The efforts of Landgrave Philip of Hesse to settle the Sacrament dispute and to bring about a union between the two parties.
A. From the colloquium at Marburg set up for this purpose in 1529.
20. D. Martin Luther's letter to the Landgrave Philip of Hesse, stating that he would appear at Marburg at his request, but that he had little hope that anything fruitful would be accomplished; in two editions. June 23, 1529.
a. First redaction.
(Draft letter.)
This redaction, which differs significantly from that of the letter actually sent, and seems to be only a draft, is found in the Wittenberg edition (1569), vol. IX, p. 288; in the Jena edition (1566), vol. IV, 465d; in the Mtenburg, vol. IV, p. 560; in the Leipziger, vol. XIX, p. 527; in the Erlanger, vol. 54, p. 83; in De Wette, vol. Ill, p. 473 and in the Unschuldige Nachrichten 1736, p. 131 ("dressirt an den Herzog Albrecht yon Preußen und datirt vom 13. Juni). Latin in Luääsi suppl-, x. 67, reprinted from Hospinmni trist, saor. II, 121.
1. grace and peace in Christ. Sublime, highborn prince, gracious lord! I have humbly received E. F. G.'s writing and gracious request that I go to Marburg to have a discussion with Oecolampad and his followers, because of the discord in the Sacrament, whether God wants to give peace and unity. Although I have a poor hope for such peace, E. F. G.'s diligence and care in this is to be praised highly and very much, and I am willing for myself to prove such a lost and perhaps also dangerous service to E. F. G. with all diligence, and to show E. F. G.'s will and good conduct. F. G.'s will and nobility where I am to go. For I do not want to leave the glory with truth to the adversary (whether God wills), that they would be more inclined to peace and unity than I am. I want to tell E. F. G. just as much at times what I think. But there I ask for, gracious Prince and Lord, that Your Holiness would graciously signify, or also inquire, whether that part would also be inclined,
to deviate somewhat from their opinion, so that finally evil does not become worse, and the very antithesis of what E. F. G. is now seeking so heartily and earnestly comes about. For what good would it do to get together and talk, if both parties come with the intention of not deviating anywhere?
(2) The matter looks to me as if they were seeking, through E. F. G.'s diligence, a little thing from which nothing good would follow, namely, that they might hereafter boast against us, as there had been no fault in them, had moved such a great prince, and thus wanted to weigh us down with disgrace through E. F. G.'s name, as if we were enemies of peace and truth, to adorn themselves in the very finest way. I know the devil well, what he seeks. But God grant that I am not a prophet here. For if it were not a false trick, but real earnestness with them to seek peace, they would not be allowed to undertake such magnificent ways through great, mighty princes, for we are not so desolate and savage by God's grace. They could have offered us their humble diligence for peace, as they boast, with writings long ago and still. For I know well that I will not give way to them; nor can I, because I am so completely certain for myself that they are mistaken, and even uncertain of their opinion. For I have experienced all their reason in this matter sufficiently; so they have also seen my reason well.
3 Therefore, my humble request is that F.F.G., for the sake of God's help, give the utmost consideration to whether it will bring more fruit or harm. For this is certain, if they do not leave, we will part from each other without fruit, and we will have come together in vain, and E.F.G.'s cost and effort will be lost. So they will not be able to cease their boasting, as they have been accustomed to do, and they will weigh us down with unhappiness, so that we will be urged anew to answer for ourselves. So it has become worse than it is now. This is what Satan wants and seeks.
(4) But since F.G. is concerned that bloodshed will result from such disagreement, F.G. also knows what will result (since God is for it), that we are innocent of all this. And God will probably bring our innocence to light. Whether the Rottengeist bloodshed at
he does according to his way, as he did before to Franz von Sickingen, Carlstadt and Münzer, since we are nevertheless innocent by God's grace and the other party remains guilty.
5 I have written these things to E. F. G., to show my ready, willing (even though I hope for very little) service. For I am obliged and willing to serve F. F. G.. But Christ, our Lord, tread Satan under his feet and under the feet of us all, Amen, Amen. Given at Wittenberg, June 23, Anno 1529.
E. F. G.
Martinus Luther.
b. Second redaction.
(The letter really sent.)
The original of this letter, on which Luther's seal still exists, is now in the Marburg Archives. It was first printed in Neudecker's Urkunden aus der Reformationzeit, p. 93 and from there in De WetteSeidemann, vol. VI, p. 102 and in Erlanger Briefwechsel, vol. VII, p. 121 according to De Wette with Neudecker's variants, which are probably mostly based on readings. We give the text after De Wette.
To the illustrious, highborn prince and lord, Philipps, landgrave of Hesse, count of Catzenelnbogen, Nida and Zigenhain, my gracious lord.
Grace and peace from Christ. Sublime, highborn prince, gracious lord! I have gladly and with great diligence received E.F.G.'s writing and request, without doubt made to me out of Christian gracious opinion, together with the writing of my most gracious lord, Duke John, Elector, in which S. C. F. G. also with great diligence urges E. F. G. to give a good answer to the matter, for the good of the matter, to give a good answer, whether God will give His grace that such a two-way split among us of the Sacrament may be done away with, for which E. F. G. agrees with me to come to Marburg on Michelstag, to first discuss amicably and secretly with the opposite.
1) "erst", which Neudecker has, is omitted from De Wette and the Erlangen correspondence Wohl mit Unrecht, because a private conversation preceded the colloquium.
Truly, I believe completely that [it] is E. F. G.'s whole earnestness and heartfelt well-intentionedness, which is why I am also willing and inclined to render such of your F. G.'s Christian conduct a lost (as I worry), perhaps also dangerous service to us, for I certainly also have a desire and love for peace, of which others boast so highly with their mouths and feathers, but with the deed so put that no hope remains there.
But I want to tell E. F. G. just as much in time what I think. The matter looks to me as if the opposing party, through such E. F. G.'s diligence, is seeking a little something from which nothing good will follow, namely, that they may boast afterwards how there has been no fault in them, had moved such a great prince, and will thus, through E. F. G.'s name, weigh us down with unhappiness, as if we had no desire for peace and truth, to adorn ourselves in the finest way. I know the devil well. God grant that I am not a prophet. So far, I have entered my twelfth year with such pieces and tricks, and I am often very burned.
For if this were not a false trick, but real earnestness with them, they would not be able to perform such splendid ways as through great, powerful princes (who probably have other things to do). It would probably be a thin piece of wood, if we were not of such high standing, nor so wild and desolate, if they had long since been able to show and teach us their great grip on peace and truth (as they boast) through the Scriptures.
Accordingly, where it wants to be done to E. F. G., I would like to see that, since E. F. G. wants to get involved in the matter, it would be investigated with her part whether they would be inclined to deviate from their opinion, so that in the end no evil would become worse. For E. F. G. can easily "consider" that all discussion is lost and coming together is in vain if both parties come with the intention of forgiving nothing; as I have not yet found otherwise than that they want to insist on their opinion after they have seen our reason correctly; so I know well that I cannot deviate, as I am sure that they are mistaken, after I have also seen their reason.
If we then separate from each other in disagreement, not only E. F. G.'s cost and effort would be lost, but also our time and work. F. G.'s cost and effort, plus our time and work, would be lost, but also
They would not let go of their boasting, as they have done and used to do, and thus force us to answer for ourselves anew. So it would be better if I had left things as they are now. For in short, I can do no good to the devil, let him be as pretty as he likes.
But E. F. G. worries that bloodshed may follow from such disunity, so again E. F. G. knows that where this will follow, since God is for it, we will be innocent of it all. Thus, it is not new that the Rottengeisters cause bloodshed. They have proven it before with Franz von Sickingen and also through Carlstadt and Münzer, since we are then found completely innocent by God's grace. But Christ our Lord tread Satan under his feet and under the feet of us all, Amen. June 23, 1529.
E. F. G.
Martinus Luther.
21 Melanchthon's concerns for Duke Johann Friedrich of this colloquium half. The
May 14, 1529.
This concern is transcribed in the Weimar archives and printed from it in Müller's Historie der Augsb. Conf., lib. I, cap. 20, s 5, p. 309, with Luther's name, although the author is not mentioned in the original. He is followed by Walch. In De Wette, vol. Ill, p. 475, dated: "Im Junius" and likewise in the Erlangen edition, vol. 54, p. 86. Correct in the Oorp. Lok., Bd. 1,1066. This concern is addressed to Duke Johann Friedrich of Saxony and attached to the letter to him of May 14, which follows here in the next number.
For my own part, I am not afraid to speak of the Sacrament with Oecolampadio and his peers, for which reason I have not refused the Landgrave; and God would have it done, for this trade is not small, and their pretense has a semblance, has also a great following of all, so learnedly respected, in the whole German land, for reasons that I know; but they lack one thing, that they do not yet know how hard it is to stand before God without God's word; rashness and iniquity cannot act otherwise than as they act.
To act with constraints is quite unfruitful; so it is also thought that e r not, but Oecolampadius should be demanded, and whether he is already demanded, it is not to be hoped that he will come
would. If the others, who dance this dance for the sake of the Zwingeln, have already had sufficient instruction, they would still be afraid to compare themselves with us; and if we were to meet, not only they and ours would have to be present, but also some of the papists, learned and reasonable men, who would listen to both of our movements, otherwise it would make a lot of noise that the Lutherans and Zwingler would gather together to make conspiracies etc. Also, if no one had been present as impartial, the Zwingler would perhaps want to boast all the more; for this reason I have indicated to the Landgrave that, if one were to meet, it would be necessary that people from the Papists were present as impartial. I know some who, I hope, could be persuaded to renounce their error, namely Hedio and Ambrosius Blarer; but with the others it would be worse, and afterwards more unrest might result, as happened after the Leipzig disputation. Item, it is not good that the landgrave has much to do with the Zwinglers, otherwise he has more desire for them than I care, because it is good; for the matter is such that it greatly displeases pointed people, which I also consider the landgrave to be; and reason easily falls for that which it grasps, especially when learned people agree to it,' who give the matter a shape from Scripture, as many learned people now adhere to Zwingling; But this matter is of concern to me, and I have inquired into it as much as possible, and rest on the fact that I do not want to keep it with the Strasburgers all my life, and I know that Zwingel and his companions write wrongly about the sacrament.
22 Melanchthon's letter to the Elector Prince of Saxony, John Frederick, in which he requests that the Elector Prince not grant permission to travel to the Colloquium in Marburg. May 14, 1529.
The original of this letter can be found in the archives at Weimar, ksZ. X, col. 452. Printed from it in Oorp. Rsk., vol. 1,1064. Further, in the "gründliche und wahrhaftige Historie der Angsb. Confession" (Leipzig 1584, fol.), p. 93. Latin in Hospiniun., bükt. sueruM6nt., ?. II, p. 120.
To the illustrious, highborn prince and lord, Lord John Frederick, Duke of Saxony, Landgrave in Thuringia, Margrave of Meissen, my gracious lord.
