ursinus (the Neustadt Admonition, 1581 ; 
 the defence of it, 1586); in 1599 the Stafford Rook ; in 1607 Hos- 
 pinian's Concordia Discors, and a host of similar works. 
 
 Zacharias Ursinus in the Neustadt Admonition, of the Book 
 of Concord,' puts in shape all the objections of the Reformed to 
 the Augsburg Confession : "No particular Churdi has the right to 
 impose a formula on other particular Churches ; it was written too 
 soon after the break with Rome ; but a few theologians were con- 
 cerned in it ; it was made in haste and great agitation ; it was pre- 
 sented in trembling, and after being shaped with all timidity by men 
 who felt that their heads were not safe on their shoulders ; the edi- 
 tions differ ; there are things in the Confession which even its friends 
 cannot defend ; Transubstantiation for example, the Mass, Absolu- 
 
 ' De Libm Concordise. Admonitio. Neustadt, 410. 1581.410 143. Also 
 in Ursini Opera, n., 486-694. 
 
ASSAULTS ON THE AUGSBURG CONFESSION. 1 1 
 
 lion as a Sacrament, and prayers for the <lead." In a word, in reading 
 Ursinus's attacks on the Confession, we might imagine we were read- 
 ing a defence of it by a certain class of nominal Lutherans. Ursinus 
 quotes from Melanchthon's words of 1560- omitting what does not 
 suit him. 
 
 The effort has been made to prove that Melanchthon was the sole 
 author of the Confession, to the exclusion of Luther and others, as 
 by Chaniier, Pareus, Riickert, Heppe : 
 
 That Luther was purposely kept, by some of the princes, nomi- 
 nally Evangelical, from participating in it. This theory was put 
 forth by Sturm (1579), repeated by Raemund, (1605) and has been 
 brought into recent notice by Riickert and Heppe, and eagerly 
 caught at by Rationalists and Unionists : 
 
 That Melanchthon had the right to alter the Confession at his 
 pleasure : 
 
 That Melanchthon's writings are beyond Luther's, the best source 
 of interpretation for the Confession : 
 
 That a sense derived from Melanchthon's latest writings or put 
 upon them is the real sense of the Confession, and that the Re- 
 formed are truly in its fellowship, and Heppe goes so far as to main- 
 tain that thorough Lutherans are not in its fellowship — that the 
 Augsburg Confession does not set forth Lutheranism but Melanch- 
 thonianism. 
 
 These positions, extravagant as they are, have nevertheless a 
 power for mischief. Unscrupulous ingenuity can bewilder the un- 
 suspecting and embarrass even the thoughtful. A falsehood very 
 little in bulk may undermine a great principle, and on the other 
 hand the establishment of facts which on the surface do not 
 seem very important may lend effectual aid to truth. The wise old 
 fable reminds us that a mouse may gnaw the meshes of the net 
 which holds the lion. 
 
 In this essay we aim at correcting some of the mistakes and mis- 
 representations which obscure the history and glory of our Confes- 
 sion. We present the Annals themselves, carefully arranged, as 
 the best witnesses in the case, and have attempted, for ourselves, 
 little more than directing the attention of the reader to the real 
 meaning and force of the testimony. 
 
 ' f. •43-I45- 
 
12 • CHRONOLOGY. [1529-1530. 
 
 IV. CHRONOLOGY OF THE PRELIMINARIES TO THE PRE- 
 
 PARATION OF THE AUGSBURG CONFESSION, 
 
 OCTOBER I, 1529— MARCH 31, 1530. 
 
 1529. October 1-3. — The Marburg Colloquy between Luther 
 and Q^colampadius ; and Melanchthon and Zwingli. 
 
 October 4. — Luther draws up the Fifteen Articles, fourteen of 
 nominal agreement, and one of difference between the Lutherans 
 and Zwinglians. 
 
 October 16. — The " Articles of the Elector of Saxony, touch- 
 ing the faith," prepared by Luther at the Elector's request, and 
 laid before the Assembly of the States at Schwabach. 
 
 1530. January 6. — Convention of the Protestants at Niirn- 
 berg. 
 
 January 12. — Melanchthon's Letter to CEcolampadius in regard 
 to the Lord's Supper, demonstrating Melanchthon's complete accord 
 with Luther. 
 
 January 21. — The Emperor sends letters from Bologne to the 
 Orders of Germany, summoning a Diet for April 8.^ 
 
 February 24. — Melanchthon's " Testimonies of the ancient 
 writers in regard to the Holy Supper" is published, showing his 
 thorough harmony with the Lutheran doctrine. 
 
 March 6. — Melanchthon expresses his disapproval of the Zwin- 
 glian doctrine of the Lord's Supper. 
 
 March 14. — Uuke John, Elector of Saxony, by advice of his 
 Chancellor, Bruck, gives the command: i. That the Wittenberg 
 theologians, Luther, Jonas, Pomeranus, and Melanchthon, shall draw 
 up in writing the heads of the doctrines and of the Church-usages 
 in controversy, for the Diet. 2. That they shall bring the writing 
 to Torgau by March 20th, and shall get ready for the journey.- 
 
 March 14-20. — i. The official opinion of the Wittenberg theo- 
 logians, who were summoned to Torgau in regard to the contro- 
 verted articles, is in preparation." 
 
 'Miiller: Histoiie, iii. cli. iii. Wakli, xvi. 747, No. 890. Forstemann, 1. 
 No. I. 
 
 'Forstemann. I. Nos. 11, 12. MuUer, 438. Luther's Werke : Leipzig, xx. 
 171. Walch, xvi. 763, No. 897. Corp. Ref., II. No. 671. 
 
 » Lulher's Letter of March 14. Briefe: de Wette, ill. 564. 
 
1530.] FORMATION. " I3 
 
 ii. Mclanchthon's official opinion on the abuses of the Romish 
 Church.* 
 
 March 15. — Melanchthon writes to Aquila reflecting severely 
 on Carlstadt and the Zvvinglian cities. 
 
 March 21. — i. The Elector summons Luther, Melanchthon, 
 Bugenhagen, and Jonas to Torgau.'* 
 
 ii. About this date Jonas writes on reforming the Church. 
 
 March 26. — The articles "not to be yielded" are determined on. 
 March 27. — Melanchthon at Torgau. 
 
 V. CHRONOLOGY OF THE FORMATION OF THE AUGSBURG 
 
 CONFESSION, FROM ITS INCEPTION, TO THE STAGE AT 
 
 WHICH MELANCHTHON EXPRESSES THE DESIRE 
 
 TO BRING IT TO LUTHER, APRIL 3, 1530— 
 
 MAY 4, 1530. 
 
 1530. April 2. — i. Luther writes to Hausmann, pastor at 
 Zwickau : " I am going with the Prince (the Elector John) as far as 
 Coburg, and Philip and Jonas with us, until it shall become known 
 what will be attempted at Augsburg. Let your church pray earn- 
 estly for the Diet.'" The doubt as to what will be attempted at 
 Augsburg, seems to imply that Luther considered it far from cer- 
 tain that the religious c^uestions would really be thoroughly taken 
 up at the Diet, as the letter following shows: 
 
 ii. Luther writes to Conrad Cordatus:'' "As to your wish, 
 of which I hear, to hasten to the Diet, I would entirely dissuade 
 you from it. First, Because I am not called thither, but for cer- 
 tain reasons, go with the Prince only on the journey through 
 his own dominion. Secondly, The cause of the Gospel will hardly 
 be treated of at all, or at least very slowly, as the Princes are not 
 in such haste in a matter of Religion, but will give precedence to the 
 Turkish Question. At a fitting time you can hurry tliither." This 
 letter implies that one motive which impelled Cordatus to hurry to 
 Augsburg, was the expectation of meeting Luther there. The words 
 
 * Forstemann : Urkundenbuch, Nos. 27, 28. 
 
 * Forstemann, i. No. 29. Coiji. Ref., 11. No. 675. 
 
 ' Coelesiinus, i. 29. Bu(l<leus, 2>i, No. 109. Walch, xvi. 792, No. 913. 
 Briefe: de VVelte, III. 566, No. II95. Kollner, 169, 172, 2, 3. 
 
 * Cocleslin., i. 29. Biiddeus, 84, No. no. Walch, xvi. 792, No. 914. Stro- 
 be 1 ; Miscellan., ni. 84. De Wette, 111. 567, No. 1196. 
 
14 CHRONOLOGY. [1530. 
 
 " through his own dominion," show that the danger to be incurred 
 at Augsburg was one from wliich the Elector could only shield 
 him in his own dominion — the danger connected with the ban of 
 the Empire and the excommunication of the Papal Church. Luther 
 also considered it doubtful whether the questions in which he could 
 take part would come up a tall, and considers it certain that in any case 
 they will be taken up last. The two letters of this date show that 
 in a certain state of things the ban might be withdrawn and he 
 might yet go to Augsburg. Luther alludes to the "certain reasons," 
 without specifying them, probably because he felt that it was unneces- 
 sary to enter into them. They would suggest themselves. 
 
 April 3. — i. The Elector leaving Torgau, begins the journey to 
 Augsburg, taking his theologians with him. They reach Coburg. 
 
 ii. Melanchthon begins to write the heads of doctrine to be pre- 
 .sented at the Diet. 
 
 April 8. — The day originally fixed for the opening of the Diet 
 of Augsburg. 
 
 April, about the middle. — The first sketch preliminary to the 
 Augsburg Confession written by Melanchthon at Coburg. 
 
 This sketch Bretschneider' attempts to identify with the Docu- 
 ment first published by Forstemann.* Forstemann believes the 
 Document to have been written by the Wittenberg theologians March 
 14-20. Bretschneider's view is approved by Carl Schmid.'^ 
 
 Apfil 16. — The Council of Niirnberg writes to the Elector of 
 Saxony in terms which imply their expectation tliat he will bring 
 Luther with him to Augsburg." 
 
 April 17-25. — If Melanchthon had foreseen all the future he 
 could hardly have been more intensely active. While he was yet 
 in Coburg (April 17-25) he was laboring on the "Exordium" of 
 the Confession.' 
 
 It is beyond all dispute that the document which grew into the 
 Augsburg Confession was originally designed to be presented in the 
 name of Saxony alone.* 
 
 * Corp. Reformator., iv. 985. •* Urkunclenlntcji, I. 68-84. 
 
 ♦ Melanchthon, 197. 
 
 •''Forstemann: Urkundcnl)., i. 140. Kollner, 172-3. 
 
 ^Kollner, 170, 173 (8). Corp. Reformat., 11. No. 679. Cliylracus. Ilistor,, 
 1-at., 25-27. Germ., 27. French, 25. Coelestinus, 40. b. 
 *K6lhier, 169-173 (7). 
 
1530.] FORMATION. 15 
 
 It was in this case, as it so often is, indeed nearly always is, in 
 human life. Time is the guide of men, and the execution far 
 transcends the draft. 
 
 April 18. — Luther writes from Coburg, to Nicolas Hausmann : 
 " You will let Cordatus know that we are still here, not knowing 
 when we shall travel further. For yesterday cani-i a messenger and 
 a letter, from which we learn that the Emperor remains at Mantua, 
 and is to celebrate Easter there. It is said besides that the Papists 
 spare no labor to prevent the Diet from going on, as they fear that 
 something adverse to them may be determined on. It is reported 
 further that the Pops is angry with the Emperor for mixing himself 
 up in Church matters, and giving a hearing to the parties, when the 
 Pope was hoping that he would be a mere lictor to execute sentence 
 on the heretics, and to restore everything. For they are willing to 
 change or lose nothing ; they are not willing to have their cause 
 judged or investigated : they would simply have us condemned and 
 ruined, and have themselves restored to everything. Some even 
 think that the Diet will be entirely revoked and that nothing will 
 come of it. I am commanded by the Prince, I know not for what 
 reason, to remain at Coburg when the others depart."'' The rea- 
 son probably was that the Elector had grounds for the anticipa- 
 tion, which was destined to be verified, that the City of Augsburg 
 would not grant Luther a safe -conduct. 
 
 April 21 or 22. — The Elector, with Melanchthon, Jonas, Spal- 
 atin and Agricola, leaves Coburg. Luther does not accompany 
 them. 
 
 April 22. I. Luther, after the departure of the Elector, goes to 
 the Citadel of Coburg. Vitus Theodorus (Veit Dietrich) of Niirn- 
 berg is his companion. 
 
 2. Luther writes to Melanchth:)n, "his most dear brother, faith- 
 ful and prudent servant and disciple of Christ:" "The place is most 
 pleasant and adapted for study, except that your absence saddens 
 it."'" 
 
 April 23. -Luther writes to Wcnrislaus Link, at Niirnberg : 
 "We sit idle here at Coburg, tmcertain in regard to the Diet and the 
 
 "Coeleslin. i, 29. BucUleus, 84. Walch, xvi. 79+. De WeUe, iv. i. No. 
 1199. Kollncr, 172-3. 
 "Coelestiii. i. 39. BiuUknis, 85. Walcli, xvi. 2827. De WeUe iv. 2. No. 12CO. 
 
l6 CHRONOLOGY. [1530. 
 
 coming of the Emperor ; you perhaps have more certain informa- 
 tion. Though the others, my intimates, have gone to Augsburg, 
 the Prince wishes me to remain here. You will see them — Philip, 
 Jonas, Eisleben, Spalatin. If the Diet should go on, you will get 
 all the particulars from them.'"' This letter notes doubt as to the 
 carrying out of the Diet; yearning for his " sodales," his bosom 
 companions. 
 
 April 24. — Luther writes to Eobanus Hess, at Niirnberg : "To 
 his most dear brother, most illustrious Poet of Germany :" "I send 
 to you at one time, four Letters, living and speaking, nay, most 
 eloquent letters, Justus, Philip, Spalatin and Agricola. I would wil- 
 lingly be the fifth, but there was, who said to me, ' Keep quiet, you 
 have a bad voice.' " The whole tone of the letter is playful. '- 
 
 April 28. — The Elector and theologians leave Niirnberg for 
 Augsburg. 
 
 April 29. — Luther writes to Melanchthon : '"There is no news 
 here, except that we wonder that no letters have to this time come 
 from you. T wrote the day we were separated. My 'Exhortation 
 to the Clergy' grows under my hand.'"^ 
 
 April 30 — May 12. — The Exhortation of Luther to the Clergy 
 assembled at the Diet of Augsburg is finished, and sent to Witten- 
 berg to be printed.'^ 
 
 April 30. — The city of Augsburg furnishes a letter of safe-con- 
 duct to the Elector John of Saxony ; in this, after guaranteeing 
 safety to him and to those who should accompany him, the safe- 
 conduct goes on to say : "But we make an exception, if His Elec- 
 toral Grace should have with him and bring hither any one who has 
 broken the peace of His Imperial Majesty and of the Holy Empire, 
 and become liable to penalty and punishment ; to such an one «we 
 have no power to grant a safe-conduct.'"'' 
 
 Forstemann remarks on this : "It is beyond doubt that Luther 
 
 ■"Coelestin., i. 30. Buddeus, 86. Walch, xvi. 796. De Weite, iv. 5. No 1202. 
 
 i^Briefe: De Welle, iv. 6, No. 1203. 
 
 i3Biuldeus, 88. Walch, xvi. 2828. De Wette, iv. 10, No. 1207. 
 
 '■•Lullier's Werke : Jena, v. 114. Altenli., v. 201. Leipz., xx. 146. Walch, 
 xvi. 1 120. I'>lanj^en, xxiv. 329. Cli) tiaeiis, 189 [323]. Coele-.lin., ii. 253. 
 
 '^Miiller, 454. Walch, xvi. 786, No. 907. Forstemann, i. 160, 161, No. 
 61. Kollner, 172, 3. 
 
1530. J FORMATION. 1 7 
 
 is mainly referred to in this proviso of the city of Augsburg (which 
 might indeed have been anticipated long before), and it is probable 
 ^that it was the special occasion of Luther's being left at Coburg." 
 The anticipation of it may have led to Luther being left behind, 
 April 22, 'and it certainly settled the question as to Luther's coming 
 to Augsburg at a later period. 
 
 May I. — Melanchthon at Donauwerth. 
 
 May 2. — The Elector with his theologians and suite enters Augs- 
 burg. Spalatin makes the date May i,'" which was Misericordias 
 Sunday, but May 2 is the recognized date.'" 
 
 The Elector's suite contained three princes (Fursten), who in the 
 distinctive sense of the word Princes, as correspondent with Fiirsten, 
 were the only Protestant Princes with the Elector, up to May 1 1 . 
 The first of these three was John Frederick, son of the Elector, and 
 a titulary, not a reigning prince. The second was Francis of Lline- 
 berg, also a titulary prince only. The third was Wolffgang, of An- 
 halt, who had not received a summons to the Diet from the Emperor. 
 Both Francis and Wolffgang came in the character of persons in the 
 service (Diener) of the Elector.'* There were beside " Counts, 
 Barons, and other nobles""* not counted as "Princes," and taking 
 no part in the Confession or the Diet. 
 
 Melanchthon began his work at Augsburg under the direction of 
 the Elector alone. He laid under this direction the XVH 
 Schwabach-Torgau Articles of Luther, as the basis of the doctrinal 
 part of the Confession, and the Wittenberg sketches as the basis of 
 the Articles on abuses. There had probably been an understanding 
 at Torgau among the theologians as to the general features of the 
 document which was to be prepared for presentation by the Elector 
 to the Emperor.-" 
 
 May 4. — i. On May 4th Melanchthon wrote to Luther : " Beside 
 our Prince no other prince is present. I have made the exordium 
 of the Apology somewhat more finished in style than as I wrote it at 
 
 i*Annales, 131. 
 
 ^'Ain Kurtze Anzayg. in Cyprian's Beylagen,vi. 7S. Coele.stiaus,3i. MUller, 
 465. 
 
 18 MUller, 456, 87. 
 
 "C. P. Krauth: "Relation of Our Confessions." Evang. Ref.,OiX., 1849, 
 p. 249. 
 
 "0 Kollner, 170, 173, 10. 
 2 
 
1 8 CHRONOLOGY. [1530. 
 
 Coburg. In a short time I will bring it ; or, if the Prince will not 
 permit me to do that, I will send it."-^ 
 
 In this letter it is worthy of note that, although the suite of the- 
 Elector embraced his son and two other Princes, Melanchtl^on speaks 
 of the Elector as the only Prince present. 
 
 But there is anot her point which demands an attention which has 
 not been given it. The "exordium" has been considered as the 
 "preface," the "proem,"- "prelude." Melanchthon was hardly 
 likely to call a "prjefatio," or preface proper, an exordium. The 
 preface of the Augsburg Confession was not written until after the 
 Confession was finished, and is the work of Pontanus. May not 
 the " Exordium" of the Apology be the summary of doctrine based 
 on the XVII Schwabach-Torgau Articles ? Melanchthon, in the 
 days at Coburg, had made his first draught of the elaborated state- 
 ment. At Augsburg he had given his draught more finish of style', 
 as he writes May 4. That Melanchthon should have proposed to 
 travel from Augsburg to Coburg and back, to consult Luther in 
 person about the style of a mere preface is absurd. But the true 
 view of the "pLxordium" makes the whole matter perfectly clear.-* 
 This letter also shows that at this time the whole matter lay be- 
 tween Melanchthon and the Elector. 
 
 ii. On the same day Melanchthon wrote to Vitus Theodorus, who 
 was with Luther at Coburg: "The Emperor is expected in a 
 
 short time I beg you to write to me daily, and in a 
 
 short time I will run over to you, that I may bring to the Doctor 
 (Luther^, in order that he may revise it, the Apology which is to be 
 presented to the Emperor."-'' 
 
 This shows that the dociuiient was ready which Melanchthon ex- 
 pected to have delivered to the Emperor, and that none but the 
 Elector, Luther, and himself had the matter at this time in their 
 
 ^1 Praeter nostrum nullus alius princeps adest. Ego exordium nostrce Apologia; 
 feci aliquanto pr/ropiKUTspov, (juani Coburga: scripseram. Brevi autem ipse 
 afTeram aut, si id non permittct princeps, mittam. Corp. Ref. II. No. 679. 
 Chytraeus: Lat., 26, 27. Coeleslinus, 39, b, 40. 
 
 ^''^ Chytraeus: Lat., proemium. Ger., Vorrede : Fr., preambule, preface. 
 
 ''^ Chytraeus: Ut autem articulos confessionis, ita proemium etiam con- 
 fessioni praeponendum, quod CoburgaePhilippus com posuerat,Augustce retcxuit." 
 He then cites the letter of May 4th in evidence. 
 
 " Corp. Reform., II. No. 680. 
 
1530.] DF.VELOPMENT. 1 9 
 
 hands. It shows, too, that the exordium was written after the 
 "Apology." The Apology was the defensive portion, to which the 
 doctrinal articles in their then relatively limited form were to 
 constitute the exordium. 
 
 Both parts were in their earliest stage. In its earlier period the 
 character of the Augustana as a Confession was entirely subordinate 
 to its character as an apology. Even as it stands now, the Confes- 
 sional part is in bulk little more than an exordium to the apologetic 
 part, which begins in some sense with Article XVIII., and is 
 marked in the words: "Ours are falsely accused," Article 
 XX. ; and which, from the Apology of doctrines assailed, passes 
 in the articles on abuses, to the points in which the Confessors 
 desired to make their Apology a defence of their correction, of 
 abuses. The part strictly Confessional is about in the ratio of 
 six to twenty-six to the strictly apologetic part. It still retains in 
 some degree its original character. It is a Confessional Exordium 
 to an Apologetic document, yet with such a comprehensive sum- 
 mary of doctrine that, despite its brevity, it stamps the whole 
 document precisely with the characteristics marked by Melanch- 
 thon, when calling it (May 1 1) an apology, he adds: "though it 
 may more truly be called a Confession." 
 
 iii. On the same day Melanchthon writes to Catherine, wife of 
 Luther: "We left the Doctoral Coburg, but I hope to see him 
 before long."" Melanchthon was full of desire to confer with 
 Luther in person. And the document he designed to submit to 
 .him was the document which he expected to have laid before the 
 Emperor. 
 
 VI. CHRONOLOGY OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE AUGSBURG 
 CONFESSION, FROM THE ELABORATION OF ITS EXOR- 
 DIUM TO THE REDUCTION OF IT TO THE "FORM" 
 SENT TO LUTHER AND APPROVED BY HIM, 
 . MAY 5— MAY 15. 
 
 May 5. — i. Melanchthon writes to Camerarius at Niirnberg : " If 
 you have anything to say to Luther, or to send to him, give it to this 
 messenger who carries this letter." There are many proofs that 
 Niirnberg was made a connecting link in the correspondence be- 
 tween Augsburg and Coburg. 
 
 «Corp. Ref., II. No. 681. 
 
20 CHRONOLOGY. [1530. 
 
 ii. In the same letter Melanchthon speaks severely of Bucer and 
 the intriguing tendency he represented, and his lack of the true 
 doctrine of justification by faith. "^ 
 
 iii. May 5, Melanchthon Avrote to Frederick, Abbot at Niirnberg : 
 ''The Emperor is at Innspruck, and hence, they think, that in a 
 short time he will come hither. There is no other Prince here ex- 
 cept ours."' 
 
 May 8. — i. John Dolzius, one of the Electoral Counsellors, 
 who had been sent to the Emperor by the Elector, writes to him 
 from Oenipont, May 8, a letter which throughout implies that at 
 that time the Elector stood alone in the preparation to present the 
 Augustana.^ 
 
 •ii. Luther writes to Wencislaus Link, at Niirnberg, where 
 he was the first Evangelical Lutheran Preacher, regularly called : 
 " I do not deny that I should gladly have seen you" (by coming 
 to Niirnberg, with the others), "but what pleases God, pleases me 
 also ; nor am I ignorant that on this journey I am entirely use- 
 less, and perhaps would have done more good by staying at home 
 and teaching, but it was not lawful for me to resist him who called 
 me."* 
 
 May g. — Luther writes to Spalatin his sketch for the Diet of the 
 Daws, in its parallels and contrasts with the forthcoming Diet at 
 Augsburg — one of the finest pieces of refined and sustained humor 
 in the history of literature.^ 
 
 May II. — On May nth, Melanchthon wrote to Luther "his 
 most dear father" : "There is sent to you our Apology, though 
 it is more truly a Confession. For the Emperor has not leisure to 
 listen to extended discussions. I have nevertheless said those things 
 which I judged to be most profitable or becoming. With this de- 
 sign I have embraced nearly all the Articles of faith, for Eck has 
 put forth the most diabolical slanders against us. I wished to oppose 
 a remedy to them. . . . You will judge of the whole writing 
 
 1 Corp. Kef., il. 42, No. 682. 
 
 2 Corp. Ref., ll. No. 683. 
 
 ' Corp. Ref. n. 684. Seckendorf : Hist. Lutheran., Ii. 156. 
 
 *Coelestin. I. 37. Buddeus, 89. Walch, xvi. 2829. De Wette, iv. 11, No. 
 1209. 
 
 ^Coelestinus, I. 38. Buddeus, 90. Cliytraeus, Germ. 77. Walch, xvi. 2128. 
 De Wette, iv. 12, No. 1210. 
 
1530.] DEVELOPMENT. 21 
 
 in accordance with your spirit. . . . We do not think that the 
 Emperor will reach Augsburg under fourteen days."® 
 
 There are several things worthy of note in Melanchthon's letter 
 to Luther : 
 
 1. It implies an important change in the Augustana. May 4, to 
 Luther, he calls it without reservation an Apology ; the same day, he 
 gives it the same name to Vitus. Up to May 11, there is no his- 
 toric evidence that the name Confession, had ever been applied to 
 it. Melanchthon now calls it indeed "Our Apology," but inti- 
 mates that it is "more truly a Confession." What follows implies 
 a condensation of the matter. It implies that this condensed mat- 
 ter had taken the place of the "prolix disputations," which had 
 been prepared, some of them very extended, by the Wittenberg 
 theologians, on the points in dispute between the Romanists and 
 Lutherans. This part of the matter forming the Apology in the 
 distinctive sense, Melanchthon had been contracting, ridding of 
 superfluities and simplifying. The undisputed articles of faith 
 would require only a simple statement. Prolix disputation would 
 be possible only in the Apologetic part. This part has been thrown, 
 relatively to its old preponderance, into the back-ground. The 
 Augustana is not to be so exclusively as in its inception, an Apol- 
 ogy. But the other element, too much subordinated, is now brought 
 into relief, so that the document has become " more truly a 
 Confession." Melanchthon distinctly states by what process. In 
 deciding what is most profitable and fitting, he has " brought to- 
 gether about all the articles of faith." He has enlarged the num- 
 ber of topics treated of in Luther's XVII articles, and to the dia- 
 bolical slanders of Eck, who charged the Lutherans with departing 
 from all the articles of faith, he puts forth the remedy, in the form 
 of an assertion of these articles. This ampler treatment of the faith, 
 makes a change of vast significance : that which had been in an im- 
 portant sense a Confession but more truly an Apology, now remains 
 in an important sense an Apology, but is more truly a Confes- 
 sion. This view is confirmed by the force which we have tried to 
 show best fits the word " Exordium," in the letter of May 4. 
 
 2. The same day, Melanchthon writes to Vitus Theodorus, who 
 
 *Corp. Ref., i. No. 685. Chytraeus, Lnt., 31. Germ., 29. French, 28. Coel- 
 estinus, i. 41. Walch, xvi. No. 904. For the "pro tuo spiritu," see Madvig's 
 Latin Grammar, sec. 446. 
 
2 2 CHRONOLOGY. [1530. 
 
 was with Luther: " The Landgrave (PhiUp of Hesse), it is said, will 
 be here to-day or to-morrow. We are no less monks than you are 
 in that castle of yours; For we see nothing here, we hear nothing, 
 which indeed is a pleasure to us."^ (Implying that it is better to 
 hear nothing, than to hear the disagreeable things they were 
 likely to hear — the molesta of the sentence which follows). 
 
 3. On the same day, May ii, the Elector John wrote to 
 Luther:* ''After that you and our other learned men at Wit- 
 tenberg, on our gracious request and desire, had brought into a 
 draught (Lat. had sketched in a brief writing) the Articles of (our) 
 Religion, which are in dispute (are controverted) : We would not 
 conceal from you, that now, in this place ( Augsburg ), Philip 
 Melanchthon, Magister, has further (again) revised the same, and 
 has drawn them into a form, which we hereby (with this) send to 
 you. And it is our gracious desire that you would not deem it a 
 burden further to revise and ponder the same (the Articles). And 
 whether it please you to such a degree (Lat.: Fr.: And whether they 
 please you as they are written) or you think proper to take away 
 from it, or add to it, you will at the same time note it in writing, so 
 that we may then be furnished and prepared for the arrival of His 
 Imperial Majesty, which we shortly expect, and then send us again 
 hither the Articles immediately, by this messenger, well-secured and 
 sealed." 
 
 From this letter it is evident that the whole matter at this date 
 was in the hands of the Elector of Saxony. He was acting in en- 
 tire independence of all the other estates. The Confession was 
 solely in the name of Saxony. It implies that so far the work 
 upon it at Augsburg had been confined to Melanchthon, and that 
 when Luther gave the stamp of his approval, everything was ready 
 for the presentation to the Emperor. Kollner : " Manifestly Sax- 
 ony was still acting in entire independence. Up to this time the 
 Confession was prepared in the name of the elector alone.'" The 
 
 'Corp. Ref. 11. No. 686. 
 
 ^Corp. Reformator.. il. No. 687. Luther: Weike: Jena, 1566, V. 21I). 
 Leipzig, XX. 173. \Vaich,XVl. 785. ("hytracus: (}erm., 28. Lat., 30. French, 
 28. Coelestinus, 40. b. Grondliche liistoria : Germ., 1 10. Lat., 136. Miiller, 
 519. Cyprian. Beylagen, xili. 168. Forslemann, i. 190, No. 74. KoUner, 173, 
 13. Calanich., 1 1. 
 
 »I7I. 
 
1530.] DEVELOPMENT. 23 
 
 power of Luther over the document is made unUmited and final. 
 He can add, cut off, or change. Do what he will, it is " thefi" 
 ready for the Emperor. No trace is here of any participation at 
 Augsburg of the theologians, who came with the elector. The 
 three Princes (John, Philip Melanchthon and Luther), deter- 
 mine it among themselves. No prince of a lower order, or offi- 
 cial (of the cities) had yet taken part. At least more than a half 
 of the ultimate signers were yet absent — if we throw out John Fred- 
 erick and Francis, only two out of nine were there. The parties 
 were not there ; those that were there were not yet involved in any 
 plan which could lead to conjoint discussion. It is not an overstate- 
 ment to say that to refer Melanchthon's description in 1560 to the 
 period before May 11 is simply impossible on the part of any one 
 who has used the means of verifying the genuine chronology and 
 succession of events. 
 
 May 12. — I. Luther writes to Melanchthon : '' I should very will- 
 ingly have written to the younger Prince" (John Frederic of Saxony) 
 "as you wish in regard to the Macedonian" (Philip of Hesse). 
 
 2. Luther's impression of the excessive labor through which he 
 believes Melanchthon is passing is expressed in the same letter : "I 
 command you, and I charge all our nearest friends, that under an 
 anathema they compel you to observe the rules of bodily health, 
 lest you become a self-murderer, under pretence that you are 
 obeying the will of God. For God is also served by rest — nay, in 
 nothing is He more served than by rest ; therefore, would He 
 have the Sabbath observed so rigidly before other things. See that 
 you do not esteem (it) lightly. It is God's Word I am writing."'" 
 
 3. Philip, Landgrave of Hesse, entered Augsburg. His name is 
 fourth among the signers of the Confession. '^ 
 
 May 15. — I. Luther sends back "Philip's Apology" with his 
 cordial and unreserved approval — nothing added ; nothing taken 
 away; nothing changed ; nothing suggested.'^ 
 
 '"Coaleslin. I. 41,6. Buddeus, 92. Walch, xvi. 28, 31. De WeUe, IV. 14. 
 No 1211. 
 
 " Kollncr, 173, 12. 
 
 '2 Luther: Werke: Jena, v. 22. Leipz., xx. 143. Walcli, xvi. 7S5,Xo. 906. 
 Erlangen, 54, 145, No. 316. Chytraeus: Germ., 30, Lat., 32. French, 29. 
 Coelestinus, 42 h. Griindlich. Ilistor., IIO: Lat., 137. Cyprian : Beylage, 170, 
 XV. Buddeus, 93, No. 1 19. De Wetle, iv. 17, No. 1213. Conservative Reformat., 
 223-227. 
 
24 CHRONOLOGY. [1530. 
 
 2. The Niirnberg Legates arrive." They bring a Confession 
 written by the preachers of Niirnberg. Melanchthon is pleased 
 with it. 
 