Sublime, Highborn Prince and Lord! E. F. G. are my subservient services.
always before. Gracious Sir! Your Grace knows how much my Lord, the Landgrave, desires that Doctor Martinus talk with Oecolampadio and others about the Sacrament. Now it behooves us in such a great important matter without the help of my most gracious lord, and E. F. G.'s advice and permission. If your Lord considers that it would be good for such a discussion to take place, we should not be found wanting, for it must come to a discussion at some point. I have, however, presented my foolish concern to E. F. G. in Weimar, 1) which is enclosed here, why the discussion between Doctor Martins, Oecolampadio and others should not be accepted only this time. I have also spoken with Doctor Martino about it, who is also concerned that it would be unfruitful if they were to talk alone. In addition, no improvement can be hoped for from the most distinguished adversaries. However, I know how this matter concerns my gracious lord, the Landgrave, and I am concerned that, when H. F. G. hears that D. Martinus would once again refuse the intercession, that His Holiness would be more willing to give the Zwinglio, and I have no small cause for this concern. Therefore, I humbly request that H.F.G. consider what should be done about this. I consider it good that my most gracious lord, as if S. Churf. G. had requested this of me, should make this 2) that I write this answer to M. G. H., the Landgrave: my most gracious lord, the Elector, does not want to allow us this time, so that S. F. G. would be satisfied with an amicable answer. I humbly request that H. F. G. consider the matter, which I do not think is to be despised, and graciously let me reply that I may answer M. G. H., the Landgrave, again, as I am rightly supposed to do. God preserve E. F. G. by his mercy forever. Date' at Wittenberg, Friday after Exaudi [May 14].
E. F. G.
menial servant
Philip Melanchthon.
23rd article, of which all the theologians present at Marburg compared themselves, Oct. 3, 1529.
This document went out in print in poster form in Marburg on October 5, 1529. It is found in the Wittenberg edition (1569), vol. IX, p. 290; in the Jena edition (1566), vol. IV, p. 469; in the Altenburg edition, vol. IV, p. 563; in the Leipzig edition, vol. XIX, p. 530; in
1) This will have been done orally.
2) "abschuffe" - refused, abschöbe.
1940 Erl. 65, 88-90. sec. 3. Hesse's attempt at unification^ No.23. W. XVII, 2357-2359. 1941.
of Erlangen vol. 65, p. 88; in Historie des Sacramentsstreits, p. 103 and in Müller's Historie der Augsb. Conf., p. 305. Latin in Hospinian's Ui8t. snorarn., Part. II, p. 127 and in des Scultetus annales aä nun. 1529, p. 146.
First, that we both unanimously believe and hold that there is one, true, natural God, Creator of all creatures, and that the same God is one in essence and nature, and threefold in persons, namely, Father, Son, Holy Spirit, according to what was decided in the Concilio Niceno, and is sung and read in the Symbols Niceno, in the whole Christian Church in the world.
Secondly, we believe that not the Father nor the Holy Spirit, but the Son of God the Father, natural God, became man through the action of the Holy Spirit, without any male seed, born of the pure virgin Mary in the flesh, perfect in body and soul, like another man, without any sin.
Thirdly, that the same Son of God and of Mary, undivided Person, Jesus Christ, was crucified for us, died and was buried, rose from the dead, ascended into heaven, and is seated at the right hand of God, Lord over all creatures, to judge the living and the dead in the future.
Fourth, we believe that original sin is inherent and grounded in us from Adam, and is such a sin that it condemns all men; and if Jesus Christ had not come to our rescue with his death and life, we would have had to die eternally from it, and would not have been able to come to God's kingdom and blessedness.
Fifth, we believe that if we believe in the Son of God, Jesus Christ, who died for us, we will be saved from such sin and all other sins, along with eternal death, and apart from such faith we may not be freed from some sins by any work, status or order etc.
Sixth, that such faith is a gift of God, which we may not acquire by any previous works or merit, nor obtain by our own power, but the Holy Spirit gives and creates the same in our hearts as He wills, when we hear the gospel or word of Christ.
The seventh is that such faith is our righteousness before God, as for which God counts us righteous, pious and holy and keeps us holy, without all works and merit, and thereby saves us from sins, death, hell, takes us into grace and makes us blessed for the sake of His Son, in whom we therefore believe and thereby enjoy and become partakers of His Son's righteousness, life and all goods. Therefore all monastic lives and vows, as being useful for salvation, are all condemned.
From the outward word.
Note that the Holy Spirit, speaking properly, gives no one such faith or its gift without prior preaching or oral word or gospel of Christ, but by and with such oral word He works and creates faith as and in whom He wills, Rom. 10:17.
From baptism.
Ninth, that Holy Baptism is a sacrament instituted by God for such faith, and because God's commandment: Ite, bapti- sate, Matth. 28, 19, and God's promise: Qui crediderit, Marc. 16, 16, is in it, it is not only a sign or slogan among Christians, but a sign and work of God, in which our faith is promoted, 1) by which we are born again.
Tenth, that such faith, by the working of the Holy Spirit, afterward, if we have been counted righteous and holy thereby, do good works by us, namely, love our neighbor, pray to God, and suffer all persecution.
From confession.
Eleventh, that the confession or counseling to one's parish priest or neighbor should be unconstrained and free, but nevertheless almost useful to the afflicted, challenged, or with
dturs, promovire). Luther took it in the latter sense, while Zwingli, Oekolampad and Bucer took it in the former. However, even these found it necessary to justify themselves against comrades of their confession because of their approval of this article. See Köstlin, Martin Luther (3.), Vol. II, p. 646 acl 139.
The first is for the sake of absolution or the consolation of the gospel, which is the true absolution.
From the authorities.
Twelfth, that all authority and secular law, judgment and order, where they are, are a right good estate, and nothing forbidden, as some papists and Anabaptists teach and hold, but that a Christian, if called or born to it, may well be saved by the faith of Christ, as father's and mother's estate, master's and wife's estate.
To the thirteenth, which is called tradition, human order in spiritual or church affairs, where they do not strive contrary to the public word of God, may be kept or left free, according to which the people with whom we deal are to prevent unnecessary vexation in all ways, to minister peace; that also the doctrine so ministered is the devil's doctrine, 1 Tim. 4:1, 2. 1)
Of the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ.
Fourteenthly, we all believe and hold of the Lord's Supper of our dear Lord Jesus Christ, that both forms are to be used according to the institution; that also the mass is not a work, that one may obtain grace for another, dead and alive; that also the sacrament of the altar is a sacrament of the true body and blood of Jesus Christ, and the spiritual partaking of the same body and blood is especially necessary for every Christian. Likewise, the use of the sacrament, as the word of God Almighty is given and ordered to move the weak consciences to faith and love through the Holy Spirit.
And even though we do not know (whether the true body and blood of Christ is bodily in the bread and
1) Here, certainly only by chance, in all editions the article on infant baptism was omitted, which Walch, Vol. XXIII, p. 35a, added: "To the fourteenth, that infant baptism is right, and they are thereby taken to God's grace and into Christianity. Compare also Köstlin, Martin Luther (3.), vol. II, Si 646 uci 139. Therefore the heading, which Walch and him put after the Erlangen edition: "Fourteen articles", is wrong, because before only thirteen articles are explained, in which one has compared oneself.
wine) have not compared this time, let one part show Christian love toward the other, as far as each conscience can suffer more and more, and let both parts diligently ask God Almighty to confirm us in the right mind by His Spirit, amen.
Martinus Luther.
Philip Melanchthon. Justus Jonas.
Andreas Osiander. Johannes Brentius. Stephanus Agricola. Johannes Oecolampadius. Ulricus Zwinglius. Martinus Bucerus.
Caspar Hedio.
Melanchthon's report of the Marburg Colloquium to the Elector John of Saxony.
This report is found in the Historie des Sacramentsstreites, p. 96 and in the Oorp. Uek., vol. 1,1099. Latin in Leultktl uuualks.
First, my lord the landgrave arranged for Doctor Martinus to talk alone with Oecolampad, and Philip alone with Zwingel. Then they were reproached that we otherwise find many articles in their doctrine, which are also criminal to speak of now, as namely:
2. that Zwinglius wrote that there is no original sin, and teaches that sin is only external evil works and deeds, and means inherent impurity and lusts of the heart. Item, that we by nature do not fear God, do not believe, is not sin. This is a great indication that Zwinglius does not know much about true Christian holiness, because he puts sin only in external deeds, like the Pelagians, all papists and philosophers.
(3) Secondly, they are very mistaken about the ministry of preaching or the Word, and about the use of the sacraments. For they teach that the Holy Spirit is not given by word or sacrament, but is given without word and sacrament. Münzer also taught in this way, and thereby came up with his own thoughts, as must follow if one presumes to obtain the Holy Spirit without the Word.
4 Thirdly, there have been speeches from those of Strasbourg that they do not hold correctly to the Holy Trinity, of which we also have their opinion.
nung desired to know. For we have heard that some of them speak of the Godhead as Jews do, as if Christ were not the natural God.
(5) Fourth, they speak and write clumsily about how man is counted righteous in the sight of God, and do not sufficiently teach the doctrine of faith, but speak of it as if the works that follow faith were the same righteousness; they also give an evil account of how to come to faith.
6 Now they have received instruction in this article from us at that time, as much as may be done in haste; the more they heard of it, the better it pleased them, and find in all these pieces yielded, though they wrote before publicly otherwise.
The other day in the public discussion, at which my Lord the Landgrave was present, Doctor Martinus first indicated that it was necessary to speak of the above-mentioned articles; however, the matter of the sacrament was taken up alone, and Zwingel and Oecolampad stood alone on these three arguments.
8 John 6 teaches Christ to eat his body spiritually, therefore in the sacrament only spiritual eating should be understood.
9) One body cannot be in many places; because Christ has a true body and is in heaven, he cannot be in the sacrament at the same time. He let fall here under much clumsy talk, God does not give us such incomprehensible things. External use, external thing, is not useful etc., and many such things.
10 Oecolampadius read many mean sayings from Augustino that Sacrament are signs that mean something, as the snake in the desert means something.
These have been their reasons; on it Oecolampad often said: I cried yes, it would be enough if one remained alone with the spiritual nurture etc.
D. Martinus has published these arguments and spent two days on them.
(13) To the first, St. John the Sixth, it is answered that the same chapter is not opposed to the institution of the sacrament. For although Christ teaches only of the spiritual use of his body, that is, of faith, yet it is ordained here to eat also bodily, and nothing is thereby interrupted or hindered to the spiritual eating, but we teach that such spiritual eating also is to be in the sacrament; thus, according to the words: Hoc est corpus meum, the outward partaking is instituted, though it is not instituted already John 6. ,
(14) The opposing party tries very hard to help himself with this saying: "The flesh is not useful," as if Christ's flesh in the sacrament should not be useful.
(15) To this it was answered that this saying should not be understood of Christ's flesh, for Christ says above, "His flesh bringeth life," but should be understood of our fleshly nature and thoughts. etc. And even if it were to be understood from Christ's flesh, it would not be possible to force more from it than that Christ's flesh, enjoyed without faith, is not good; for this must be confessed, that Christ's flesh is not useless, especially to those who believe.
(16) To the other was answered, that reason should not judge God's power and secrecy, whether a body be in many places or not.
(17) But they stand very firm on this argument, using many sayings that do not serve this cause: that Christ has a true body, that Christ is like us, that a body must have a place etc. To all this it was answered and often repeated that our reason should not judge from it, for God can well obtain a body without a place, as the whole world without has no place.
18 The adversary insists that it would be a great miracle, and how such miracles can also be performed by evil priests etc.
19 To this was answered that in the offices of the churches one should not look at the worthiness of the priests in any way, but at God's command; no angel, no saint would preach or administer sacraments usefully, if it were not God's command, as Paul writes: "he is not competent of himself". And this has been a particular error and heresy of the Donatists, and now also of the Anabaptists, that no one may administer sacraments unless he is holy. After this solution they dropped this piece.
20 To the third, that Augustine often says: Sacramenta are signs that signify something, it was said that it is true that all sacramenta signify the promise that is attached to the same work. So, the supper means that through the death of Christ enough has been done for our sin and forgiveness of sins has been promised to us; nevertheless, it does not follow that Christ's body is not there.
This was the summa of the whole disputation. But because Osiander and Brentius were not heard, we have lastly presented a document to my gracious lord, the landgrave, in which many sayings of the ancients are shown, for the opposing party often fames itself of the fathers; therefore, so that my gracious lord, the landgrave,
certain and clear sayings from the fathers, clear sayings have been told, in which it is indicated that the ancients were of our opinion.
22 And for the conclusion of the matter, Zwingel and Oecolampadius have very much desired that we accept them as brothers. We did not want to agree to this in any way, and we also appealed to them harshly so that we would wonder with what conscience they would consider us brethren if they thought that we were in error; for how would they suffer our opinion to be taught, held, and preached among them in addition to their doctrine? Now this would be permitted if we did not excommunicate one another.
23 But so that the action would not be fruitless, articles of other things have been placed to prevent further error, as much as possible. For we have found that the articles set forth above have been spoken of awkwardly. So they have accepted our opinion on all points, except this one point about the presence of the body of Christ in the evening meal. We also think that if this matter is not carried too far, it should never not be carried out; it is also to be hoped that if clever ways were taken to deal with them, they would drop the matter.
They have not shown themselves to be unfriendly to us in any other way. However, we find that they do not sufficiently report the doctrine taught by D. Martinus teaches, although they repeat the words.
25 Melanchthon's summary report of the Marburg plot to Duke Heinrich zu
Saxony. October 5, 1529 or later.
This account is found in the Wittenberg edition (1569), vol. IX, p. 288d; in the Jena edition (1566), vol. IV, p. 467 d; in the Altenburg edition, vol. IV, p. 561; in the Leipzig edition, vol. XIX, p. 528; in the Historie des Sacramentsstreits, p. 99 and (according to Walch) in the 6orp. Lsk, vol.I, 1102. Also in des Chyträus Historie der Augsb. Confession, p. 159 and in Latin in Lonltsti uminlss uä nun. 1529., p. 18d and in Hospinians dist. saerum. xart. II, x. 134.
1 The noble, highborn prince, my gracious lord, the landgrave of Hesse, has requested that these persons be present at Marburg on Michaelmas 1529 to discuss the holy sacrament of the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ. The first to arrive in Marburg were Oecolampadius, Zwinglius, Bucerus and Hedio. After that D. Mart. Luther, Justus Jonas, Philipp Melanchthon. Finally also Andreas Osiander of Nuremberg, Jo.
hann Brentius von Hall, Stephanus Agricola von Augsburg.
When M. Luther arrived, my gracious lord, the landgrave, first ordered that D. Luther should confer with Oecolampadio alone and Zwinglius with Philippo Melanchthon alone. Luther should confer with Oecolampadio alone, and Zwinglius with Philippo Melanchthon alone. According to this order, they acted with each other, D. Luther reproached Oecolampadio with many articles, some of which he wrote wrongly, and some of which he spoke with difficulty, so that there was more and more error to worry about. Of such articles Philippus Melanchthon has dealt with Zwingel, and have been namely these:
3. Zwingel would have written wrongly de peccato originali, that original sin should not be sin; that also baptism does not serve to forgive original sin of the children. Item, of the holy sacrament of the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, he would have written wrongly that the body and blood of Christ are not true in the sacrament.
4 Item, de usu verbi et sacramentorum, they do not teach that Word and Sacrament are instituted, that thereby the Holy Spirit is given. Therefore, ministerium verbi et sacramentorum in ecclesia may easily fall. It is said that some of them let themselves be heard among them, as if they did not think rightly of the divinity of Christ.
Zwingel answered: first, about the divinity of Christ, that he always held and still holds that Christ is true God and man. Item, that he also holds otherwise äs trinitats, as Synodus Nicene taught. But it is none of his business that there have been some in the country who have heard unskillful speeches. He also states that Hetzer, an Anabaptist who was judged at Costnitz, wrote a book against divinitatem Christi, which he (Zwingel) restrained from coming to light.
6 Of the other articles, namely, original sin; item, that the Holy Spirit is not given through Word and Sacrament. The fact that the Holy Spirit is not given through Word and Sacrament has been the subject of much debate, and Zwingel gladly fell away from his writings in this regard.
(7) Then the article of the sacrament was discussed, but what Zwingel and Oecolampadius put forward to protect their doctrine was heard in the public discourse. For since no agreement had been reached on this article, my gracious lord wanted that one [still] 1) once more there-
1) Inserted by us after the Latin. There it is said: "since no agreement had been reached privately on this article, the prince wanted it to be discussed in his presence and that of several councilors.
of. At such a talk, S. F. G. wanted to be there himself, and to draw some of the councilors to him.
When the public discussion began, Luther indicated that necessity demanded that the whole sum of Christian doctrine be discussed with them. For there was much error in Zwingel's writings; they had also taught little de justificatione, so that it was to be feared that they did not know much of the Gospel.
Luther protested that he knew he had written the Sacrament correctly and wanted to stick to it; but if Oecolampadius and Zwingel thought they were raising something against the truth, he wanted to listen to it and move it.
(10) Zwingel argues against this: they would not have come together to talk about other articles, but only about the sacrament; but if they were in agreement about this, he would also want to talk about other things. So the article on the sacrament alone was discussed, and three main arguments were used.
The first, Joh. 6, 63, Christ had said, "the flesh is not useful", therefore one should not understand in the sacrament that there is flesh; because carnal use is not useful. Luther therefore moved this: that these words, caro non prodest quicquam, are not to be understood from "his
Flesh", because he said before, v. 54, "his flesh brings life", but of the flesh, because there is no spirit with it; therefore Christ adds: Spiritus est, qui vivificat, and wants to say: our flesh is not useful, does not understand God's work. It would be a terrible speech that Christ's flesh should be of no use.
12 And whether one would allow that Christ speaks of his flesh: Caro non prodest quicquam, Zwingel would not want to force his opinion of the sacrament from this, for these words do not say that Christ's body is not in the sacrament, but, if one were to allow them to be understood of Christ's flesh, they might be interpreted to mean that Christ's flesh is not useful to those who do not believe, as Augustine also interprets these words. For Christ wants the flesh to be of no use without the Spirit, which is why he adds: Spiritus est, qui vivificat.
The other argument was from reason: one body may not be in many places; now Christ's body is in heaven etc. From this argument there was a very long dispute. Luther said: natural reason should not, could not judge the omnipotence of God. Zwingel said: God would not give us such incomprehensible things. Such clumsy speeches were beyond him, since Christian doctrine is much more incomprehensible and higher.
article, as that God became man, that the same person, Christ, who is true God, died. Zwingel also said: how could such great works be done by evil priests, so that Christ's body would be brought there?
(14) To this Luther replied, giving a clear account that such things are done, not from the priest's merit, but from Christ's order; because Christ commanded such things, they are done. In the same way, the power of the word and of all sacraments should be kept: that they are powerful and work, not from the merit or holiness of the priest or preacher, but from the power of divine order and divine command. Let it also be error Donatistarum that Sacramenta are not powerful, so acted by wicked priests. Zwingel did not replicate this good report of Luther.
The third argument was made by Oecolampadius: Sacraments are signs, therefore it should be understood that they signify something; therefore it should also be understood that the body of Christ alone is signified and is not present.
16 To such an argument was answered that it is true that "sacraments" are signs, but we should not interpret them otherwise than as Christ has interpreted them. Item, that sacramenta are signs, is to be understood primarily that they signify the attached promissiones. Thus, circumcision primarily means the word that God attached to it, that he would be gracious. And if one would seek another interpretation than that circumcision means mortification of the body, it would be a useless interpretation if he did not respect the other interpretation of the promission, which is the noblest. Therefore, one should not act in interpretation in an unintended way, but see how God's word interprets itself.
17 Lastly, many sayings were read from the Fathers, by which Zwingel and Oecolampadius thought to preserve their things. But they were broad sayings, some of which were not at all about the sacrament; as that a body must have a place; item, that Christ has a true body. On the other hand, my gracious lord the landgrave received in writing much clearer sayings from the fathers, which teach that the true body and blood of Christ are in the Lord's Supper.
18 This is the summa of the sub-speech given, recently written; and thus D. Luther insists on his opinion that the true body and blood of Christ are in the Lord's Supper. The opponents did not want to give way to their faith, but demanded that D. Luther accept them as brothers. M. did not want to agree to such a thing in any way.
He also spoke harshly to them, saying that he was very surprised at how they could consider him a brother if they thought their doctrine was right, and that it was a sign that they did not have much regard for their cause.
19 However, in order to prevent further error and disagreement, it has been considered that some articles be set forth which have gone out of print. 1) In these, Zwinglius and Oecolampadius gladly followed Luther's opinion in all respects; only with regard to the sacrament they did not want to follow, for the matter is too far-reaching. It is hoped, however, that they will drop it, if a potentate takes good paths in this matter. God grant his grace.
26. the D. Justus Jonas report of this conversation, in a letter to Wilhelm Reiffenstein, Stollbergischen Rath, datirt Marburg, Montag nach Michaelis, 4. oct. 1529.
This letter is found in Seckendorf, nist. I-utü., lid. II, x>. 139, and in an inferior redaction after a copy in the 606th Ootü. in the 6orp. Rat., vol. I, 1095. We reproduce it after Seckendorf, using some variants of the Oorp. Lst.
Translated from Latin.
God's grace and peace in Christ JEsu! The other day, dear Wilhelm, old trusted friend and patron, I took it upon myself to report to you on the occasion of the meeting of several learned people in Germany, which the Landgrave in Hesse has now arranged in Marburg. Recently, I have reported the following. The day after Michaelmas, we arrived in Marburg and were received by the Landgrave, to put it in one word, graciously, most kindly and quite royally. Although at first we were given quite comfortable quarters in the city, the landgrave changed his mind for certain reasons and took us all into the castle, where we were given quite princely lodging and meals. This honor was done in these woods not only to the sciences and the muses, but also to the true God and Christ, whom we preach. Would to God that all things would be judged for the glory of Christ! On Friday after Michaelmas (October 1), by order of the Landgrave, the leaders from both sides, Luther with Oecolampadius, Melanchthon with Zwingli, have held a
1) Scripture No. 23, which went out in placate form at Marburg on October 5, 1529. After that, our time determination.
Private conversation held; however, they could not agree. Immediately on the following day, Saturday after Michaelmas (October 2), the discussion began, which, although not entirely public, was held in the presence of the landgrave, his courtiers and most distinguished councilors, and those whom both parties had brought with them. From the other side, Zwingli, Oecolampadius, Bucer and Hedio were present, as well as the highest Strasbourg councillor, Jakob Sturm, a respected man whom you know; likewise Ulrich Funk, a Zurich councillor, and Rudolf Frey, a Basel councillor. From our side Luther, Melanchthon, Eberhard von der Thann, bailiff of Eisenach, I Jonas, Caspar Cruciger, and the rest of ours. Before the prince, in the presence of all the courtiers, sat at a table the four, Luther, Philip, Zwingli and Oecolampadius. When it came to the discussion, and reasons had been brought forward on both sides, Oecolampadius pushed this argument for almost two days: Christ had a true body and was in heaven; but no true body could be in many places at the same time. On the other hand, he dwelt so long on the 6th chapter of John, about the spiritual eating and drinking of the body and blood of Christ, that he always said one thing in different words. Luther did not allow the words of Christ, which he pronounced in the Holy Communion with simple, clear words: "This is my body"; and the words of Paul: "I have received it from the Lord", to be twisted out of his hands, neither by force nor by trickery. This annoyed the adversaries, and they called it, almost in displeasure, a petitio principii. 2) I will give you an oral report of this fierce dispute, or write from Wittenberg; you will also hear something from the bearer of this, your child preceptor. On Sunday after Michaelmas (October 3), we again proceeded to the discussion, hoping for agreement, but although the disputation had dragged on almost until the evening, we finally parted company, since the opponents stubbornly persisted in their error, and we did not defend the truth more cowardly. I also do not know whether we will ever compare ourselves more on the point of the Sacrament. Today, as Monday (October 4), the Landgrave is still seeking means through his advisors and scholars to make a settlement. However, in the matter and the trade of the Sacrament there will be no yielding and no agreement. I wish I could speak to you so that you could
2) In the 6orp. Lsk. meaningless: voearat prockltioiwM. prineipum 6t6.