 VII. THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE AUGSBURG CONFESSION 
 
 FROM MAY i6 TO THE SECOND SENDING OF IT 
 
 TO LUTHER, MAY 22. 
 
 May 16. — The Elector indicated to the Legates of Niirnberg 
 that the Confession was ready, though not entirely closed, as it had 
 been sent to Luther for examination. 
 
 May 17. — I. Kress and Volkamer, Legates from Niirnberg, 
 write to the Senate of their city that they had begun their duties 
 (yesterday, May i6) by making inquiry into the movements of the 
 Elector of Saxony in the "matter of the faith." Kress learned 
 from the Chancellor that the Elector, " though he had ht^w first of 
 all ready with his Counsel concerning this Article " (of the faith), 
 "and that consequently the same (Counsel) had been put into writing 
 in German and Latin, yet that it had not yet been finally closed, 
 and had been sent to Doctor Luther to examine, and that it was 
 expected that it would be back from him to-morrow or the day after 
 (May 17 or i8), and he (the Chancellor) did not doubt that when 
 the aforesaid proposition (the Counsel) came, a copy of it would be 
 given to us if we requested it.'" 
 
 2. Later in the day Kress and Volkamer write again, stating 
 that after finishing the previous letter, the Chancellor of the Elector 
 had sent for them and informed them that " His Electoral Grace 
 would abide by the answer of the Chancellor of the previous evening, 
 to wit : that as soon as the Counsel (Rathschlag) came back from 
 Luther it should be furnished to us." \\\ the same letter they 
 mention that at the mandate of the Elector they then entered in 
 the Counsel of the Niirnberg preachers. - 
 
 May 20. — 1 . Luther writes (according to the received date) to 
 Philip, Landgrave of Hesse, urging him not to take part with the 
 
 "Strobel Miscellan., II. 22. 
 
 1 Corp. Rcf., II. No. 690. 
 
 ^ Do., II. 691. Fikenscher, 52. Kollner, 175, 25. 
 
1530.] MAY 16-22. 25 
 
 Zwinglians.'' See June 20, which is ahiiost beyond doubt the cor- 
 rect date, and June 13. 
 
 2. The Niirnberg Legates write to the Senate : "The Counsel of 
 theNiirnberg preachers (handed in May 17), which we presented a 
 few days ago to the Chancellor of the Elector, Philip Metanch- 
 thon has examined, who after so doing said that it was not adverse 
 to theirs, but almost the same in meaning, but that their Counsel 
 was yet milder than that of your preachers."* 
 
 3. Luther writes to the Elector John in reply to the first letter 
 written to him by the Elector from Augsburg. Both letters imply 
 the completest affection, respect, and good understanding of both 
 to each other. ^ 
 
 May 21. I. — The Niirnberg Legates write: "No city of the 
 Confederation is here, except one legate from Reutlingen, who has 
 jiotified us of his presence, and gives us to understand that the au- 
 thorities who sent him will adhere, as of fore time, to the Elector 
 of Saxony, and to your E.xcellencies in the matter of the faith. '"^ 
 
 2. Melanchthon writes to Camerarius at Niirnberg : "I have pre- 
 pared an Apology, written with the greatest modesty, nor do I 
 think it possible to speak of these things more mildly." 
 
 3. Urban Rhegius, Evangelical Pastor at Augsburg, writes to 
 Luther : " Daily, when my occupations permit, I have talks with 
 those you love so dearly, Philip, Jonas, Isleben (Agricola), Spalatin. 
 Nor have I now any other relief of my studies, than those very 
 learned conversations with these men. If you were present with 
 them, my joy would be full. Christ grant that I may very soon see 
 you." 
 
 ^Luther's Werke : Jena, v. 22b — 23b. Leipzig, xx. 180. Walch, xvii. 
 2379, No. XXXV. Eriangen, 54, 151, No. 318 . Buddeus, 99-103, No. 122 . 
 Lat. (gives tlie date May 22). De Wette, iv. 23, No. 1216. Ciiytraeus dates 
 it May 30, and says it was written in consequence of Melanchthon's request in 
 the letter of May 22, q. v. Gerni.,3il)-33b. Coelestinu^, 44-46, dates it May 
 22. Muller, 576-579. 
 
 * Corp. Ref., 11. 56, No. 693. Camerarius (Vita Meiancli. ed Strobel), 
 121. Strobel, Miscellan., 11. 25. Fikenscher, 53. Kollner, 175, 26. 
 
 * Luther's Werke: Altenb., v. 23. Leipzig, xx. 172. Walch, xvi. 819. 
 Briefe: De Wette, IV. 20. lulangen, 54, No. 317. Chytraeus, 26b. Coeles- 
 linus, I. 47. Buddeus, 95. 
 
 ^Corp. Reformat. 11. 56, No. 694. "Corp. Reformat. 57, No. 695. 
 
26 CHRONOLOGY. [1530. 
 
 " The Prince of Hesse lately invited me to breakfast with him. I 
 have conceived hope concerning Hesse that he will not reject the 
 sound counsels of Philip and of others."® 
 
 This letter shows that up to May 21, the intercourse of Rhegius 
 with the Saxon theologians (he does not mention the others at all) 
 was purely personal. But in the after elaboration of the Confession 
 " Melanchthon took into his counsels the other theologians, besides 
 Brenz," (and May 27) "especially Rhegius, who in this way also 
 had his share in this work, a work which in its mildness and pro- 
 pitiating character, its effort to bring into view a genuine Catholicity, 
 the Unity with the Ancient Church, so distinctly corresponds with 
 Rhegius's own character. It was thus most peculiarly his own Con- 
 fession, and he loved, at a later period, to boast that he had borne 
 part in making this Confession.'''"'^ 
 
 May 22. — I. Melanchthon writes to Luther: "In the Apol- 
 ogy we are daily changing many things ; the part concerning Vows, 
 as it was more meagre than is right, I have taken out ; another dis- 
 cussion of the same topic, a little more full, being substituted for it. 
 I now also am discussing concerning the Power of the Keys. I wish 
 you would run over the Articles of Faith, in which, if you should 
 think there is nothing of fault, we shall treat the rest as we best 
 may (utcunque). For they are from time to time to be changed, 
 and adapted to the occasions. The Macedonian (Philip of Hesse), is 
 now moving that he may subscribe the document of ours, and seems 
 as if he could be drawn back to ours, but there is need of your let- 
 ters. I therefore urgently beg of you to write to him, not to burden 
 his conscience with the defence of any impious dogma" (Zwinglian- 
 ism). This letter shows that there has yet been no general movement. 
 The Confession is still confined to Saxony. Melanchthon is laboring 
 alone, and changing at his pleasure. He is approaching the end of 
 the Articles on Abuses ; Vows and the Power of the Keys being the 
 last things treated in those Articles. Philip of Hesse is showing a 
 disposition to unite in the Saxon Confession, but with some proviso, 
 which can not be allowed. Luther is appealed to to influence him 
 to a decided stand against Zwinglianism, without which his subscrip- 
 tion cannot be allowed. 
 
 ^Corp. Refoimator., 11. 58, No. 697. 
 " Uhlhorn : Urban Rhegius, 153. 
 
1530. J MAY 16-22. 27 
 
 a. This letter of Melanchthon lias been cited from the earliest 
 period without a challenge or doubt on any point involving the 
 clearness and value of its historical character. It is cited in the 
 earliest and latest Histories of the Augsburg Confession ; in Chy- 
 traeus;^" Kirchner, Selneccer and Chemnitz" — both of them pupils of 
 Melanchthon — Coelestinus/'^ Calovius/^ Seckendorf/* Mains, '^ J. J, 
 Muller/" Frick," Junius-Roos-Seckendorf/* Loscher,''-' Cyprian,''^" 
 Saligr^ John George Walch,^^ C. G. F. Walch,^^ Strobel/^ G. G. 
 Weber,-'^ Danz,^« Hammerschmidt,^' Kollner/^^ Ukert,-'-" J. T. Miil- 
 ler,^" Ledderhose,^^ Gieseler/^ Kostlin,^^ Oehler,^^ Engelhardt,'** 
 Z6ckler,"'« Francke,''' I. A. H. Tittmann,''* Burkhardt.^'' 
 
 It is given in the collections of Melanchthon's Epistles,'" in the 
 best collections of documentary matter bearing on the History of 
 the Reformation," and in all the larger histories of the Confession. 
 
 b. The letter of May 2 2d was regarded from the beginning as 
 indisputable proof of a second sending of the Confession to Luther, 
 (^hytraeus : "Though the form of the Confession rewoven at Augs- 
 burg was then (May 15) approved by Luther, yet Melanchthon 
 
 1" German, 30 b. Latin, 32, ^2- French, 29, 30. 
 
 "Griindl. Hist., Germ., III. Lat., 137. ^^pjj^toria, I. 44. 
 
 ^^Criticus Sacer, 23, 80. ^* Commentar. Lib., il. 181. 
 
 ^^Histor. Reform., 319. .Synopsis, 27. ^^Historie, 520. 
 
 1' Ausfiihrliche Historic (in many respects independent of Seckendoi'f, whom 
 it professes to translate), 1025. 
 
 '^Reform. Gesch., I. 541. i^Historia Motiunn, I. 160. 
 
 ^ORistoria, 58. 21 Historic, l. 171. 
 
 ^^Intr. in L. S., 167. Luther's Werkc, XVI. 816, No. 927. Concordienlnich 
 Einl. in A. C., 15. 
 
 ^'Breviarium, 63. 2i;y]ii;(>ei]ji,,ee,^^ ii 24. '-^Kritisch. Gesch., i. 30, 31. 
 
 ^^Aiigsb. Confess., 15. -'Gesch. d. Augsb. Confess., 21. 
 
 "sSymbolik, I. 172, 175, 23. '-''Luther's Leben, I. 233. 
 
 ^''Symbol. Bucher. Einl., LXI. Cf. Christian Book of Concord. Newmarket, 44. 
 
 ''Melanchthon transl. by Dr. Krotel, 95. 
 
 '*K. Geschichte, ni. 1,247. H- T'.. Smith's Translat., iv. 139. 
 
 '^M. Luther, 11. 208, 627, n. on 215. ^*Lehrb. d. Symbolik, 113. 
 
 '*In Niedners Zeitschrift, 572, 578. *" Augsb. Confess.. 19, n. 2. 
 
 *' Lib. Symb. Proleg., xvi., n. 10. ^Confessio. Fidei.. .\v. 
 
 '^Luther's Briefrechsel, 176. ^'' Consilia, Pezel, 90. Epist. Londini, 1642. 
 
 *' Corp. Reform. ,11. 59, No. 698. Cf. Schirrmacher, 473. 
 
2 8 CHRONOLOGY. [1530. 
 
 daily changed some things in it, and endeavored more cautiously 
 and accurately to arrange and polish everything, as he himself, 
 some days after, sending a copy to Luther again i^remiftens) writes 
 to him May 22."" The Judgment of Chytraeus derives special 
 value from his general character as a man and scholar, and the 
 classic character of his History of the Augsburg Confession, which 
 remains to this hour a standard. But this special value is heightened 
 by the fact that he was a favorite pupil of both Luther and Me- 
 lanchthon, recommended by Brenz, the great colaborer in the Con- 
 fession. Melanchthon, after his first interview with the young 
 Magister of fourteen, said : " You are of right a Magister, and shall 
 be dear to me as a son." Chytraeus lived for six years under Me- 
 lanchthon's roof, sharing his guidance, confidence and love, and 
 doubtless hearing from Melanchthon's own lips the particulars con- 
 nected with the great Confession at Augsburg.''^ As professor of 
 the University of Rostoch (1551, nine years before Melanchthon's 
 death), he lectured on the Augsburg Confession, and out of these 
 lectures grew his history, finished 1576 — 1578.*" 
 
 Coelestinus : " Yet (after Luther's approval May 15) Philip, some 
 clays after, sending a copy to Luther again (remittcns), writes May 
 
 22d."^^ 
 
 Calovius: "Though afterward (after May 11) Melanchthon made 
 changes, yet this was not done without Luther's consent, and after 
 some days a copy of the Confession was sent again to Luther, as is 
 evident from the letter of May 22d."*'' Nearly twenty years later 
 Calovius repeats the same statement.^'' Maius : " Not without Lu- 
 ther's consent, as is clear from Philip's letter of May 2 2d to Lu- 
 ther."** Frick: "Melanchthon daily improved the Confession, 
 and sent it to Luther for revision, as is clear from his letter of May 
 22d."-"* Loescher: Nevertheless (after the letters of May 11), he 
 still made improvements here and there. as he then sent the Doc- 
 trinal Articles a second time (abermahls) to Luther, May 2 2d, for 
 him to run over."^" Lomler : "May nth, the Confession is sent 
 to Luther by the Elector. May 2 2d, Melanchthon sends the Con- 
 fession to Luther again (nochmals)."^^ De Wette : "May 22d, 
 
 ^^Lat., 32. French, 29. « Pressel : David Chytraeus, 6. "Do., 18. 
 
 ^^Historia, 43.b. ''« Critic. Sacer. 23. "Exegema, II. 3. 
 
 ** Synopsis, 20. ■'^ Ausfiihrl. Ilistorie., 1025. 
 
 ^Histor. Motuum., 160. '''Luther's Schriftcn, in. 387. 
 
1530.] MAY 16-22. 29 
 
 Melanchthon sends the Confession to Luther again (nochmals).''^'' 
 Fikenscher : "Melanchthon wrote again to Luther, May 22d, in 
 order that he might receive any remarks which it might please him 
 to make."^^ 
 
 John George Walch, after giving the correspondence of May 
 11-15, goes on to say : " After Melanchthon had again revised the 
 same, and made changes here and there in it, he wrote once more 
 to Luther, May 22d, and desired him, that if he had anything to 
 suggest, he should inform him of it."^^ 
 
 Marheincke : After quoting Luther's reply of May 15 to the 
 Elector's letter of May 11 : — "As, however, the arrival of the Em- 
 peror was delayed, Melanchthon daily made improvements in the 
 Confession, but submitted all the particular changes to Luther, who 
 was satisfied with them" — he then cites in proof the letter of May 2 2.'-^ 
 
 Rudelbach: "Melanchthon, touching the articles of faith re- 
 peatedly appealed to Luther ; " and then gives in proof the letter 
 of May 22.^" 
 
 Calinich : After the letters of May 11 : " But as the Emperor 
 does not yet come, Melanchthon has still time to work further on 
 the Confession, whose outward form does not yet satisfy him, as on 
 the 2 2d of May he writes to Luther " — then follow the words bear- 
 ing on the Confession; the important ones from ''vellem to tracta- 
 bimiis'' in Italics. " It follows from this letter," says Calinich, "that 
 Luther must have had a copy of the Confession in his hands, and 
 consequently indeed must have received a new one from Melanch- 
 thon, if he had, as the Electoral letter demanded, immediately sent 
 back by the same messenger, after examining it, the copy which 
 the Elector had sent him."^' 
 
 Knaake :^^ " The picture (of the Siege of Vienna), as well as 
 the letter of May 22, reached Luther." He gives in this interesting 
 essay, what we shall quote at its place, as a demonstration that 
 Luther received the letter of May 22.^^* 
 
 c. It is hardly necessary to point out the intrinsic absurdity of 
 
 ^^Briefe IV. 11. *'Gesch. d. Reiclfstags. 54. 
 
 *♦ Ausfuhrliche Nachricht, Von D. M. Luthero, in Sammtliche Schriften, 
 X.KUi. 490. 
 » Gcschichte, 11. 46C. ^6 Einleitung, 95. " Luther, 11. d. A. C, 43. 
 
 5« Lulher's Antheil, 17, 46, 50, 51, 53, 54, 57, 58, 60, 61, 65, 74, 76. 
 '9 Do., 61-64. See Conservative Reformation, 227-230. 
 
30 CHRONOLOGY. [1530. 
 
 the supposition that in Melanchthon's request that Luther should 
 " run over the articles of faith," he refers to the copy of May 1 1. 
 
 1. Melanchthon certainly knew the reasons which led the Elector 
 to request Luther to send back at once the copy of May ii, and 
 most probably had seen and approved the Elector's letter. 
 
 2. The copy of May ii had actually been brought back to Augs- 
 burg before he wrote the letter of May 22. At the beginning of 
 this letter he refers to the reception of Luther's letter to him, of 
 May 15, with which came Luther's letter of the same date to the 
 Elector approving of the "Apology." 
 
 3. That Melanchthon should think it necessary to ask Luther, in 
 a letter which could not reach him earlier than May 26, to run over 
 an urgent document which had been sent him May 1 1 (even apart 
 from the fact that it was to be returned at once) is preposterous. 
 
 4. The Elector and Melanchthon had already, May 11, solicited 
 Luther's full and careful judgment on the Confession, with unlimited 
 power to change it, in any respect. How weak it is to suppose 
 that eleven days after Melanchthon asks him to "run over'' the 
 most important part of it. 
 
 5 . It is evident that verbal changes had been made in the interval , 
 giving to the articles of faith substantially their fixed form. The 
 request to "run over the articles " implies that in their material 
 aspects they had already been carefully examined, and that the 
 slight changes would require but a cursory examination. The 
 whole tone implies a second sending. 
 
 d. This letter establishes the fa'ct that "about this time the view 
 becomes fixed that the other Evangelical States luho so desired might 
 sign the Saxon Confession."*^" This helped to prepare the way for 
 the ultimate determination of all to unite in it, and not to sign it as 
 the Saxon Confession, but to make it their own. The progress of 
 the movement involves these stages : 
 
 1. Saxony purposes to present alone her Confession, and the 
 other Estates are to provide for themselves — up to May 22. 
 
 2. The idea is started that some others may concur in the Con- 
 fession prepared by Saxony, and still presented in the name of Sax- 
 ony, about May 22. 
 
 3. The idea grows into a proposal that the Confession shall be 
 tested, approved, adopted by all the Estates, and presented as their 
 
 Kollner, 176, 179, 27. 
 
1530.] MAY 23 TO JUNE 8. 31 
 
 Confession, with possibly some provision in the Introduction for 
 special points, desired by particular Estates — June 8th. 
 
 4. It ripens into the absolute unity of presentation known as the 
 Augsburg Confession, from June 8th. 
 
 VIII. CHRONOLOGY OF THE AUGSBURG CONFESSION, FROM 
 
 THE BEGINNING OF THE MOVEMENT FOR MAKING IT A 
 
 COMMON CONFESSION OF ALL THE LUTHERAN 
 
 ESTATES, TO THE COMPLETION OF 
 
 THAT MOVEMENT : MAY 
 
 23— JUNE 8. 
 
 May 24 i. George, of Anspach, Margrave of Brandenburg, 
 
 enters Augsburg. He takes an active interest in the Confession. 
 His name is second among the signers. 
 
 ii. Pontanus, the Saxon Chancellor, working upon the preface 
 and epilogue of the Confession. 
 
 iii. The Niirnberg Delegates write: "The Saxon Counsel has 
 come back from Dr. Luther, but Dr. Bruck, the old Chancellor, 
 has still to form something to go before it and something to follow 
 it (the Preface and Epilogue), and we have made arrangements 
 that as soon as he is ready with it we are to be informed of the fact. 
 We shall therefore make another application for it, and then send 
 it to you. 'This Counsel is to be set forth in German, Latin and 
 French. Our delay in writing has been caused by the hope from 
 day to day that we might furnish definite information as to the 
 coming of His Imperial Majesty, and might also at the same time 
 send the Saxon Counsel. But no one knows when his Majesty will 
 be here.'" 
 
 iv. The Emperor demands through the Counts of Nassau and 
 Nuenar, that the Elector of Saxony shall bring the Evangelical 
 preaching at Augsburg to an end.^ 
 
 May 26 — i. About this time Melanchthon prepares a " Forma 
 
 ^Corp. Ref., H. 700. Strobel : Misccllan., II. 25. FiUcnscher, 54. Koll- 
 ner, 175, 24. 
 
 ^ Coelestinus, I. 50. Chytr.ieus, 37. Miiller, 502-506. Luther's Weike : 
 VValch, XVI., 824-S28, No. 930. 
 
32 CHRONOLOGY. [1530. 
 
 Apologios," a short paper probably for preliminary use, at the be- 
 ginning of the Diet.^ 
 
 ii. Melanchthon's paper on the Gravamina, or burdens imposed 
 on the conscience of the Elector, by the Emperor.* 
 
 iii. The Letter of the Niirnberg Legates to the Senate.^ 
 
 iv. Melanchthon writes to Goldstein: "I have been sufficiently 
 occupied in preparing an Apology, or rather an Exomologesis (full 
 confession). We have been waiting here almost a whole month 
 expecting the Autocrat, for he is not yet here."" "We do not yet 
 know certainly, whether he has determined to take into cognizance 
 the religious controversies." 
 
 May 28. — i. The Saxon Theologians and Counsellors are occu- 
 pied in examining the Confession. 
 
 The Niirnberg Legates write : "The Chancellor of the Elector 
 of Saxony told us that the Counsellors (Rathe) and the learned men 
 (Gelehrte) were holding daily sittings on their Counsel (Rathschlag) 
 in matters of faith, to make changes in it, and improve it, to the 
 intent that they might put it and present it in such form, that it 
 could not well be passed by ; so that a hearing of the matter must 
 be accorded, when they shall be ready with the Counsel. We shall 
 apply again that we may send it to you."' 
 
 The document, it is seen from this, is submitted to the examina- 
 tion of the Counsellors and Theologians of Saxony, who had had no 
 voice in the matter until after May 22, and even now it is Saxony 
 alone. 
 
 ii. About this date the judgment is prepared by the Theologians, 
 in regard to the demand of the Emperor (May 24) that the evan- 
 gelical ministers should be forbidden to preach at Augsburg. This 
 judgment is offered to the Elector of Saxony alone — and to him 
 alone had been addressed the mandate of the Emperor.'' 
 
 There is an opinion of the Saxon Chancellor Pontanus (Briick), 
 on the same subject, in which he refers to the mandate of the 
 Emperor in its more general form, as addressed to "the Electors, 
 
 •''Corp. Reformat., ll. 701. *Do., 702. 
 
 ^Corp. Reformat., n. 703. •"'Do., 704. 
 
 ^ Corp. Reformator., Ii. 705. Strol)el : Miscell., 11. 26. 
 
 ^Coelestinus i. 33-35. Melanchthonis Coiisilia (Lat.) ed. Pczelius I. 
 103-107. Miiller, 483-486. Lullier's Werke : Walch, xvi. 798-802. No'. 
 918, II. Cf. Seckendorf, Lib. 11. 153. Salig., i. 163. 
 
1530.] MAY 23_JUNE 8. J3 
 
 Princes, and Estates." The Emperor, to give a show of impartiality, 
 made the prohibition nominally refer to both parties, although the 
 Protestants were almost exclusively affected by it." 
 
 Before May 31. — Of the Latin Manuscripts of the Confession 
 it is supposed that two are older than May 31. 
 
 These are : 
 
 1. The Dessau Codex. It is preserved in the Archives of the 
 Duchy of Anhalt. It has not the title, preface and epilogue. See 
 May 31. It was brought from the Diet by Prince Wolfgang."* 
 
 2. Hessian Codex I. It is preserved in the Archives at Cassel. 
 It was taken home by Philip of Hesse on his return from Augsburg. 
 It embraces only the x\rticles of Faith, and these " in their early, or 
 indeed their earliest form.'"' 
 
 May 31. — i. The Confession in German is not yet finished. A 
 copy of the Confession in Latin is given to the Niirnberg Legates. 
 It wants the preface and epilogue, and the article on Faith and 
 Works. 
 
 The Niirnberg Legates write: "The Saxon Counsel (Rath- 
 schlag) is not yet ready (in German)." " But the same articles, as 
 they have been handled up to this time in Latin, have been handed 
 to us, which, with the exception of the preface and conclusion, 
 about which there is j^et the most doubt, we will have transcribed 
 and sent to you. As soon, after which, as they are ready with the 
 German, which they are daily improving, we shall solicit a copy of 
 that for you.'"- The preface and conclusion in the Latin are evi- 
 dently written, but it is yet an open question whether they are to 
 be in the name of Saxony alone. 
 
 The doubt about the preface and conclusion, which Pontanus 
 prepared, is evidently as to whose name they shall be made out in 
 — that of Saxony or of the whole body of Protestant Princes and 
 Estates. 
 
 ii. The Elector of Saxony replies to the Emperor's mandate of 
 May 24, declining to yield to it.''' 
 
 'Corp. Reformat., II., No. 707. Miiller, 489. Luther's VVerke : Walch, 
 XVI. 804-807, No. 921. 
 
 10 Weber, i. 87 sq. Francke : L. S. xxi. 4. 
 " Forstemann, l. 372, 442. Francke : L. S., xxi. 5. 
 "Corp. Reformat., 11. 708. 
 
 "Coelestimis, I. 5oh-53h. Cliytraeus: Germ., 32-3S. Lnt., 37-42. Miiller, 
 3 
 
34 CHRONOLOGY. [1530. 
 
 iii. On this day we have the first aUusion to any persons outside 
 of the Saxon circle having a copy of the Confession put into their 
 hands. 
 
 The proposition that the Confession should be presented in the 
 name of the Estates was opposed by Melanchthon, who thought it 
 should be offered in the name of the theologians, leaving the Princes 
 unembarrassed.'* 
 
 Between May 31 and June 16. — The Latin Codices of 
 this period are : 
 
 1. The Fabrician.^^ 
 
 2. The Wiirzburg Codex (Wirceburg) in the royal archives 
 of Bavaria." 
 
 3. The Ratisbon Codex — Among the Acta of the Ratisbon 
 Diocese.'' 
 
 4. The Hessian Codex 11. in the Archives at Cassel.'^ 
 
 5. The Anspach Codex formerly in the Archives of George, 
 Margrave of Brandenburg, now in the Royal Archives at Niirn- 
 berg.'' 
 
 June I. — i. About this date Melanchthon's Judgment on the Six 
 Questions, entirely in the name of the Elector: i. Of the Eating 
 of Flesh. 2. The taking up of Questions of Faith at the Diet. 3. 
 The Calling of a Council. 4. Of Spiritual Jurisdiction. 5. The 
 old Constitutions and Canons. 6. The Cloisters.^" 
 
 ii. The Elector of Saxony writes to Luther, thanks him for his 
 letter of "Christian Exhortation and Comfort" (May 20), gives 
 him certain information, to be kept secret, in regard to a commu- 
 
 506-517. Luther's Werke : Walch, XVI. 828-839, No. 931. Forstemann. 
 Urkndbch. I. 224. Cf. Briick's Geschichte, 25. 
 
 "Camerarius de Vita Mel., 120. Matthes : Phil. Mel., 1 13. 
 
 i^IIarm. Conf. Aug., 1573. Coelestiiuis, li. 169-188. Weber, I. 70-100. 
 II. Praef. Francke, L. S. xxi. 6. 
 
 ^* Forstemann, I. 446. Francke, X.\I. 7. 
 
 "Forstemann, i. 446 sqtj., 468 sqq. 
 
 18 Forstemann, i. 444. Francke: L. S., xxii. 9. 
 
 19 Weber, l. 81. sq. Forstemann, I. 442, sq. Francke: L. S. xxil. 10. 
 
 *°Corp. Reformat., 709. Miiller, 498 in part. Luther's Werke: Walch., xvi. 
 807, No. 922, in part. Cf. Seckendorf, 11. 153. 
 
1530.] MAY 23 JUNE 8. 35 
 
 nication in which the Emperor makes charges against the Elec- 
 tor.'^' 
 
 iii. Luther writes to Jacob Probst, Licentiate of theology, min- 
 ister in Bremen.^'^ This letter abounds with unmistakable refer- 
 ences to Melanchthon's letter of May 22. It repeats the items 
 of news given by Melanchthon, in the same order, in the very 
 words, in a number of cases ; with a transfer of marked peculiarities 
 of words and style. Luther himself says expressly,-^ that he had 
 received no letters from his personal friends in Wittenberg, written 
 between May 22 and June i. 
 
 June 2. — .i. Cochleus solicits a secret interview with Melanch- 
 thon.'* 
 
 ii. Luther writes to Melanchthon : " Yesterday Hans Reyneck, 
 of Mansfeld, and George Romer were with us, and Arguia von 
 Stauffer is here to-day." He expresses his determination to break 
 up the coming to Coburg, and adds: "Therefore, do you also, 
 and yours, so speak and write in future in consonance with this wish, 
 that they shall no longer seek me here. For I wish to be care- 
 fully concealed, and in future, in consonance with this, do you also 
 keep me carefully concealed, both in what you say, and in your let- 
 ters." Luther's desire to be concealed was not from aversion to 
 visits in general, or to these visitors. But secrecy was essential to 
 freedom of communication with him, the safety of what was sent to 
 him, and his personal safety. 
 
 iii. In the same letter: "Here they are beginning to argue 
 with us, that your Diet will amount to nothing, and that the Em- 
 peror will be drawn away by the guile and arts of such a number of 
 bishops, till everybody being worn out, you will be compelled to 
 return home. There is no hope that the Elector of Treves and the 
 Palsgrave will be present, and the Emperor, trained in the art of 
 the Papists, will discover reasons for not coming to Augsburg."'-* 
 I..uther, without adopting these rumors as reliable, confesses that he 
 
 " Coelestinus, l. 53. Chytraeus, Lat. 37. Fr., 35. Ger., 35!). Luther's 
 Werke: Leipz., xx. 175. Walch, xvi. 839, No. 932. 
 
 '^^ Coelestinus, I. 54. Buddeus, 103, No. 123. German, Leipz., Xix. 531 (in 
 part). Walch, xvi. 2823. Dc VVelte, IV. 27. 
 
 ^^ Letters of June 19 and 20. 2* Corji. Ref., 11. 710. 
 
 '5 Coelestinus, 1.60 b. Buddeus, 106. Walch, xvr. 2826. De Wetle, iv. 
 30, No 1 219. 
 
Z^ CHRONOLOGY. [1530. 
 
 was greatly agitated by them. The Elector of Treves, Greiffenclau 
 von Vollrath, on account of his great age, did not appear at Augs- 
 burg ; nor did the Palsgrave, the Count Palatine, Louis the Peace- 
 ful. Both were represented, however, by legates. P)Oth had shown 
 a spirit of justice and gentleness toward the Reformation, and 
 hence the sadness of Luther at the abandonment of the hopes of 
 their appearing. Both died the year following.-*' 
 
 June 3. — I. Melanchthon urges Lachmann not to favor the 
 Zwinglian doctrine of the Lord's Supper. 
 
 2. The Niirnberg Legates send a Latin copy of the Confession 
 to the Senate of Niirnberg: "Herewith we send you a copy of 
 the Saxon Counsel in Latin, and the Preface or Introduction is with 
 it. But there is wanting at the end an article or two, together with 
 the Conclusion, on which the Saxon theologians are still at work. 
 As soon as it is ready it shall be sent to you. In the meantime your 
 excellencies may have your theologians and preachers to examine 
 this and give their counsel upon it. As soon as the Confession is 
 put into German, it shall not be kept back from you. In any case 
 it is the desire of the Saxons that you should keep this Counsel or 
 Draft secret, and allow no one to have a, copy, until it has been sub- 
 mitted to His Imperial Majesty. They have their reasons for this. 
 Therefore, your excellencies will, on this account, observe precau- 
 tion in the case of those who are allowed to get it, and see to it that 
 a Latin copy is sent back to us. If your excellencies' preachers and 
 theologians determine to make any changes or improvements in this 
 Counsel, or the one previously sent, you will please also send them 
 to us." '' 
 
 June 4. — (About this date) Brentius writes to Isenmann : " It 
 is thought the Emperor will not reach us before Corpus Christi. 
 Cochleus wrote recently to Philip (see June 2) that he wished to 
 have a conversation with him, but there were to be no married 
 priests present. Philip took me, therefore, as I am not yet mar- 
 ried. See what blessedness my celibacy brings me — that I have 
 the privilege of talking with Cochleus. We have so softened him 
 
 2*Rotermund: Geschichte, 228-230. 
 