1952 Erl.Briefw.vn,i66. Section 3: Hesse's attempts at unification. No. 26 f. W. XVII, 2371-2373. 195Z
hear what I think of everyone. Zwingli is 'something burlesque and presumptuous. Oecolampadius has an extraordinary natural kindness and gentleness. Hedio has no less kindness and a good head. In Bucer there is a fox-like shrewdness that imitates in an unjust way the shrewdness and cleverness of a fox. They are all learned people, there is no doubt about it, so that compared to them the papists are to be counted for nothing; but it seems that Zwingli, contrary to his nature, put himself on the studia (iratis musis et invita Minerva videtur versatus in literis); but of all this verbally. The landgrave listened most attentively to this conversation and is said to have said publicly: Now I would rather believe the simple words of Christ than the sharp thoughts of men. But the whole matter is in the hands of God. Among scholars who are famous were present: Osiander of Nuremberg, Brenz of Schwäbisch-Hall, both learned and polite men; then Hedio, Lonicer, D. Stephanus and 1) the preacher of Frankfurt. There were also many from the Rhine regions, from Cologne, Strasbourg, Basel, and Switzerland who came here; but they were not allowed to join the conversation, because it was held in the inner room of the landgrave's chamber. Apart from us, no one was allowed in. Bucer also discussed a lot with me in a long private conversation in the most important articles of the Trinity, of original sin etc. We became one in everything, except in the article of Holy Communion, in which we did not unite. 2) Farewell. Given on Monday after Michaelmas [Oct. 4, 1529] at Marburg.
27. D. Martin Luther's letter to Nicolaus Gerbet, Doctor of Both Rights at Strasbourg, from the Marburg plot. Oct. 4, 1529.
In r6 8Ä6ralN6ntaria ab anno 1529. nsyno ad annnrn 37. intor r6V6r6ndi88irno8 patro8 D. Voetoroln Älartinnrn I^ntkoruln, D. küilippurn LloluneUtUonom, D. 6apiton6ni, D. Vn66rnrn 6t alio8. Walch had a copy in his hands and has shared many pieces taken from it. The proof is then given thus: "From the Strasbourg manuscript." In the
1) Instead of 68t in the 0th R. we assumed 6t.
2) The preceding sentence is completely meaningless in the Oorp. Rak. is completely meaningless. At the end, the time determination is missing there.
Walch has provided more information about this manuscript in the Jnhaltsverzeichniß to the 16th volume. Printed in Unschuldige Nachrichten 1721, p. 718; in Strobel-Ranuer, p. 162; in De Wette, vol. III, p. 511 and in Erlanger Briefwechsel, vol. VII, p. 166. German in Walch here and (duplicate) vol. XXI, 1185.
Newly translated from the Latin.
To Nicolaus Gerbel, Doctor Juris in the city of Strasbourg.
Grace and peace in Christ! How much we have accomplished in the unification of doctrines here in Marburg, you will hear, my dear Gerbel, both from the mouths and from the notes of your envoys. Since we have now defended ours quite strongly, and they have yielded much of theirs and were only stubborn in the one article of the Sacrament of the Altar, they have been let go in peace. We did this so that we would not force blood out by too hard a blowing 4). We also owe love and peace to our enemies. Of course, it has been announced to them that if they do not come to terms with this article, they can enjoy our love, but they cannot be regarded by us as brothers and members of Christ. You may judge what fruit has resulted from this; it seems to me, at least, that a not insignificant part of the annoyance has been taken away, since the public quarrel has been settled with letters and disputes; indeed, we did not expect that we would achieve so much. Would God that the rest of the people would also
3) With the "Zettel" (86Ü6du) will be meant the print published in Marburg on 5 October in Placatform, which has the title: "Dieser hernach geschriebenen Artikeln haben sich die hierunter beschriebene zu Marburg verglichen, D6rtiu Oetobrm, Vrino 6te. XXIX." Without doubt, the writing, above no. 23, is an imprint of it; for in the Wittenberg and in the Jena editions, it says: "These subsequently written articles have been compared by those written hereunder at Marburg, Oct. 3, Anno 1529" - The "envoys" are Bucer, Jakob Sturm and Caspar Hedio.
4) In all editions: munMndo, for which the Erlanger Briefwechsel, because this "is not a Latin word at all", has put nanlMncko. We cannot approve of this change. Luther makes use here of the proverb which is found in the Proverbs of Solomon Cap. 30, 33, just as he does in the letter to the Elector John (St. Louis edition, vol. XVI, I8II, s 4). In the Vulgate, 6rnnn^it is found there. Should a change therefore be necessary (which we do not believe), then omonA6ndo would have to be put.
May the offense finally be removed through Christ, amen. Farewell, my dear brother, and pray for me. Marburg, October 4, 1529, your Martin Luther.
Luther's letter to Johann Agricola in Saalfeld1) about the Marburg conversation. October 12, 1529.
The original (but mutilated) is at Wolfenbüttel, Bxtv. 84. 18. Bl. 3. Handwritten in the 6od. Ilostooü.; in 6od. Ootti. L. 28, toi. 40 d and at Copenhagen, Ms. 1393, p. 187. Printed by Buddeus, p. 71 (with wrong date: Oct. 2); by De Wette, vol. Ill, p. 513 and in Erlanger Briefwechsel, vol. VII, p. 168. According to the latter we have translated.
Newly translated from the Latin.
To the most esteemed brother in the Lord, Johann Agricola, the servant of Christ.
Grace and peace in Christ! Since we have returned from our meeting (synodo) in Marburg, my dear Agricola, we wanted to report to you the event from this neighborhood with wavy words. We were wonderfully received by the Prince of Hesse and deliciously entertained. Present were Oecolampadius, Zwingli, Bucer, Hedio, with three distinguished men, Jakob Sturm of Strasbourg, Ulrich Funck of Zurich and N. 2) of Basel. They humbly asked for peace. On two days we negotiated; I answered both, Oecolampadius and Zwingli, and opposed them with this passage: "This is my body." All the objections I refuted. But the day before we had privately negotiated amiably with each other, I with Oecolampadius, Philippus with Zwingli. Meanwhile Andreas Osiander, Johann Brenz and Stephan [Agricola] also arrived from Augsburg. In short, they are clumsy people and inexperienced in disputing. Although they recognized that their things proved nothing, they still wanted to
1) Count Albrecht von Mansfeld had gone to Saalfeld in September because of the plague, which killed about 600 people in Eisleben in a short time, with his advisor C. Müller to Saalfeld, and also summoned Johann Agricola of Eisleben there. Förstemann, Neues Urkundenbuch, p. 293, erroneously places this stay in Saalfeld in the year 1535. See Kawerau, "Agricola", p. 93.
2) Rudolph Frey, Rathsherr zu Basel.
They did not yield in this one piece of the presence of the Body of Christ, more out of fear and shame than out of malice (as we think); in all other things they yielded, as you will see from the outgoing note 3). Finally, they asked that we at least recognize them as brothers, and the prince pressed hard for it, but it could not be granted to them. However, we extended to them the hand of peace and love, that in the meantime the sharp writings and words should rest, and each one teach his opinion without hostile attacks, but not without defense and refutation. Thus we parted. You will tell this to Caspar Aquila, 4) my exceedingly dear brother, and pray for us. The grace of Christ be with you, Amen. At Jena, October 12, 1529.
Your Martin Luther. 5)
Melanchthon's letter to Joh. Agricola, with the same content. October 12, 1529.
Handwritten in the Ood. Ootk. 28, p. 22 and in the Ood. Noün., Ill, p. 41 d. Printed in the Innocent News 1721, p. 1038 and in the Oorp. Lok. vol. I, 1107. According to the latter we have translated.
Newly translated from the Latin.
To Johann Agricola of Eisleben.
By chance we met a citizen of Saatfeld 6) in Jena, so I felt I had to describe the story of our trip to you.
Zwingli, Oekolampad, Bucer, Hedio were at Marburg; Osiander and Brenz were with us. The matter of the Lord's Supper was discussed for three days. The landgrave seemed to hurry to put an end to the meeting because the place was infected by the plague. Only two reasons have been dealt with, on which the
3) No. 23. Compare also the previous number.
4) Aquila, pastor in Saalfeld. Agricola stayed with him.
5) In Buddeus and De Wette, a "NachschriftMelanchthon" follows here, which is taken from the next letter.
6) This meeting with the citizen of Saalfeld became the occasion for the sending of three letters to Agricola, namely the previous, the present and the letter of Jonas reported in No. 32 (Kolde,
S. 118). Therefore, the last two letters are to be given the same date as the previous one.
1956 E. Briefw. VII, 173.179. Section 3: Hesse's attempts at unification. No. 29 ff. W. XVII, 2375 f. 1957
Luther's letter to Amsdorf, in which he reports his return from Marburg. October 19, 2) 1529.
This letter is found handwritten in the Ooü. kostoeü. and in the Ooä. Ootlr. 397, col. 23, printed in the Unsch. Nachr. 1721, p. 871; in Strobel-Ranner, p. 164; in De Wette, vol. Ill, p. 515 and in Erlanger Briefw., vol. VII, p. 173. According to the latter we have translated.
Newly translated from the Latin.
1) Scripture No. 23.
2) Thus De Wette takes Vltera po8t I^uoae, the day after Lucas. Seidemann-De Wette, vol. VI, 454 takes it as "Monday after Lucä, thus the 25th of October". Against this seems to us what the Erlangen correspondence has asserted: 1) that it is not probable that Luther had given news to Amsdorf so late; 2) but especially that Luther, who wrote again to Amsdorf on October 27 (De Wette, Vol. Ill, p. 518), should have received in the meantime already an answer from the same referring to the letter of Oct. 25. The Erlanger Briefw. advocates that one should solve the given time determination by "Montag Lucä", the 18th of Oct., "whereby one may not disturb oneself at the post", and refers for confirmation of this to a letter which admittedly has a corrupted date, namely Erl. Briefw., vol. VI, p. 66. Eliminating the post does not seem permissible to us.
Grace and peace in Christ! We have returned safely to Hanse, my dear Amsdorf, and M. Georg 3) and Johannes Ziring will tell you what happened. The landgrave entertained us wonderfully. Admittedly, I am in a very dull mood; yesterday I was also troubled in the evening. The angel of Satan, or whoever the devil of death may be, is so afflicting me, in that perhaps the Turkish plague (furia), which is at the door, is helping, and will visit with an iron rod those frightening blasphemies of the godlessness of those who are contrary to the Word, then also the intolerable ingratitude of the mob everywhere. Christ have mercy on us, Amen. Now exhort your Church to repentance and prayer. It is time, necessity urges it. At another time other things; now that my fingers are trembling and weary, I have not been able [to write]. The day after Lucä [Oct. 19] 1529.
Your Martin Luther.
Luther's letter to Wenceslaus Link in Nuremberg. October 28, 1529.
Handwritten in the Ooü. Rostock. Printed in Unschuldige Nachrichten 1721, p. 872; in Strobel-Ranner, p. 165; in De Wette, vol. Ill, p. 520 and in Erlanger Briefwechsel, vol. VII, p. 179. According to the latter! we have translated.
Newly translated from the Latin.
Grace and peace in Christ! There is nothing, my dear Wenceslaus, that I can write about our Marburg meeting, for you have heard everything from Osiander. You have humbled yourself enough and more than enough, and have desired our brotherhood. It is extraordinary how Nicolaus Amsdorf rejoices and praises the work of God that they sought our brotherhood and yet did not obtain it, and he thinks that the prophecy of Osiander is abundantly fulfilled, who two years ago foretold Zwingli, as it were, as an Ahab who exalted himself in the hope of the future.
3) Without doubt Georg Major, who was then Rector of the school in Magdeburg as Cruciger's successor (Erl, Briefw.). - Ziring (Arin^us) is inscribed at the end of 1526 as O^vrins LluZclkvurMns. in the album p. 128.
4) On the day of Lucia, October 18. Compare the first note to the following letter.
Victory: he will either be put to shame within three years, or he [Osiander] has not spoken in your Lord [1 Kings 22:28]; namely, that those who condemned us as idolaters, carnivores, Thyestes, and worshippers of a bred and edible god, Capernaites etc., now freely seek the brotherhood of such people, and yet are not thought worthy to obtain the same. And he tells the truth and boasts true things, as we see for ourselves. This is what I wanted to tell you, so that you may also know the verdict of our people. I have returned home with difficulty and distress, since the angel of Satan so afflicted me that I despaired of seeing my own alive and well. 1) But Christ triumphs over these mighty ones who rule in the air [Eph. 2:2], therefore pray diligently for me. Perhaps I will have to endure and overcome the Turk himself in this severe suffering, at least his god, the devil. In short, these people do not seem to me to be evil, but to have fallen into this delusion through error and chance, from which they would gladly be torn out, if only they could. God, who started it, have mercy on them and set them right, amen. We hear that the Turk has fled. But Daniel 7:21, 22 says that he will fight against the saints of God until the judgment is held and the old man takes his seat. "We Germans would like to be told that!" I am preaching a warlike sermon 2) to the army against the door-
1) From this we see that Luther's sufferings, of which he also writes in almost the same words in the previous letter, occurred at the end of the journey home from Marburg, thus not only around October 25. On October 17 (kriäis Imens, 6orp. Rsk., Vol. I, 1109), Luther, as Melanchthon writes to Myconius, had reached Torgau in good spirits. The next day, they will have traveled the six German miles from Torgau to Wittenberg, and on the way, or perhaps already in. Torgau, Luther's suffering will have set in. On October 19, he then writes a short letter to Amsdorf "with trembling and weary fingers." Therefore, this passage seems to us to be a strong support for the date we assumed for the previous letter. In Torgau, they also learned (as Melanchthon writes above) that the Turk was besieging Vienna with all his might.
2) "Luther's Army Sermon against the Turk." St. Louis edition, vol. XX, 2154.
to admonish them. Be well with your family and pray for me. On the day of Simonis and Jude [Oct. 28] 1529.
Your Martin Luther.
Also D. Jonas and Philip will soon publish a book against the Turk 3) with the text of Daniel.
32 Letter from D. Justus Jonas to Johann Agricola at Saalfeld. The 12. 4) Oct. 1529.
Strasbourg manuscript given.
Translated into German.
Grace and peace of God in Christ JEsu! What recently happened in the religious discussion, or if you prefer, in the episcopal synod at Marburg, you will see both from Philip's and Martin Luther's letters. For in their letters to you, which I have seen, they have understood the whole sum very briefly and well, so that there is nothing more to be written about it. However, neither our beloved 5) father, D. Martinus, nor Philippus, if I am not mistaken, has touched anything about Carlstadt, the noble and famous man, who, because of his faithlessness, is now all the more knowable throughout Germany.
In a petition to the Prince of Hesse, full of his usual humility, he asked for a letter of safe conduct so that this goose, or rather raven, would also appear among the swans and attend this meeting. The prince, however, answered: he would like to unite in Wittenberg with Luther and others who would come from the same school and city to Marburg, then this company should
3) The title of the book is: "Das siebend Kapititel Danielis, von des Türcken Gotteslesterung vnd schrecklicher morderey, mit vnterricht Justi Ionen. Wittemberg." At the end: "Printed at Wittemberg, by Hans Lufft." When Rörer sent the book to Roth in Zwickau in December 1529, he wrote: "This book has two authors: the invention and arrangement is by Philippus, the execution (slooutio) by Jonas." (Buchwald, Wittenberger Briefe, No. 78.) The dedication of Jonas to Landgrave Philipp von Hessen is printed in Kawerau, Jonasbriefe, No. 159.
4) The date is set after Kolde, ^ng-lseta.
5) Walch will have read ottariMinnis; Kolde: clart88.
1960 Erl. 54,151 f. Section 3: Hesse's attempts at unification. No. 32 ff. W. X VII, 2378-2380. 1961
together have a free escort letter. And since that lost person did not dare to go back to the camp of those from whom he fled shamefully and unfaithfully, he did not come to Marburg either; but D. Westerburg of Cologne was there, but was not allowed to talk. You have the rest in Philip's letter. Be well. Jena, 1529.
Justus Jonas to Johann Agricola.
Luther's letter to Jakob Probst concerning the colloquium in Marburg. June 1, 1530.
See the appendix to the 16th volume, no. 2, s 3.
B. Landgrave Philip of Hesse's further efforts to unite the Schmalkaldic Conventions in 1329 and 1531, as well as at the Imperial Diet in Augsburg in 1330.
34: The Landgrave Philip of Hesse's Instruction to the Baron of Boyneburg to the Elector of Saxony.
See Volume XVI, 569.
35: Luther's letter to the landgrave, in which he asks him sincerely not to be moved by the sweet words of the Widertheil. June 20, 1530.
This letter is found in the Jena edition (1566), vol. V, p. 225; in the Altenburg, vol. V, p. 22; in the Leipzig, vol. XX, p. 180; in De Wette, vol. IV, p. 23; in the Erlangen, vol. 54, p. 151; and in Chyträus, p. 335. Translated into Latin in Ooslestimm, 5i8t. eomit. XnAU8tn6 66l65rnt., toni. I, p. 44 and in Ludd"! 811pplsru. 6pi8t. 5ut5., p. 99. In all German editions with the wrong date: "20 May"; in the Latin ones: "22 May". Köstlin, Martin Luther, vol. II, p. 654 uä p. 216 ), points out that this letter, as well as the one to Schnepf (De Wette, vol. IV, p. 44), should be dated June 20. This is especially confirmed by Melanchthon's letters of June. Also Kolde, who still in the VnuIsota, p. 458, assumed May 20 as the correct date, puts in his "M. Luther", vol. II, p. 591 aä p. 337 the letter on June 20.
To the illustrious, highborn prince and lord, Mr. Philipsen, landgrave of Hesse, count of Katzenelnbogen, Ziegenhain, Dietz and Nidda, my gracious lord.
Grace and comfort, peace and joy in Christ our Lord and Savior. Sublime, highborn prince, gracious lord! Although I hope with comforting confidence that our dear Lord Christ dwells with E. F. G. in the right pure faith, and especially that the doctrine of the Sacraments is firmly held in E. F. G.'s heart. F. G.'s heart, that it would therefore be unnecessary for me to write to E. F. G. about it; but because I have heard, and can also well think of myself, that our devotees are quite industrious and restless with suggestions and efforts, so that they might draw E. F. G. to their group; and whether their suggestions and knocking on E. F. G.'s door would be harmless to E. F. G., or not. F-G may be harmless, I know well what a powerful and thousandfold artist the evil spirit is, to enter with all kinds of cunning thoughts; and if he cannot win by force or cunning, he can at last tire one out with his incessant persistence, and thus overpower him.
(2) And if all this were not, as indeed nothing may be, yet there is God's commandment, which commands us to care for one another and to pray, to comfort one another, to warn, to admonish, to visit, to strengthen, and in short, to assist with help and counsel, as we would have it from God and man.
According to the commandment, I want to boast with a good conscience that I am one of the least of the noblest, who cares for and asks heartily for E. F. G., calling upon God, the Father of all graces, with great desire, that He may preserve E. F. G., as in the midst of wolves, no doubt not free from evil spirits, especially in these desolate and dangerous times, mercifully preserve his knowledge and pure word, protect him from all evil works, but send his spirit and make E. F. G. his pleasant companion. F. G. to be his pleasant instrument, so that he may bring about much and great benefit and good, to the praise and honor of his word. F. G. much benefit and good can be done to many afflicted, abandoned, erring souls, amen.
4. next to such prayer i also come now
Here with my admonition and warning, in good faith and heartfelt, I ask the F.F.G. to graciously grant me, as I owe it, and sincerely mean it, so that the F.F.G. will not be moved by the sweet good words of adversity, or rather will not accept the cunning ideas and thoughts of the devil, which St. Paul calls fiery arrows in Eph. 6, 16. For we have good weapons and armor, namely the sword of the spirit, which is the word of God. It is dangerous to accept such a new doctrine, against such a bright and clear text and word of Christ, and to let go of such an old faith, which has been held from the beginning in the whole of Christianity, for the sake of such low sayings and thoughts, which they have brought up so far, which indeed may not be sufficient for any conscience, against such bright words of Christ.
5 And I know for certain that the adversaries cannot satisfy their own consciences with it, and I believe for certain that if the beer had been in the fast again, they would have let it stand now, as I noticed crudely enough in them at Marburg, not once. But because they have come to the No, they do not want to and cannot go back. So E. F. G. heard about that even then, that their two best pieces were: because the sacrament would be a sacrament or sign, it could not be the body of Christ itself; as Oecolampad claimed. And because the body would have to have space, Christ's body could not be there, as Zwinglius wanted; which, after all, are quite lazy and loose reasons to be mocked even by the Papists and Sophists.
(6) And, dear God, how many sayings of the Scriptures have they led, in which they are publicly apprehended that they have erred and failed, and must now also let go. This shows sufficiently that there is no good reason, but only their own delusion. Moreover, E. F. G. know how they did not remain with this error, but rather taught about baptism, infant baptism, original sin, sacramental custom, external] They taught about the Word in an unskillful way, and yet they were so inconsistent in it, that at Marburg (as E. F. G. knows) they gave in to us and spoke differently.
7 All those who are convinced of their faith must share this and much more.
bens. I will keep silent about how unkindly they are treating us now: they take Carlstadt to themselves, believe all the tangible lies that the wretched man invents against us; and must be well-done, defend him, God knows how long. Now I should be sorry in the bottom of my heart, that E. F. G. should make herself liable to all such of her unfounded things, loose conceit, and unskillful false speeches and deeds, since E. F. G. otherwise have enough to create and to bear, for the sake of her own office, both before God and the subjects, that such foreign and unstable matter should not be necessary for E. F. G., either. F. G. is not to be troubled, and in addition it would be a great annoyance to many to fall after it, and would give the now fallen a great strength and hardening, which afterwards would never be restored, if the matter would come right, and E. F. G. would have an everlasting, unending life. F. G. would leave an eternal pen and sigh in the conscience, as the cause of such a fall and hardening would have been; since God is for.
8 Oh Lord God, it is not a joke nor a scandal to teach something new; it is not necessary to be conceited, nor to be delusional, nor to use uncertain sayings; there must be bright, powerful texts, which they have not yet produced. Forsooth, I have suffered such a great plague and trial over my doctrine, I did not want to have done and still do such sour work in vain; therefore I truly did not want to resist them out of hatred or arrogance, but have long since accepted their doctrine, that God, my Lord, knows where they could show reason for it. But I cannot put my conscience on that on which they stand.