 "Corp. Ref. Ii. No. 712, Strobel; Miscellan., il. 27. See Kollner, 171, 
 174, 15- 
 
1530.] MAY 23— JUNE 8. 37 
 
 that he now salutes married priests, and treats them just as cour- 
 teously as he treats others."^* 
 
 June 5. — i. The Elector of Saxony expresses to Kress, the 
 Niirnberg Legate, his grief at the Emperor's course in repressing 
 the preaching, and tells him that he had been thinking of leaving 
 Augsburg.^* 
 
 ii. Luther writes to Link: "lam sorry to hear that there are 
 doubts about the Diet. . . .We shall change our location to-morrow, 
 on account of the frequency of visitors. The pilgrimage is becom- 
 ing too great to this point. It would offend the Prince" (the 
 Elector).-'" 
 
 iii. Luther writes to the Abbot, Frederick, at Niirnberg.^' 
 
 iv. Luther writes to Melanchthon : reproaches him that he had 
 allowed two messengers to return from Augsburg without letters 
 from himself or the others — "as there are so many of you, and 
 nearly all ready writers. From Niirnberg we received intelli- 
 gence which would argue that the Emperor is not coming to the 
 Diet at all, and that the whole thing will prove a failure."-" 
 
 June 7. — Luther writes to Melanchthon, complaining of the 
 silence of his friends in Augsburg, but in an entirely playful 
 manner. ^^ 
 
 June 8. — I. Prologue (preface) and Epilogue of the Confession 
 not yet finished. 
 
 2. Up to this time the Confession had been written solely in the 
 name of the Duke of Saxony the Elector John. 
 
 3. The Protestant Princes and cities, move to enter into an 
 arrangement with the Elector, to have the Confession exhibited 
 in the names of all. The Niirnberg Legates write : " The 
 Saxon Declaration of Faith, which we recently sent you, we 
 presume you have already given to your preachers and to your jur- 
 ists for their deliberations. And we should have liked to send to 
 you the Supplement and Conclusion of the Declaration, but the 
 Saxons are, up to this time, not yet ready therewith. We shall, 
 however, make another application therefor. And since it is your 
 opinion, contained in our instruction, that we, in your behalf, shall 
 
 " Corp. Reformat., II. No. 713. -9 Corp. Ref., 11. No. 714. 
 
 »» Hriefe: De Wette, IV. 30. No. 1220. »• De Wctte iv. 34, No. 1222. 
 
 3-^Briefe: De WeUe, iv. 32., No. 1221. "De WcUe, iv. 35, No. 1223. 
 
:iS CHRONOLOGY. [1530. 
 
 Stand with the Elector, and with the Margrave George (of Bran- 
 denburg), and that the action of their Electoral and Princely Graces 
 and your own, shall in this case be one and the same, and yet as 
 the Saxon statement (Verzeichniss) is presented in the form of a pe- 
 tition, in the name of the Elector alone, we are of opinion that it 
 will be necessary to consider whether in connection with the Saxon 
 statement, your Excellencies should set forth a separate statement 
 to be submitted to His Imperial Majesty by itself, in your name, or 
 whether, on the other hand, the question should be raised before 
 the Elector in regard to presenting the statement of His Electoral 
 Grace, not in the name of His Grace alone, but in common, in the 
 name of the Margrave George (of Brandenburg), and also of your Ex- 
 cellencies, and of the other Estates and Cities involved in this matter. 
 We shall await your instructions as to the position we are to take, 
 and as to our holding a previous consultation with Margrave George. 
 I, Kress, have however already spoken with the Chancellor of the 
 Margrave about it, and he says that the Preachers and Jurists of 
 his Master are already in consultation on the subject, and that his 
 Master finds the same fault that we find, that is, that the Saxon 
 Statement is set forth in the name of the Elector alone, and that 
 the Margrave is also in favor of presenting it in common in the 
 name of all the Princes and cities which are agreed in the Articles of 
 Faith and adhere to His Grace and the Elector. Such an arrange- 
 ment could probably be readily brought about, and yet, in the In- 
 troduction, there could be separately specified and noted what had 
 been presented to His Majesty and the Empire on account of each 
 particular Prince and Estate, which was of such a nature that it 
 could not be embraced in the statement made in common. May it, 
 therefore, please your Excellencies to consider, in connection with 
 other matters, what shall be presented, in the Introduction, on your 
 account, and with the help of your Jurists, to permit the same to be 
 put into formal shape.'"** 
 
 **Corp. Reformat., II. No. 715. Fikenscher, 56. KoIIner, 176, 179,34. 
 
1530.] JUNE 9-25. 39 
 
 IX. CHRONOLOGY OF THE AUGSBURG CONFESSION, FROM THE 
 COMPLETE PROPOSAL THAT IT SHOULD BE A 
 COMMON CONFESSION TO ITS DELIV- 
 ERY: JUNE 9— JUNE 25, 1530. 
 
 June II. — The Landgrave of Hesse attempts to induce Me- 
 lanchthon and Brentius to favor the admission of the Zwinglians into 
 fellowship with the Lutherans. Melanchtlion and Brentius unite in 
 a letter to the Landgrave, strongly urging the impossibility of such 
 a fellowship. The Landgrave replies. Melanchthon and Brentius 
 answer him.' 
 
 June 13. — I. Melanchthon writes to Luther to urge the Land- 
 grave to avoid the Zwinglians, whom he charges with a seditious 
 spirit: "The expectation of your letter to the Landgrave so tor- 
 tured me that I was able to write nothing in the interim. For I 
 have asked you to write to him not to precipitate himself into the 
 impious cause of the Quibblers (the Zwinglians). For he is wrang- 
 ling in a wonderful way with everybody, about that matter. Henry 
 of Brunswick complained to me, to-day, grievously of the disputes 
 of the Landgrave about that matter, and begs that in every way we 
 exert ourselves that he be not torn from us. The Zwinglians are 
 laying wonderful snares for him. I am almost consumed with the 
 most wretched cares. "' 
 
 2. Melanchthon writes to Vitus Theodorus : " I implore you that 
 you urge the Doctor to write to the Landgrave. He perhaps im- 
 agines, that he can accomplish little by so doing ; but as the mattt" 
 still stands, we are in some hope that his letter will not prove use- 
 less. Our cause would be less odious, if the Zwinglians did not 
 prejudice it, who to their seditious counsels against the Emperor 
 add also intolerable dogmas.'" 
 
 These letters show that Melanchthon had no knowledge of any 
 letter written up to this date by Luther to the Landgrave ; that he 
 assumes that Luther could not have written without his knowledge. 
 The latest investigations clear up this matter, and show that Luther 
 had not written, as is generally stated. May 20, but that the true 
 date of his letter to the Landgrave is June 20. See that date. 
 
 'Chytraeus: Germ. (1580), 358-360. Lat., 648-651. French, 467-470 
 Grundl. Historia, 112-114. Lat., 138-141. Coelestinus, i. 60-63. Luther's 
 Werke: Walch, xvii. 2383-2386, No. 37. 
 
 *Corp. Rcf., IV. 1008, No. 721 .i. ' Do., 11. 103, No. 721. 
 
40 CHRONOLOGY. [1530. 
 
 June 14. — The Niirnberg Legates receive a copy of the German 
 Confession, but without the Prologue and Epilogue, as it is hoped 
 that the Confession will be presented to the Emperor in the name 
 of all the Protestants In this German copy Melanchthon, in antici- 
 pation of a decision gladly already virtually made by Saxony, has, 
 for the terms in the articles implying that the Confession is for Sax- 
 ony only, substituted common terms adapted to the concurrence of 
 all the Estates.* Matthes connects with this date Melanchthon's 
 words of 1560.'^ 
 
 June 15. — i. The Emperor enters Augsburg.'' 
 
 ii. The Niirnberg Legates send the Confessson in German to 
 Niirnberg. They write: "The Saxon summary (Begriff) in 
 the matter, is ready in the German, and we send it herewith to you. 
 But the Preface and Conclusion are not with it, and, as Philip Mel- 
 anchthon has stated, he has not rendered any part of those into 
 German, because he anticipates that this very same Preface and 
 Conclusion may be presented not only in the name of the Elector, 
 but in common in the names of all the United Lutheran Princes 
 and Estates; as for this same reason, as you will notice, he has 
 already made changes in the articles in German — that is, where 
 in the Latin it is said ' that in the Electorate of Saxony this or that 
 has been preached and held,' he omits in the German the words 
 ' Electorate of Saxony,' and puts in their place some common term 
 which may apply to all the Estates. This Summary you will please 
 submit to your preachers and jurists, and send us their opinion and 
 advice upon it. . . . The Articles on Faith and Works, which is 
 placed at the end of the German Summary, is not in the Latin 
 Summary which we sent you. . . . We are not able to send it to 
 you in Latin, as it is not yet made out, but expect that it will be 
 ready in about two days.'" 
 
 *Corp. Ref., 11. 723. Fikenscber, 54,55. Kollner, 177, 179,36. 
 
 ^ Phil. Mel., 113,11. c. 
 
 " Die Alte und Erste Relation von Reichstag zu Augsburg, in Cyprian. Bey- 
 lagen. Num., vi. 60-84 Walch, xvi. 841, No. 935. See Coelestin., r. 68. 
 Seckenclorf, 11. 161. Miiller: Ilistorie, 522. Salig., i. 178. Another descrip- 
 tion, Luther's Werke: Jena, V. 33. Altb., 25. Leipzig, .XX. 201. Walch, XVl. 
 870, No.- 937. Chytraeus : derm., 83. Lat., 43. 
 
 ^ Corp. Ref., 11. No. 723. Fikenscher, 54. Kollner, 180, 37. 
 
1530.] JUNE 9-25. 41 
 
 June 16. — I. The Niirnbergers write: "His Majesty had a 
 private interview with the four Princes, to wit : the Elector of 
 Saxony, Margrave George, the Duke of Luneburg, and the Land- 
 grave of Hesse."* 
 
 2. A writing of the Evangelical Princes to the Emperor, in regard 
 to the silencing of their preachers, signed only by the five Princes. 
 The names of John Frederick and Francis are not attached to it. " 
 
 3. The opinion (Bedenken) of the Saxon theologians discusses 
 the question: "Whether the Elector of Saxony and others ('the 
 Protestant Princes') can take part without violation of conscience 
 in the procession on Corpus Christi Day.'"" 
 
 4. In consequence of the sickness of the Elector, the result of his 
 late detention by the Emperor, the night before, his son, John 
 Frederic, by the will and command of his father, takes his place. 
 He and George of Brandenburg, Ernest, Duke of Luneburg, Philip, 
 Landgrave of Hesse, and Wolfgang, appear before the Emperor. 
 George of Brandenburg states that they could not be present in 
 the procession of Corpus Christi, nor interdict the preaching of 
 their theologians." 
 
 June 19. — I. The NLirnberg Legates write: "But the conclu- 
 sion which belongs to this document is not yet made out. For it 
 may be, as Philip Melanchthon has expressed his opinion that it may, 
 that the matter may not come to so expanded a treatment, but be 
 contracted still more, and brought into a narrower compass and 
 treatment. Whichever may turn out to be the case, whether the 
 former one be completed, or a new concept made, we will inform 
 you of it.'"- 
 
 2. Brentius writes to Isenmann : "The Emperor summoned to 
 him our three Princes, whom they call evangelical — the Prince 
 Elector of Saxony, the Margrave George (of Brandenburg), and the 
 Landgrave of Hesse — these alone, he called to himself alone, no 
 one being present with him but Ferdinand, who also acted as 
 interpreter.'"'' 
 
 * Corp. Reform., 11. 106, No. 724. Strobel: Miscellan., II. 28. 
 
 'Chytraeus, 41-44. Miiller, 538-545. Walch, xvi. 881, seq. In Latin, 
 Chytraeus, 46-49. Coelestinus, 1.86-89. Foistemann, No. 98. 
 
 '" Corp. Ref., II. no, No. 726. Miiller, 525. Lutlier'.s Weike; Walch, xvi. 
 808, No. 923. Coelestinus, i. 66, 67. See Seckendorf, 11. 162. 
 
 " Corp. Ref., n. in, No. 726. Coelestinus, r. 81 b. 
 
 " Corp. Ref., 11. 112, No. 728. " Corp. Ref., Ii. 114, No. 729. 
 
42 CHRONOLOGY. [1530. 
 
 June 20. — i. Opening of the Diet, Monday." 
 
 ii. The Propositions of the Emperor are read before the Princes 
 and Orders of the Empire. They treat in part of the mode of re- 
 storing harmony in reHgion.^^ 
 
 iii. The Elector of Saxony takes counsel in the evening with his 
 associates in the faith.'*' 
 
 iv. Luther says in a letter to Erhard Schnepf, Chaplain of Philip 
 of Hesse : "I have written to the same, your Prince, a letter, 
 which you see before you, and if it be convenient will yourself de- 
 liver [to him], and if there is need, say something to prepare the 
 way for it."'' This letter seems to settle it absolutely that the letter 
 of Luther to the Landgrave, usually dated May 20, ought to be 
 dated June 20, and thus clears up a multitude of otherwise insuper- 
 able difficukies. See May 20, Luther's letter ; June 13, Melanch- 
 thon's letters to Luther, and Veit Dietrich. 
 
 V. Luther writes to Justus Jonas, at Augsburg :'® 
 
 a. "Your letter has come at last, after you had tormented us 
 sufficiently by constant silence for three whole weeks, although I 
 twice wrote to Philip that you should not be thus silent." 
 
 This letter is very important in its bearing on some of the confused 
 questions in the chronology of the Confession. First it marks the 
 length of time of the break in Luther's personal correspondence 
 with his friends in Augsburg, He received the letter of Jonas 
 June 19: "Three whole weeks" would carry back the receipt of 
 the last letters to about May 29. To have received them May 29, 
 by ordinary carriage, they could not have been sent from 
 Augsburg later than about May 25. Taking May 25 as the point 
 of regressive beginning, and going back from it till we reach letters 
 written to Luther, we find that Melanchthon's letters of May 22 
 to Luther, and Veit Dietrich (see that date) and the letters 
 of Urban Rhegius to Luther May 21, alone fulfill the conditions. 
 
 " Coelestinus, i. 102 b. Mullen Histor., 559; Kollner, 197. 
 
 ^^Coelestinus, I. 116. Chytraeus, Germ., 47. See Miiller, 564 seq. Forste- 
 mann, Urkndhch., i. 295. Kollner, 198. 
 
 '^Coelestinus, 121 b. Kollner, 198. 
 
 "Luther's Biiefe: Dc Wette, IV. 44, No. 1231. 
 
 '^Coelestinus, I. 136 b. Chytraeus, 141. Buddeus, 108. De Wette iv. 45, 
 No. 1232. Germ.: Chytraeus, 120 (229), Cyprian's Beylagen; 176: Walch, 
 XVI. 976. Frencli : Chytraeus, (Le Cop.), 132. See Seckendorf, 11. 181. 
 Frick, 1089. 
 
1530.] JUNE 9-25. 43 
 
 Back of that, the first letters to Luther on record, are those of the 
 Elector and Melanchthon, May 11 (see that date). This is 
 strongly confirmatory of the fact, which is apart from this, how- 
 ever, beyond all dispute that Luther received Melanchthon's letters 
 of May 22 without any serious delay. 
 
 Between May 22 and June i^, when Melanchthon again wrote, 
 are precisely three weeks. 
 
 b. It is now a question of great interest whether we possess the 
 letter of Jonas, to which this of June 20 is an answer. And to this 
 the reply, on anything short of a thorough examination, would be 
 that there is a letter of Jonas, to which this is manifestly an answer. 
 There is a letter of Jonas bearing apparently irresistible internal 
 evidence that there is some relation between it and Luther's of 
 June 20, and that the relation is that Luther's is the reply to it.'" 
 
 c. The Corpus Reformatorum'-" gives another letter of Jonas, as 
 the one to which Luther's with the date June 20 is the reply, ^* and 
 says that this letter of Jonas was written about June 29, and that 
 there must be an error in the date of Luther's, and proposes June 
 30 as the correct date. It says Luther's response to ^/iis letter is 
 given in Walch.," but Walch gives another letter of Jonas' cited 
 under b, as the one to which Luther replies, and this is beyond doubt 
 so far right that the related letters are those which Walch gives to- 
 gether. 
 
 d. There is an insuperable barrier if the dates stand, to the theory 
 that Luther's letter of June 20, is in reply to any letter of Jonas 
 which we now have. The later letter of Jonas was written after 
 June 25, and not earlier than June 29 ; the earlier letter of Jonas 
 was written on June 25, in the morning of the day, on the afternoon 
 of which the Confession was delivered. If the date June 20 stands 
 for Luther's letter, we have not the letter of Jonas to which it is a 
 reply. Is the theory of Bretschneider'' tenable, that Luther's letter 
 ought to be dated June 30? We think not. The necessity for it 
 which Bretschneider thought he saw, rests on a mistake. There is 
 no relation between the letter of Jonas which he cites, and the reply 
 
 '* It is given in Coelestiniis, i. 135, 136. VV.iIch., xvi. 973, No. 957. 
 '"ll. 154, No. 752. 
 
 *' Coelestinus, 11. 205, who gives it under July 3 as a "fragment." 
 "XVI. 976. ^■•'Corp. Ref., 11. No. 752. 
 
44 CHRONOLOGY. [1530. 
 
 of Luther dated June 20. Nor would a letter written at Augsburg 
 June 29, be likely to be answered by Luther June 30. There is no 
 external evidence to shake the correctness of the date June 20 ; 
 there is much both external and internal to corroborate it. 
 
 The first sentence of Luther's letter, dated June 20, is sufficient 
 to show that it was not written June 30. The " three full weeks of 
 silence," exactly fit, as we have seen, the date June 20. Three full 
 weeks back from June 30, would bring us to June 10. Allow three 
 days for carriage, and we have June 7. But there is no known 
 letter to Luther of that date ; but we have Melanchthon's of June 
 13, June 19, June 25, June 26, June 27, to Luther: we have 
 Luther, June 19, complaining to Cordatus of the silence of his 
 friends at Augsburg; at the same date to Zwilling, that he had not 
 heard during the month of June from Augsburg; June 20, Luther 
 is sending a letter to Schnepf at Augsburg, enclosing a letter to 
 Philip of Hesse; June 25, Luther writes to Hausmann, news 
 from Augsburg evidently derived from letters recently received ; 
 June 27, he replies to a recent letter of Melanchthon's, and speaks 
 of a letter received from Jonas The evidence is ample and con- 
 clusive that there is no reason for changing the date of Luther's 
 letter of June 20. And the date of the letter of Jonas is fixed by 
 positive internal evidence, as June 2^. 
 
 After a thorough survey of the facts, we are satisfied that the 
 theory which best harmonizes them, is that Jonas' s letter of June 
 25, is the answer to Luther's of June 20, and that the striking and 
 unmistakable points of coincidence, are the result of Jonas's reply 
 to Luther. Luther's words again, June 20, may refer to the earlier 
 letter of Jonas, which is lost." 
 
 e. The two letters in which Luther makes complaint to Melanch- 
 thon of his silence are the letters of June 5 and June 7. Melanch- 
 thon answers the letter of June 5 on the 13th, and Melanchthon's 
 of the 13th, leads to Luther's letter to Philip on the 20th. Me- 
 lanchthon's letters of June 13 and 19, are alluded to in Luther's 
 letter of June 2 7 to Melanchthon. 
 
 June 21. — i. The Nijrnberg Legates write: " Alphonsus Val- 
 desius called Melanchthon to his presence several times, and ex- 
 
 >** This theory completely satisfies the facts, stated by Kaanich : Luther's Antheil, 
 118, 135, and a number of other facts which are not consonant with his view, 
 which is that the date should be June 30. See Schirrmacher, 362, 486. 
 
1530.] JUNE 9-25. 45 
 
 pressed the wish to know what was the Lutheran desire, and how 
 the matter might be arranged. Thereupon Melanchthon repHed to 
 him, about to this effect : The discord had arisen mainly on the arti- 
 cles following: The Sacrament, in two kinds, the marriage of priests 
 and monks, the separate private masses. If there were an under- 
 standing on these articles, he thought that means could easily be 
 found for a satisfactory arrangement in other particulars.^^ 
 
 It is evident that the point involved in the conference between 
 Valdesius and Melanchthon, was that of the abuses to be corrected, 
 and not the (juestion of doctrine. 
 
 ii. On the morning of Tuesday, the Elector, in solitude, 
 gave himself to the reading of the Psalms, and to fervent prayers 
 to God, to aid him in the high and holy work to which he 
 had been called. After carefully weighing the proposition of the 
 Emperor, he called his son John Frederick, Melanchthon and Pon- 
 tanus (Briick), and had a long and confidential interview with them, 
 stating that his own conviction and wish were that the political ques- 
 tions should not be touched till the interests of Religion had been 
 weighed, buf that nevertheless he would announce no decision with- 
 out the consent and counsel of those who were associated with him 
 in the matter of religion. At a later hour all the Estates were sum- 
 moned to his residence ; the Emperor's Proposition was read to 
 them, and they %vere requested carefully to weigh it, and to come 
 prepared the next day to discuss it and decide upon the proper 
 course to take in regard to it.-* 
 
 June 22. — The Lutheran Estates concur in the request that the 
 religious questions first be taken up. The Roman Catholic Estates 
 agree to this, but decline to present any writing, as they hold to the 
 old faith, and conform strictly to the Edict of Worms. Friday, the 
 24th, is appointed to hear the Protestant paper. "The five. Elector 
 and Princes," as Briick constantly calls them, direct the further 
 careful examination of the Confession on the part of the theologians 
 and counselors, and solicit for an extension of time to one day 
 later, that a careful transcript may be made. The request is re- 
 fused." 
 
 June 23. — i. On the Vigil of John the Baptist, Thursday, in the 
 
 '^Corp. Ref., II. 121, No. 7J4. 
 
 '* Coelestinus, 122. Miiller, 568. KiJllncr, 198. 
 
 -' Briick, 48-50. Miiller, 561 seq., 570. Kollner, 198-200. 
 
46 CHRONOLOGY. [1530. 
 
 full assembly of the Evangelical Estates, the Confession was read 
 once more so that if any one had an objection to make, or a change 
 to suggest, it might be fully expressed and acted on. The Confes- 
 sion as thus read, was approved by all and each, without the sug- 
 gestion of a change of any kind, and it was determined to solicit 
 His Majesty on the following day that it might be read in the audi- 
 ence of all the Estates of the Empire.'^* 
 
 ii. The signing of the Confession almost certainly followed upon 
 the reading. It is a difficulty still answered in opposite ways, 
 whether John Frederick, of Saxony, and Duke Francis, of Lune- 
 berg, signed the German Confession.^" It is beyond dispute that 
 they were kept entirely in the background in all the preliminaries. 
 
 June 24. — I. Convention of all the orders of the Empire. 
 
 2. The Protestants urge that they be now allowed to read their 
 Confession in public before it is given to the Emperor. The Em- 
 peror promises that he will hear it the next day. 
 
 The Romish party resort to various expedients to get rid of 
 the public reading. The Emperor endeavors to get possession of 
 the Confession before it is read, but the firmness ar\d moderation 
 of the Lutheran Estates triumph. The time has been consumed, so 
 that it cannot be read on the day appointed. 
 
 Before June 25. — The German Codices are: 
 
 1. Spalatin's copy in his own writing of the Augsburg Confes- 
 sion. This'" belongs to the first or earliest of the families of 
 Codices. 
 
 2. The Anspach Codex I. contains the articles of faith, with the 
 epilogue of part first. ^' It belongs to the second family of German 
 Codices, coming between Spalatin*and the Confession in its last 
 form. Probable date, before June 16. Taken home by the Mar- 
 grave George. 
 
 *^ Coelestiiuis, I. 123 b. KoUner, 199-201. 
 
 ^ See the able discussion in KoUner, 201. Plitt decides against the signing, 
 R. E., 1877, 773. 
 
 ^^ Forstemann, Urkiindenbuch, i. 310-343. No. 103, Weber, Gesch. d. A. C, 
 I., 168-174, cf. Cyprian: Historia, Bcylagen, xil. 167, 168. Luther's Werke 
 Walch., XVI. 782, No. 903. 
 
 ^MVeber, I. 176 sq. 309 sq. Forstemann, i. 274 sq. 280 note. The text 
 entire, do., 343-355. Franclce, L. S., xxil. 14. 
 
1530.] JUNE 9-25. 47 
 
 3. The Hannoverian Codex, in the Royal Electoral Archives/'^ 
 belongs to the second family of German Codices. 
 
 4. The Mentz Codex — third family. 
 
 5. The Weimar Codex. 
 
 6. The Niirnberg Codex. 
 
 7. The Hessian Codex. 
 
 8. The Munich Codex. 
 
 9. The Anspach Codex II. 
 
 June 25. — i. The Elector John writes to Luther before the de- 
 livery of the Confession, " which we with the other Princes and 
 Estates which are associated with us in the matter are to present."^' 
 
 ii. Melanchthon writes to Luther : " To-day our articles of faith 
 will be presented. The Landgrave approves of our Confession and 
 has subscribed it."^* 
 
 iii. Justus Jonas writes to Luther i^"* " To-day at two o'clock our 
 articles are to be read. 
 
 iv. The Niirnberg Legates write to the Senate : " On last 
 Wednesday (June 22, see that date), at the desire of His Im- 
 perial Majesty, the Elector, Princes, and Councils, after taking 
 counsel, came together, and thereupon determined that the Articles 
 of Faith should take precedence of the Turkish Question in the 
 discussions" (of the Diet). 
 
 " We and the legate from Reutlingen were summoned to come on 
 last Thursday (June 23, see that date) early, to the [Princes of] 
 Saxony, Hesse, Margrave George andLuneburg; there in the pres- 
 ence of their Highnesses, of their counselors and theologians, of 
 which theologians there are twelve, independently of the other 
 Scholars and Doctors, the Instruction (Unterricht) which had been 
 drawn up concerning the faith was read and examined, and it was 
 determined to present and read it to His Majesty before the Estates 
 of the Empire yesterday afternoon" (Friday, June 24th). 
 A graphic account is then given of the struggle already detailed. 
 "The Instruction (Unterricht) is to be heard today. The In- 
 struction, as far as the Articles of Faith are concerned, is in sub- 
 stance quite in conformity with what we have before sent to your 
 
 .12 Weber, I. 180, sq. Francke, L. S., XXII. 14. 
 
 s^Walch, XVI. 893. '^Corp. Ref., 11. 125. 
 
 ^ Coelestiiius, l. 135. Walch, xvi. 973. See June 20, Luther's letter. 
 
48 CHRONOLOGY. [1530. 
 
 Excellencies, except that it has been improved in several places, and 
 has altogether been put very mildly, but still in our judgment nothing 
 necessary has beeiv omitted. We have, therefore, as your represen- 
 tatives, accepted it, and in your name adhere in it with the Princes 
 and Reutlingen." . . . " We are also informed that after the close 
 of the proceedings several of the cities made complaint that we had 
 not informed them of the Princes' intentions, and taken them with 
 us." " Sent Saturday, June 25th, early, as soon as the gates were 
 open, 1 5 30."^" 
 
 v. The Augsburg Confession distinctly states who present it. 
 " We whose names are subscribed, the Elector and Princes, and 
 others conjoined with us," and the subscriptions show who they 
 were. Beyond all dispute, i. The Elector John; 2. George of 
 Brandenburg; 3. Ernst of Luneburg ; 4. Philip of Hesse ; 5. 
 Wolfgang of Anhalt ; 6. Niirnberg ; 7. Reutlingen. Two of the 
 signatures to the German are disputed, i. John Frederick; 2. 
 Francis of Luneberg. The Preface, the words of the Articles, and 
 the signatures prove that the seven first named Estates were partici- 
 pant in the discussion which ended in the adoption of the Con- 
 fession as a common Formula of Faith. 
 
 X. CflRONOLOGY OF TESTIMONY, FROM THE DAY AFTER 
 
 THE DELIVERY OF THE CONFESSION TO THE 
 
 PUBLICATION OF THE LETTERS OF THE 
 
 ELECTOR AND LUTHER (OF MAY 11 
 
 AND 15): JUNE 26, 1530—1557- 
 
 June 26. — i. The Protestants, at the request of the Emperor, 
 promise not to publish the Confession without his knowledge and 
 consent. 
 
 ii. Melanchthon writes to Caraerarius : " Yesterday our Confes- 
 sion was presented to the Emperor. I changed and refashioned 
 many things daily, and would even have changed more, if our 
 counselors would have permitted it. I wish that you could get our 
 apology to read, but the Emperor forbids it to be printed."' 
 
 ill. Melanchthon writes to Luther ; speaks of the sorrows and 
 
 ^'i Corp. Refoi-matonim, II. 127, No. 73S. SU-obcl Miscellan., II. 34. Fiken 
 scher, 82, 83. 
 
 'Corp. Reform., ii. 140, No. 741. 
 
1530.] JUNE 26, 1530-1557. 49 
 
 perils which surround him, in which Luther's consolation is the 
 only thing which could comfort him. His enemies are active, his 
 friends gone. He is alone and deserted. He looks to Luther as 
 his authority in all things, however great, for guidance in action, 
 for comfort in sorrow. "Our defence has been read to the Em- 
 peror ; I send it to you to read."' 
 
 iv. Melanchthon writes to Vitus Theodorus (Veit Dietrich), who 
 is with Luther at Coburg. He implores Vitus to use his influence 
 with Luther. "For the letter written to the Landgrave, I have you 
 to thank, that you at last forced him to it. I hope it Avill do good. 
 Already, indeed, the Landgrave has subscribed with us in the Con 
 fession, where there is also an article concerning the Lord's Sup- 
 per, in accordance with Luther's view."'' 
 
 June 27. — i. Luther writes to Melanchthon, strengthening him. 
 He closes by saying : " If I shall hear that matters with you are in 
 a bad state and that there is danger, I shall scarce restrain myself 
 from flying to you, that I may see how terrible the teeth of the 
 Devil are round about you, as the Scripture saith (Job xli. 14)."* 
 The whole correspondence shows that Luther's anxiety was in re- 
 gard to the safety of his friends, and the protection of the cause 
 from the violence and craft of its enemies. 
 
 ii. Melanchthon writes to Luther twice in one day, and to Veit 
 Dietrich, showing intense anxiety for Luther's advice and consola- 
 tion.'' 
 
 About June 29 Jonas writes to Luther, giving an account of 
 the delivery of the Confession." 
 
 June 30, — i. Veit Dietrich writes to Melanchthon, in reply to 
 his letter of June 26 (see that date), acknowledging that to his 
 ( Dietrich's) urgency and persistency is due the letter written by 
 Luther to the Landgrave, and asks Melanchthon to let him know 
 
 -Corp. Reform., 11. 140, No. 741. •''Corp. Reform., 141, No. 742. 
 
 * Coeleslin., II. 198. Chytraeus, 135. Buddeus, in. Cyprian. Beyl., 179. 
 Briefe: De Wette, iv. 48, No. 1234. Germ., Spalatin, Annales, 217. Chytraeus, 
 98 (223). French, 128. Luther's Werke : Jena, v. 55. Leipz., xx. 1S4. 
 Walch., XVI. 1062. See Frick's Seckendorf, 1089. 
 
 •'•Corp. Reformat., 144-147, Nos. 744-746. 
 
 ^Coclestinus, 11. 205. Walch, xvi. I049, Nn. 965. Corp. Reform., 11, 154, 
 No. 752. See June 20 ami 25. 
 
 4 
 
so CHRONOLOGY. [1530. 
 
 how the letter was received by the Landgrave (see May 20 and 
 June 20 .' 
 
 ii. Melanchthon writes to Veit Dietrich — is anxious to know Lu- 
 ther's opinion of the "Apology" (the Confession^** 
 
 iii. Luther writes to Brentius one of his grandest letters of en- 
 couragement." 
 
 iv. Luther writes to John Agricola : anticipates little result from 
 the Diet.'" 
 
 V. Luther writes to Spalatin : complains of the silence of his 
 friends in Augsburg ; exhorts them to trust in God." 
 
 vi. Luther writes to Melanchthon a powerful letter of encourage- 
 ment : "I would rather fall with Christ than stand with the Em- 
 peror.'"-' 
 
 vii. Luther writes to John Frederick, the Electoral Prince, a letter 
 of strengthening.'-' 
 
 July 3. — i. Luther writes to Melanchthon : "I yesterday reread 
 your Apology carefully entire (totam), and it pleases me exceed- 
 ingly.'"* 
 
 ■ ii. Melanchthon writes to Veit Deitrich — wishes to know whether 
 Luther received the picture of Vienna besieged (see letter of May 
 22); he speaks of it as a beautifully painted picture, and suspects 
 that the messenger has sold it, and speaks of the stupidity and 
 treachery he has encountered on the part of the Suabian messengers.'^ 
 
 July 4. — Andrew Osiander writes to Linck and Schleupner : 
 Melanchthon is overwhelmed with labors and care, and overcome 
 with a causeless melancholy, very dejecting to others.'" 
 
 July 5. — Luther to Melanchthon: "We have good hope, not 
 
 'Corp. Ref., 11. 158, No. 755. Coelestimis, 11. 275. Walch, XVI. 2137. 
 