(9) I hope that Christ our Lord has not done a little through me, a poor workman, so that they will not regard me as nothing against what they have done.
10 Hereby I want to command E. F. G. to our dear Lord God. F. G. see (I hope) that I mean it sincerely and faithfully. God, the Father of all poor miserable souls, give us all His grace and enlighten us with His truth. To Him be praise, honor and thanksgiving forever, Amen. From the Wasteland, June 20, Anno 1530.
E. F. G.
subservient
Mart. Luther.
36 Philipp Melanchthon's letter to Luther, May 22, 1530, in which he urges him to write to the landgrave that he should not weigh down his conscience by defending false doctrine.
See in the 16th volume of this collection No. 927, § 4, Col. 689.
37 Philipp Melanchthon's and Johann Brenzen's joint letter to the Landtag.
Count of Hesse. June 11, 1530.
This and the two following letters are found in Chytraeus' Historie der Augsb. Confession, p. 164; in the History of the Sacrament Dispute, p. 112 and in the 6orx. Lei, vol. II, 92.
1. noble, highborn prince, gracious lord! We have diligently read the document sent to us concerning the brotherhood and the request for a concilium; and we ask with all humility that E. F. G. graciously hear our answer. For God is our witness that we, especially in this case, do no harm or good to anyone. For we are heartily sorry for this discord, and have no greater sorrow on earth than from this matter, that we see how one accidentally falls on unfounded opinions, from which great division in the church follows, along with inaccuracy in the conscience, by which one subsequently falls further on other harmful thoughts; As we see that many now happen, who first allegorized the Lord's Supper, now come and allegorize more articles, as Campanus, Martinus Cellarius, Carlstadt, 1) Felinus, have no peace about it, but make practices, how to carry such things out by force, not only to cause great bloodshed, but also greater divisions in spiritual matters and disruption of the regiments, so that they can be mended in a hundred years, yes, never again until the end of the world. Oh Lord God! What a terrible sight it is to contemplate such a horrible thing. For this reason, E. F. G. may believe us that we are truly in great distress and do not want, as one might think, to quarrel much for the sake of our fame. Therefore, we humbly request that Your Honor graciously hear our answer, which we have drafted as briefly as possible, so as not to delay Your Honor for long. We therefore believe that it is not necessary to reply to all parts of the document that we have received. First, for the sake of the brotherhood,
1) "Carlstadt" is missing in the Oorp. Let.
It may be that Christians who err and yet do not defend their error should be tolerated as brothers, just as Christ himself tolerated his disciples. But those who pretend and defend unfounded doctrine cannot be considered brethren, for one should not consent to false doctrine. Therefore everything that is disputed at length in this Scripture, that one should tolerate the weak, cannot be interpreted in any other way than to such weak ones, 2) who do not defend their uncertain doctrine; just as Paul also accepted the Galatians, but besides this he said of those who preach unrighteous doctrine, "I would that those who circumcise you were cut off."
This is our simple opinion, how we think to answer for it against God. For how can we make brotherhood with our adversary, and so agree that they defend their doctrine as right and certain, when our conscience feels and holds otherwise, and is not satisfied by their disputation? The writer of this scripture may mean well, but he speaks too lightly of faith; he thinks it is not important whether one is already mistaken in some of the articles of Scripture, and that it is not necessary to be sure of what one holds and teaches. But truly, if the heart is uncertain, and therefore must pretend to be uncertain of something, it is evil kept from God's judgment, as Paul says: "What is not of faith is sin"; and needs good experience, as faith must be certain, if it is to stand before God's judgment.
3 The articles on the sacraments are not to be disregarded. Because the whole church deals with them every day, there is a great deal of trouble if they are mistaken. We can, however, easily see where such theoIogy comes from, which assumes that it is not important what one teaches, that it is enough to live piously and honorably before God; thus many philosophers would also have been Christians. So also the teaching is not to be judged by the appearance of a civil life, but by God's word.
4 On the other point, that work is to be done on a concilium, if Imperial Majesty proceeds as written. Majesty proceeds as written, it may well be considered a concilium. However, whether in a concilium or otherwise, we are obliged to confess what we believe; we are also obliged not to prevent others from forbidding the doctrine that we do not certainly believe to be right. Moreover, it is also necessary for us to consider that we do not teach other good and
2) Corp. lct. "language."
3) So in the Oorp. Lei. after the Oock. Lav. In the other editions: kind.
The church is not to be used as a place for the teaching of the papists and the Anabaptists. If the Zwinglians persecute the Papists and Anabaptists without a concilium, why should it be wrong for the others to forbid their unfounded doctrine outside the concilium, especially if it promotes right doctrine and preserves peace? Finally, we ask, for God's sake, that in this great and highly important matter of the Sacrament, E. F. G. not let himself be turned away from the words of Christ on allegories. For in God's order one must keep one's own understanding of the word. If the rationes, which Zwinglius uses, quieted the conscience so that it would rely on them before God, we would also accept the same allegories, but we know that they cannot quieten the conscience.
Now it is terrible to want to defend uncertain doctrine for certain ones, and to give cause for great division and war because of such uncertain things.
6 For we do not want to deprive the F. F. G. of the fact that the Zwinglians are boasting here about how they are equipped with money and people, what they have for followers of foreign nations. Item, how they want to distribute bishoprics and become free. And we are very surprised that they otherwise boast much about love, and yet let themselves be heard of such practices, in which one can feel little love, obedience or patience. And even if they had correct doctrine, such practices, of which they boast themselves, would not be Christian, because a terrible disruption of the churches and all regiments would have to follow. Oh God! One should consider the descendants, who, to worry, will have no church and no regiment where such turmoil would arise. To all of this we also take care that such their undertaking does not have a good end.
(7) May God not understand this simple concern of ours ungraciously, for God is our witness that we do not seek our own advantage in this, but ask God with the utmost earnestness to protect us from error and all evil. We see that the devil has an abominable game in mind; therefore, it is necessary that we do not act in an unethical manner. We want to answer E. F. G. briefly in a hurry. If, however, F. F. G. requests a longer report from us, we will, as we know ourselves to be guilty, report with all diligence according to the length. God preserve E. F. G. at all times. June 11, 1530.
E. F. G.
subservient servants
Philippus Melanchthon. Johannes Brentius.
The Landgrave Philip of Hesse's answer to Melanchthon and Brenz.
See the previous number.
Dear Brenz and Philippe! I have read your letter and have received it in no other way than in a friendly manner. But I am sorry that you write in the beginning that Campanus and Martinus Cellarius and others introduce evil sects through their thoughts; I also believe that Zwinglio and Oecolampadio are as sorry as you are: but for the sake of their thoughts one must not judge the innocent, for otherwise it might be said that Luther also caused much evil, as the papists say.
(2) But as to your recent answer to the Scripture (which you should not understand otherwise than that I have sent it to you out of good and faithful opinion), namely, that one should not recognize as brethren those who intend to teach unrighteous doctrine, and based on this the saying of Paul, I do not know whether such a saying is capable of what you draw from it. For I believe that such an error in circumcision was much different than this case. For the Jews thought that circumcision was necessary; therefore Paul also punishes them, and yet is circumcised, saying, "I would that they were cut away"; not saying, "You are of the devil, and are no longer to be tolerated.
3 This error of the sacrament is not such an error as that, but we are all one, and believe and confess One Christ, and seek to be saved through Him. Even those whom you call erring hold God's word to be true in everything, but they are of a different opinion than you in such words of the Last Supper. Therefore I think, because they are of one mind with you in all things, that they also confess Christ as you confess him, and that Christ is eaten in the supper by faith, which food is necessary for salvation, and do not say that God cannot do this or that, but that it is to be understood according to faith, and according to the Scriptures, as they indicate. Since Christ cannot be eaten in any other way than by believers and through faith, since Christ has a clarified body, and since a clarified body does not nourish the belly, I think that such an opinion is unnecessary, and I hope to God Almighty that you will think better of it.
4. for the sake of the teachers 1)
1) 6orp. Rsk: "teaching". That "teacher" must be read proves s 6 of the following letter.
If you do not want to do this, then you will consider the others who sit in such cities, and if they err, they are not defenders of this error; in addition, there are still many people in such countries and cities who are of your opinion. If now a country should be condemned and fall into punishment, then cabbage would have to go with cabbage. I hope that you are children of the Spirit, since Christ said, "The Son of Man did not come to destroy, but to save," when his disciples wanted fire to fall from heaven, like Elijah. You must not defend them in such an opinion, but carry and instruct them, and admonish them at times and at times, as Paul says. But this you owe, that you help them to defend the doctrine which you yourselves believe to be right, not with the sword, I mean, on account of yourselves, but with verbal speech and assistance. I would also like to know whether Luther called the Waldensians brethren, as the writer indicates, who are supposed to be of this opinion. But what you blame the writer for, that he deals too weakly with faith, I take for it that perhaps your opinion is so with you, after you are hostile to such opinion, but take it for certain with me that such a poet does not mean that one should teach uncertainly, and get into heaven with works or outward manners, like the philosophers, but that such is his opinion, if one has faith, then works and manners will follow. Now if there be such faith, and works follow, and yet something in the Scripture be not understood alike, let patience be had, and not casting away, for "he that is with us is not against us," saith Christ.
(5) As for the concilium, I think we shall all be permitted not to be condemned unheard; but if this be a concilium, it will undoubtedly be a concilium which has been no more. Let all of us who confess Christ wait for the decision that is to be made here, and if we wanted to live by it otherwise, 1) I would not have read the Scriptures. But I will not do it, whether God wills it; I also hope without a doubt that you pious scholars, whom I now consider to be our pillars here, will not set your date on such a decision. But that you confess your faith, one cannot blame you, is also to praise a right sincere, truthful confession.
6. but that some teachers are forcibly
1) This reading is in the 6orp. ksk. Walch: "because otherwise still believe".
I do not think that it is right to offer the articles of faith that are not denied, or that have sedition about them, but I do want to be instructed. There are still three causes to be moved here.
7 The first, that Christ saith, "Let the tares grow up with the wheat." And Paul: "There is nothing in it, that Christ may be rightly or accidentally, only that Christ may be preached."
The other is that in the beginning, when Luther began to preach and write, he faithfully admonished and taught the authorities that it was not their right to forbid books or not to allow preaching to take place, and that their office did not extend so far, but that the authorities had to rule over body and goods alone, and not over souls and consciences.
The third, that the Zwinglians, as they are called, have not yet overcome, that they confess their error, or that it is an error contrary to the high majesty of God.
10) That the Zwinglians should persecute the papists, I have not heard more than now; but whether they stop the abuses is not unreasonable, for they want to earn heaven with their works, and thus blaspheme the Son of God.
11) That they persecute the Anabaptists is also not unjust, for they partly teach sedition; but the Zwinglians keep a distinction with those who are not seditious, as I am told.
(12) Lastly, that you should indicate what the Zwinglians have allowed themselves to hear, I do not hope that it is so; but I ask you to indicate to me who they are who have allowed themselves to be heard, so that the truth may be revealed. For I do not hold Zwingel and Oecolampad to the opinion that they want to distribute the bishopric or cause a riot; but that their superiors would like to have a lot of friendship to help them in times of need, they cannot be blamed, since the Elector has also made alliances with princes and cities, and also continues to ask for it daily.