 ''Corp. Ref., u. 157, No. 754. 
 
 " Coelcstinus, I. 201. Biuldeus, 123. Chytmeus, 104. Werke: Jena, V. 5S. 
 Altenb., V. 167. Leipz., xx. 194. Walcli., xvi. 1079. 
 
 '^ Coeleslin., i. 92 b. Buddeiis, 119. Walch, xvi. 890. 
 
 "Coelestin., I. 200. Biuldeus, 120. Walch, xvi. 1076. l)c WeUe, iv. 59. 
 
 12 Biuldeus, 116. Walch, xvi. 1073. De Welle, iv, 62. 
 
 '■'Walch, XVI. 2132. De Wette, iv. 64. Eilaiv^en, 54, 157. 
 
 '< Coeleslin., 11.204 b. Biuldeus, 127, No. 137. De Welle, iv. 67, No. 1243. 
 In German: Walch, xvi. 1082, No. 984. See Conserval. Reformal., 234 ;ei- 
 ratum of June for July), 239, 240. 
 
 '■■Corp. Ref., II. 162, No. 757. »« fcrp. Reform., Ii. 103, No. 759. 
 
1531.] JUNE 26, 1530-1557- 51 
 
 from your Diets and Councils, but from Christ's power and presence 
 with you.'"^ 
 
 July 6. — i. The Niirnberg Legates send a copy of the Confession 
 in Latin to the Senate of Niirnberg/^ 
 
 ii. The Halle Legates send a copy of the German Confession to 
 Halle in Schwabia. 
 
 iii. Luther writes to Nicholas Hausmann, " faithful and most un- 
 blemished bishop of the Church at Zwickau," giving him an account 
 of the reading of the Confession at Augsburg: "Our Confession, 
 which our Philip has prepared" — words of paternal love and pure 
 admiration.'" 
 
 iv. Luther writes to Cordatus: '■* So glorious a Confession."-" 
 
 V. Luther writes to Albert, Archbishop of Mentz : "By this Con- 
 fession we clearly testify and demonstrate that we have not taught 
 wrongly or falsely.''-'' 
 
 July 9. — i. Luther writes to the Elector John: "They were 
 compelled to hear more from the Confession than they would have 
 heard from the preachers for a year."-^ 
 
 ii. Luther to Jonas : " Christ has been proclaimed in a public 
 and glorious Confession."'-' 
 
 July 12. — lirentius sends a copy of the Confession in Latin to 
 Halle in Schwabia. 
 
 July 13. — Melanchthon writes to Luther: " Zwingli has sent 
 hither his Confession in print. You would say the man is simply 
 beside himself."-^ 
 
 1531. — Luther: "I have learned that when the Confession of 
 ours was read the opposite part were greatly amazed, and confessed 
 
 " Coelestin., h. 206. Buddevis, 128. Walch, xvr. 1083, No. 985. 
 '*Corp. Reform., 11. 164, No. 760. 
 
 "Coeleslin., II. 206. Buddeiis, 139. I)e Wette, !V. 69. Walch, xvi. 104S, 
 Conserv. Ref., 234. 
 
 ^Coelestin.,!!. 207. Hiuldeus, 141. W.ilch, xvi. 1083. Conserv. Reformat., 
 235- 
 
 '■"Conserv. Reformat., 235, and references. 
 ^■'Conserv. Ref., 235, and references. 
 '■'-''Cons. Ref., 236, and references. 
 
 ^♦Coelestin., II. 288 1). Consil. I,alin. (Pezel), i. 115. Walch, .vvi. 1202. 
 Corp. Ref., il. 193, No. 78J. 
 
52 CHRONOLOGY. [1534-55. 
 
 that it was the pure truth ; that it could not be confuted with 
 Scripture."--^ 
 
 1534. — Luther writes to the City Council of Ratisbon : "Be dil- 
 igent in obtaining preachers who shall teach the Gospel or Holy 
 
 Scripture So shall they not err, and God will add His 
 
 grace. Our Confession at Augsburg is good thereto, and so pure 
 that even our enemies were compelled to praise it; and His Imperial 
 Majesty referred it uncondemned to a Council, which is a token that 
 it is right."-'"' 
 
 1555. — Erhard Schnepf (1495-1558), the devoted friend of 
 Luther, the court preacher of Philip of Hesje, and his attendant at 
 the Diet, was present at all the most important consultations which 
 preceded the delivery of the Confession, and was associated with 
 Melanchthon and Brentius as one of the special Counselors in the 
 consultations which followed it. In his Confession concerning the 
 Eucharist," he says: "It is well known to all who were present, in 
 the year of our Lord 153s, at that deliberation in Augsburg, at which 
 the Confession, recently written, was, in advance of its being that it 
 offered to Charles V., Roman Emperor, submitted to the judgment 
 of the theologians of the Princes, of those also who were Coun- 
 selors of our Princes, and to the Legates of the two cities, for 
 which reason it was determined to employ only the adverb vere 
 (truly), though it was ambiguous, as many employed it in the dis- 
 cussions of that time ; since not one of those who united in the 
 Augsburg Confession and were admitted into this Congress of delib- 
 erators thought with the Zwinglians. I also was present, and was 
 a certain part of what was done, though for no merit of mine. This 
 I mention, lest any one should imagine that I speak from mere hear- 
 say, and should on that account endeavor to detract from the weight 
 of my testimony." 
 
 This testimony is of great importance. It comes from a man of the 
 highest character, who was participant in all he describes. He makes 
 an appeal to the fact that what he asserts was well known to all who 
 were present — an appeal made while many of them were still living. 
 
 ■^^ Wanning an seine lieben Deutschen. Werke : Jena, v. 290 [273]. Leipzit 
 XX. 298. Walch, XVI. i960. Erlangen, XXV. 17. Chylrauus, 266 [532]. 
 26 De Wette, iv. 547, No. 1592. Erlangen, 55, 57, No. 475. 
 "Confessio de Eucharistia : Jena, 1555. 1556, 8 vo. 
 
1555-57.] JUNE 26, 1530-1557- 53 
 
 He speaks of the document as recently written, and identifies it with 
 the Confession offered to the Emperor. He tells clearly to whom it 
 was submitted ; by whom it was discussed, and its language settled. 
 These were i. The theologians of the Princes; 2. The Counselors 
 of the Princes; 3. The Legates of the two cities. This itself de- 
 monstrates that the " Congress of deliberators " was subsequent to 
 May 22. The single fact that Schnepf was present at it, proves that it 
 refers to nothing previous to May 11, for Schnepf did not come till 
 May 12. 4. Schnepf shows that the discussion sometimes descended 
 to the minutia of a single term, and that this discussion was deter- 
 minative. He says that '-vere," in spite of the objection that some 
 persons gave it an ambiguous turn, was retained, because the Con- 
 gress of deliberators preferred it. 5. The period alluded to by 
 Schnepf has always rightly been identified with that of which Me- 
 lanchthon speaks in 1560; the accord on every topic on which they 
 speak in common is perfect, and the time is fixed as later than 
 May 22.'-* 
 
 1556. — In Melanchthon's letter to Flacius lUyricus (Sept. 5th) 
 he says : " You reprove me for writing the Repetitio of the (Augs- 
 burg) Confession (1551). I wrote the former also (the Augsburg 
 Confession), when I had many to reprove me, none to aid me."-'-* 
 
 1557. — The Elector's letter of May 11, 1530, and Luther's letter 
 of May 15, appear in the Wittenberg Edition of Luther's German 
 Works. This edition began to be issued in 1539, and the first vol- 
 ume and part of the second, were revised by Luther, whose death 
 prevented his supervision of the whole. The ninth volume appeared 
 in 1557, edited by Melanchthon, and with his dedication to Otto 
 Heinrich, and it is this volume which contains the two letters.^" 
 
 The Elector's letter is so plainly in his own name alone, and- not 
 in that of any part whatever of the signing Princes and cities, and 
 Luther's reply is so purely and absolutely to the Elector alone, with 
 
 "Griindlich. Historia., 1584. Ger., 109. Lat., 135. Cyprian. : Histor., 56. 
 [66]. Walch: IiUrod., 169, transl. by C. T. Krauth, Ev. Rev., Oct., 1849, 
 250. Kollner, 180, 42. Francke: L. S., xvili. 16. J. T. Muller : Einl., 
 i.xil. Zockler, 220. Schirrmacher : Biiefe u. Aden 43, 467. 
 
 2»Consil. Latin, 11. 253. Corp. Ref., viii. 843, No. 6067. See Acta Colioq. 
 Aldeburg, 438, Acta und Handlung, 340. 
 
 ™Wittb., IX. 406. See Luther's Werke : Walch : xxiv. 621. Eriangen, 
 54, 145. Briefe: De Wette, iv. 17. 
 
54 CHRONOLOGY. [1559-60. 
 
 the expression of his regarding it as completely in Melanchthon's 
 hands, that Melanchthon's language of 1560 could not refer to 
 these letters. 
 
 ii. Luther's Works are published at Jena, in German. In these^' 
 also appear the Elector's letter to Luther, May 11, and Luther's 
 reply, May 15, 1530. If Melanchthon had had reference to this 
 correspondence in his words of 1560, it is inconceivable that 
 he should not have referred to it as entirely conclusive. The 
 solemn appeal to those yet living, implies that what he speaks of 
 was not generally known, and that some might be inclined to chal- 
 lenge it. If the communication of the Princes had been the Elec- 
 tor's letter of May 11, and Luther's approval that of May 15, this 
 would have been impKDSsible. 
 
 XI. CHRONOLOGY OF THE TESTIMONY IN REGARD TO THE 
 
 AUGSBURG CONFESSION FROM 1558 TO THE DEATH 
 
 OF MELANCHTHON, APRIL 19, 1560. 
 
 1-559-1560 Melanchthon's Last Testimonies. Melanch- 
 thon wrote, September 29, 1559, the Preface to the German Cor- 
 pus Doctrinas, in which he gives an account of the origin, aims, 
 progress, completion, and presentation of the Augsburg Confes- 
 sion.' Nearly five months later, in his Preface to the Latin Cor- 
 pus Doctrinse, and to his Complete Works he prepared a similar 
 account. It was written February 16, 1560, on his sixty-fourth 
 birthday, with the presentiment of approaching death strong upon 
 him. Two months after (April 19, 1560,) he died. It is his 
 final statement ; the fullest and most carefully prepared history of 
 the Confession which ever came from his pen. It is not a trans- 
 lation of the German Preface of 1559, but a longer document, 
 covering the same general ground, with many points of parallelism, 
 but with distinctive features showing a careful retrospect and re- 
 vision, and a solicitude to mark with precision especially the succes- 
 sion of events. He meant it for his age, and for posterity.'^ We 
 
 *i Fifth part, p. 27; See Luther's Werke: Erlangen, 54, 145. Briefe; De 
 Wette, IV. 17. 
 
 1 Corpus Doctrina; Christlanoe, Das ist, Gantze Summa., Leipzig, 1560, Folio. 
 Corpus Reformat., ix., No. 6830. 
 
 '^Corpus Doctrina; Christianae ; Quae est Summa., Lipsia;, fol., 1560, rs63. 
 Operum Omnium, P. Melanchthon, Wittenbergiv;, Part I., fok, 1560, 1601. 
 Corp Reformatorum, ix., No. 6932. Pezelius : Consilia, i. 667, 11. 390. 
 
1559-60.] melanchthon's last testimonv. 55 
 
 will give a translation of the parts of Melanchthon's history which 
 bear upon the questions under discussion, incorporating in brackets 
 the parallel matter from the German: "Nor was the Emperor 
 Charles, at the beginning, willing, without the judgment of a Synod 
 [it had been at that time the earnest and final purpose of Charles 
 V. to have a General Council convened in conformity with due 
 order], and without a judicial examination, to blot out Luther's doc- 
 trine and our churches, though there were many who urged on him 
 that Herodian policy. But when he saw that there were many open 
 abuses, as, with a soft plirase, some characterized certain dark forms 
 of idolatry, he long and constantly demanded that a Synod should 
 be summoned. As this was his will on his return to Germany, 1530, 
 he called the Princes to Augsburg [these, the Elector and Princes and 
 cities], that a Confession should there be presented. Of this a nar- 
 rative ought to be given, inasmuch as it is necessary that posterity 
 should know that our Confession was neither written of individual 
 purpose, nor thrust upon the Emperor not demanding it [this Con- 
 fession which was delivered to the Emperor in the Diet, 1530]. 
 But either some Confession had to be presented, or it would have 
 to be shown by dissembling, that the doctrine which had already been 
 received, had been abandoned, and there were also some at that 
 time who wished to avoid the perils of Confession. But others, 
 the Princes and Officials (Gubernatores^, whose names follow the 
 Confession [the Elector and Princes and cities], believed that the 
 Confession should be offered as evidence that they had not acted in 
 levity, or impelled by any unlawful desire, but that for the glory of 
 God and the salvation of their own souls, and the souls of many, they 
 had embraced the purer doctrine. I brought together, therefore, 
 in singleness of purpose the principal points of the Confession, 
 which is extant, embracing pretty nearly the sum of the doctrine 01 
 our Churches [this Confession, as God had ordained and given it, 
 ' was drawn together by me]. I assumed nothing to myself, for in the 
 presence of the Princes and Officials [the Elector, and Princes and 
 Legates, who subscribed it] and of the preachers [with their Coun- 
 selors and preachers who were there], it was discussed and de- 
 termined upon [diligently pondered], in regular course, sentence by 
 sentence [all the Articles]. The complete form of the Confession 
 was subsequently sent to Luther, who wrote to the Princes that he 
 had both read this Confession and approved it. That these things 
 
56 chkonoi,0(;y. [1559-60. 
 
 are so, the Princes, and other honest and learned men yet living, will 
 remember [gracious Princes and Counts, and other honorable men, 
 who by God's grace are yet living, can testify]. After this, before 
 the Emperor Charles, in a great assembly of the Princes, this Con- 
 fession was read." 
 
 Character and Value of MelanchthorC s Tesihfwny of iS^o. It is 
 hardly possible to overestimate the Value of Melanchthon's testi- 
 mony, as thus given in 1560. It comes from the Composer of the 
 Confession, who beyond any man and all men was competent to 
 give a clear testimony — a man careful in the minutest detail, weigh- 
 ing and reweigMng every word. It was given a little before his 
 death, when he was strongly under a presentiment that his life was 
 near its close. He declares that it is a statement meant for pos- 
 terity.^ He writes it with the solemnity and solicitude of one who 
 makes a last will and testament. He appeals to those yet living, of 
 that memorable company of Confessors who met at Augsburg. It 
 was a testimony which would be scanned by friend and foe ; would be 
 sure to be challenged if there were anything doubtful in it. But it 
 was never challenged. Not only is there the negative evidence that 
 no such challenge can be found, but there is the positive evidence 
 that from the beginning onward it was accepted as indisputable 
 authority of the highest order by all parties. The Crypto-Calvinists 
 and Unionists, against some of whose pretences it is so decisive, 
 garbled it, but never disputed its accuracy. It may be worth while, 
 however, to prove more particularly that its historic reliability and 
 value have been noticed from the beginning, and that it has been 
 quoted unchallenged in a solitary respect by writers of the most 
 opposite schools for ages. 
 
 i. It is quoted by the Saxon theologians in the Altenburg Colloquy 
 March 5, 1569;' by the theologians of Leipzig and Wittenberg ;* 
 Zacharias Ursinus (Ref.), 158 1 f Kirchner, Selneccer, and Chem- 
 
 ^ Quod eo narrandum est, quia necesse t.^\. posterilalem scire Confessionem 
 nostram nee private consilio scriptam esse. 
 
 * Acta Colloquii, Lipsiae, 1570, p. 437. Acta und Ilandlung, Wittenberg, 
 «570, p. 339- 
 
 *Endlicher Bericht, Wittemberg, 1571, p. 12. 
 
 ' De Libro Concordite Admonitio ; Neustadii, 1581, 143, 144. 
 
1559-60.] mf-lanchthon's last testimony. 57 
 
 nitz, 15S4;' Pezelius, 1600;' Hospinian (Reformed), 1602;'' 
 Hutter, 1602;'" Grawer, 1626;" John Miiller, 1630;'- Carpzov, 
 1665 ;'^ Godofred Hoffmann, 1727 ;" Salig, 1730 ;'' The Historical 
 Religious Dialogue, 1730;'" Walch, 1732;'^ Boerner, 1751:" 
 Ernesti, 1752, 1777;'" Danz, 1829 j-" Rotermund, 1829;-'' Kollner, 
 1837;-'-' Friederic Francke, 1847 ;-'■' Plitt, iSSj ;'^* and by many 
 others. 
 
 ii. It is constantly quoted in preference to the statement of 1559, 
 as later, ampler, and clearer. When Melanchthon's testimony is 
 given in German works, instead of taking even his own statement in 
 his German of 1559, the Latin of 1560 is either retained or trans- 
 lated, as by the Saxon Theologians, 1569;''-^ the theologians of 
 Leipzig and Wittenberg, 1571; -" Kirchner, Selneccer, and Chem- 
 nitz, 1584;" John Miiller, 1630; Salig, 1730; and others. 
 
 iii. The authorities which (luote Melanchthon's words of 1560 are 
 clear as to the identity of that of whic h he speaks, with the Confes- 
 sion as delivered and published : "The entire Confession as it is 
 now in the hands of every one ;" " the entire Confession as it be- 
 came shaped;"'"* "the one common Confession, which was pre- 
 sented in the name of all our Churches to the Emperor; "-" "the 
 Confession which was given (to the Emperor).""'' 
 
 iv. These authorities all have the same view as to precisely what 
 came into discussion: "All and every one of the Articles;"'" 
 "Article by Article; "•'" "each of the heads ;""^ "the doctrine of 
 every Article; "-'"^ "Article after Article — all the Articles; "•'" " all 
 its heads. "^® 
 
 ^ Griindliche Ilistoria, Leipzig, 1584, fol. 109. Solida ac Vera, C. A. His- 
 toria, transl. per Godfried, Lipsire, 1585, 4 to., 135, 136. 
 
 *Consilia Melanchthoiiis, 390-395. " Hisloria Sacramenlar., 147, 148. 
 
 •"August. Confess., 7, 9, 10. •• Praelect. in A. C, 1)7. 
 
 ''■'Augsl). Confess., 121. '•' Isagoge, 104, 105. 
 
 " Commentar. in A. C, 10. i^Historie d. A. C, I. 168. 
 
 "•IIi>tor. Reiig. Gespriiclie aus Sleidan, etc., 20, 32. 
 
 "Introd., 169. '■'* Institutiones, 32. ''■' I'laelectioncs, 45. 
 
 ■■"•Augsh. Confess., 5, 6, 9, 12. -' Cicscliiclite, 50. '•'- Synil)()lil<, iSo, 41. 
 
 ■^^ Lib. Symh., XVIII. 16. ^' Einl. in die Augustana, i. 554. 
 
 ■^* German Acta, 339. ^^ Bericlit, 12. '■'" Giiind. Hist., 109. 
 
 ■* Saxon Theologians, 339, b. '^" Cuawer, 216. ^"Joh. Miiller, 123. 
 
 •" Saxon Theologians, 339, b. . ^- Kirchner, etc, 109. ••■' Grawer, il 7. 
 
 =« [oh. Miiller, 121. s^Salig, 168. »6 Walch. Int., 169. 
 
58 CHRONOLoov. [1559-60. 
 
 V. The authorities are agreed as to the character and results of the 
 discussion. "There was a discussion of the Articles, all and each, in 
 order, and as necessity required, and the opinion of every one had a 
 hearing."-'" "The whole Confession, from Article to Article, espe- 
 cially the tenth article, which treats of the Lord's Supper, was sub- 
 jected to the judgment (Urteib, review (Censuren), and considera- 
 tion of the Princes and Estates, and of their Theologians and 
 Counselors," "to be judged of; "^^ "in order, an examination being 
 instituted, they diligently deliberated and discussed concerning each 
 point ; "■'" " revised, decided upon, and approved ;"" " sufficiently 
 pondered," " well-weighed, and deliberated on through all the Arti- 
 cles; "" "by all the Lutheran theologians there assembled this Con- 
 fession was composed ; "" "it was unanimously approved before it 
 was confirmed by the subscription of the Princes and the cities ; "" 
 '• they considered the Confession in the most thorough manner;"" 
 "after thorough deliberation, on the part of the Evangelical Theo- 
 logians present, concerning each of the Articles, Melanchthon, in ac- 
 cordance with the common decision, finished the Confession;"*'' 
 " not only submitted to the judgment of the other Theologians, but 
 in the Council of the Orders who were to subscribe it, carefully con- 
 sidered and confirmed by the unanimous consent of all — all its 
 heads were pondered and confirmed. . . . Recognized and approved 
 by the suffrage of all, it was again transmitted to' Luther; ""' "the 
 separate Articles were publicly submitted by Melanchthon to the 
 representatives of the Evangelical party, and not only by the other 
 theologians, but also by the Civil Counselors — nay, by the Princes 
 themselves, were every time most thoroughly discussed and con- 
 sidered, and only after the most thorough consideration were deter- 
 mined."'" 
 
 vi. They are agreed as to the presence in which the discussion 
 took place : "In the presence of the Princes, their Counselors and 
 
 •^' Acta u. Handl., Altenb., 1570, 339, b. 
 ^Griindl. Ilistoiia, 1585 ; Germ.: 109; Lat.: 135. 
 
 ^^ Grawer, 117. '"' Mentzer, 10. ■" Jolm Muller, 1630, ]\ 121, 123. 
 
 ^'■'Carpzov, 104. ^^Caloviiis: Exegema. ch. 11., sec. 3. *' Cyprian, 56. 
 <^ Boerner, 32. 
 
 «\Valch.: Iiitnxliict.. 168, 169. Ev. Rev., Oct., 1849, 250,251. 
 *'Kollner: Synil)olik, 178, 180,41,42. " Niir nach tier genaiicsten Erwa- 
 • run^ fest-ijestellt." 
 
1559-60.] mf.lanchthon's last testimony. 59 
 
 preachers; ""* "the Elector, the Princes and Estates, whose names 
 are found attached to the Confession ; "*' "the associated Princes and 
 Estates — the Princes and other magistracy— and their theolo^sians and 
 Counselors ; "^" " in the presence of the Princes and of the Legates 
 of the cities; and the other theologians (beside Philip), who were 
 assembled at the Diet of Augsburg, labored not a little in complet- 
 ing the Augsburg Confession ; " "the Princes by whose command 
 and wish the Augsburg Confession was written, and who presented 
 it to the Emperor;"^' "all the Evangelical Princes and Estateii, 
 their theologians and Counselors— the Princes and other magistracy 
 — seven princes, two cities— the Elector of Saxony and those asso- 
 ciated with him ;'' "the Evangelical Church in Saxony, Branden- 
 burg, Liineburg, Hesse, Anhalt, Niirnberg, Reutlingen ; "" "the 
 entire Protestant Estates ; "" " not only in the presence of the other 
 theologians whom the Princes and the Legates of those who were 
 absent had brought with them, but in the assembly also of tlie orders 
 who subscribed it."^^ 
 
 vii. Wherever these authorities have occasion to represent the 
 na?nes of those who were present, as involved in Melanchthon's 
 statements, they mention the names of some who were not present 
 until after May 11, and of others not present until after May 22 : 
 " Schnepf, Brentius, and many other theologians, who were present 
 at the Diet on our side ; "^^ " Schnepf, Brentius, Andrew Osiander, 
 John Agricola, and others."^* 
 
 viii. They are all agreed as to when in general this sending to 
 Luther of which Melanchthon here speaks took place. It was after 
 these discussions : "In such manner also the entire Confession, as 
 it became shaped" (in the presence of the Princes, and their Coun- 
 selors and preachers) "was sent to Luther;"^' "when now this 
 same writing of the Confession had been prepared, they, the Princes, 
 sent it to Luther ;"^'' " the other (Lutheran) churches drew up their 
 confessions and brought them with them to Augsburg ; lest, there - 
 
 ** Saxon Theolog.,.339, b. 
 
 *' Theologians of Leipzig atid Wittenberg, n, b. 
 
 ^Kirchner, etc. 109. ^' Grawer, 117. 
 
 •wjoh. Miiiier, 121-123. ^.-iSalig, 168. 
 
 ■'■* Walch, Int., 168, 169 ; translated by C. P. Krauth, Ev. Rev., Oct., 1849, 250. 
 
 ** Crawer, 116. Carpzov, 104. ^^ Walch, Int., 169. 
 
 ^' Saxon Theolog., 339, b. ^ Wittenb. and Leip/.. Theol., 12, h. 
 
6o CHKONOLOGY. [1559-60. 
 
 fore, these Confessions should be neglected, by command of the 
 Protestant Princes, a comparision was instituted between them, and 
 finally, after deliberation and accurate examination, one common 
 Confession was drawn up. Subsecjuently {deinde), after (post- 
 quavi) the common Confession was drawn up from the private con- 
 fessions, it was not presented without Luther's judgment and ap- 
 proval, but was first sent to Luther to be judged and examined. . . 
 All the rest of the theologians, there assembled at Augsburg, were 
 unwilling, without Luther's judgment, to present the Augsburg 
 Confession."'" After citing the letter of May ii and May 22,*"' 
 Walch goes on to say : " Melanchthon had before him not only the 
 XVII Articles, but other outlines of the chief points of the Evan- 
 gelical doctrine. For, in addition to the Elector of Saxony, the 
 other Evangelical Princes and Orders had caused formulas of con- 
 fession to be written by their theologians, which, by their permis- 
 sion, were consigned to Melanchthon, that after a careful perusal of 
 them he might finish the Confession to be presented to the Diet.'"" 
 ''Before this Confession was presented, it was communicated to the 
 other theologians whom the Princes and the Legates of those who 
 were absent had brought with them. . . . In the assembly also of the 
 Orders who subscribed it, all its heads \vere pondered and con- 
 firmed ; which being done, it was again sent to Luther before it 
 was read in public ; " or, as Walch still more amply adds in the next 
 page : " Thus recognized and approved by the suffrages of all, the 
 C'onfession was again transmitted to Luther, that if anything yet 
 remained which he desired to advise he might now suggest it.""'' 
 Kollner, quoting the words of 1560, including the " Missa est 
 deinde et Luthero," adds: "What Melanchthon says above holds 
 good only, as shown in the development we have given, of that time, 
 when the Estates demanded the completion and delivery of the 
 Confession in the name of them all, in a Common Symbol, conse- 
 quently about the 8th of June.'"" Francke, after mentioning the 
 copy of May 11, approved by Luther May 15,''' says that it was 
 again amended by Melanchthon and others, especially by Pontanus, 
 
 ^"Gravver, 116. •'" Inliod., 167. 
 
 "' Do., 167, 168, sec. V. 
 
 "2 Do., 16S, 169, .sec. VI., C. P. K 's transl., Kv. Rev., Oct., 1849. 
 
 "^ Symbolik, 180,41. ^'^ L. S., xvi. 9. 
 
1877-78.] THE FKEIi DIET. 6 1 
 
 May 23-24/-^ and tliat it is certain that the Latin formula was de- 
 Hvered to the Legates of the cities and the other Protestant Orders, 
 May 31 ;'■" George of Brandenburg makes the distinct movement 
 toward uniting all the Orders in the Confession, June 8;''" the Ger- 
 man Formula is submitted June 14/''' and after this comes the dis- 
 cussion mentioned by Melanchthon/" with tlie express inference 
 from the " deinde " that it " was sent again, as it seems.""" 
 
 ix. All the writers identify the discussions of which Schnepf 
 speaks (1555), with those of which Melanchthon speaks (1560)."' 
 
 X. But great as was the value attached to the last testimony of 
 Melanchthon, and constant as was the use made of it, its historic 
 importance was not fully estimated in every case, nor the inferences 
 involved in it completely drawn, because the chronology was en- 
 tirely overlooked in some cases, and in others was misunderstood. 
 The materials of the chronology were ir.deed imperfect till the Re- 
 ports of the Niirnberg Legates brought them to light. We may 
 claim to have helped to put this important testimony in its proper 
 historic light, by a more full and rigid application of the facts of 
 the chronology to it than had hitherto been made. We have thus 
 confirmed the results of the labors of Walch, Kollner and others of 
 the very greatest writers on the Confession, by showing that Me- 
 lanchthon's words of 1560 refer to a sending of the Confession to 
 Luther in June, before its delivery. There was a third sending. 
 
 XII. TO-DAY. 
 
 I. THE AUGSBURG CONFESSION AND THE " FREE DIET." 
 
 The first essay read in the Free Diet began with the words: "The 
 Augsburg Confession is the doctrinal Magna Charta of all Protestant 
 dom." With this sentence Dr. John G. Morris opened his essay on 
 the ."Augsburg Confession and the Thirty-nine Articles of the 
 Church of England." It was an omen of the distinguished place 
 the Augsburg Confession was destined to take in the essays and de- 
 liberations of the Diet. In some shape the Confession came up at 
 almost every point. Some doctrine, or some fact, in which it was 
 
 ® Dc, XVI. 10. *'® Do., xvii. n. 
 
 *' Do., XVII. 12. 88 Do., XVII. 13. 
 
 «« Do., XVIII. 15. '" Do., xviii, 16. 
 
 " See ihe citations under i. 
 
62 CHRONOLOGY. [1877-78. 
 
 involved, seemed imi)licated with nearly every topic that was 
 touched. Whatever the centrifugal force might be at the begin- 
 ning of a discussion, everything seemed to drop into the Augs 
 burg Confession, especially into its controverted parts, before the 
 discussion closed. 
 
 i;. THE POINT ACTUALLY MADE BY DR. CONRAD AND CHALLENGED 
 BY DR. BROWN, IN THE DIET. 
 
 In Dr. Conrad's Essay, as read before the Diet, he maintained 
 only tii)o sendings of the Confession previous to its delivery, the 
 third sending being the undisputed one, after the delivery. It was, 
 therefore, the second sending, May 2 2d, which was challenged by 
 Dr. Brown. Dr. Conrad made no reference to the date "June 2d" 
 — Dr. Brown's challenge, therefore, as regards Dr. Conrad, in- 
 volved him in the assertion that there was but one sending before 
 the delivery, that of May 11. The ''third" sending of Dr. 
 Conrad's position in the Diet, was the one after June 25th.' 
 
 III. THE AUGSBURG CONFESSION AFTER THE DIET. 
 
 The discussion of the Augsburg Confession did not close with the 
 discussions of the Diet. Dr. Conrad revised, and in a large meas- 
 ure rewrote his essay on the Characteristics of the Confession, 
 Dr. Brown made a new issue, and substituted it in the minutes of 
 the Diet for the original one. We added a note in vindication of 
 what we supposed to be the point challenged, and repudiating the 
 date on which Dr. Brown laid so much stress, not imagining thai 
 Dr. Brown would falsify in direct terms his own record on a distinct 
 matter of fact. We supposed (very incorrectly, as we afterwards 
 discovered,) that we had failed to notice at the time an allusion to 
 the date. We know now that the statement of a challenge on the date 
 is a pure fiction. What had tempted Dr. Brown became manifest 
 in the Lutheran Quarterly of April, in which, in very cold blood, 
 he repeats the offence of misrepresentation, in "A Question Touch- 
 ing the Augsburg Confession." The Lutheran, April 25, in "A 
 Slight Question in Reformation History," takes ground against 
 Dr. Brown, and with us, in the assertion of a second sending ; and 
 
 ' " What we stated," says Dr. Conrad, in a note to us, "and what Dr. Brown 
 challenj^ed at the Diet, was this: 'It (the Confession) was submitted to him 
 (Luther) in its first completed draft, in its second improved form, as well as 
 immediately after its delivery, and received his unqualified approval.' " 
 
1877-78.] DR. brown's question. 63 
 
 takes ground with Dr. Brown, and against us, in our assertion of a 
 third sending. 
 
 IV. "A QUESTION TOUCHING THE AUGSBURG CONFESSION." 
 
 The "Question touching the Augsburg Confession," with which 
 Dr. Brown opens the April number of his Quarterly, has some char- 
 acteristics which might fairly raise a question touching Dr. Brown 
 himself. He gives an editorial explanation on the second page of 
 his cover, which shows that he might more profitably have consid- 
 ered the question of the moral honor of a man, who having "occa- 
 sion," in strict confidence to see a proof of a forthcoming book, 
 avails himself of it to write something which is to appear as if it 
 were the review of the book written after its publication. In the 
 Providence which loves to thwart guilty cunning, the scheme was 
 exposed. The review of Dr. Brown appeared before the book it 
 pretended to review. When the book, already printed though not 
 published when Dr. Brown's article appeared, came out, all who 
 opened it found that in the very assumption about its contents, of 
 which Dr. Brown had made most in his article, his statement about us 
 was untruthful, and that we repudiated the date which it was essential 
 to his theory to have us maintain. The erratum, June 3d for July 
 3d, was made in our article in the Luthe?-an, 1867. The article it- 
 self was reprinted and the error crept in with it, in our Introduction 
 to the Augsburg Confession and into the Conservative Reforma- 
 tion.-' The vouchers we give for the citation show any one who 
 verifies them the right date : the quotation is repeated^ with the cor- 
 rect date, and the same vouchers are used, with the addition of Coel- 
 estinus. If Dr. Brown, who is so compassionate to "any one who 
 is not very careful," had taken a little notice, he would have seen 
 that all the citations from p. 232 to 237 in the Conservative Refor- 
 mation are chronologically arranged, and that the date must have 
 been written July 3d. He would have seen in the three lines which 
 precede it, that our inference and our theory are " that between 
 June 8th and 25th, we have Melanchthon's declaration, cited in our 
 former extracts, as to Luther's approval of the Confession in the 
 form it took after the discussion." If he thinks us wicked enough 
 to alter a date, as he pretends he does, and fools enough to add to 
 the altered date the vouchers which at once stamp it as a forgery, 
 
 ■' P. 234. 
 
 " Conserv. Kefoniiat., p. 239, iIitl-c lines from the bottom of the text. 
 
64 CHKON'OLOGY. [1877-78. 
 
 he will yet hardly be able to imagine that we would flilsify the date 
 in such a way as to confute the very theory for which it was altered, 
 and that just under a repetition of our theory, we would put a falsi- 
 fied date which would overthrow it. When Dr. Conrad was misled 
 by it, he was compelled to form another theory, utterly out of har- 
 mony with our conclusions and our argument. He did not look at 
 our citation in its connection, and did not have Buddeus, or De 
 Wette's edition of Luther's letters, and so was misled. Dr. Conrad 
 had verified our vouchers when he possessed the books to which we 
 refer, and the honest care with which he found they were made, 
 helped him to be less on his guard against that unsuspected rock, a 
 typographical erratum. No wonder that, to create a fictitious im- 
 portance for the small business which he has undertaken. Dr. 
 Brown prints in small caps, " .-vs they pretend," talks of " ludi- 
 crous error," "pet theory," "fictitious date," inconsistently swing- 
 ing apparently between the theories that we are cunning impos- 
 tors and helpless ignoramuses, brazen forgers, and idiotical dupes. 
 
 Dr. Brown writes habitually in a vein which excludes him from all 
 right to courtesy. Years ago we discovered that to an obstinacy which 
 declined to learn and an ignorance which made him incapable of 
 teaching, he added a dishonesty in citation and a coarseness of im- 
 putation which deprived him of all right to notice ; and we ceased 
 to notice him. We hoped that the Diet would mark the beginning 
 of a new era with him ; but his review shows that he is beyond 
 change. If he thought that the crime of being a member of an 
 ecclesiastical body, which he helped to drive from the one of which 
 he is a special incubus, absolved him from the duty of decency to 
 ourselves, he might at least have treated with the ordinary courtesy 
 which one who claims to be a gentleman extends to another, Dr. 
 Conrad, who has long been one of ihe greatest powers in the General 
 Synod, and who has done as much to build up the Seminary which 
 feeds Dr. Brown as Dr. Brown has done to pull it down. We will give 
 Dr. Brown the benefit of our largest charity. We will try to believe 
 that his malignity to us is such that he may really imagine he is sin- 
 cere in the theory of our baseness ; but when lie pretends that he 
 thinks Dr. Conrad a conspirator with us, knowingly altering a date 
 and thus trying to make a lie plausible, he deliberately writes what 
 he knows to be untrue. 
 
 Dr. Brown as a Translator. — Dr. I^rown's bitterest enemy 
 
1877-78.] i)K. brown's question. 65 
 
 must allow that he has tenacity of purpose. He has such strength 
 of will that, if it were properly guided and maintained by a knowl- 
 edge of the subjects on which he writes, he might attain a reputation 
 of his own, instead of spending his life in trying to destroy the rep- 
 utation of others. From his attack on Dr. Schmucker to the present, 
 his main work has been of one kind. He has produced no apoth- 
 ecaries' ointment of his own, but has been putting dead flies into 
 the ointment of others. His tenacity has accomplished little, 
 because it is his fixed determination to show strength where he has 
 no strength to show. A good strategist will throw his strength 
 against the weakness of the foe. Dr. Brown's strategy is character- 
 istically a throwing of his weakness against the strength of the foe. 
 He has endeavored to confute specialists in their department, from 
 the stores of his general knowledge. Dogmaticians he takes up in 
 dogmatics, metaphysicians in metaphysics; and the fact that Me- 
 lanchthon is generally conceded to have known something about the 
 Augsburg Confession will diiliinish the surprise of those who know 
 Dr. Brown, that he has written an article which purposes to rectify 
 Melanchthon's statements in regard to that document. He has 
 particularly seemed ambitious to shine as a translator — not by 
 translating indeed, but by examining the errors of others in trans- 
 lating — and what a master he has shown himself! His rendering 
 " beg lessen " to "immerse" showed his unrivaled familiarity with 
 German; his translating " Exhibeantur," in the Tenth Article of 
 the Variata, by "represented"' shows how deeply he has entered 
 into theological Latin. Dr. Brown does not seem to know that be- 
 sides the dictionary, to understand a language, the translator needs 
 a sufficient previous knowledge to understand the dictionary. 
 
 In that important passage in Melanchthon's last testimony in re- 
 gard to the Augsburg Confession, which we have already enlarged 
 upon, Dr. Brown finds a number of faults in our translation. Had 
 Dr. Brown really pointed out errors in our translation, we should 
 have been grateful to him ; and even if it had been done in the 
 ungracious way in which he does everything, the value of the ser- 
 vice would have been a compensation for the unpleasantness ot 
 the manner. " Fas est.'' Nor would we -feel a morbid excess of 
 humiliation at the detection of the class of errors to which we are 
 sure our shortcomings are confined — the errors of limited knowl- 
 
 *Bibliotheca Sacra., July, 1868, p. 485. 
 
 5 
 
66 CHRONOLOGY. [1877-78. 
 
 edge and of unconscious oversight. We have carefully and con- 
 scientiously endeavored in every case to give the true sense of 
 what we have translated. We have fallen into the errors of the 
 translator, but we know that we have not been guilty of his delib- 
 erate sins. As the result of no inconsiderable amount of expe- 
 rience in translation, we feel with increased force how easy it is to 
 make mistakes even in very simple things. Mental preoccupation, 
 temporary languor from overstrained attention, or loss of rest, de- 
 fect of sight, unnoted differences in words closely alike or even 
 identical in form, and other causes of a similar nature, account for 
 the familiar fact that great scholars have made mistakes of which 
 they were heartily ashamed, mi.^takes which an intelligent school- 
 boy, put upon his guard, could not make, and with his attention 
 quickened, would at once detect. A book could be made of the 
 mistakes in grammar into which great grammarians have fallen, of 
 ignorance of the meaning of words on the part of great lexicograph- 
 ers, of the special mistakes of all sorts of specialists. And if this 
 be true of great, exhaustive scholarship, it does not require much 
 humility to acknowledge general fallibility, and particular mistake.'^ 
 in the attempts at translation which have come out of a crowded 
 life of active toil and constant care. We would prefer that those 
 who have done something themselves should give us light, but we 
 are willing to take it from any one, even an enemy. We decline 
 Dr. Brown's teaching, not that we do not need to be taught, nor 
 because we would.be unwilling that he should teach us, but because 
 he is incapable of teaching because he is unwilling to learn. We 
 take nothing from him, simply because he has nothing to give. 
 
 Of our conscientious care and general success in the unbroken 
 paths in which we have walked and worked unaided, we have not 
 only the direct testimony of men whose opinions ought to have 
 weight, but we have strong testimony in the very nature of the at- 
 tacks made upon us. If all these attacks were successful to the 
 very fullest measure of their purpose, they would leave the body of 
 our work untouched. They unsettle nothing we have tried to settle, 
 and in attacking little they acknowledge much. Dr. Bro\Vn would 
 find a sympathetic co-worker in an anonymous, scurrilous Romish 
 writer, who, showing in the animus of his attack that he would gladly 
 do us the greatest amount of damage possible, points out mistakes 
 in a single sentence of our reproduction of that very tangled 
 
1877-78.] DR. p.rown's question. 67 
 
 piece of composition, Chancellor Briick's Preface to the Augsburg 
 Confession ! The mistakes were the results of inadvertence, not of 
 ignorance; it required no learning to detect them; we had noted 
 and requested the correction of them totally apart from the Rom- 
 ish Review. The critic, in the effort to correct, makes at least one. 
 blunder more palpable than any he points out. But waiving all 
 that, the assailant is witness for us. In making so much of the dis- 
 covery of this little, he hardly seems to realize how much he con- 
 cedes in finding no more. The venom of the serpent is too much 
 for his cunning. 
 
 In assailing our translation. Dr. Brown has seen fit to drag Dr. 
 Jacobs in, partly for the crime of endorsing our accuracy, but still 
 more for the crime of having a distinguished reputation as a Latin 
 scholar. This makes it essential to Dr. Brown's happiness that he 
 shall prove that he can teach Prof. Jacobs Latin ; for Dr. Brown 
 seems to be pervaded with the conviction that no man can hold a 
 high place in anything without stealing it from him. He claims all 
 the parts, from the lover to the lion. Hence, with indomitable self- 
 reliance and ardor, armed only with a school dictionary and a 
 Quackenbos, he goes forth in deadly resolve against those who, 
 without knowing it or meaning it, are invading his universal king- 
 dom. Dr. Jacobs's masterly reply to Dr. Brown on the questions of 
 Latinity involved, makes it unnecessary for us to do more than 
 barely touch on them, so far as to give internal completeness to our 
 notice. 
 
 I . " De Singulis Senfentiis. ' ' 
 "It is by no means (:<?/-Ai'/« that 'de singulis sententiis' means 'sen- 
 tence by sentence.' " In saying that it is by no means certain. Dr. 
 Brown admits that it is possible, if not probable. He confesses 
 that he does not know what it means. ''It may mean, and prod- 
 ai/y does mean, concerning each opinion, or subject, or point." 
 That is Dr. Brown's common mode of avoiding responsibility, and 
 his quiet little way of saying that Melanchthon did not know how 
 to write Latin ; for of course the difficulty is not in Dr. Brown's 
 ignorance — it must therefore be in Melanchthon's Latin. Yet, per- 
 haps, in spite of Dr. Brown's perplexity, we may reach some sense 
 in it. If each opinion, or subject, or point had to be discussed, 
 would not a taking up sentence by sentence be implied, even if it 
 were not expressed ? 
 
68 CHRONOLOGY. [1877-78. 
 
 The rendering we gave, as in accordance with the relation of the 
 phrase, the pure Latinity of ^^lelanchthon, supported by the formula 
 of Cicero, is sustained in its philological aspect by Dr. Jacobs, 
 and in its historical probability in our discussion of Melanchthon's 
 own words, under 1559, 1560. 
 
 2 . " Disputatum est. ' ' 
 
 2. Dr. Brown's next point is on the "disputatum est," and here 
 Dr. Brown makes himself ridiculous, by parading, with school-boy 
 pedantry, the familiar piece of grammar, that the "verb is imper- 
 sonal," " there was discussion;" /. <?., as we understand Dr. Brown, 
 "there was discussion in order on each opinion or point" of the 
 Confession ; but we must not say that it (the Confession) was dis- 
 cussed. Dr. Brown's idea of translation, as embodied in this sage 
 critique, seems to be derived from the interlinear for lazy dunces, 
 which gives them word for word, without reference to idiom, not 
 thought for thought. When to this theory we have conjoined ig- 
 norance of the words, we have Dr. Brown's ideal, as exemplified in 
 his practice. 
 
 3. ^' Determified ifpofiy 
 
 3. Dr. Brown is at a loss to conjecture "where this 'and deter- 
 mined upon ' comes from,'''' probably meaning by " where — from," 
 what writers of English usually express by the word "whence." 
 It is involved in the " disputatum est," in the position which 
 Melanchthon gives it in his argument. Mere discussion, without 
 determination, would not prove or involve the point he is making, 
 which is that the Confession was so discussed, that the princes and 
 other officials who signed it were responsible for it. They weighed 
 it, in order to determine whether it would pass. The " disputatum 
 est" covers therefore a decisive and determinative discussion, as 
 it often does in Latni usage. 
 
 4 . " Tot a forma . ' ' 
 
 4. Dr. Brown next objects to the translation of " tota forma." 
 Dr. Brown insists that "tota'-' does not mean "complete;" "it re- 
 fers to entirety.'''' It does not mean "finished,'' it refers to "total- 
 ity," " /<?Az expresses the whole." We say it was complete ; Dr. 
 Brown says it was not complete, it was only entire. We say it was 
 " finished ;" Dr. Brown says it was not finished, it was only total, 
 the whole of it was there. 
 
1877-78.] T)R. brown's question, 69 
 
 Now, words are used relatively as well as absolutely, and the 
 precise force they bear relatively is determined by the whole context, 
 and the nature of that to which they are opposed. If "finished" 
 means absolutely closed against all change, the Augsburg Confes- 
 sion, as we no7u have it, was not only not "finished" May 11, but 
 was not finished when the presentation was made June 25th ; for 
 there are differences in stylistic minutenesses between the Confession 
 as delivered, and the Editio Princeps of Melanchthon. Tota is 
 determined as to its particular force by that to which it is antitheti- 
 cal. If I say it was unfinished yesterday, it is whole to-day, the 
 .whole implies that it is finished. 
 
 THE QUESTIONS OF CHRONOLOGY AND HISTORY. 
 
 I . The Suite of the Elector. 
 
 The vital point in Dr. Brown's argument, the only one which 
 looks as if it would have weight if established, is "that the suite 
 of the Elector included a majority of the Princes who actually 
 signed the Confession." Not satisfied with this, but feeling secure 
 in his point, he waxes sarcastic, insinuates that we had something to 
 gain, so important that it led us to suppress a truth : "The '■suite' 
 of the Elector, mentioned with this indifferent air, and shut up in a 
 parenthesis, actually contained a majority of the Princes who signed 
 the Confession.'' The Italics are his own. 
 
 Now if this were literally true, it would avail Dr. Brown nothing, 
 for Melanchthon distinctly asserts that those of whom he speaks are 
 ^' the Princes and officials whose nxmcs are attached to the Confes- 
 sion,"^ or as it is in the German, " the Elector, and Princes and 
 cities,"" and again, "the Elector, and Princes, and Legates who 
 subscribed this Confession."' What Dr. Brown has to prove is not 
 that a majority of the Princes who signed, were at Augsburg before 
 May nth, but that the whole body of the Princes and the cities 
 who signed were there. He is not lacking in audacity, but he has 
 not attempted this. The Princes who formed the Elector's suite 
 were, first, John Frederick, Duke of Sajcony, the oldest son of the 
 
 ^'' Principes et gubernatores, quorum nomina ascripta suut Confessioni." Cor- 
 pus Doctrinse, 1562. Prefa. a. 2. 
 
 *Cliur unnd Piirsten und Sledf. Corpus D. C. Das ist Ganze Summa. V'or- 
 rede, p. i. 
 
 'I)eu Cliuf uuiid FiirstcMi, unnd Bottschafficn, welclie sich unterschrieben 
 haben." Do. do., p. 2. 
 
7° CHRONOLOGY. [1877-78. 
 
 Elector, and not until his father's death (1532) at the head of the 
 government. The second in the suite was Francis, Duke of Lune- 
 berg, a youth of twenty-two, the brother of Duke Ernest, and not 
 at the head of a government. The third was Wolfgang, Prince of 
 Anhalt. These three names were those of least political weight. 
 They came last in the signatures of the Princes, to the Latin Con- 
 fession in the Book of Concord ; in the German, in the Book of 
 Concord, the names of John Frederick, Duke of Saxony, and 
 Francis, Duke of Luneberg, are not found at all. There is a mass 
 of evidence and authority tending to establish the fact that to the 
 Confession as read in the Diet, the names of John Frederick and 
 Francis were not attached.*' It is beyond dispute that they were 
 late in signing, and that their names are placed after those of the 
 great reigning Princes. They were not rulers; they did not directly 
 represent States (Saxony being represented by the Elector, and 
 Luneberg by Ernest). But one Prince, not merely titulary, and he 
 one of the least important politically, was present before May 12, 
 with the Elector. But if we waive all this, and count the two titu- 
 lar Princes, who perhaps did not sign the German Confession, we 
 have but three, and three are not enough to make a " majority" of 
 six (or seven, if we count the Elector as a Prince), unless, indeed, 
 Dr. Brown's arithmetic be as lawless as his philology. For a man 
 who reads lessons to those "who are not very careful," this is 
 rather loose arithmetic. Dr. Brown is clearly getting ready for a 
 tilt at some man of renown in mathematics. 
 
 But there is another extraordinary piece of assumption in Dr. 
 Brown's argument. When he confounds the Elector and the three 
 minor Princes with the total body of the signers — when he asserts 
 that three is more than the half of six, and implies that three is the 
 whole of eight ; when he makes three minor Princes, without Coun- 
 selors and theologians, the total of themselves, plus the three great 
 Princes, and the two great cities, with their Counselors and 
 Theologians— we might think this modest man, who bemoans the 
 obdurate Dr. Conrad's want of confidence in his "poor judgment," 
 had reached the limits even of his amazing style of logic. But he 
 goes beyond this. He assumes that the proof of their presence in 
 Augsburg is enough to demonstrate that these discussions of the 
 Confession, of which Melanchthon speaks, took place before May 
 
 *Kollner, 201-210. Plitt ; in Herzog and Plitts, Real Encycl., i. 773. 
 
1877-78.] i>K- brown's question. yr 
 
 II. He cites no evidence, for tliere is none. He does not allude 
 to the evidence to the contrary, for if he knows anything about it, 
 he knows that it is overwhelming against him. He talks of 
 "NUMEROUS Princes and Noblemen" (this is the way Dr. Brown 
 prints it) as present, as if all the Princes, small and great, Romish 
 as well as Protestant, were embraced in Melanchthon's words, which 
 speak only of the Princes who signed the Confession. If Dr. 
 Brown will consult the old annalists, he will also find they record 
 the number of horses, a-nd may then, with consistent bitterness, 
 charge us with repressing all allusion whatever to the presence at 
 the Diet of these noble animals ; for it is not more certain that the 
 horses were excluded from Melanchthon's congress of Signers of 
 the Confession, than that the general body of numerous Princes and 
 noblemen, in the Elector's train, were excluded. 
 
 THE SIGNING PRINCES AND THE TIME OF THEIR ARRIVAL. 
 
 It is worthy of remark that the fact so totally fatal to the view of 
 Dr. Brown, and so indisputably established, is not even alluded to, to 
 wit: that a majority of the signers, (Princes and cities) and among 
 these all the most important ones, except the Elector of Saxony, 
 were not present in Augsburg until after May ir, previous to 
 which, is the time of which, according to Dr. Brown, Melanch- 
 thon speaks. 
 
 May 12, came the Landgrave, Philip of Hesse, third after the 
 Elector in signing. May 14, came Duke Ernest of Luneberg, 
 second after the Elector. May 24, came George, Margrave of 
 Brandenberg, first after the Elector." 
 
 These were the three great ruling Princes who stood with the 
 Elector, and whom Dr. Brown throws totally out of the account. 
 He has the three minor Princes (one of whom certainly, and two 
 others of whom possibly, signed the Confession) who being part of 
 a suite, came first, because the Elector, whose movements controlled 
 theirs, came first. He reads into Melanchthon that a "majority 
 of the Princes who signed were present ; then leaving out the officials 
 of the cities entirely, nothing is necessary to insure him victory, 
 except to remind the reader that three «Va majority of six not to say 
 
 * Aiii Kurze Anzayguiifj, 1530,111 Cyprian Beylagen,vi. 78. Stiobel: Miscel. 
 II. 22. Fikenscher, 64. Kijllner, 173, 12. Plitt, in Ilerzog, (new eil.) I. 773. 
 
72 CHRONOLOGY. [1877-78. 
 
 seven. Never were a man's mathematics antl his theological science 
 in such absolute keeping. 
 
 The Preface of the Augsburg Confession spjaks of those repre- 
 sented by it, as " the Elector and Princes, whose names are sub- 
 scribed, together with those associated with them,"^" and any dis- 
 cussion must have involved the question whether all these could 
 accept the Document. 
 
 THE SIGNING OFFICIALS OF THE CITIES AND THE TIME OF THEIR 
 
 COMING. 
 
 Dr. Brown has been so dazzled with his " numerous princes and 
 noblemen'''' that he has totally forgotten that Melanchthon also men- 
 tions certain "officials," " gubernatores," who in addition to the 
 princes, signed the Confession, and who were present at the discus- 
 sions {praesentibtis allis giihernaforibus) which preceded the send- 
 ing to Luther of which we speak. That these " gubernatores" 
 who signed were the representatives of the two cities is certain, for 
 beside the princes, the cities alone were among the signers. The 
 German also enumerates " Elector, princes and cities (Stedt), and 
 again "the Elector, princes and legates (Bottschaften) who sub- 
 scribed." None of these legates came till after May 1 1. 
 
 May 15. — Came Christopher Kress Von Kressenstein and Clem- 
 ens Volkamer, the Legates of Nlirnberg. 
 
 May 21. — Came Joachim Weiss, Legate of the city of Reut- 
 lingen." 
 
 THE COUNSELORS PRESENT AT THE DISCtTSSIONS. 
 
 Dr. Brown has also left out of account another element. Me- 
 lanchthon says that the signers of the Augsburg Confession, 
 " together with their Counselors''^ (neben iren Redten) pon- 
 dered it. Now of the princes present before May 1 1 the Elec- 
 tor alone had counselors. All the great princes Avho came from 
 May 12 to May 24 had with them their counselors: Philip, '- 
 Ernst,''* George." 
 
 '<*"Nos infra scripti Elector et Principes cum aliis, qui nobis conjuncti sunt:" 
 "Wir, die unter benannter Churfijrst imd Fiirsten, sampt unsern Vervvandten:" 
 Mulier: S. B. 35, 5. 
 
 " Saubert, 155, 163. Rotermund, 480. 
 
 '■■' Saubert, 128. Coelestinus, iv. 133, 134. '''Do., 125. Coelesliuus, iv. 132. 
 
 '^ Do., 113. Coelestinus iv. 130. 
 
1877-78.] DR. brown's question. 73 
 
 THE THEOLOGIANS PRESENT AT THE DISCUSSIONS. 
 
 But Dr. Brown, floating on his current of princes and noblemen, 
 has forgotten even the great men of his own profession. Melanch- 
 thon tells us that in the discussions which preceded the sending of 
 the Confession to Luther the preachers were present {^praesentibus 
 concionatorihits) whom the German still more closely defines as 
 their preachers (ihren . . . Predicanten), the preachers of the princes 
 and cities by whom the Confession was signed. 
 
 Among the theologians thus participant were the following : 
 
 May 12, with Philip came Erhard Schnepf and Conrad Ottinger. 
 
 May 14, with Ernest came Heinrich Bock. 
 
 May 24, with George came Adam Candid, John Rurer, and 
 Martin Moglin. 
 
 May 27, came John Brentius, who, starting with George, had 
 been detained three days on the route by sickness ] and Brentius, 
 next greatest after Luther and Melanchthon .themselves, was among 
 the most active and important partakers in the discussion. 
 
 MAY 22. melanchthon' S LETTER 
 
 Ur. Brown declares himself "free to admit that this letter gives a 
 better show of plausibility to a second sending of the Confession, or 
 rather a part of it, not the tota forma, to Luther, than either of the 
 other arguments. It is a fact which is not disputed that Melanchthon 
 did lijrite a letter, addressed to Luther, and that the date assigned is 
 Mfty 2 2d. In that letter he does express the wish that Luther would 
 run over * the Articles of Faith.' . . . He says that he is changing 
 many things in the Confession" (Apology) "daily. Now it is 
 admitted that Melanchthon 7urote such a letter and expressed such a 
 desire.'^ But Dr. Brown tries to deprive the truth of the benefit of 
 all this good confession on the ground that "it is a fact that there 
 is doubt about Luther's ever receiving this letter written May 2 2d." 
 Dr. Brown argues on this statement " that there is doubt " in such 
 a way as to make it equivalent to there being doubt — reasonable 
 doubt, as to Luther's having received it. If somebody's doubting 
 makes a thing doubtful, there is little which is beyond doubt, from 
 the existence of matter or mind down to the capacity of Dr. 
 Brown to be honest in controversy. But as to its being doubtful 
 whether Luther received this letter of May 2 2d — that is simply 
 ridiculous. It was never doubted through the ages that followed the 
 Reformation. It would not be doubted, even by Dr. Brown, now, 
 
74 CHRONOLOGY. [1877-78. 
 
 had not the fact stood in the way of Riickert, in his "pet theory," 
 set forth in 1854. Dr. Brown has adopted the suspicion without 
 examination. Had he looked at the evidence in the case he would 
 have known that Luther's reception of the letter is not merely a 
 matter of just assumption, but a matter of moral demonstration. " In 
 relation to the letter of Melanchthon, May 2 2d," says Knaake,'' 
 " Riickert has fallen into a singular error. According to Riickert 
 this letter did not reach Luther. By coniparmg the different pass- 
 ages in which Riickert speaks of this letter, we see that the order of 
 succession was to his mind as follows : The letter was put by Me- 
 lanchthon, as in the usual manner, into the office of the Saxon Elec- 
 torate, that it might be carried to Luther by the courier (tabellarius) 
 of D. Apell ; but the Chancellor Brtick kept it back, and the mes- 
 senger (nuntius) of D. Apell reached Coburg without it : Luther 
 consequently did not receive the account of the Confession written 
 May 22. It is unaccountable to us how Riickert could have reached 
 such a view, unless we attribute it to an utterly superficial use of the 
 sources. First, Melanchthon had not at all designed to send this 
 writing of his by the courier (tabellarius) of D. Apell ; a messenger 
 was already hired to take it, when Apell's courier arrived" (at 
 Augsburg) "with Luther's letters" (to the Elector, in reply to the 
 letter of May 1 1, and Melanchthon's of the same date), " and this 
 messenger was actually entrusted with it ; Melanchthon proposes to 
 write again more at large by Apell's messenger on his return. All 
 this Melanchthon himself says in his letter of May 22 to Luther: — 
 ' We had already hired a messenger to go to you, and afterwards 
 to Wittenberg. But while we were writing, your last letters were 
 delivered to us by D. Apell's courier. We shall write more by 
 Apell's messenger. Meantime do you give to this, our messenger, 
 letters for your wife, for he can bring back an answer.' To Veit 
 Dietrich Melanchthon writes : ' Arrange to write to the wife of the 
 Doctor (Luther) by this our courier. For I gave him direction to 
 wait for your letters. . . . He is a citizen of Augsburg, and has 
 been hired by us to go to Wittenberg.' So then we have for the 
 proper care of no other letter so many grounds as precisely for the 
 one in question. It must have been in Luther's hands as early as 
 
 ^^ Luther's Antheil, 61-65. 
 
1877-78.] 
 
 DR. brown's question. 
 
 75 
 
 June I, for in his letter to Jacob Probst he unmistakably draws from 
 it. For example : 
 
 " Melanchthon writes to Lu- 
 ther : ' Ccesar nondum adest.' 
 
 * ' Vix ante Pentecosten vide- 
 tur afftitiirus. 
 
 '■'Non admisit Bavaros, oute 
 ton Georgion. 
 
 *• Viilt eiiim se seivare integ- 
 rutn. 
 
 " Mercurinus o archigramma- 
 teus, vir summus et moderatissi- 
 mus, quem aiunt dicere, nolle se 
 violentis consiliis interesse. Ad- 
 didit Mercurinus hoc quoque : 
 Wormaciae apparuisse, quam 
 nihil proficiant violenta consilia." 
 
 "To Melanchthon's words in 
 his letter : ' De Frisiis, jussit 
 Princeps, D. Pomeranum istic 
 Saxonicae linguae peritum hoiri- 
 nem idoneum quaerere et mittere 
 ad Frisios. In hanc sententiam 
 potes respondere.' " 
 
 " We have yet other witnesses to call, in proof that this letter of 
 May 22(1 reached Luther. First we will look at a passage in 
 Luther's letter of June 30th to Spalatin, which is as follows : 'You 
 pledged yourself by the messenger of D. Jonas, that you would 
 write to us and the Wittenbergers copiously, by D. Apell's mes- 
 senger, so that we might expect quantities of letters.' When that 
 messenger of Apell's came, bringing the letter of Jonas alone, for 
 Wittenberg, and was asked 'Do you bring no letters?' he answered 
 'No.' ' How are the gentleman?' he answered 'Well.' The sen- 
 tence is unfinished : Luther means to indicate the messenger of 
 Jonas, as the last through whom he had received letters from Augs- 
 burg, before the beginning of the long silence. The messenger of 
 Jonas here is no other than that very citizen of Augsburg, Civis 
 Augustanus, who was specially sent on the business of Jonas, to 
 Wittenberg, and who was to take Melanchthon's letter of May 22 
 
 Luther informs Jacob Probst : 
 Ca;sar Lisbrugi est/^r/*? ad Pen- 
 tecosten concedet. 
 
 Noliiit eos admittere Duces 
 Bavariae, Dux Georgius. 
 
 Volens se integrum in causa 
 servare. 
 
 Et summus Cancellarius Mer- 
 curinus palam dixit se nolle in- 
 teresse violentis Consiliis, quod 
 vidisset satis IVormatiae, quid 
 rfficercnt violenta coiisilia. 
 
 There is a clear allusion to 
 these words in Luther's letter to 
 to Jacob Probst : Scribo Comiti 
 Frisiae consolotarias, ut petis — et 
 arbitror, Comiti a Principe esse 
 scriptum. 
 
76 CHRONOLOGY. [1877-78. 
 
 to Luther. That he had done this is shown by the first words of 
 the extract. From this same passage it follows, and is confirmed 
 by Melanchthon's letter of June 5, that the nuntius of D. Apell 
 was the first messenger who came from Augsburg to Luther, with- 
 out letters ; but we have seen above that tliis messenger returned 
 (from Augsburg) subsequent to the 2 2d of May; this letter in ques- 
 tion must consequently have been delivered to Luther. Had not 
 this been the case, it would furthermore be surprising that Luther 
 should have responded to Melanchthon's request, that he should 
 write to the Landgrave Philip and his preacher Edward Schnepf, 
 without knowing of this letter, in which alone that request is made. 
 This argument, of course, implies that the reader agrees with our 
 view that June 20 is the proper date of Luther's letter to the Land- 
 grave. Finally the undoubtedly genuine addition to Luther's let- 
 ter of June 29, to Melanchthon, puts the matter beyond all dispute, 
 in which Luther says, ' I believe all your letters were delivered, 
 which you sent by Dr. Jonas's messenger. Hence also you may 
 know that I have the picture of Vienna.'' The last words find their 
 explanations in the passage in the letter of May 22: 'I send you a 
 picture of Vienna besieged,' and their relation to the first words 
 shows that Luther had received the letter and the picture." 
 
 This is not argument — it is demonstration. It is as certain that 
 Luther received the letter of May 22, as that Melanchthon wrote it. 
 When Dr. Brown says, "We can present the very same or similar 
 coincidences in other letters written from Augsburg, to other per- 
 sons, about the same time," he shows a complete ignorance of 
 what his pretence involves. He made it at random — but we do not 
 believe that even he would have had the hardihood to make it, if 
 he had clearly known the complete ignorance and effrontery it 
 involves. 
 
 THE LETTERS OF MAY II AND 15. 
 