Therefore, in conclusion, for the sake of the glory of God, and for the sake of all believers, and also for the common good, I ask you to make a friendly brotherly peace with those who are called Zwinglians, and consider how kindly the apostle and many of the ancients acted with one another and against the strangers. For you know well that faith is not to be forced, and that hearts must first be opened.
2) 6orp. Rsk.: "and" instead of: "the".
Otherwise no outward commandments will help. For commandment and compulsion do not do it, but instruction, and that one sees that you faithfully desire to instruct the Zwinglians and not to corrupt them. Nor do I hope that you will think that the Zwinglians are to be forced to your faith by force, or that you will overpower them for the sake of their faith, which would be against all Scripture, and against Luther's own writing, who wrote much in it concerning the Turk, and otherwise; which faith is no good at all. I do not trust you, although I am told all kinds of things. Please answer.
14. that you also ask me not to be turned away from the true understanding of the sacrament, you must not doubt; I will, if God wills, trust God's promises and give credence to His word; although in this matter I also cannot be made certain of your opinion from clear text, without gloss; but I will hear you with all my heart gladly and especially, and take my reason captive under the true understanding, yet with God's word.
15. But I want to admonish you again as brothers in Christ, that you also perceive yourselves and what people look upon you, and act in such a way that serves peace; and that you do not cause emperors and princes to fall upon the Zwinglians, and thereby many innocent people, even some of those who do not adhere to such an opinion, have to shed their blood with guilt; 1) or that on both sides, emperor and princes, and on the other side Swiss, cities and peasants, would corrupt each other to such an extent that God would perhaps allow misfortune to befall the authorities, and again widows and orphans would lose body and blood. I have written all this to admonish you, and in this do not consider my person and unfortunately unchristian conduct, but the glory of God. Please also, do not let my long letter annoy you, but do not accept it from me in any other way than out of love and for the sake of peace; I will also gladly talk to you about it orally etc.
Philip, Landgrave of Hesse.
1) Bretschneider: "the sense is: and we thereafter also geschweppt, or gewippt would". - In Low German "Schwep" is - whip.
39 Melanchthon's and Brenz's reply to the above letter.
See No. 37.
1. noble, highborn prince, gracious lord! We thank E. F. G. in all humility that Ew. F. G. has graciously accepted our writing, and we do not doubt that E. F. G. faithfully means what they have intended for the salvation of the country and its people; therefore, we ask E. F. G. to take it for granted, for the reason stated above, that we truly do not act out of spite in this matter, but intend to advise and act as we dare to answer to God. E. F. G. also knows that we both have never shown ourselves unfriendly to the Zwinglians, neither in writings nor otherwise, and have many good friends among them, so that we are more sorry for this discord than many others.
(2) As far as the brotherhood is concerned, however, the F.F.G. has read our simple-minded concern that we do not know how to consent to it, so that such a brotherhood cannot be made without annoyance. For it would follow that it would be considered as if we consented to their doctrine, and thereby strengthened such doctrine, which we do not know how to maintain before God.
3) Secondly, the F. F. G. can well mean that we must fear greater danger from the Emperor than from the Zwinglians, for many reasons that are not necessary to relate. Therefore, we cannot yet know how it will happen to ask for a concilium; not that we should first learn our faith from the concilium, but that we should hold ourselves back against unreasonable burdening.
4 If, however, God would have mercy that our certain and necessary doctrine, as hitherto, would be tolerated by imperial majesty in evil patience, we hold that we should not then prevent this by defending Zwinglian doctrine, if one did not want to tolerate it.
(5) So we cannot trust our simple mind that this will serve for peace. For if the imperial majesty wanted to persecute Zwinglian doctrine, she would certainly not refrain from doing so because we had made fraternity with them, but the noise would be much more terrible and greater, which we have often mentioned here; moreover, since the Romans defend Zwinglian doctrine with an evil conscience, and not out of faith, they would not do God great service by doing so.
(6) But that it is said that the people should be spared, if the teachers are already persecuted: to this is our answer, that here or in a concilio it is not a question of persons, but only of the doctrine, whether it is right or wrong. In this every one is guilty of confessing his faith. The execution against forbidden doctrine does not stand with us; and it would be Christian that in the execution a distinction be made between the teachers and the people, as has always been done in the church; but if the cities that are under the emperor would keep themselves subservient, this matter would be settled without war.
(7) And we think that princes and cities, Lutheran and Zwinglian, would do right and Christian if they let us, who teach, answer for our doctrine, and did not intend to protect us, especially against imperial majesty, as Duke Frederick, of praiseworthy memory, whom Luther let pass his own adventure, did not want to protect him against imperial majesty. If the princes were so minded, we poor fellows would have less to worry about and would want to suffer happily, and the princes and other authorities would have more peace.
8. that E. F. G. indicates how we are to be spoken of as if we should take pleasure in the violent persecution of the Zwinglians is unfairly laid upon us, for we are most eager for peace, as it is known that we have always resisted unruly practices, and we are asked to be left to answer for our doctrine ourselves, as we, with God's help, also want to be heard here.
(9) But that some boast how the Zwinglians are prepared for war, we may truthfully report to Your Holiness that they have spoken such things at Augsburg, in the report of the Rotweil noise, and in other ways as well. Your Holiness knows that the cause is God's cause, in which we must wait for God's help, who will undoubtedly not forget us, if only we do not hurry too much to protect ourselves with unseemly force and counsel. Isaiah says: "He who believes should not hurry." So we must wait for what God will do in His time, and not anticipate by unseemly practices, as Ezekiel and others have persevered and obtained help; we must learn to practice faith in danger, otherwise we will never learn what faith is.
For this reason, we ask that Your Grace be patient and not be in too much of a hurry to seek human help, which is often lacking, even in good matters. We have such articles, of which we are certain by God's grace, and can therefore suffer with a good conscience, which is a great comfort in all danger; but the Zwinglian doctrine, as
We cannot be sure of the name, because we do not have a clear word from God.
11 We have considered answering F.F.G. shortly and ask with all humility that F.F.G. will graciously understand our writing. Where F. F. G. wishes to have a further report, we will obediently comply with it, as we always acknowledge our obligation towards F. F. G.. May God always protect E. F. G. from all evil.
E. F. Gn.
subservient servants
Philip Melanchthon. Joh. Brentius.
40: Luther's letter to Martin Bucer. Jan. 22, 1531.
This letter is found from Bertram's collection at Aurich in Schütze, vol. II, p. 215' and in De Wette, vol. IV, p. 216.
Newly translated from the Latin.
To the esteemed man, Mr. Martin Bucer, minister of the Word of God in the church at Strasbourg, his superior.
Grace and peace in Christ! We have read the confession booklet that you sent, my dear Bucer, and approve of it and thank God that we are at least so far in agreement, as you write, that we both confess that the body and blood of Christ is truly present in the Lord's Supper and is offered with the words as food for the soul. I am surprised, however, that you also hold Zwingli and Oecolampad to this opinion or view. But I am talking to you. If we now confess that the body of Christ is truly given to the soul as food, and there is no reason why we should not say that it is also given in this way to an ungodly soul, even though it does not receive it, just as the light of the sun is given equally to the seeing and the blind: I wonder why it troubles you to confess of your own free will that it is also offered with the bread outwardly to the mouths of both the godly and the ungodly, since by admitting that it is offered to individual souls, it is necessarily admitted that the body is present and offered in many places at once. But
If this opinion has not yet come to maturity among you, then I think that the matter should be postponed and divine grace should still be expected. I cannot renounce this opinion, and if you do not hold that it is required by the words of Christ, as you write, yet my conscience holds that it is required. Therefore, I cannot profess a firm and complete concord with you, if I do not want to violate my conscience, nay, if I do not want to scatter the seed to a much greater confusion of our churches and a future even more frightful discord among us, if we establish concord in this way. Therefore, for the sake of the conscience and peace of your and our churches, I also ask you that we do not allow ourselves to be guilty of this, that by this remedy against discord we only arouse more unrest and agitation, but rather command the cause to God by perceiving in the meantime this peace that has been established to some extent and the unity that has been strengthened to such an extent that we confess that the body of the Lord is really present and is offered inwardly to the believing soul. For you yourselves can easily see that, if a union were to be concluded, it could not fail that some of yours would communicate with us, and again some of ours with you, who would communicate in different faith and conscience. Inevitably, they would receive something different on both sides than they believed, and so, through our ministry and conscience, either their faith would have to be mocked with secret and worldly deceit, 1) if they do not know it, or taken away by open theft from God (sacrilegio), if they do know it. 2) But how godly and Christian this is, you see. Therefore, among two evils, let us rather choose the one that is the lesser, if one of the two must be suffered at all. Therefore, we would rather suffer this lesser discord with lesser peace than, when we strive to heal it, suffer real tragedies.
1) Here we have erased ut that seems out of place.
2) For a better understanding of this passage, see No. 53.
of greater discord and unbearable confusion. And I want you to believe me, as I also told you at Coburg, that I wish this disagreement of ours to be settled, even if I had to risk my life three times over, because I have seen how necessary fellowship with you is for us, how great damage [the separation] 3) has brought and still brings to the gospel, so that I am sure that all the gates of hell, the whole papacy, the whole Turk, the whole world, the whole flesh, and everything else that is evil, could not have harmed the gospel in the least, because we would be in unity. But what shall I do about that which cannot possibly happen? You will therefore not attribute it to my obstinacy, if you want to do right, but to my conscience, as it is in truth, and to the necessity of my faith, that I reject this unity. I had glorious hope after our conversation in Coburg, but this hope has not yet lasted. May the Lord Jesus enlighten us and make us completely united, that is what I ask for, that is what I implore with tears, that is what I sigh for. In him you are well. Wittenberg, January 22, 1531.
Martin Luther.
41 D. M. Luther's brief concept of Bucer's settlement proposals, and what the deal stood on.
End of January or beginning of February 1531.
First of all, that Martinus Bucerus indicates that that part is like us in the sacrament, namely, that they believe with us that the true body and blood of our Lord is present in the sacrament, and is offered with the words, to the soul for food, or for the strengthening of the Christian faith, we accept this kindly, and hear it from the heart [gladly].
3) This addition seems to be necessary.
1976 Erl. 54,316 f. 215 f. Sect. 3. Hesse's attempts at unification. No. 41 ff. W. XVII, 23S7-24VV. 1977
On the other hand, because Bucerus alone confesses this, and alone indicates his misgivings, as if the others also hold it thus, so that we are well aware, and the books and disputes are in the open, that Zwingel and Oecolampad fiercely argued against it, and as if the main point was that Christ can be bodily present in heaven in one place alone, and not in the sacrament, and not in the sacrament, it is necessary here to be sure beforehand whether the others also hold thus, as Bucerus believes in good hope, and whether one also teaches and practices this publicly among the people, otherwise the union might gain an evil ground and subsequently become worse, as I have told D. Luther in Coburg. Luther so diligently reproached Bucerus at Coburg for starting such unification for a good, pure reason, or for letting it stand.
Thirdly, about such bodily presence of Christ for the souls, as Bucerus confesses here, I also dealt with him about the bodily presence, so that both, ungodly and believers, also orally receive the true body and blood of Christ, under the bread and wine; in this he let himself be fairly noticed, which pleased me. Now in these Scriptures nothing is reported of this, and yet we think, since they admit so much, that the body of Christ may be bodily presented to the soul, and be present, it should not be difficult to believe that it is also present to the mouth, or to the body, or to the bread, and is presented to the mouth.
If now God would give complete grace (which we desire from the bottom of our hearts) that they would also keep and teach such a piece with us, unity would be bad, and a great work and miracle of God would be accomplished.
42: Luther's doubts as to whether an alliance with the Zwinglians should be made.