 Dr. Brown's theory is, that the Elector's letter of May ii went 
 with the Confession, which was sent after the discussion, in which 
 all the Estates participated, and that Luther's reply of May 15, to 
 the Elector, is the approval to the Princes of which Melanchthon 
 speaks, 1560. But in these two letters is the absolute confutation 
 of the theory with which he links them. 
 
 i. If it is to them Melanchthon alludes, it is inconceivable that he 
 does not give a reference to them. They were published both in the 
 
1877-78.] DR. brown's question. 77 
 
 Jena and Wittenberg editions of Luther's works, three years before. 
 Why sliould Melanchthon appeal to the personal recollection of 
 Princes, and other men of position yet living, if the very documents 
 themselves were in the hands of men ? It is as absurd as if in 1806, 
 Thomas Jefferson had asserted, that thirty years before, the Declara- 
 tion of Independence had been approved by Congress, and instead 
 of referring to the documentary proof, had appealed to the personal 
 recollection of those present at its adoption. Such appeals are 
 made only in matters of secret, unknown or disputed history. But 
 Luther's correspondence with the Elector was well known, and 
 beyond dispute. 
 
 ii. If Melanchthon's aj^peal had reference to these two letters, the 
 result would have been fatally against him, for they bear internal 
 evidence against every distinctive point he made in 1560. They 
 show conclusively that the Confession was still Saxon in its rela- 
 tions, that neither Princes, officials, counselors, or preachers had 
 touched it at Augsburg ; that as to its composition it was recognized 
 as Melanchthon's, and as to its whole responsibility it was confined 
 to him, to the Elector, and Luther ; that the letter w^as not from the 
 Princes, signing or unsigning ; that Luther's reply was neither in 
 form, nor virtually to any other than the Elector. In fact, the 
 letters as they stand are in themselves sufficient to overthrow Dr. 
 Brown, if there were nothing else. We would be safe in commit- 
 ting the whole question to the testimony of what he claims as his 
 own witnesses. We ask the reader to compare what Melanchthon 
 says, with the two letters, to decide whether it is possible to refer 
 the words of 1560 to the letters of May 11 and 15, 1530. 
 
 DR. brown's summary OF WHAT HE SUPPOSES HIMSELF TO HAVE DONE. 
 
 I. "Of the proofs offered by Drs. Conrad and Krauth, the first 
 is based on a letter with a false date." This letter, whether with 
 the typographical erratum,""' or without it,'" was never offered by us 
 in proof of anything occurring, or supposed to occur," previous to 
 July 3d. The erroneous date not only does not support our argu- 
 ment for the third sending, but is in direct conflict with it. 
 
 Dr. Conrad did not use the erroneous date before the Diet, nor 
 did Dr. Brown challenge it, nor did we undertake to defend it. Dr. 
 Brown, in that elaborate review of seven years ago, to which he al- 
 
 '*Conservat. Reformat., 234. "Do., 235. 
 
78 CHRONOLOGY. [1877-78. 
 
 ludes, did not notice the erratum, as one who does not analyze care- 
 fully his jumbled and prevaricating statement might imagine he did ; 
 he knew nothing of it at the time he so meekly offered his " poor 
 judgment" to Dr. Conrad. Dr. Conrad in his revision of his Arti- 
 cle was misled by the erratum, modified his view in consequence of 
 it, and to this innocent mistake of his, Dr. Brown is indebted for 
 his knowledge of the erratum now. The correction of the erratum 
 strengthens our theory and argument; it really strengthens Dr. 
 Conrad's theory of a third sending, by helping it to the true basis, 
 in a case in which a printer's error had to him put it on a false one. 
 2. "The second depends on the denial of a plain fact." One 
 part of this "plain fact," on which Dr. Brown rests this statement, 
 is that two titular princes, and Wolfgang of Anhalt, were in the 
 suite of the Elector John, and with him in Augsburg before May 
 II. That is a plain fact, which Dr. Brown states in words which 
 he derived from an old article of ours in the Evangelical Review, 
 whose historical part was based on Walch.'* Furthermore, as a part 
 of this plain fact, he quotes from the same source — our translation 
 of Walch — that there were counts, barons, and other nobles, theo- 
 logians, Spalatin, Jonas, Melanchthon, in the Elector's suite. But 
 this plain fact, to which Dr. Brown lends all the logic which is in- 
 volved, in italics and small caps, is one which we do not deny, 
 and whose denial would be of no value in our argument. For the 
 plain fact derives all the force which Dr. Brown would give it, from 
 a number of fictions and blunders with which he invests it. Among 
 these fictions and blunders are the following : 
 
 a. That the princes present before May 1 1 , correspond with 
 the praesentibus principibiis of whom Melanchthon speaks. These 
 princes he carefully defines as "the princes whose w^wt'X folloiu 
 the Confession." The only one of the great princes present before 
 May 1 1 was the Elector. It is the more generally received view 
 that the two titular princes did not sign before the delivery. Wolf- 
 gang of Anhalt was of little political importance, and is the last 
 prince signing. George of Brandenburg, next to the Elector polit- 
 ically, was not there. Ernest, Duke of Luneburg, was not there ; 
 Philip, Landgrave of Hesse, was not there — the Elector alone, of 
 the great princes, was there. If Dr. Brown thinks we make little of 
 the Elector's suite, what will he say to Melanchthon, who so com- 
 
 "^^ Evangelical Rev. .^ October, 1849, 249. 
 
1877-78. J DR. brown's question. 79 
 
 pletely ignores it that he writes more than once, " Our prince is the 
 only one present." Yet Dr. Brown thinks so much of his princes 
 that he insists that three of them make more than the lialf of six or 
 seven— "a majority." 
 
 b. Another fiction and l)hinder is that there was any one what- 
 ever before May 11, correspondent with the "■ aliis gubernatori- 
 bus praesentibiis,'' the other officials (other than the princes) of 
 whom Melanchthon speaks. For these also are the gubernatores 
 (other than the princes) " whose names follow the Confession;" 
 " the cities," as the German has it one place ; "the legates," as it 
 has it at another. These gubernatores. officials, cities, legates, were 
 the senate and cities of Niirnberg and Reutlingen, and none of these 
 were present before May 1 1 . 
 
 c. Another fiction and blunder is that the theologians present 
 before May 11, correspond with the " Concionatoribus praesenti- 
 bus," the preachers present, of whom Melanchthon speaks. " The 
 Elector and princes and legates, who subscribed the Confession, to- 
 gether with their preachers, who were present," as the German has it. 
 
 Among these preachers were Schnepf and Ottinger, who came 
 with the Landgrave of Hesse, May 12 ; Heinrich Bock, who came 
 with Ernest of Luneberg, May 14; Adam Candid, John Rurer, 
 Martin Moglin, who came with the Margrave George of Branden- 
 burg, May 24. Last of all, and next to Melanchthon greatest of 
 all the divines who were at Augsburg, came John Brentz, starting 
 with George of Brandenburg, but detained by sickness, and reach- 
 ing the Diet May 27. 
 
 d. With these preachers in the discussions of which Melanchthon 
 speaks, the Counselors of the Elector, Princes and cities were as- 
 sociated; "///(?/> counselors," ihren Redten, the German says; but 
 of these bodies of counselors, there was but one before May 11, 
 that of the Elector of Saxony. John and Francis, as titular princes, 
 and Wolfgang, as himself but part of a suite, had no counselors. 
 
 e. Finally on this point, it is a fiction and blunder, that there 
 was any discussion on the Confession, in the presence of any as- 
 sembled princes and officials and preachers, before the nth. We 
 have the most direct and ample evidence that Melanchthon continued 
 his work alone and unaided till the 2 2d; and we. know that all 
 participation on the part of others at any time was subsecj^uent to 
 the 2 2d. 
 
8o CHRONOLOGY. [1877-78. 
 
 iii. Dr. Brown continues : "And a mistranslation of Melanchthon's 
 Latin." We think that our readers, who will look at the masterly 
 discussion of the question of Latinity, which we owe to the pen 
 of Dr. Jacobs, will be satisfied that Melanchthon's Latin has not 
 been mistranslated — by us. But if every change suggested by Dr. 
 Brown were accepted as valid, and everything thrown out which 
 he confesses himself unable to translate, it would in no respect 
 weaken our proof, or strengthen his denial. Let us with Dr. 
 Brown say that " there was discussion " on it, and not that it "was 
 discussed;" that the discussion was "in order on or concerning 
 each opinion or subject or point," and not on the sentences in 
 which "each opinion or subject or point" was asserted. Let it be 
 granted that the thing sent was not the " complete or finished form," 
 but only the "entirety or totality of the document." Still Dr. 
 Brown has not denied that it is a correct translation, that this "en- 
 tirety or totality,'' is styled " the Confession which is extant," 
 " this Confession which was read before the Emperor." He has 
 not denied that the translation is correct, that it is " the princes 
 and officials, the Elector, and princes, and legates, whose names 
 follow the Confession," who are spoken of. He has overthrown 
 no translation on which rests the proof that the great princes, with 
 one exception, were not at Augsburg till after May 1 1 ; that the 
 legates of the two cities were not there; that the counselors and 
 preachers, with the exception of those of Saxony, were not there ; 
 that there was no purpose of making the Confession a general one, 
 previous to May 1 1 ; and that there was no discussion among the 
 final signers, their counselors and preachers, until after May 22. 
 Dr. Brown has not denied that "deinde" is correctly translated 
 "subsequently," and that " postea " means "after this," and these 
 standing, everything stands for which we contend in Melanch- 
 thon's testimony, and Dr. Brown's laborious criticisms shed light 
 upon nothing whatever except the weakness of his Latin. Our ar- 
 gument stands just as firm with Dr. Brown's translation as with our 
 own. He has been trying to shoot our pickets, but has never come 
 within sight of our lines. 
 
 iv. Finally, of our proofs Dr. Brown says : " The third has no 
 solid basis to support it." This we understand to allude to Me- 
 lanchthon's letter of May 2 2d. Dr. Brown denies that there is satis- 
 factory proof that Luther ever received it. But the real point is, did 
 
1877-78.] DR. brown's question. 8r 
 
 Melanchthon send it, and Dr. Brown admits the sending - a second 
 sending would establish Melanchthon's intent and desire, even with- 
 out a second reception. But we have demonstrated that Luther 
 did receive it. Dr. Brown asserts that so far as he knows there is 
 no pretense of a reply to it. We have produced the letter of Lu- 
 ther, in which he does reply to it. And yet, Dr. Brown adds that 
 if the third proof had a solid basis, it " proves nothing to the point." 
 Now, the point is that Melanchthon sent the Confession a second 
 time. This fact Dr. Brown admits; the accessory fact that Luther 
 received it we have demonstrated — and this proves everything to 
 the point, and more indeed than the point requires. It disposes 
 absolutely of Dr. Brown's challenge as he really made it in the 
 Diet. It sweeps out of existence Dr. Brown's theory that the send- 
 ing of May 1 1 was the only one. He concedes the second sending, 
 and we have proved the second reception. 
 
 WHAT DR. BROWN HAS ACTUALLY DONE. 
 
 Of the argument offered by Dr. Brown, the first part is the cor- 
 rection of an acknowledged typographical erratum, an erratum by 
 which our argument had never been supported, and by which it 
 would really be weakened. The second part of his argument de- 
 pends on the confounding undisputed and totally irrelevant facts 
 with a number of Actions of his own devising, and of inexcusable 
 blunders of his own making, accompanied by a set of bad transla- 
 tions also of his own making, which, however, if allowed, one and all 
 have no bearing on his points The third part of his argument is 
 his ignorant contradiction of a fact (Luther's reception of the letter 
 of May 22) which is supported by direct and demonstrative testi- 
 mony, but apart from which his admission of the sending, is over- 
 whelming against him on the point on which he made the chal- 
 lenge. Dr. Brown's article shows that he made no genuine effort 
 to compensate by industry for his want of vocation to the work he 
 attempted. When he closes with saying, " We still wait for the 
 proof," he must mean the printer's proof of his unfortunate article, 
 for he gives no evidence of having examined any other sort witii 
 care, 'i'hat printer's proof he no doubt pondered with peculiar so- 
 licitude, as nothing is more annoying than to be caught in blunders 
 while we are trying to set others right. Yet, as a sad token of the 
 fallibility of men who are engaged in exposing failure, Dr. Brown 
 is compelled to end his article with a codicil of special "errata" 
 6 
 
S2 CHRONOLOGY. [1877-78. 
 
 which might have been enlarged to advantage. One of these errata 
 converts Luther into a woman ; the other is in the name of that 
 very July in the erratum on which his energies had been mainly 
 concentrated for seven pages. Total result of Dr. Brown's labors 
 and dire threats for years — the detection of a misprint, by which 
 he helped the cause he was assailing ; the discovery of an erratum, 
 making two errata in the process. These two belong to his little 
 errata ; his great erratum is the article itself, which is destitute alike 
 of scholarship in execution, of truthfulness in spirit, or of any suc- 
 cess in result, general or particular, great or small. 
 
 V. "A SLIGHT QUESTION." 
 
 Under the head, " A Slight Question in Reformation History," 
 the Lutheran, of April 25, 1878, has some remarks on the discus- 
 sion in the Philadelphia Diet, as to a second and third sending of 
 the Augsburg Confession to Luther, before its delivery. The 
 writer of the article concurs with us in the belief that there was a 
 second sending, and so takes ground against Dr. Brown's real chal- 
 lenge in the Diet, which involved only the second sending. The 
 article, however, seems to sustain Dr. Brown in his fictitious after- 
 thought, and his imaginary challenge of a sending between May 22d 
 and June 2d. This is an assertion which Dr. Conrad did not make 
 before the Diet, which Dr. Brown did not challenge before the Diet, 
 and which we never made and never endorsed, but on the contrary, 
 have explicitly rejected. Dr. Brown got up his imaginary challenge 
 by abusing the confidential privilege of seeing Dr. Conrad's revised 
 essay as it went through the press, and then falsifying his own record 
 to adjust it to his discovery of a typographical erratum, by which Dr. 
 Conrad was misled, and which Dr. Brown goes on to treat as a de- 
 signed falsification, kept up by conspiracy. We wish that with the 
 slight question of Chronology, the Lutheran had touched the very 
 grave question of Morality. 
 
 Now, we ask the Lutheran (piictly to look with us at the facts 
 which are beyond all dispute, in the testimony of Melanchthon, in 
 his words of 1560, and which we claim answer the slight question 
 in the very way in which we answer it. 
 
 i. The words clearly state of whom Melanchthon speaks : "There 
 were some who wished to avoid the perils of Confession. But 
 others, the Princes and officials whose names follow the Confession, 
 judged that the Confession should be presented." [Germ. Elector 
 
1877-78.] A SLIGHT QUESTION. 8^ 
 
 and Princes, and cities, legates.] '" " Gubernatores" does not mean 
 "nobles," as the Lutheran translates it. It refers especially to the 
 governmental officials, the legates who represented Niirnberg and 
 Reutlingen. There were no noblemen except the Princes, who 
 signed the Confession. Those of whom it speaks were, as a body, 
 not in Augsburg May 22. 
 
 ii. The words of Melanchthon clearly state of juhat Confession it 
 speaks : It is the Confession which is e.vtant. '" It is no fragment or 
 division. It is the complete form.-'^ It is morally identical with the 
 Confession as delivered; that is, identical in the faith, and in the 
 substantial of the form of expression. We have never asserted, as 
 the Lutheran seems to suppose, that it was approved by Luther, 
 "exactly as it went before the Emperor." On the contrary, we 
 have said: "This complete form was identical inmatter \\A\\v X\\t 
 Confession as exhibited, although verbal changes were made by 
 Melanchthon up to the very time of its delivery."'--' There were 
 changes in words, none in things ; literary changes, not theological 
 ones. It was this Confession -Mvhich Luther read and approved, 
 and this Confession which was read before the Emperor. '-' 
 
 iii. It is beyond dispute that Melanchthon marks the ti'/ne u<hen 
 the discussion which preceded Luther's approval of the Confession 
 took place. He marks it : 
 
 a. By the presence of the Elector, Princes and Legates of the 
 cities who signed it. These came to Augsburg in the following 
 order: May 2 — i. The Elector; 2. The titulary Prince, John 
 Frederick, the Elector's son; 3. The titulary Prince, Francis; 4. 
 Wolfgang of Anhalt (these three were in the suite of the Elector, 
 and were of least weight politically ; of the two titulary Princes it 
 has long been doubted, and is still doubted, whether they signed the 
 Confession before its presentation); 5— May 12, Philip of Hesse; 
 6 — May 14. Ernst of Luneberg ; 7 — May 15, Niirnberg; S — May 
 21, Reutlingen; 9— May 24, George, Margrave of Brandenburg. 
 
 If the discussions had begun the day of the arrival of George of 
 Brandenburg, they would have begun on May 24. In regard to 
 
 '"Alii vero principes et gubernatores, quorum nomina ascripta sunt. [Xierm. 
 Diese Chur unnd Fiirslen, unnd .Steclt — Chur uiul FiirMen, unnd Bottschafften, 
 welche sich unterschrieben haben.] 
 
 ""(^uae extat. -' Tola forma. 22 Co„serv. Rcfuimat., 233. 
 
 '■'Mane Confcssionem. '*C'iiani Imperatore lecta est haec Confessio. 
 
84 CHRONOLOGY. [1877-78. 
 
 Philip of Hesse, Melanchthon write? May 22 that he was beginning 
 to show a desire to take part in the Saxon Confession ; May 17, the 
 Niirnberg Legates have not seen the Confession ; May 20, they 
 have not seen it; May 22, they have not yet seen it, but it has come 
 back from Luther; May 26, they have not yet seen it; May 28, 
 they have not seen it. Not till May 31 do they get a copy of the 
 Latin for the Niirnberg Senate. We think no one can read the 
 letters of these Niirnberg " gubernatores " and continue to imagine 
 they took part in any discussion of the Confession before May 22. 
 
 b. It is marked by the time of the coming of the great theolo- 
 gians who took part in the discussion. The greatest of these after 
 Melanchthon, known to have borne part in this discussion, was Bren- 
 tius, who did not reach Augsburg till May 27. 
 
 c. It is marked by the time when the Saxon Confession was first 
 regarded with reference to the possibility of making it the Confession 
 of all. This was not until after May 24. The proposition. to make 
 the Saxon Confession the Common Confession originated with 
 George of Brandenburg, the last comer of all, and next to the Elec- 
 tor, the greatest of the Protestant Princes. 
 
 d. It is marked by the time when the Confession was in such a 
 state of completeness that it could be made the basis of discussion. 
 It was demonstratively in no such state till after May 22, when Me- 
 lanchthon writes of the Articles of Faith as completed unless Luther 
 has changes to suggest, but that the rest of the Confession is yet 
 open to important modifications. 
 
 iv. But with the foreclosing of the question of the time of the dis- 
 cussion, the whole question between us and the Lutheran seems to 
 be foreclosed. For it cannot be disputed, nor does the Lutheran 
 nor Dr. Brown dispute, that Melanchthon asserts that after the 
 discussion, in the presence of the Princes and other Officials who 
 became Signers of the Confession, it was sent to Luther. " J/issa 
 est t/einite" can mean only that it was subsequently sent — '■'■then 
 sent," as the Lutheran is pleased to render it, which does well 
 enough as regards the main point, but fails to mark the emphatic 
 character of the " deinde,^^ which shows that Melanchthon laid 
 stress on the succession in order of time. Dr. Brown says the dis- 
 cussion took place before May 1 1 ; the Lutheran says it took place 
 before May 22; but both agree that the whole form was prepared 
 and discussed before it was sent to Luther. 
 
1877-78. J A SLIGHT QUESTION. 85 
 
 V. It cannot be disputed that IMelanchthon says that Luther sig- 
 nified his approval to the princes (principibus), who discussed, and 
 afterwards signed the Confession. This cannot refer to Luther's 
 letter of May 15, for several reasons : a. The letter to which that 
 is an answer was sent by the Elector alone, no other Princes (of 
 his suite) taking part in it ; it was not the object of discussion among 
 the Princes and legates — the counselors and theologians. It im- 
 plies that no one at Augsburg bad touched the Confession except 
 Melanchthon. b. Luther's letter is to the Elector alone, about 
 Melanchthon's "Apology," and precludes all idea of there having 
 been any general discussion of the "Apology" before the sending. 
 c. The Elector's and Luther's letters had been published in both 
 the Wittenberg and Jena editions three years before. They were in 
 the hands of all, and familiar to all. Melanchthon had edited the 
 Ninth Volume of the Wittenberg Edition, in which the letters are 
 contained. Their character could not but be familiar to Melanch- 
 thon, and he, and all who read them, could not but see that his 
 language could not apply to them. The Lutheran itself agrees with 
 us here, and says that the letter of May 22, and Luther's of June i, 
 "and the tenor of Melanchthon's statements in the Preface to his 
 Corpus Doctrinae, strongly warrant the inference that Luther did 
 have the Confession, as a whole, sent him subsequently to May 11, 
 and that it then again received his sanction." For Dr. Brown's 
 theory, that Melanchthon's words refer to the one sending May 11, 
 it substitutes the theory that they refer to Hoo sendings. May 11 
 and May 22, in which the Lutheran' s \)0?i\i\<:)\\ is weaker than Dr. 
 Brown's, for the words can refer only to one sending. Me- 
 lanchthon must be taken as a valid witness on the Chronology 
 throughout, or he is not a valid witness on the Chronology at all. 
 
 vi. Nor can it be disputed that Melanchthon says unmistakably, 
 that after the discussion, and after the sending to Luther, and his 
 writing of his approval, in that order of succession, it was read be- 
 fore the Emperor. Postea lecta est, can mean nothing but "after 
 this," to wit, this discussion and the sending, it was read. A good 
 Latinist like Melanchthon, marks as he does, by "■ deinde" and 
 "postea,'' strict succession in relation and time: First, it was dis- 
 cussed ; second, it was sent to Luther ; third, it was returned with 
 his approval ; fourth and finally, it was read to the Emperor. Of 
 this very vital and conclusive fact, the Lutheran iloes not seem to 
 
86 CHRONOLOGY. [1877-78. 
 
 have known, as it added to the general misfortune of quoting sec- 
 ond-hand, the particular misfortune of (juoting after Dr. Brown's 
 garbled extract — quoting him so closely as to retain his typograph- 
 ical blunder '■'■quae" for "qui.'''' Had the Lutheran had before it 
 the entire document, it could hardly have failed to see how unten- 
 able is the position of Dr. Brown in which it has followed him. 
 How amply our position is sustained by the general judgment of 
 the ages, from the earliest scholarship of the Sixteenth Century to 
 the latest and ripest of our own, we have shown at large, and it is 
 only necessary here to refer to the testimony we have already given. 
 We shall simply add one more witness. 
 
 Kollner, who on such a question as this, is among the supreme 
 authorities, first shows by overwhelming evidence, that the Elector 
 stood alone ; that not until after the coming of the ^Margrave George, 
 May 24, was the deliberation in common entered upon. He then 
 traces the processes minutely by the dates. He then says : "In the 
 development of the circumstances as we have given them, the Arti- 
 cles of ^Melanchthon, one by one, were at a later period publicly 
 submitted to the representatives of the evangelical party, and were 
 every time not only most carefully discussed and pondered by the 
 other theologians, but also by the civil counselors, nay, by the 
 Princes themselves, and were fixed only after the most careful 
 pondering." He then quotes, in confirmation of this' statement, 
 the very words of Melanchthon, in the Corpus, now under consider- 
 ation, and adds : " What Melanchthon says above does not hold 
 good until after the time when the estates desired the comple- 
 tion and presentation of the Confession, in the name of them all, 
 consequently, as a common symbol -^/'^;// about June 8M."" 
 
 THE ATTEMPT TO MEET THE FACTS. 
 
 How does the Lutheran attempt to meet our argument? Not 
 by showing or attempting to show that Melanchthon's words can 
 bear any other meaning than that we have given them. It accepts 
 our premises and denies our inference. 
 
 i. "All the terms of this statement were reasonably fulfilled in 
 the sendings of May ii and May 22." We have shown on the 
 contrary, that not one of the terms of the statement, was fulfilled in 
 the sendings of May nth and May 22d. On the contrary, the 
 position of the Lutheran is simply impossible. 
 
 ••^Symbolik. Erster Theil, 176-180. 
 
1877-78.] A SLIGHT QUESTION. • 87 
 
 a. It makes Melanchthon refer to two sendings. He speaks of 
 but one. 
 
 b. In bringing in May 2 2d, it destroys all the force of its own 
 position, as to the absence of corroborative testimony ; for we do 
 not possess any judgment of Luther on the Confession, as sent May 
 2 2d. The silence of Luther is as deep on the second sending, which 
 the Lutheran admits, as on the third, which it denies because of 
 his silence. But the case against the Lutheran is yet stronger. We 
 know that Luther did receive the letter of May 22d. We have pro- 
 duced his answer to it. The answer does not refer to the Confes- 
 sion at all. Melanchthon's letter of May 2 2d is one to which it 
 would have been ridiculous for Luther to reply in the form of an 
 approval sent to the Princes, as any one will see who reads it. It 
 required an answer only in case the doctrinal articles, in Luther's 
 judgment, required a change. His silence was his answer. Me- 
 lanchthon cannot refer to an endorsement sent to the Princes, be- 
 cause of his letter of May 22. The Lutheran must either go forward 
 to our theory of a third sending^ or fall back on Dr. Brown's that 
 there was but one. A moment's reflection will make this very clear. 
 
 Either Melanchthon's words, "he wrote to the princes," refer 
 to Luther's letter of May 15, or they do not. If they do, then they 
 do not refer to a letter written after May 22. If they do not refer to 
 the letter of May 15, the Lutheran has nothing whatever on the 
 record to show any reply of Luther's corresponding with Melanch- 
 thon's words of 1560. Dr. Brown has the letter of May 15, by 
 which he can establish his theory at once by simply showing that 
 Melanchthon did not know what he was writing about. But the 
 Lutheran has nothing whatever by which to hold. Dr. Brown takes 
 valiantly hold of one plank out of the wreck; the Lutheran, trying to 
 grasp two planks, sinks between them. If it be shown that Melanch- 
 thon blundered in every particular, and is unreliable from begin- 
 ning to end, we take Dr. Brown's theory as the plausible one ; but 
 if Melanchthon did not blunder, Dr. Brown and the Lutheran are 
 alike mistaken in general, but the Lutheran is more mistaken than 
 Dr. Brown, in particular. If the words of 1560 prove any sending, 
 they prove a sending after May 22 ; if they do not prove that, they 
 prove none. Even the sending of May 1 1 must be established on 
 other grounds. Melanchthon is here good for all we cite him for, 
 or he is good for nothing. 
 
88 CHRONOLOGY. [1877-78. 
 
 c. Melanchthon's words are not then " reasona^/y [u\fi]\ed" in 
 the sencHng of the nth or of the 2 2d, or of both. It is a curious fact 
 that with the Lutheran, just as with Dr. Brown, the very heart of our 
 argument is not even alluded to in the attempts to meet the argu- 
 ment. The demonstrated fact that the Elector, Princes and Legates 
 of the cities, zvho signed the Confession and their Counselors and 
 Theologians are throughout presented by IMelanchthon as those 
 among whom the discussion took place, which preceded the sending 
 to Luther ; the demonstrated fact that they were not present as a 
 whole till May 27; the demonstrated foct that until after May 22 it 
 was not proposed to make the Saxon Confession a general one ; the 
 demonstrated fact that no discussion of a general kind took place 
 till June — all these facts, which are incontestible and decisive, are not 
 even alluded to; but liltle matters are dwelt upon which have no 
 bearing on the real question, and are decided by arguments which, 
 whether good or bad in themselves, are totally irrelevant to the 
 entire subject. We do not know precisely what degree of reserva- 
 tion may be involved in the term "reasonably" by which the 
 "fulfilled" is qualified; but we feel safe in assuming that what is 
 not fulfilled at all is not "■ 7-easonably fulfilled.'" The Lutheran's 
 theory is not only not in reasonable conformity with Melanchthon's 
 words — it is directly contradictory of them. 
 
 ii. The most important fact, in which the Lutheran finds a diffi- 
 culty, is one which we have presented in the Conservative Reforma- 
 tion,^" It is there said : "Luther's letter of June 20^ to Justus 
 Jonas, gives direct evidence how long the interruption of corres- 
 pondence continued: 'Your letters have come at last, my Jonas, 
 after we were well- fretted for three whole weeks with your silence.' "'^' 
 The dates of the letters to Luther, at this period, which have been 
 preserved, are as follows: May 22, Melanchthon writes; June i, 
 the Elector;'-- June 13, Melanchthon ;-^ June 19, Melanchthon.-'" 
 These dates, however, could create no difficulty in any case, for 
 
 ^Tp. 230-232. 
 
 "Coelestinus, 136 b. Seckendorf, 11. i8r. Biiddeus, No. 127. Walch, xvi. 
 976, who is generally thought to be mistaken in giving it as the reply of l.uther 
 to the letter of Jonas of June 25-29. De Wette, iv. 45, No. 1232. 
 
 ■•'^Werke ; Jena, v. 25. Leipzig, xx. 175. 
 
 ™Corp. Ref., iv. Sup., 1008, No. 721, a. 
 
 *'Corp. Ref., 11. 731. 
 
1877-78.] A SLIGHT QUKSTION. 89 
 
 they involve the personal correspondence of Luther only. We have 
 here to do with a single official communication. But these dates 
 certainly remove one difificulty. They show that there was com- 
 munication with Luther from Augsburg, at three periods after May 
 22, and in time for him to have examined the Confession again, and 
 to have sent his views. The courier who took the Elector's and 
 Melanchthon's letters, could have taken other communications. 
 There is no intrinsic impossibility arising from the nature of the 
 case, and no insuperable lack of evidence, granting that these data 
 really exhaust the case and the evidence. There is no evidence 
 whatever against Melanchthon's statement of this sending after the 
 discussions, which followed May 22. But we do not know that these 
 data really do exhaust the case, or the evidence. There may be 
 much, yet unknown to us, which would shed a powerful light on the 
 whole question. 
 
 To abate the merely negative argument from the assumed silence 
 of Luther, th.ere are various things which it may be well to remem- 
 ber : 
 
 1. Let us remember how kw are the data, how much of the most 
 important matter is lost. Out of all those days, full of intense feel- 
 ings, of plans, hopes and fears, we have but a whisper here and 
 there. Of days which must have been crowded with much of which 
 we would like to know everything, we know almost nothing. His- 
 tory is often compelled to reconstruct, after the manner of the com- 
 parative anatomist who has but a scale, a bone, a tooth, to guide 
 him in his restoration of some giant figure. 
 
 2. Luther often does not answer the particular points of a letter, 
 or assumes that what he says to one would come to the knowledge 
 of another, or answers by the deed, without the word of detail. 
 Any one who will go over his correspondence as given in this vol- 
 ume, will be struck with this. 
 
 3. His complaints of the silence for three weeks in June, have 
 respect to the correspondence of his personal friends — of Melanch- 
 thon especially, and Jonas. 
 
 4. He shows no anxiety in regard to the Confession, but only in 
 regard to the personal safety of his friends, and the safety of the 
 cause. 
 
 5. He does not say that he has received no communications from 
 Augsburg. We know he received some, outside of the correspon- 
 dence with personal friends. 
 
90 CHRONOLOGY. [1877-78. 
 
 6. There were secret and carefully guarded communications with 
 Luther. Spies were very active, especially after the coming of 
 the Emperor. The ordinary messengers were treacherous. Special 
 precautions might be taken in communicating with Luther. His 
 place of retreat was kept secret from the Romanists. 
 
 7.. The same general reasons which caused Lutlier to be left at 
 Coburg, would cause the Prince to keep him as much out of view 
 as possible. Because he was the power mightier than the throne, he 
 was very carefully kept behind the throne. 
 
 8. The lives of the Confessors were in peril. War was threat- 
 ened. Persecution was urged, and a shght pretence of provoca- 
 tion might be sufficient to precipitate matters. The charge of col- 
 lusion with Luther, wlio was under both bans, might have been 
 used as a pretext not only for breaking off all negotiations, but for 
 violence and bloodshed. Hence every official approach to Luther, 
 in June, was most solicitously guarded. 
 
 9. Niirnberg suggests possible solutions of some of the yet unrav- 
 eled mysteries. It is to the diary of its delegates we owe the most 
 important of the Annals of the Augsburg Confession. Niirnberg 
 lies midway on the route between Augsburg and Coburg. Luther 
 received much from Augsburg, through friends at Niirnberg. What- 
 ever went to Niirnberg was half-way to Luther, and to Niirnberg 
 copies of the Confession were passing at the very period in discus- 
 sion. How easy it would have been by a secret understanding to 
 have a copy sent by arrangement with the Niirnbergers, Luther's 
 zealous friends, and, even as over against Melanchthon, almost jeal- 
 ous of his position and rights in this great crisis ! What will Luther 
 think of it? would to them, and all the friends of the Reformation, 
 at Augsburg and elsewhere, be a supreme question. 
 
 10. There may have been a special arrangement by which Luther 
 was reached and heard from in this particular crisis, with an extra- 
 ordinary degree of promptness. Such a communication would of 
 course be guarded with special caution. When Maimburg says'" 
 that ^^ couriers were sent daily to keep Luther informed as to what 
 was doing in the Diet and the Colloquies," his statement may have 
 been influenced by rumors which rose from imperfect knowledge of 
 a particular case of sending. 
 