See St. Louis edition, vol. XVI, 518, no. 864.
43 Luther's answer to Prince John of Saxony, who had requested an expert opinion from Luther through Chancellor Brück on the settlement with Bucer. 16 Feb. 1531.
The original of this letter is in the library at Wolfenbüttel. Printed in the Eisleben edition, vol. II, p. 135; in the Altenburg edition, vol. V, p. 568; in the Leipzig edition, vol. XX, p. 850; in the Erlangen edition, vol. 54, p. 215 and in De Wette, vol. IV, p. 222.
To the most illustrious, highborn Prince and Lord, Lord John, Duke of Saxony and Elector etc., Landgrave in Thuringia and Margrave of Meissen, my most gracious Lord.
Grace and peace in Christ. Most Serene, Highborn Prince, Most Gracious Lord! To the request, so D. Brück has made to me on account of E. C. F. G., on account of the writing of M. G. Herr, the Landgrave, this is my humble answer, that I cannot yet let myself be heard any further, until I learn what those at Strasbourg, Mart. Bucerus and his, reply to my writing. But if they have decided beforehand (as someone might think from the Landgrave's writing) that they cannot believe with us that the body and blood of Christ are also present outwardly in the bread and wine, and are received and acted upon by the wicked and the pious alike: then they might well have first of all left it to seek a settlement, as I told Martin Bucer at Coburg quite diligently and clearly. Truly, I cannot give way or yield any further. Methinks I have done much where it should otherwise help. Dear God, if it is so difficult to believe that an ungodly person can receive the body of Christ in bread, then they must believe that the devil led Christ bodily to the temple and the high mountain, and afterwards the Jews seized him and crucified him. So they must also confess that an ungodly man hears the right word of God. And if it were not the right word of God, he would not be condemned for not believing it, but would be justified in not believing in a glorious or false word of God. The same applies to God's name, baptism and sacrament. Everything must be rightly and truly God's name, word, and work, through which He acts with us. If such a comparison cannot be made, it is enough that the writing remains against others. Perhaps God will continue to give grace in such silence. Such I have E. C. F. G. want to answer this piece humbly. Hiemit GOtt befehlt, Amen. On 16 Feb. 1531.
E. C. F. G.
subservient
Martinus Luther.
44 D. M. Luther's, Justus Jonas', and Philipp Melanchthon's concerns about Bucer's settlement proposals for Churfürst Johann or another princely person. About the end of February 1531.
This concern is found handwritten in 6oä. 689, p. 150. Printed in the Eisleben edition, vol. II, p. 134; in the Altenburger, vol. V, p. 568; in the Leipziger, vol. XX, p. 350; in the Erlanger, vol. 54, p. 264 and in De Wette, vol. IV, p. 327. In all these editions "An Wenc. Link" without date. In the Oock. kaiat. the concern is not addressed to him and already Seidemann-De Wette, vol. VI, p. 585 has added it in the register to those addressed to Churfürsten Johann. It belongs to the same time as the preceding numbers, which De Wette has already recognized.
On Bucer's 1) writing to my gracious lord, the Landgrave of Hesse, given the 5th day of Februarii, Anno 1531, this is our concern. After D. Luther has written to Bucer, Bucer has not yet answered, so that one cannot go any further, since they have previously answered the above-mentioned letter. Thus Bucer also indicates that he did not have Luther's writing at that time on February 5. But because Bucer in this writing declares himself somewhat further, as they thus taught, it might, in our opinion, well serve for concord, namely, that Christ is truly not only with the soul, but also with the signs of bread and wine. From this opinion we wrote to them next, whether they would admit the same, that the body of Christ is truly also with the sign. For if they taught thus, the sacrament would be given its proper, due quality. For if God binds Himself to a sign (as He binds Himself to it), He is truly with the sign, as God was truly with the propitiatorio (mercy seat), and not only in the Sacred Heart. 2) After this, what the ungodly received, the same disputation is suspended this time. Now Bucer speaks thus: I have confessed to Luther, and confess this with my fellow servants in the word hereafter:
1) "Bucers" has De Wette put instead of: "Luther's" in the editions.
2) The foregoing is found almost word for word also in Melanchthon's Brie to Bucer of Jan. 22, 1531, Eorp. Lei, vol. II, 470.
since Christ is truly present in the Lord's Supper, that he may also be present in the bread and in our mouths etc. This article must be clearly expressed in the Concord.
D. Justus Jonas. Philip Melanchthon.
3) That is, they do not want to make the truth of Christ's promise dependent on people's belief or unbelief.
4) Addition of the 6oä. ?al.
45 Des Urban Rhegius und Erhard Schnepf Bedenken, ob die Schweizer in den Schmalkaldischen Bund aufzunehmen sei. About Jan. 1531.
From an old manuscript in Löschers 618t. mot. I, p. 199. We are moved to the time determination we have set by the alleged position of Bucer and Oecolampad on the sacrament question, § 7 towards the end. The Schmalkaldic League came into being on Feb. 7, 1531; see St. Louis edition, vol. XVI, no. 1194.
Report on whether it is proper for the Protestant states to enter into alliance with the Confederates or to come to their senses.
1. First, because the constitutions set by the authorities allow one to defend and protect oneself against violence and injustice, I leave such statutes in their value, because Scripture also does not refer to the secular statutes and order of the authorities, and it is also quite another thing about the secular government, where temporal peace is sought, than about the spiritual, where one has to do with conscience before God; and often an authority must do something ex officio that it would otherwise do much differently on account of its person, ut privatus homo. Therefore, as if it were permissible, sine praejudicio melius sentientium, I decree that a lord shall and may defend himself for the protection of his own against unlawful violence or iniquity on the part of his own, and hereupon my opinion is, for the sake of reason, to be made with the Confederates, in the following points.
By divine right, every authority owes its subjects protection and protection against violence and injustice, Rom. 13. 1 Petr. 2. For this reason God gave it the sword, so that it might punish evil and make peace, and St. Paul is said to have asked for this for it, 1 Tim. 2, so that one might have a peaceful life under it.
But that a common peace may be preserved, the lords must be supplied and equipped with men, who may resist the enemies and the restless with their hands, as captains, soldiers on horseback and on foot, and what more belongs to the seriousness, as also the holy kings in Israel held in the Old Testament, as David, Solomon, Ezechias, and Luc. 3 confirms such John the Baptist.
4 Where alliance may help to preserve common peace and protect the subjects, a lord or sovereign may, for the strength of his power, give himself necessary assistance or alliance with another in understanding. For he would like to keep peace, has a ge
This may not help in all cases, but it remains his duty to his subjects, to whom he owes protection and protection. If, in Christian simplicity, nothing but peace is sought in this matter, and if discord is increased, then this authority must and may seek assistance out of necessity and official duty, so that it may provide protection and protection.
5 Thus the Scripture says in Genesis 14 that Abraham the archfather had an understanding, a pact or alliance, with Escol and Aner; and in Genesis 21 a pact or covenant was made between Abimelech the king and Abraham; and in 1 Kings 5 King Hiram, king of Tyre, and Solomon also made a peace and pact with one another; likewise we read of Isaac and Abimelech in Genesis 26 that peace was sought between the lords and authorities.
6. Since understanding and pacts have been established between such holy people, without violating their faith, and between pagan lords, one can easily conclude that a Christian authority, for the sake of necessary assistance in maintaining peace and protection, to enter into a pact and understanding with others, even though they are of a different faith, provided the alliance or understanding does not detract from the Christian faith and doctrine, and does not concern doctrine, but only temporal things, such as peace in the land, protection and protection from violence and injustice. For if such were wrong, Abraham, Isaac and Solomon would have sinned in their foederibus with the Gentiles; but this cannot be proved in this case.
(7) From this it follows that the Elector, princes and cities, for the sake of security and protection against unjust violence, may come into an understanding or alliance with the Confederates, although in one or more articles the Confederates hold differently than we do. For first of all I consider that this alliance is not done to protect the gospel itself, for it needs no sword, and is a word of the cross, and yet a power of God for the salvation of the faithful, but such understanding is done for the protection of the subjects, who for the sake of the gospel might be harmed where one should sit and watch. And even though the subjects do not desire this for themselves as Christians and private persons, but are willing to suffer persecution for the sake of the truth, the office of the authorities requires that they should not stand by and watch,
1) "not" put by us instead of: "with", which will be read from "nit".
and not let violence and injustice happen to their poor people. Secondly, it is to be considered that this persecution does not actually come from the Emperor out of intent and good forethought, but from the clergy of that time, who did not report the matter to Imperial Majesty properly and still prevent that His Majesty may not be reported. Majesty of the matter, and still prevent that His Majesty may not be reported. And these same clergymen seek nothing in addition, but their tyranny fortification, and imprisonment in error of the poor people. Thus it is evident that in this case the clergy should be held no differently than other rebellious evildoers against their authorities. For by divine right they should be subject to the authorities of the country in which they sit, just as other Christians are; but since they do not do this, but gladly abolish their lords, cities and princes, in that case they are to be spoken and acted against as against the rebels who break the common peace, and act against God, honor and justice. Third, it must be considered that the Confederates refer to the word of God; they want to keep that pure, that is not wrong; to this we add that Bucerus and Oecolampadius also let themselves be righteously remembered for the sake of the sacrament, and are almost one with us; 1) we hope that Zwinglius will do the same.
8 All of this is intended to be an indication of some of the questions raised by the Confederates. But all this shall be written and held by me sine praejudicio melius sentientium. It is only a counsel, not a dogma. Luneburgi in Saxonibus. D. Urbanus Regius.
I, Erhardus Schnepfius, by order of my gracious Prince and Lord, Landgrave Philippe, have overlooked this advice and put up with it, as I have also indicated this to His Grace in a side letter:
Grace and peace from God.
Most Serene Prince! E. F. Graces are my willing and owing services always before. Gracious Prince and Lord! The advice of D. Urbani Negii, concerning the alliance of the Confederates.
1) This gives a clue to the determination of the time in which this document will be written.
sent to me by Mr. Georg Nusbecken from E. F. Gn. Order, I do not know how to improve. For on other grounds of Scripture, indicated in the Council, I am not a little moved that the Confederates themselves, though farther apart in faith than we and the Zwinglians, nevertheless let civil alliance, common peace, exist and remain. In addition, we ourselves, although most horribly condemned by the papists, would not lock ourselves in any way to resist the Turk together with them, although we recognize and consider them to be those who are separated and divorced from us a thousand times further than the Zwinglians.
One might be moved by the fact that in 2 Chronicles 19, the prophet Jehu punishes King Jehoshaphat for the move he made with Ahab, King of Israel, against the Syrians, saying, "You help the wicked, and have friendship with those who hate the Lord, therefore you would be worthy of the Lord's wrath." But if we diligently consider the next chapter before this, namely the eighteenth, it is found why the prophet had punished King Jehoshaphat so severely. For Micah the prophet, a true prophet, clearly shows the two kings how they should refrain from fighting the Syrians. By this they should have stayed at home, as men of faith. And even if Ahab had not wanted to follow, Jehoshaphat should have left a thousand times sooner, because God would have tempted his Lord against such a clear warning from God. Therefore, not the alliance, but the temptation and contempt of God is certainly punished in him. Otherwise, if Micah had not defended himself in this way and had so clearly proclaimed his defeat, he would not have been found guilty of punishment for the sake of the covenant, or even for the train. I have not wished to report this to E. F. Gn. out of a duty of submissive opinion. I hereby entrust myself and my family to the gracious protection of the Most High, who, according to His divine will, may govern and guide them in all things for His glory forever, amen.
E. F. G.
most subservient
Erhardus Schnepfius.