 The Romanists had got into their hands, by clandestine means, 
 
 ^iRistor. Lutheranism. Lib. Ii. sec. 32. See Seckendorf, II. sec. L.K1X. 
 
1877-78.] A SLIGHT QUESTION. 9 1 
 
 Luther's XVII Articles. There were spies and sneaks, and inform- 
 ers, in the Protestant camp, as there are in all camps. The Rom- 
 anists were very eager to get possession of the Confession before its 
 delivery, and Rome had plent}^ of children to whom perjury and 
 murder, for the Church's s.ike, were virtues. It would have com- 
 pletely thwarted all the plans of the Confessors if their document 
 had been intercepted. If a copy of the Confession had been seized 
 on its way to Luther, the enemies would have been triumphant, the 
 friends humiliated and weakened beyond measure. The Confes- 
 sion, it is safe to say, would in that case, never have been presented 
 to the Diet. In sending it to Luther, after the gathering of the 
 Estates, with the Emperor, special precautions could be employed. 
 It would not go openly with the ordinary correspondence through 
 the common couriers. All allusions, in letter, which would give a 
 hint of the sending, or a clue to it, could be avoided. The obli- 
 gations of secrecy on the part of all involved, would be made very 
 strict. The reasons for making it a secret then, would be of force, 
 for keeping it a secret, and it is with the air of imparting something 
 secret hitherto, that Melanchthon puts forth his statement years 
 afterward. 
 
 11. There may be unknown sources of obscuration, in regard to 
 the points here involved. New sources of evidence may here be 
 opened, as they have been on points of greater difficulty. The 
 Niirnberg letters, which shed so much light upon the dark points of 
 the history of the Confession, were unknown for centuries. Mis- 
 apprehensions have been dispelled, after enduring for ages. Diffi- 
 culties long considered insuperable, have vanished before the dis- 
 covery of some fact of seemingly slight character. How many 
 surface difficulties does the Book of books present, and how many 
 of the most serious of them have been dispelled with the growth 
 of knowledge ! Falsehood hedges her path with cunning contri- 
 vances, and hence, in the outstart of the searcher, all the obtrusive 
 probabilities may seem to be on the side of error, all the apparent 
 difficulties may lie in the way of truth, whose very innocence 
 makes her move with unguarded steps. 
 
 12. But waiving all this: In the strongest putting of the objec- 
 tion it only amounts to negative improbability over against direct 
 evidence of the very strongest and most unimpeachable kind. It 
 amounts to this, that we do not now possess corroborative evidence 
 
92 CHRONOLOGY. [1877-78. 
 
 of a certain kind. But were this valid and overwhelming for an in. 
 ference of any kind, it would not be such for the inference made by 
 the Lutheran. Melanchthon's words can have but one meaning — 
 that Luther had the entire Confession sent to him subsequent to 
 May 2 2. If it can be shown that it could not have been sent 
 at that time, the inference is not that Melanchthon meant to express 
 some other time, but that he was totally mistaken: He falsified, or 
 he blundered. The Lutheran is shut up to one or other of these 
 conclusions if it would shake our position. But in arguing as it 
 does, on the assumption that Melanchthon wrote the truth, its ob- 
 jection becomes fatal to itself, and leaves our argument untouched. 
 It is simply impossible and absurd to say that Melanchthon's notifi- 
 cation of dates is correct, and yet that there was no later sending to 
 Luther than May 22. 
 
 Nothing but the utter overthrow of Melanchthon's credibility as a 
 witness can weaken our claim to have established by the strongest 
 moral probability that the Augsburg Confession, doctrinally the 
 same in principle and essential detail throughout, was sent three 
 times to Luther, in three different stages of elaboration, previous to 
 its delivery. If this result be accepted, it annihilates at one stroke 
 the boldest and most plausible of the pretences by which the attempt 
 has been made to weaken the Augsburg Confession as a witness and 
 bulwark of pure Lutheranism, and as a barrier against Sectarian 
 Unionism. 
 
A QUESTION OF LATINITY. 
 
A QUESTION OF LATINITY. 
 
 BV REV. HENRY E. JACOBS, D. D., Franklin Professor in Pennsylva- 
 nia College. 
 
 IN the Quarterly Revie7v, for April, 1878, we have been called to 
 account for an endorsement, given several years ago, to that 
 portion of ''The Conservative Reformation," which treats of the 
 relation of Luther to the Augsburg Confession. In the Mercersbiirg 
 Revie7v for January, 1872, p. 72, we had said: 
 
 "The hypothesis of Riickert, according to which Luther was pre- 
 vented by a strategy of the Elector, from actually participating in 
 its composition, is accurately examined and completely overthrown 
 by the evidence of original documents. Liasmuch as the aim of the 
 theory is to prove the existence, in the Confession, of concessions 
 to Rome, which would have met the disapproval of Luther, if he had 
 been aware of them, we have always thought it sufficiently answered 
 from the ground of internal evidence; for all the doctrines thus 
 attacked, can be reproduced from innumerable passages of Luther, 
 written not only after, but very many before, the Diet of Augsburg. 
 Scarcely a charge of this kind can be made against the Augsburg 
 Confession, which does not apply also to the Larger and Smaller Cat- 
 echisms. Yet it is a matter of congratulation, that the author has 
 met tlie hypothesis on its own ground, and found it to be so en- 
 tirely opposed to the facts in the case. In connection with this 
 chapter, we have carefully studied in the original the entire corres- 
 pondence referred to, and can bear witness to the accuracy of every 
 statement in the discussion." 
 
 In this last sentence, the editor of the Quarterly finds "a mani- 
 fest reference to the strictures of this Reinetn on the character of 
 some of the statements and arguments of the Conservative Refor- 
 inationy It may be well, in passing, to say that we have no recol- 
 lection whatever of any strictures of the Revieio which were in 
 mind, when the notice referred to was written. The Conservative 
 Reformation had appeared almost three months before it was 
 noticed in the Quarterly. Beginning our study of it immediately 
 
 (95) 
 
96 A QUESTION OF LATINITY. 
 
 on its publication, in connection with the chapter on the subject 
 before us, we read the collection of the correspondence during the 
 Diet, made l)y Coelestinus, which assured us of the strength of Dr. 
 Krauth's position, the correctness of his inferences, and the utter 
 untenableness of the opposite theory. The Reviezv reached us dur- 
 ing a period of great care and anxiety, followed in the same month 
 by absence from home, and the death of a beloved father ; so that, 
 on referring to our copy since the recent revival of the subject, we 
 find the pages containing the strictures uncut. We were not unac- 
 quainted, it is true, with certain exceptions which the editor of the 
 Review had taken to Dr. Krauth's renderings; but we knew of these 
 chiefly from private conversation, and the reference of a sentence 
 to us for examination, with our written opinion on which we had 
 believed him to be satisfied. We in no way considered the editor 
 of the Revieiv the champion of the theory which we pronounced 
 untenable, although even if we had, our testimony against it would 
 have been no less emphatic. So much as to the charge of going 
 out of our way to attack the Riview. 
 
 The article now before us, has compelled a reexamination of the 
 entire subject. Such glaring blunders in translations from the Latin 
 have been charged ^upon the renderings, for the endorsement of 
 which we are held accountable, that it is a simple duty to test the 
 matter still more thoroughly, and either to confess error, or state 
 the reasons why we deem the arguments adduced insufficient to 
 convince us. 
 
 Our article in the I\ferccrsb//rg Revieiv scarcely makes us respon- 
 sible for any translations beyond those of the .correspondence. 
 Neither can we be held accountable for any rendering that may 
 appear in the Proceedings of the Diet, other than had previously 
 appeared in the Conservative Reformation. Waiving, however, all 
 immunities which we might claim from our past relation to the con- 
 troversy, we propose to consider the entire question of Latinity in- 
 volved in the exceptions that have been taken. We approach it 
 as though it were entirely a new subject, and give the result of in- 
 vestigations with the aid of authorities more trustworthy than any 
 we had previously at our command. We acknowledge that our 
 language of seven years ago, in which "we bear witness to the 
 accuracy of <'Z'^;7 statement involved in the discussion," was some- 
 what stronger than we now see was justified by the extent of our 
 
A QUESTION OF- LATINITY. 97 
 
 researches at that time ; since, as we grow older, we are no longer 
 satisfied wvith processes which seemed sufificiently ample then. But, 
 after a patient reconsideration of the entire matter, we are com- 
 pelled to say that the recent exceptions have not led us to detect 
 any error. 
 
 The history of the origination of the Augsburg Confession is not 
 without its difficulties. There are links wanting, the absence of 
 which we greatly miss. It is scarcely to be wondered at that some 
 readers of the correspondence, hoping to find among what has been 
 preserved some letter either from Luther to Melanchthon, or from 
 Melanchthon to Luther, concerning the submission of the Confes- 
 sion in its complete form, or some allusion to such a letter, become 
 discouraged, and begin to question whether at this stage of prepara- 
 tion the Confession was ever seen by Luther, until after its delivery. 
 Nor need we be surprised, that, full of a theory built upon this- 
 negative evidence, the temptation may become strong to explain 
 away positive proof to that, whose chronological relations they 
 cannot precisely fix, and to do violence to language that forbids 
 such interpretation. 
 
 It is assumed on both sides, in the argument, that Melanchthon 
 is a competent witness to the origin of the Augsburg Confession, 
 that the purity of his character forbids the idea of prevarication on 
 his part, that, after the lapse of thirty years, his memory was suffi- 
 ciently accurate concerning the most important event of his life, 
 that, notwithstanding advancing years and the loss of health, his 
 intellectual power was still unabated, and that the habit of precision 
 in the choice and application of words, for which he was distin- 
 guished above his cotemporaries, had not deserted him. All this 
 is conceded; and the decision of the question is made to turn 
 upon the translation of a passage in the preface to the Latin edition 
 of the Corpus Doctrin<z (February i6th, 1560.)^ 
 
 Congessi igitur simplici studio capita confessionis, quae extat, 
 complexus paene summam doctrince Ecclesiarum nostrarum, et ut 
 Imperatori responderetur, et ut falsa crimina depellerentur. Ac 
 nihil sumsi. Pracsentibus Principibus et aliis gubernatoribus et 
 concionatoribus disputatum est ordine de singulis sententiis. Missa 
 est deinde et Luthero tota forma confessionis, (pii Principibus scrip- 
 sit se hanc confessionem et legisse et probare. Haec ita acta esse, 
 
 JC. R. IX. 1052. 
 7 
 
98 A QUESTION OF LATINITY. 
 
 Principes et alii honesti et docti viri adhuc superstites meminerunt. 
 Postea coram Imperatore Carolo in magna frequentia Principum 
 lecta est haec confessio, quod ipsnm ostendit, non esse obtrusam 
 Caesari non poscenti. 
 
 This Dr. Krauth has translated r 
 
 "I brought together, therefore, in singleness of purpose, the 
 principal points of the Confession, which is extant, embracing 
 pretty nearly the sum of the doctrine of our churches." 
 
 "I assumed nothing to myself. For in the presence of the 
 Princes and other officials, and of .the preachers, it was discussed 
 and determined upon in regular course, sentence by sentence." 
 
 " The complete form (/<?/« forma) of the Confession was subse- 
 quently sent to Luther, who wrote to the Princes, that he had both 
 read the (literally this — hanc) Confession, and approved it." 
 
 "That these things were so, the Princes and other honest men, 
 yet living, will remember." 
 
 "After this (^postea), before the Emperor Charles, in a great as- 
 sembly of the Princes, this Confession was read." 
 
 To the third and fourth sentences of this translation exception is 
 taken, as follows : 
 
 1. "It is by no means certain that de singulis sententiis mQixns 
 'sentence by sentence.' It may mean, and probably does, con- 
 cerning each opinion or subject or point." 
 
 2. " It is quite certain, however, and does no require a very pro- 
 found knowledge of Latin to know thus much, that disputattim est 
 cannot have as its direct subject confessio, and hence that Melanch- 
 thon does not say : ' It [the Confession] was discussed and deter- 
 mined upon.' The verb is impersonal, and the meaning simply is, 
 ' there was discussion in order on each opinion or point ; or, as Dr. 
 K. translates, 'sentence by sentence.' " 
 
 3. "Where the 'and determined' comes from we are not in- 
 formed, and are at a loss to conjecture." 
 
 4. "When it is repeated, as it is, the words are italicized thus : 
 ' It was discussed and determined upon,' etc. Then we have it, italics 
 and additions, ' It was sent after the discussion and determination of 
 it in regular order, article by article, as it came, and sentence by 
 sentence, before and by Princes, officials and theologians' (Diet, p. 
 240). If it is meant, after the fashion of our English Bibles, to 
 
 2 Proceedings of Diet, p. 238. 
 
 I 
 
A QUESTION OF LATINITY. 99 
 
 indicate by italics that the words have been interpolated by the 
 translator, and are no part of Melanchthon's text, very well ; but 
 we suspect this is not the design, nor will the reader so understand 
 it. We have thus interpolated into Melanchthon's statement ' de- 
 tertnined upon, article by article as it came . . . by,' without the 
 shadow of authority in the original. It is, however, important to 
 the author's purpose, and these six words of Melanchthon — dispu- 
 tatum est ordine de singulis sententiis — are made to do good service 
 in the cause. But even after putting into the translation of Me- 
 lanchthon's statement twice as much as it really contains," etc., etc. 
 5. " Tola forma does not refer so much to the finish or complete- 
 ness of the work as the entirety or totality of the document, its 
 plan or structure. . . . We should like to know where he found 
 any such meaning as ' finished ' fc«' tota. We venture to say that 
 ' finished ' or ' completed ' in the sense assigned to tota, is quite for- 
 eign to the meaning of that word. To/tts expresses the whole in 
 opposition to a part, and not 'finished' in opposition to 'un- 
 finished.' " 
 
 I. DE SINGULIS SENTENTIIS. 
 
 It is conceded that this may mean " sentence by sentence ;" but 
 it is objected that probably a better translation is, "concerning 
 each opinion or subject or point;" and then, on the basis of this 
 latter translation, an attempt is made to render the expression in- 
 definite and general. No one at all acquainted with the Latin, will 
 deny that one of the most frequent meanings of sententia is " opin- 
 ion, purpose, determination, decision." In this sense it is used, 
 only a few paragraphs below the sentence to which exception is 
 taken : 
 
 Spero meas labores et sententias multis pis et doctis probari; ct 
 semper me ipsum, measijue sententias et actiones subjeci, et adhuc 
 subjicio judiciis omnium piorum et eruditiorum. 
 
 But that sententia frequently has the meaning of "a thought ex- 
 pressed in words, a sentence, a period," "a proposition," is just as 
 manifest. In this sense, we find it in the great works on Rhetoric, 
 the De Oratore of Cicero, and the De Institutione Orator ia of 
 Quintilian, upon both of which Melanchthon published scholia. 
 This use oi sententia might be illustrated by several passages in the 
 De Oratore, for example, L. ii., c. viii. and ix. 
 
 In the Rhetorica ad Herennium, long regarded as from the pen 
 
lOO A QUESTION OF LATINITV, 
 
 of Cicero, and included in many editions of his works, but now 
 ascribed to Cornificius and recognized as one of the sources from 
 which Cicero drew largely, we find a definition of sententia accom- 
 panied by examples that leave no doubt as to its meaning. 
 
 Sententia est oratio sumpta de vita, quae aut quid sit, aut quid 
 esse oporteat in vita, breviter ostendit, /. e., "an expression de- 
 rived from life, which briefly shows what is, or what should be in 
 life." Then follow examples of what he calls simple sentences, e. 
 g., Difficile est primum virtutes revereri, qui semper secunda fortuna 
 sit usus. Liber is est aestimandus, qui nulli turpitudini servit. 
 Egens aeque est is, qui non satis habet, et is, cui nihil satis potest 
 esse. L. iv., c. xvii. In c. xix., a member or clause is defined as 
 "a subject briefly brought to a close without a complete exhibition 
 of the entire sentence" — '■'■sine to tins sententice demonstratione ;'''' 
 and then follows, as an example, the division of a sentence with its 
 various clauses. 
 
 In Quintilian, we find this usage of the word, common in such 
 expressions as initia sententianim (ix. 3, 36) ; initia et clatisiilce 
 sententiarum (ix. 3, 45); ad singulas sententias clausulce (xi. 3, 
 135); congeries verborinn ac sententiarum idem significantium, 
 followed by examples of the repetition of sentences and words 
 (viii. 4, 26, 27); chidendi, i?ichoandi sente?itias ratio (ix. 4, iS); 
 in media parte sententice (ly.. 4, 29); minntissimis sententiis {^. i, 
 130), and many others. 
 
 The dictionaries all give this meaning as one of frequent occur- 
 rence ; and students who have passed through the course of instruc- 
 tion in Latin, prescribed in that excellent manual, approved by the 
 best institutions in England and America, Arnold's Latin Prose 
 Composition, will recall sententia as the word given, p. 127, for sen- 
 tence, and to be applied to such forms as : " He gave the boys the 
 longest sentences he could, to be learned by heart word for word." 
 
 In this sense, too, the word sententia is employed by modern 
 critics in their Latin notes on the classics. Without spending any 
 time in searching for examples, we give one that accidentally met 
 our eye, while writing, in Pearce's Cicero de Oratore (London, 
 1 7 7 1 ) : Qiiam lectionem et scnsiis et haec Ciceronis sententia pos- 
 tulat, i. ^., " both the sense and this sentence of Cicero demand." 
 
 In the Clavis Scripturce Sanctce of Matthias Flacius Illyriciis, the 
 parts of a sententia are enumerated, just as sentences in English 
 
A QUESTION OF LATINITY. lOI 
 
 Grammars, viz., subject and predicate. Sententia igitur aut propo- 
 sitio qualiscunque, potissimum duobus quibusdam constare solet, 
 nempe subjecto ac predicate, seu nomine et verbo. "Subject and 
 predicate, or, in other words, noun and verb." (Clavis S. S., part 
 
 n., p. 35°-) 
 
 Nor must the usage of Melanchthon himself be overlooked. In 
 his scholia on Cicero de Oratore (C. R. xvi., 749), he says : Pri- 
 mum enim simplex sententia concipitur, ut : Scientia liter arum est 
 utilis. Then he proceeds to show how this simple sentence may be 
 varied by figures, and amplified. In his grammars, we find the later 
 word, periodus, ordinarily employed ; and for a good reason. For 
 sententia emphasizes the thought contained in the form; while 
 periodus emphasizes the form without regard to the thought. In 
 the clause before us, a deliberation de singulis periodis, would have 
 been mainly concerning grammatical and rhetorical points ; while 
 de singulis sententiis refers to a careful weighing of each sentence, 
 with respect to the doctrine taught, and the thought conveyed. 
 
 Among Melanchthon's works, there are several brief treatises or 
 tracts, which, after the example of the ancients, he entitled sentcn- 
 tice. Just as one hundred and sixty of the wise sayings of Varro 
 were collected, and published as the Sententice Varro nis, and as 
 mediaeval writers entitled concise explanations of any subject "sen- 
 tentice,'' as Peter Lombardus was styled ''Magister sententiarutn" 
 so also with Melanchthon's SententicB Veterum Aliquot Scriptoruin 
 de Coena Dotnini and Sententice ex Sacris Scripturis collectce quae 
 docent pr<2cipuurn cultum Dei esse promovere Evangelium. In the 
 former, indeed, a sententia may cover a paragraph or more ; in the 
 latter, we have fifty-one short sentences in upwards of thirty-five 
 sententice. Even with the use of sentefttia in this latter sense, which 
 may include a number of sentences, we have something quite dif- 
 ferent from what is intended by the proposed substitute of " opin- 
 ion, or subject, or point," as a translation. There is nothing indefi- 
 nite or general here intended, as our reviewer desires to prove, but a 
 clearly-defined, terse, compact, brief statement. Glassius speaks 
 of such sententice (^Philologia Sacra, p. 211), as "judgments, which, 
 with wonderful brevity, contain within themselves the very greatest 
 subjects." Speaking of sententice in this sense, Quintilian says 
 (xii. 10, 48): "They strike the mind, and frequently by one 
 stroke impel it, and by their very brevity cleave the faster." This 
 
I02 A QUESTION OF LATINITY. 
 
 would be sufificient to show the minuteness of the process described 
 by de singulis sententiis, even if sententia were here as comprehen- 
 sive as when used by Melanchthon in the titles above cited. 
 
 Nevertheless, the use of sentetitia for precisely what we under- 
 stand by sentence, was fretjuent with Melanchthon. For example, 
 in his Syntaxif (1529 \ he says : In Syntaxi praestat exigere, ut 
 non modo discant, quid cur cohaereat, sed numerent etiam ordine 
 vocabula, quae ad perfectam sententiam efferendam requiruntur. 
 Orditur sententiam nominativus, aut quod vice nominativi fungitur, 
 hunc proxime sequitur verbum finitum. * * * Hunc ordinem 
 verborum in interpretando utile est a pueris exigere, ut animadver- 
 tant quot voces sententiam absolvant. " The terms which are 
 required for producing a perfect sentence.'' "The nominative, or 
 what performs the office of the nominative, begins the sentence.'' 
 "That they may notice how many words complete the sentence." 
 
 The context in which de singulis sententiis stands, will also afford 
 light as to the precise meaning here. Melanchthon is writing con- 
 cerning the preparation of a form, and says in a succeeding para- 
 graph : "And since I know how great is the difficulty of this 
 subject, I have always wished that godly and learned men should 
 assemble, and that i\\t subjects concerning the entire doctrine being 
 calmly deliberated upon, they should hand down to posterity the 
 same sentences and forms of speaking." Cumque sciam quanta sit 
 hujus rei difificultas, semper optavi, ut pii et docti homines con- 
 venirent, et j-ebus placide deliberatis de universa doctrina ejusdem 
 sententias et loquendi formas posteritati traderent. Here sententias 
 is placed in antithesis to rebus, sentences to subjects. It is not 
 that the same " opinions, subjects or points" be handed down, but 
 the very same sentences expressing these opinions, subjects, points. 
 Union not only in the same mind, but also in the same judgment ; 
 not only in the thought, but also in the expression of the thought ; 
 that a form might be prepared, which would remain fixed and unal- 
 tered, and thus be transmitted to posterity, in the very sentences 
 and phrases then determined, is the end which Melanchthon thinks 
 desirable. We are reminded of Luther's words in the Preface to 
 the Smaller Catechism: "Choose, therefore, the form of words 
 which best pleases you, and adhere to it perpetually." So also in 
 
 3C. R., XX. 373. 
 
A QUESTION OF LATINITY. I03 
 
 the paragraph in dispute, while Melanchthon is speaking of a differ- 
 ent matter, yet the method proposed is undoubtedly the same. 
 
 We recur to the antithesis in the above passage between res the 
 proper word for " subject," and sententia. Had Melanchthon in- 
 tended to say ''subject by subject," his words would have been '' de 
 singi//is rebus ;" or, if topic by topic, "de singitH^ locis.'''' Point, 
 the third word suggested as a substitute for sentence, is ambiguous. 
 If used in the general sense of caput rerum, head, or prominent feat- 
 ure, or particular, it can have no place here. It would be no 
 proof that Melanchthon had assumed nothing to himself, as he tries 
 to show by this clause, if there had been only such a deliberation 
 concerning the heads of the proposed confession, as would have 
 left the language general and indefinite. If it be used in the sense 
 of apex literarum, every jot and tittle, this is more specific 
 than Melanchthon intended, or the critic means to intimate. 
 If by this it be intended to make sententia equivalent to subject or 
 principle, in the sense in which we speak of the nine points of the 
 law, or the five points of Calvinism, this has been already shown to 
 be impossible. If Melanchthon meant any one of these things, 
 with his customary precision, he would have used the proper word 
 for it, and not sententia, fur which we can find no such meaning 
 given by any authority. Such a rendering may be allowed in an 
 extemporaneous translation, expressing in general terms the sense 
 of the passage, but not in one which aims at exactness, and is made 
 the basis for a theory concerning the siolution of historical difficulties. 
 
 But it will be found further, that de singulis senfentiis was not 
 coined by Melanchthon, but was simply adopted by him from 
 Cicero, who uses it in the very sense to which exception is taken. 
 It is found in the Thirteenth Philippic x. 22. Cicero announces a 
 letter which he had just received from Hirtius, and says : Dumque 
 de singulis sententiis breviter disputo, velim, Patres conscripti, ut 
 adhuc fecistis, me attente audiatis. "While I briefly examine it 
 sentence by sentence, I wish you, conscript Fathers, to hear me at- 
 tentively, as you thus far have done." He then reads the title : 
 "Antony to Hirtius and Coesar," and makes his comments; then 
 the first sentence : " When the death of C. Trebonius was made 
 known, I did not rejoice more than I grieved;" then follows an- 
 other comment ;. then a third, a fourth, a fifth sentence, with com- 
 ments interposed ; then a sixth sentence, with comments between 
 
1 04 A QUESTION OF LATINITY. 
 
 each clause, and in like manner to the end of the letter. Hence 
 Quicherat and Davelny, in their Latin-French dictionary (Paris, 
 1858), define this expression thus " De singulis sententiis disputare, 
 Cicero : Commenter chaque phrase (d' une lettre)." Here the ex- 
 amination is made even more minute than sentence by sentence. 
 It is not likely that the most distinguished commentator on the 
 classics, of his period, by mere accident stumbled upon the same 
 phrase as Cicero, to mean quite a different thing. 
 
 The ordine that precedes is also to be taken into the account ; for 
 while it expresses the manner in which the deliberations of the 
 Princes proceeded, the de singulis sententiis marks the minuteness 
 by which every sentence of the document was most thoroughly ex- 
 amined. 
 
 There surely can be no question raised as to the "singulis.'" 
 As a distributive, it answers like all of its class, " to the question 
 quoteno or quoteni ce-a ? ho7ej many at a time ? one at a time, two 
 at a time, etc.; or the preposition by may be used, by tiuos, by 
 threes, etc., or the word each, as two each, three each, etc." (Key's 
 Latin Grammar, § 249 ; Zumpt, § 119 ; Madvig, § 75). 
 
 The phrase de singulis sententiis, literally rendered, is therefore : 
 " concerning sentence by sentence" or " concerning the sentences 
 one at a time" or "concerning each sentence taken separately." 
 
 Thus the words of Melanchthon have been understood, where 
 even the critic must admit that there could have been no motive 
 whatever for a forced rendering. Thus Francke in his Prolegomena 
 to the Augsburg Confession, reaches the same conclusion. Onmes 
 ordines cum consiliariis et theologis, utramque formulam tam curi- 
 ose perlustrarunt ac poliverunt, ut de singulis deinceps sententiis 
 disputaretur. 
 
 So, too, the New Market translation of the Symbolical Books, in 
 the historical introduction, furnishes the rendering not indeed 
 altogether satisfactory, yet correct with respect to the sentcntia : 
 "Each sentence * * being discussed in order." 
 
 Here, therefore, we have detected no error in Dr. Krauth's 
 translation, but find that the charge of want of strict accuracy can 
 justly be laid at our own door for a translation in the Quarterly 
 Review for July, 1S77, p. 362, where, in rendering a note of Dr. 
 Plitt, of Erlangen, in which this sentence occurs, misled, like the 
 reviewer, by the frequent meaning of sententia as opinion, but 
 
A QUESTION OF LATINITY. I05 
 
 noticing that the uncertainty of ''opinion" was not in place here, 
 without consuhing any other translation, or subjecting the clause to 
 a very critical analysis, we translated dc singulis sententiis disputatutn 
 est — "every doctrine was discussed." Such a translation is gener- 
 ically correct, but not specific enough for the present discussion, 
 where every word becomes a matter of minute examination and 
 controversy; and we are grateful for the occasion that has led to a 
 review of the entire subject, and a detection of the error. 
 
 II. THE IMPERSONAL CONSTRUCTION. 
 
 We beg pardon for referring to a very elementary principle. At 
 the very threshold of his course, the student who attempts the 
 acquisition of another language, learns that there are two modes of 
 translation. The intensely literal mode rigidly renders word for 
 word, and every part of speech and form by its precise English 
 equivalent, with little regard to the awkwardness of the sentences 
 thus framed, or their failure to express the entire force and full 
 spirit of the original. In the schools, we are confined to this 
 mode, until the student has mastered the construction. But when 
 this stage is once reached, we pass from the mechanical to the 
 idiomatic method of translation. In reality, the latter is the only 
 translation properly so called ; as the former gives us the foreign 
 tongue only in English words, but not with an accurate reproduc- 
 tion of the precise shades of thought, which is essential to a true 
 rendering. Especially in the classical languages, ideas at first unno- 
 ticed, and altogether untransferable by the mechanical method, 
 depend fre([uently upon the order of the words, and other means 
 for conveying emphasis ; and in order to be faithful in reproducing 
 the full meaning of the author, resort must be had to another idiom. 
 For example, in an approved work on Latin idioms, Ccescirem 
 interfecit amicus is translated, " Ca;sar was killed by his friend."* 
 AVe almost hear the exceptions of critics of the school which the 
 article in the Review represents ; for we often meet them at a very 
 early stage in the course. "What ignorance of the first principles 
 of Latin," they say. " CVsi-^;r;« is accusative. Interfecit \% ■xc\\\q. 
 Amicus is nominative. It does not re([uire a very profound knowl- 
 edge of Latin to know that." Of course not; neither does it 
 require a very profound knowledge of Latin to attain a more thor- 
 
 *Abbot's Latin Prose through English Idiom, p. iii. 
 
Io6 A QUESTION OF LATINITY. 
 
 ough insight into the construction. For the reflecting student will 
 note the emphatic position of amicus, and the consequent necessity 
 to reconstruct the entire sentence, in order to assign the prominent 
 idea its proper place. 
 
 So, too, clearness often requires the supplying of a word in a 
 translation. All that can be demanded, is that the word supplied 
 be clearly implied in the context, and that the translation thus ren- 
 dered convey no idea foreign to the mind of the author. 
 
 Applying, then, this principle, we find that the impersonal con- 
 struction is one for which frequently a precise equivalent in English 
 cannot be given by an intensely literal rendering. The design of 
 its employment in preference to a personal construction, is to throw 
 the emphasis upon the idea of the verb instead of upon that of the 
 subject of the state, thought or action described. " Hence," says 
 Roby (Latin Grammar, vol. i., pp. 177-8), "whenever in English 
 an unemphatic pronoun is sufficient to denote the subject without 
 risk of mistake, the finite verb in Latin requires no addition for this 
 purpose. This is so * * 4. in certain verbs in the 3d person singular, 
 where the fact of the action, state or feeling, is the prominent point, 
 and the doer is left indefinite. Such verbs are called impersonals." 
 
 Such is the construction in the clause disputatum est ordine de 
 singulis sententiis. Melanchthon preferred it to Confessio disputata 
 est or Coiifessionem disputabant, as either would have thrown the 
 emphasis upon the Confessio, or a pronoun which might have stood 
 for it, instead of on the idea conveyed by the verb. In English, 
 however, the unemphatic pronoun " it " can be employed to express 
 the subject, without the change of emphasis resulting from the sim- 
 ilar construction in Latin ; while such a translation as " there was a 
 discussion and determination," is open to the charge of conveying 
 an indefiniteness, which, because of the difference of idiom, is not 
 contained in the Latin. "The idiomatic frequency of impersonal 
 constructions in Latin," says Madvig (Grammar, Am. Ed , p.' 100), 
 "may be avoided in English in various ways, particularly by the 
 use of the indefinite they and one.'''' In accordance with this princi- 
 ple, " it " is employed for the same purpose in the clause before us. 
 The ablative absolute in the first part of the sentence, renders the 
 change of the passive voice to active, and the supplying of the nom- 
 inative "they" as suggested by Madvig, less natural, although the 
 meaning conveyed would be the same, whether the translation be 
 
A QUESTION OK LATINITY. I07 
 
 "they discussed and determined it," or, " it was discussed and de- 
 termined." 
 
 " It was discussed and determined," is, therefore, entirely correct ; 
 not because disptitatum est, a neuter form, has a pronoun referring 
 to Ctm/essio, a feminine noun, agreeing with it, but because the 
 context clearly shows that the subject of the discussion and determi- 
 nation, was the Confession. Accepting the substitute of the Re- 
 view: " There was discussion in order on each opinion or point," 
 we ask : On each opinion or point of what? If of the Confession, 
 as the reviewer cannot dispute, we ask whether this is not precisely 
 the idea conveyed by the translation ? Who that reads the entire 
 paragraph can judge otherwise? No fault can be found with the 
 translation, unless the reviewer can prove that the discussion was on 
 some other subject, or about matters in general, or that the author 
 wished to keep the subject of the discussion out of view. Apt as 
 the exception on this point may be to mislead the unwary, yet it 
 detracts greatly from the force of the arguments, on the points upon 
 which the question in dispute really turns For it does not require 
 a very close examination of the subject to see clearly that this excep- 
 tion is a mere quibble. No amount of philological research can 
 prove that a general conversation on indefinite subjects is here 
 meant. It was the Confession that was discussed and determined ; 
 nothing else. 
 
 Ill, MEANING OF DISPUTATUM EST. 
 
 Here there is a better ground for the exception taken. We frankly 
 acknowledge that at first we also had some doubt concerning the le- 
 gitimacy of the words: "and determined" that follow "discussed." 
 Our doubt arose, not from the fact that three English are made to 
 do service for one Latin word ; as we have learned that the accuracy 
 of a translation often renders such an expedient necessary. "I 
 have endeavored," says Ernesti, in the Preface to his C/avis Cice- 
 roniana, " to present distinct notions of Avords, and thus to lead 
 tyros away from that childish method, too common in our schools, 
 when they think that tliey understand an author, where they can 
 translate the Latin by just as many German words." Thus for ex- 
 ample the verb opto may ordinarily be rendered by " wish" or 
 "desire," but the moment a critical point rests upon its meaning, 
 and it becomes a subject of controversy, then such a translation 
 must be made as will bring out its full force, as distinguished from 
 
Io8 A QUESTION OF LATINITY. 
 
 volo and expeto, cupio, aveo and gestio ; and we liave the proper ren- 
 dering "to wish and leave the reahzation of one's wish to others," 
 as given by Doderlein (Manual of Synonyms, Am. Edition, p. 
 221). The real point that troubled us, was as to whether the idea 
 "determined upon" were included in the dispittatnm est, or 
 whether the meaning were not already exhausted by the term "dis- 
 cussed." That it sometimes means scarcely more, can be estab- 
 lished. But the result of a patient examination, has shown us: i. 
 That there are the very best authorities for this additional idea. 2. 
 That the context shows that this idea is implied here. 
 
 Doderlein's Hand-Book op^ Latin Synonyms, translated by 
 Arnold, gives us one of the meanings of dispiito : "to weigh argu- 
 ment against argument, and ascertain on which side the balance 
 truth lies" (Am Edition, p. 63). Here we have precisely "to 
 discuss and determined The unabridged German work, by the 
 same author, unrivaled as an authority in its department, contains 
 the same definition : " Gnind gegen gritndgestellt gleichsani abrech- 
 net aiif ivelcher Seite das Plus von Wahrheit bleibe'" (iv. 18). 
 
 White and Riddle's Latin-English Dictionary (Fifth Edition, 
 1876), is conceded to be thus far the most complete of Latin-Eng- 
 lish Lexicons. It is based upon Andrew's translation of Freund's 
 Lateinische Worterbuch, and embodies the labors of Freund in cor- 
 rections and additions to Andrew, as well as extensive additions and 
 revisions on the part of the two English editors. We quote from 
 the unabridged work. Here we find the very first and proper meaning 
 o( disputare, to be " to cast up, calculate, reckon, estimate." This 
 meaning is supported by the etymological references '^ dis (No. 11. 
 A., 3 b) and puto (No. 11. a)." Turning to the references, we find : 
 "Futo — clear up, set in order, arrange, settle, adjust.'" ^'Dis, of com- 
 putation severally, one aftrr another, and so in pregnant force up, 
 dinumero disputo." Precisely in accordance with this, is the ety- 
 mology of the English word dispute, given by Webster: "From 
 prefix dis and putare to clean ; tropically, to clear up, to set in 
 order, to reckon, to think." 
 
 Even Andrew's Lexicon, to which every American student has 
 access, shows that the prominent meanings of puto are " to clear 
 up, set in order, arrange, settle, adjust, reckon, value, estimate, 
 esteem, ponder, consider, reflect upon, decide, judge," and that 
 "■ think over," " suppose, account, suspect, believe, think, imagine," 
 
A QUESTION OF LATINITY. I09 
 
 are secondary, as is illustrated by the quotation from Aulus Gellius : 
 " Verbum quoque ipsum ///■/(?, ([uod declarandos sentential nostras 
 causa dicimus, non signat profecto aliud, quam id agere nos in re 
 dubia obscuraque, ut decisis amputatisque falsis opinionibus, quod 
 videatur esse verum et integrum et incorruptum, retineamus." 
 " The very word puto, which we speak for the purpose of declaring 
 our decision, designates in fact nothing else than that in a doubtful 
 and obscure matter, we aim at this, viz. : that false opinions being 
 cut off and pruned away, we may retain what seems to be true and 
 sound and unadulterated." He might have continued the quota- 
 tion : " Therefore in the treaty with Carthage silver was said to be 
 putitni^ as though exputatimi, and refined by melting {cxcoctimi), 
 and freed from all foreign material, and purified, and brightened by 
 the removal from it of all refuse." Or the citation might have 
 begun a sentence or two earlier: ^'piitare the ancients have applied 
 to the removal and extirpation of useless and unnecessary things 
 from any matter, and the leaving of that which seems to be useful 
 and without a fault. For thus it is said that trees and vines, and so 
 also accounts,////^?//" are i)runed, settled). 
 
 George's Latin-GekiMan Lexicon (1869), defines dlspiitare: i. 
 Ganzlich im Reine bringen, abrechnen, sich berechnen. 2. Etwas 
 oder iiber etwas abhandeln. i. To bring entirely into the clear, to 
 reckon, to settle. 2. To treat of something or concerning some- 
 thing. 
 
 Freund's Latin-German Lexicon (1844), the original of Lev- 
 erett, Andrew, White and Riddle: "L Ursprunglich in der Ge- 
 schaftssprache : eine summe nach ihren einzelheiten iiberschlagen, 
 abschiitzen, abwagen, Plautus, Aulularia, 3 : 55- IL Ausserhalb 
 der Geschiiftssprache : einen zweifelhaften Gegendstand nachden- 
 kend, oder (gewohnlich) redend, abwagen, erwagen, untersuchen, 
 auseinandersetzen, abhandeln, iiber etwas handeln, u. dgl." L 
 Originally, in mercantile language : to compute, estimate, weigh 
 a sum according to its items. IL Beyond mercantile language: 
 By reflecting upon a doubtful subject, or commonly by speaking 
 upon it, to weigh, ponder, investigate, elucidate, discuss, treat of 
 anything. 
 
 Facciolati and Forcellini's Lexicon (1805), gives among other 
 definitions, the following : Disputo a dis et puto, quasi hinc et 
 inde puto, ex utraquc parte dissero, sententiam profero, discepto," 
 
no A QUESTION OF LATINITY. 
 
 /. <?., " From dis and puto, as though I reckon on this side and on 
 that, treat of both sides, announce sentence, decide" (juridical 
 meaning of discepto). "Wherefore," they continue, "just as 
 Plautus, Cas. 3 : 2, 25, has said, putare ?-ationtm (to settle an ac- 
 count), so also disputata ratio (the account was settled) is found in 
 the same writer, Aul. 3 : 5,55, and dlspntatlo is used for computatio 
 in the measure of fields by Columella, Cap. i, Lib. 5." 
 
 Stephan's Thesaurus (1735) follows the definition of Varro, 
 viz.: pu) urn facere, to make pure, and adds : " But disputo is Ixo^- 
 \Cdi\\y disceptare et disserere, Mart. 9: 79." 
 
 So too the Lexicon MagnuiM Juris of Kahl (1689) : " For 
 disputare is properly to make pure. But tropically, it is to delib- 
 erate upon any subject, the reasons on both sides being collected, 
 so that the truth may at length be learned." 
 
 Holyoake's Dictionary (1677) uses almost the same words: 
 ^'■Disputare is properly to make pure by clearing away anything 
 superfluous. But, metaphorically, it is to deliberate on any subject, 
 the reasons on both sides being collected, so that the truth may at 
 length be learned," or, as it could be translated with equal 
 propriety, "so that the truth is at length learned." Disputare 
 proprie est putum facere, superfluum quid putando : Metaphorice 
 autem est aliquam rem inde collectis rationibus agitare ut Veritas 
 tandem cognoscatur. 
 
 With this agrees the Dictionarium Decem Linguarum of Am- 
 BROsius Calepinus (1594), in which the definition occurs. '^Dis- 
 putare likewise signifies to deliberate upon any subject, so that the 
 truth may at length be learned," or "is at length learned." Dis- 
 putare item significat rem aliquam agitare, ita ut verum tandem 
 cognoscatur. 
 
 "Qui disputat," says St. Augustine, (Contra Cresconium Donatis- 
 tam, cxv.) "verum discernit a falso. * * Qui verus disputator est, 
 id est, veritatis a falsi tate discretor." " He who disputes separates 
 the true from the false. * * He who is a true disputer, /. c, one 
 who separates truth from falsehood." Cf. the entire paragraph. 
 
 That the English word discuss does not exhaust the meaning 
 of disputare is therefore manifest. "Discussion," say several 
 authorities on English synonyms (Crabb, Webster), " often serves 
 more for amusement, than for any solid purpose." " It may be no 
 more than a collation of what is said and argued upon that point, 
 
A QUESTION OF LATINITY. Ill 
 
 without giving in an adhesion to any conclusion or view whatever'' 
 (Smith's English Synonyms Discriminated). 
 
 We have found, however, as additional meanings of dispiitare, 
 ^^ to weigh argiimnt against argument, and ascertain on winch 
 side the balance truth lies" " to weigh, cast up, calculate ;" '■'■to 
 bring entirely into the char,'''' '■'to settle;''' lo treat of both sides, 
 announce sentence, decide''' to deliberate on any subject, '■'so that 
 the truth may at length be learned.''' This surely is sufficient to 
 show that " discussed and detey-mined" do not exceed the limits al- 
 lowed in a definition o( disputare. 
 
 It remains to ascertain the meaning in the particular passage 
 before us, as to whether the context implies that the Confession 
 was determined upon sentence by sentence. This is made clear by 
 a consideration of the purpose of the clause. It is introduced in 
 order to show that responsibility for the Confession rested not with 
 Melanchthon alone, or even chiefly with him, but also with Luther 
 and "the Princes, other officials and preachers." "I assumed 
 nothing to myself," Melanchthon says; for " in the presence of the 
 Princes," etc., disputatum est. Before the fact expressed by dispu- 
 tatum est, the form prepared was simply in the same category as a 
 bill drawn up for a legislative body, before any action upon it has 
 been taken. No condition whatever can transfer responsibility for 
 the bill from the author to the body of legislators, until they have 
 by direct action approved it. A mere discussion, however minute 
 and extended, still leaves the bill upon its author's hands. If Me- 
 lanchthon meant by disputatum est nothing more than pure discus- 
 sion, this sentence is altogether useless, as an explanation of what 
 precedes. As, however, the word disputare has often the clearly 
 established meaning of "discuss and determine," all the difficulty is 
 at once removed by its adoption. 
 
 This is confirmed by the Preface to the German edition of the 
 Corpus Doctrince, which, without being identical with the preface 
 to the Latin edition, nevertheless presents many of the same facts 
 and phrases. " Previously also, before it had been read before His 
 Imperial Majesty, it was submitted to the Elector and Princes and 
 ambassadors, who have signed it, who with their counselors and 
 preachers who were there, diligently weighed (fleissig bewogen 
 haben) all the articles." 
 
 This is in perfect harmony with the de singulis sententiis disputo 
 of the Thirteenth Philippic, which we have above seen that Melanch- 
 
112 A QUESTION OF LATINITY. 
 
 thon undoubtedly had in mind. Cicero uses dispi/to, not dissero. 
 For " der disso'cns will seine subjective Ansicht aussprechen, der 
 disputans will ein Resultat von objectiver Giiltigkiet gewinnen" 
 (Doderlein iv. i8). His aim is not the expression of a subjective 
 view, but the attainment of a result of objective validity. He is 
 confident that the doubt and hesitation of all inclined to waver 
 concerning Antony will be removed, after he has treated of each 
 sentence, and led them to a determination of its real meaning. 
 " Quodsi quis adhuc dubitare potuit, quin nulla societas huic ordini 
 populoque Romano cum ilia importunissima bellua possit esse ; 
 desinet profecto dubitare his cognitis litteris, quas mihi missas ab 
 Hirtio consule modo accepi. Eas dum recito, dumque de singulis 
 sententiis breviter disputo, velim, Patres conscripti, ut adhuc fecistis, 
 me attente audiatis." 
 
 While, therefore, the determination of the form undoubtedly be- 
 longs to the idea of the original, yet the emphasis is still upon the 
 minuteness and system of the process applied to the entire Confes- 
 sion. This enters, as is shown by the definitions cited, into the 
 very meaning of dispute, in a manner that cannot be expressed in 
 Enghsh without expanding the sentence even more than as rendered. 
 Even were there no clause dc singulis sententiis, we would have in 
 disputo not a mere vague, rambling treatment of the chief points 
 involved, but a minute analysis of the entire document, taking into 
 the account, one after another, all its items, together with the rea- 
 sons that could be cited on both sides, in order to attain a clear 
 and fixed form. This is essential to the idea of method which the 
 verb disputo is conceded to mean. Doderlein calls attention to the 
 fact that the German derivative disputiren may mislead the German 
 student ; so also with the English word dispute. "-Disputare,"' says 
 Dumesnil (Latin Synonyms, Eng. Trans., p. 206) is "to dispute as 
 philosophers do,'' /. c, systematically, meth'odically. ^'Disserere,'^ 
 says Doderlein, "denotes a freer; disputare a more methodical 
 treatment of the subject" (iv. 19). 
 
 IV. THE ALLEGED INTERPOLATIONS. 
 
 The charge is made of " putting into the translation of Melanch- 
 thon's statement twice as much as it really contains." To support 
 this charge, the Proceedings of the Diet, p. 240, are quoted. Even 
 though the reviewer may not have so intencfed, the impression is 
 made, that he is referring to the translation. It reqiiires but a 
 reference to the page mentioned to discover that the sentence ob- 
 
A QUESTION OF LATINITY. 
 
 I'3 
 
 jected to, is not proposed as a translation, but simply as one of the 
 points in the summary of the argument. On p. 239, Melanch- 
 thon's words are translated, and enclosed in quotation marks. On 
 p. 240, the sentence upon which the charge is based, is without 
 quotation marks, thus indicating that they belong to the author of 
 the note, and not to Melanchthon. Yet that no improper use has 
 been made of Melanchthon's words can be shown as follows : 
 
 ORIGINAL. 
 
 L at in Preface, 1560. 
 
 German Preface, 1559. 
 Endlich aber ist diese Confes- 
 
 Prjesentibus Principibus et aliis I sio, wie es Gott gefiiget und 
 
 gubernatoribus et concionatori- 
 bus disputatum est ordine de 
 singulis sententiis. Missa est 
 deinde et Luthero tota forma 
 confessionis. 
 
 Translation. 
 For in the presence of the 
 
 geben hat, durch mich also 
 zusammen gezogen, welche ihm 
 der ehrwirdig Herr Doctor Mar- 
 tinus Luther hat gefallen lassen. 
 Sie ist auch zuvor, ehe sie vor 
 Keys. Majest. offentlich gelesen 
 ist, den Chur und Fiirsten und 
 Botschaften welche sich unter- 
 schrieben haben, fiirgetragen, die 
 neben ihren Rlithen und Predi- 
 canten, welche da gewesen sind, 
 alle Artikel fleissig bewogen 
 haben. 
 
 Summary. 
 
 It was sent after the discussion 
 
 Princes and other officials and of j and determination of it, in regu- 
 the preachers, it was discussed 1 lar order article by article as it 
 and determined ui)on in regular ' came, and sentence by sentence, 
 course, sentence by sentence, before and by Princes, officials 
 The complete form of the Con- and theologians, 
 fession was subsecjuently sent to j 
 Luther. 
 
 We ask here, In what has Melanchthon been misrepresented } 
 The only idea not clearly brought out in the Latin, is " article by 
 article," and this is found in the German. Disputo, too, always 
 carries with it the idea of a systematic treatment of a subject, and 
 when modified still further by ordine contains fully the itlea of "dis- 
 cussion and determination in regular order as it came." 
 8 
 
114 A QUESTION OF LATINITY. 
 
 V. THE MEANING OF " TOTA FORMA." 
 
 Tota is not translated "finished" or "completed," as asserted, 
 but "complete," as a reference to the translation will show. 
 Nevertheless, that the complete or entire form means the completed 
 or finished form, is manifest from the statement of Melanchthon 
 concerning the process by which the Confession was composed. 
 Tota is indeed most frequently applied to what is originally a whole, 
 and then cannot mean complete, or imply completed or finished. 
 But when used, concerning that which the context shows is grad- 
 ually formed, and applied after the process by which a result pro- 
 duced has ended, it is as evident as a mathematical axiom that 
 totus, " the whole," " all the," means complete, and refers to what 
 has been finished, and is no longer in an inchoate condition. A 
 youth may indeed say Tota mea vita, my whole life, has been a fail- 
 ure, and yet the tota vita may represent less than a fourth of his 
 earthly life when finished in death ; but just as he advances, does 
 the tota advance with him, so that at every moment it comprehends 
 the entire course over which he has passed, until his career end, 
 when tota and absohita become co-ordinate. Any principle of in- 
 terpretation that regards tota, when used after a document has as- 
 sumed a final form, as applicable to it, at a stage in its preparation 
 when it was confessedly in a form quite different, either casts the 
 imputation of dishonesty, or inaccuracy, or ignorance upon the 
 author of the original, or employs a mode of translation, that can 
 derive from a word any meaning whatever that may be desired. A 
 most convenient method, assuredly, but one which needs neither 
 grammars, lexicons, nor the study of authorities ! The more we 
 consider the objection thus made concerning the tota, the more 
 are we astonished that it should ever have been raised by a scholar 
 of the acknowledged intelligence of the critic. We can explain the 
 error only by supposing that tota forma, with the emphasis on 
 forma, was marked as the vulnerable point, and then by some in- 
 explicable confusion the point of attack was transferred to the tota. 
 We grant, indeed, that in a looser sense, the word tota might be 
 used for what is not absolutely complete or entire, just as many other 
 terms are frequently used in a relative sense. Thus, in English, a man 
 might speak of the loss of his whole fortune, even when a few dol- 
 lars were still left him from the ruin. A very inconsiderable amount 
 may sometimes be regarded as though it were nothing. The tota 
 here clearly means that there was nothing whatever of importance 
 
A QUESTION OF LATINITV. II5 
 
 in the forma as sent to Luther, which did not exist in the form 
 then extant, or, as the note in the Proceedings of the Diet says : 
 "The Confession, when Luther's judgment was given, was in such 
 a state of substantial completeness, as to make it morally identical 
 with the one dehvered." However trifling and insignificant a sub- 
 sequent change might have seemed to Melanchthon, yet if it had 
 been afterwards a matter of controversy, or one upon which Luther 
 had expressed dissent, it would have been a violation of truth to 
 have used the word tola, in referring to the sending of the Confes- 
 sion to Luther, subsequent to the deliberations of the Princes and 
 theologians de singulis sententiis. If a single article of the Confes- 
 sion had been wanting, the tota could scarcely be used, even by the 
 widest stretch of a looser signification of the word. 
 
 It is not difficult to determine the force of its English derivative 
 total, which has preserved the meaning of its primitive. All know 
 what a total eclipse, total darkness, total loss of sight, total sus- 
 pension of specie payments, mean. It is not simply that which com- 
 prises the greater number of parts, but all the parts with all that 
 these parts contain. It is defined as complete by almost all our 
 English lexicographers — not only Webster and Worcester, but also 
 the British authorities, Johnson, Scott's-Bailey, Sheridan, Kenrick, 
 Jones, Barclay, Perry, Walker, Jameson, Wright, Richardson, 
 Broag and Latham. So that "the entirety or totality of the docu- 
 ment" referred to by the reviewer is here clearly the same with its 
 completeness. 
 
 That totus, when applied after the completion of an object to 
 what has been in process of formation, clearly means " finished in 
 opposition to unfinished," is shown by a passage in one of Cicero's 
 Letters to his brother Quintus (Lib iii. c. i): Villa mihi valde 
 placuit, propterea quod summam dignitatem pavimentata porticus 
 habebat ; quod mihi nunc denique apparuit, posteaquam et ipsa tota 
 patet, et columnar polity sunt. That is, he says that the villa has 
 pleased him greatly, because the paved portico had the high-^st 
 beauty, " which now has at length appeared to me, since it lies 
 open as a laholc, and the columns have been polished." Here the 
 use oi tota for complete is evident. He is captivated by the beauty 
 of the portico, since it has been finished, and he views it as a whole. 
 
 Ramshorn's Latin Synonyms, translated by Dr. Francis Lieber, 
 and incidentally referred to in the Book Notices of the April num- 
 
Il6 A QUESTION OF LATINITV. 
 
 ber of the Review as a high authority, defines totiis (as distinguished 
 from omnis, cunctus and universns) as complete. The rarity of the 
 meaning of complete for toius in the lexicons, arises from the fact 
 that it was usually applied, as Doderlein remarks in his Synonyms 
 (Unabridged Work, Vol. iv. 357 ; of. also Manual, American Edi- 
 tion), to what is originally a whole, but which is liable to fall 
 into pieces by accident, whereas omnis, iiniversiis and cunctus 
 denote original individualities which form a whole by their associa- 
 tion." It will be noticed that, in this sense, tota could not have 
 been used by Cicero, in the letter above cited, or by Melanchthon, 
 in the passage under consideration, as the Confession is not regarded 
 as an original whole, but as having been developed into a complete 
 form by a process of growth, whose stages are distinctly marked. 
 The same remark applies also to Luther's use of the same word, 
 concerning the Confession, in his letter of July 3, where there can 
 be no doubt as to the meaning of Rclegi h'ri tuam apologiam dili- 
 genter totam, as referring to the complete Confession. 
 
 But while all objections to the translation of ^'- tota forma,'''' as the 
 complete form, utterly fail, we need not insist on the precise word 
 objected to. If we simply translate tota forma as "the whole 
 form," or "all the form," or as Freund defines /^///j-, ganz und gar, 
 'oollig, or as Cooper's Thesaurus, "every whit of," the way is en- 
 tirely closed against any hypothesis of material changes or additions 
 after the Confession is said to have reached this stage of prepara- 
 tion, l^ tota forma designate the Confession, as it existed on May 
 nth, or even May 2 2d, then all the testimony we have from cotem- 
 porary documents, as to the changes made in the interval before the 
 delivery must be explained away, an alternative that is impossible. 
 
 The reviewer explains the tota as used to designate the two 
 divisions of the Confession, " the doctrinal articles" and the "con- 
 troverted articles," and understands Missa est deinde et Luther 0, 
 as : The two sections of the Confession in their general structure 
 were afterwards sent to Luther. Thus tota, "comprising all the 
 parts," '■'ganz und gar,''' "every whit of," gradually wanes under 
 the pen of our critic, until it loses all its force. The fact is ignored, 
 that what is a part of a part, must also be a part of the whole. 
 A hand cannot be strictly called tota manus, if the smallest joint 
 of the smallest finger be wanting, or the body a totum corpus, if one 
 of the hands be thus mutilated. So, too, in Zoology, a peculiarity 
 
A QUESTION OF LATINITY. I I 7 
 
 dare not be predicated of a natural order as tota, if a single known 
 species of a single genus fail to exhibit it ; a slip of this kind would 
 be published and condemned by scientists as soon as detected. Of 
 course, in regard to the statement of occurrences, somewhat more 
 latitude in the use of terms is allowed than in scientific terminol- 
 ogy ; but that tliis is much more restricted than what the reviewer 
 desires, is clear. 
 
 It is conceded that totiis is the Latin etjuivalent for \,,\(ir,. As such 
 it is frequently used in the Vulgate. We recall the fact that in one 
 of the chief passages, upon which rests the doctrine of the univer- 
 sality of the atonement, i John ii. 2, precisely the same mode of 
 explaining away the force of the tottis has been resorted to by the 
 advocates of a limited atonement. '• He is the propitiation for our 
 sins ; and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world 
 TTEiil b'/oi' Tov Kocfiov pro totiiis mi/nJi.'' Not all the world, they say, 
 but for believers scattered among all nations, in all parts of the 
 world, or for believer who will be born in all ages of the world. 
 Surely, with the reviewer's idea of tota, as applicable only to the 
 two general divisions of the Confession, without necessarily imply- 
 ing any completeness within these sections, there can be no diffi- 
 culty in accepting the to/his mtindi as indicating simply the two 
 great sections of humanity, Jews and Gentiles, with respect to 
 those within them who will be saved. The reviewer, it is likely, 
 repudiates such an evasive meaning of the h^.un, totus, in the passage 
 cited; but to be consistent he must do the same also here. 
 
 So, too, reference might be made to the same force of totiis in 
 our Saviour's summary of the law : "Thou shalt love the Lord thy 
 God — [v ()'7ii 71] HnpiVid. etc.; (X ioto cordc ti/o, ct in tota anima tiia, ,t 
 in tota mint,- tita'" (Matth. xxii. 37); by which there is demanded 
 such complete, full, entire, thorough obedience, that " whosoever 
 shall keep the whole law," not simply the main principles of the 
 two tables, but the totam legem — hhw -wvbnw, "and yet offend in 
 one point, he is guilty of all" (James ii. 10). The importance of 
 the Vulgate in investigating the meaning of words employed by the 
 Reformers and early theologians of our Church must not be ignored. 
 
 We have not overlooked some passages in which totus- is used in a 
 looser sense, such as Matth. iv. 23 : " Jesus went about all Galilee " 
 (totam Ga/i/aani), which does not indeed mean that he traversed 
 every atom, or square inch, or foot, or mile of its territory, but only 
 
I I 8 A QUESTION OF LATINITY. 
 
 SO much that no important place was omitted. The apphcation of 
 tota, even in this sense, would be fatal to the reviewer's theory, as 
 the aim of his argument is to show that although the tota forma, 
 the whole form, had been sent to Luther, yet there were imjx^rtant 
 portions of the Confession withheld until after the delivery. 
 
 It has already been intimated that, had the reviewer felt so dis- 
 posed, he might have assailed the forma with perhaps a better show 
 of success than the fota. It is used for "contour, figure, shape, 
 pattern, frame-work," " delineatio fittiiri adificii,'" " disposifio par- 
 fium exterior,'' and thus might perhaps be applied to the outline of 
 a document, and, from this, the inference might be drawn that only 
 a scheme of the whole had been sent to Luther. But the fact that 
 the Confession had passed beyond this stage before Melanchthon 
 began his work upon it, and especially that after the elaboration of 
 what was transmitted to Luther on May iith, the term outline 
 could no longer be applied to forma in this connection, prevented 
 the reviewer from building his argument upon this basis. If these 
 considerations were still insufificient to show that forma could not 
 be thus used, the third pxiragraph after the statement under discus- 
 sion, already quoted, is decisive. "Since I know how great is the 
 difficulty of this subject, I have always wished that godly and 
 learned men should assemble, and the subjects, concerning the 
 entire doctrine, being calmly deliberated upon, that they should hand 
 down to posterity the same sentences 2>x\^ forms of speaking." So, 
 too, Luther, in the Preface to the Small Catechism : Ut perpetno 
 eadem utantiir forma ; and in the following sentence : Una atque 
 eadem forma saepiia proposita ac repetifa. " That they perpetually 
 use the same form." "One and the same form being very fre- 
 quently presented and repeated;" which means, as the context 
 shows, a set form of words, the very same words, " /// ne una qi/idem 
 syllaba immiitettir. ' ' 
 
 The definition formulary, for which the diminutive formula is 
 more frecjuently used, as in Formula Cone or dice, is that which 
 clearly belongs to forma as here found. 
 
 This is clearly shown by the following memoranda, made by Dr. 
 Krauth : 
 
 MEMORANDA ON FORMA. 
 
 1530, May II. Elector's letter to Luther: "Melanchthon in 
 eine Form gezogen hat." Forni contrasted with Verzeichniss, 
 
 I 
 
A QUESTION OF LATINITY. II9 
 
 sketch, three lines above. Corp. Ref., 687. Chytraeus : Lai: 
 in formam redigisse (translates Verzeichniss by '-scripto brevi"). 
 French : en bonne forme. 
 
 1540. Melanchthon's Formula Tcstamenti.^ Constat Augustin- 
 ianam formam satis explicitam non esse." Forma-Confessio. 
 
 1569, March 25. The Electoral Theologians translate Melanch- 
 thon's words " tota forma Confessionis" : "So hat man die ganze 
 'Confession, wie sie gestalt worden, Luthero uberschickt.'"' 
 
 15 71. The theologians of Leijjzig and Wittenberg, give as eijuiv- 
 alent to " tota forma Confessionis," "dieselbe Schrifft der Confes- 
 sion."" 
 
 1584. In the official defence of the Formula Concordije, by 
 Kirchner, Selneccer and Chemnitz, " tota forma Confessionis" is 
 translated, "die gantze Confession/"^ 
 
 1646. Calovius distinguishes between matter and form in the 
 Confession — the matter of which it is made, the matter about which 
 it treats. The form is either internal, the general sense and mean- 
 ing, or external, " quam vocamus dispositionem totius Confessionis 
 et tractandi modum."" 
 
 1703. Piping says the Elector gave Luther's XVII Articles to 
 Melanchthon, "das er sie iibersehen und in eine bequeme form 
 bringen solte."" 
 
 1730. Pfaff. "The Elector enjoined on Melanchthon that he 
 should revise the XVII Articles, et ampliorem in formam redigat."" 
 
 " I understand the meaning to be this : The matter in its elabor- 
 ated shape, the formulated expression : tota forma Confessionis, is 
 e(juivalent to the Confession in its finished shape — the forma as 
 over against unelaborated material — the tota as against incomplete- 
 ness of shape, either for defect of parts, or of finish in the parts." 
 
 See Index to Miiller's Ed. of Symb. Books, under Form. 
 
 It would be just as difficult to find a vulnerable point in the trans- 
 lation of dcindc by "subsequently," or o{ postca by "after this," 
 as in that of '' tota foima'' by ''the complete form y This, 
 although important to his purpose, the reviewer has wisely not at- 
 tempted. 
 
 » Seckendorf, H. L., 1540, 270. *Acta und Handlung, 1570, 339b. 
 
 ' Bericht, 1571, 12b. ** GriiiKlliche Historia, no. 
 
 ^Crt. Sacra., 42. Excgema Aug. Conf., 111., ^7, 8. 
 '" Eiilciuiii^,', 59, XII. "Imnxl. Histor. III. \2. 
 
1 20 A QUESTION OF LATINITV. 
 
 We are forced, therefore, to the conchision that the entire effort 
 has failed to demonstrate a single error in the points of Latinity 
 involved in the discussion. 
 
 We are also persuaded that, with this clear record of Melanchthon 
 before us and the translation and interpretation proposed in the 
 Conservative Reformation, prevailing over all objections, as it must 
 to all who have sufficient resources for testing the points involved, 
 and are willing to give it earnest and imprejudiced attention, 
 but one result can be reached as to the relation of Luther to 
 the Augsburg Confession, during the period succeeding May ii. 
 It is useless for us to add anything on this subject to the 
 complete vindication of his position which Dr. Krauth has given in 
 this volume. The direct statement in Melanchthon 's letter of 
 May 2 2d. as to the incompleteness as yet of the Confession, the 
 declaration of the Corpus Doctrime, above examined, as to the 
 fact that Luther had seen and approved the tota forma before its 
 delivery, combined with the extensive and decisive reports of the 
 Niirnburg ambassadors as to the transactions in the interim, are 
 matters that cannot be explained away, and that lead inevitably to 
 the conviction that all that has been claimed in this connection, in 
 the Conservative Reformation, and re-affirmed by its author in the 
 Proceedings of the Diet, is a correct representation of historical 
 facts. In this conviction we have been confirmed by the re-exam- 
 ination of the documents, which the article in the Review has com- 
 pelled us to make. 
 
■» 
 
 Date Due 
 
 ftin.1 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 mks^mn^ 
 
 9 
 
 
 
 HV£ii-^- 
 
 
 
 
 . .11 "*' 
 
 
 
 
 ^^rfflf^^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 v?-«.«,^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 \ 
 
 
 
 MA? ^^5 f 
 
 J "" 
 
 
 
 
 f 
 
 
 
 ' i f 
 
 
 
 
 
 *S,^ 
 
 
 
 
 > 
 
 
 
 "^y 
 
 / 
 
 
 
 ^»*« 
 
 sram,"^^"^"'"" 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 f) 
 
 PRINTED 
 
 IN U. S. A. 
 
 
ri'm Vr?! n ''?"°"'" ^fminary-SpMr Library 
 
 1 1012 01144 8729