Book of Concord. Introduction. 17-20

Book of Concord. Introduction. 17-20. The discussion involves the first and second Augsburg Confessions, disputes that have arisen, the two natures of Christ and the union in one Person, the (implied) Chalcedonian formualations, and the issues surrounding the Lord's Table. We expect most "evangelicals" (American, not Reformation sense) to have no exposure or interest in these questions, although they have enormous implications for doctrine and piety; American ignorance or interest is not our standard; the Word of God is the standard. Here are the introductory articles. (The church to the lower right is St. Ulrich's in Augsburg, Germany.)

17] Moreover, as to the second edition of the Augsburg Confession, of which mention is made also in the transactions at Naumburg, we notice, what is also known to all, that, under the pretext of the words of this latter edition, some have wanted to cover and conceal corruptions with respect to the Lord’s Supper and other errors, and by means of published writings have attempted to obtrude them upon an ignorant populace; nor have they been moved by the distinct words of the Augsburg Confession, (which was first presented,) by which these errors are openly rejected, and from which a far different meaning than they wish can be shown. Therefore we have decided in this writing to testify publicly, and to inform all, that we wished neither then nor now in any way to defend, or excuse, or to approve, as though agreeing with the Gospel doctrine, false and godless doctrines and opinions which may lie concealed under certain coverings of words. We, indeed, never received the latter edition in a sense differing in any part from the former which was presented. Neither do we judge that other useful writings of Dr. Philip Melanchthon, or of Brenz, Urban Rhegius, Pomeranus, etc., should be rejected and condemned, so far as, in all things, they agree with the norm which has been set forth in the Book of Concord.

18] Now, although some theologians, and among them Luther himself, when they treated of the Lord’s Supper, were drawn, against their will, by their adversaries to disputations concerning the personal union of the two natures in Christ, nevertheless our theologians in the Book of Concord, and by the norm of sound doctrine which is in it, testify that both our constant and perpetual opinion and that of this book is that with regard to the Lord’s Supper godly men should be led to no other foundations than to those of the words of institution of the testament of our Lord Jesus Christ. For since He is both almighty and true, it is easy for Him to do those things which He has both instituted and promised in His Word. And indeed, when this foundation will not be assailed by their adversaries, they will not contend in this kind of argument concerning other methods of proof, but, in true simplicity of faith, will firmly insist upon the very plain words of Christ, which method is the safest, and is best suited to the instruction of uneducated men; for those things which have been discussed with greater exactness they do not understand. But indeed, since this our assertion and the simple meaning of the words of Christ’s testament are assailed by the adversaries, and rejected as godless and conflicting with the nature of true faith, and finally are claimed to be contrary to the Apostles’ Creed (especially to the statements concerning the incarnation of the Son of God, His ascension into heaven, and His sitting at the right hand of the almighty power and majesty of God) and therefore to be false, it must be shown by a true and thorough interpretation of these articles that our opinion differs neither from the words of Christ nor from these articles.

The Book of Concord



19] As to the phrases and forms of expression which are employed in this Book of Concord, when we treat of the majesty of the human nature in the person of Christ, elevated and placed at the right hand of God, in order to remove all subtle suspicions and causes of offense which might arise from the different significations of the word abstract, (as both the schools and the fathers have hitherto employed this term,) our theologians in distinct and express words wish to testify that this majesty is in no way to be ascribed to the human nature of Christ outside of the personal union, neither are we to grant that the human nature possesses this majesty as its own or by itself (even in the personal union) essentially, formally, habitually, subjectively. (The schools like these terms, although they are not good Latin.) For if we would adopt this method both of speaking and teaching, the divine and human natures with their properties would be confounded, and the human, with respect to its essence and properties, would be made equal to the divine, yea, indeed, would be altogether denied. Therefore the theologians judge that we ought to believe that this occurs according to the method and economy of the hypostatic union, as learned antiquity has spoken cautiously concerning this subject, that it is a mystery so great as to exceed all the powers of our natural ability and understanding.

20] As to the condemnations, censures, and rejections of godless doctrines, and especially of that which has arisen concerning the Lord’s Supper, these indeed had to be expressly set forth in this our declaration and thorough explanation and decision of controverted articles, not only that all should guard against these condemned doctrines, but also for certain other reasons could in no way have been passed by. Thus, as it is in no way our design and purpose to condemn those men who err from a certain simplicity of mind, but are not blasphemers against the truth of the heavenly doctrine, much less, indeed, entire churches, which are either under the Roman Empire of the German nation or elsewhere; nay, rather has it been our intention and disposition in this manner openly to censure and condemn only the fanatical opinions and their obstinate and blasphemous teachers, (which, we judge, should in no way be tolerated in our dominions, churches, and schools,) because these errors conflict with the express Word of God, and that, too, in such a way that they cannot be reconciled with it. We have undertaken this also for this reason, viz., that all godly persons might be warned diligently to avoid them. For we have no doubt whatever that even in those churches which have hitherto not agreed with us in all things many godly and by no means wicked men are found who follow their own simplicity, and do not understand aright the matter itself, but in no way approve the blasphemies which are cast forth against the Holy Supper as it is administered in our churches, according to Christ’s institution, and, with the unanimous approval of all good men, is taught in accordance with the words of the testament itself. We are also in great hope that, if they would be taught aright concerning all these things, the Spirit of the Lord aiding them, they would agree with us, and with our churches and schools, to the infallible truth of God’s Word. And assuredly, the duty is especially incumbent upon all the theologians and ministers of the Church, that with such moderation as is becoming they teach from the Word of God also those who either from a certain simplicity or ignorance have erred from the truth, concerning the peril of their salvation, and that they fortify them against corruptions lest perhaps, while the blind are leaders of the blind, all may perish. Wherefore, by this writing of ours, we testify in the sight of Almighty God and before the entire Church that it has never been our purpose, by means of this godly formula for union to create trouble or danger to the godly who to-day are suffering persecution. For, as we have already entered into the fellowship of grief with them, moved by Christian love, so we are shocked at the persecution and most grievous tyranny which with such severity is exercised against these poor men, and sincerely detest it. For in no way do we consent to the shedding of that innocent blood, which undoubtedly will be required with great severity from the persecutors at the awful judgment of the Lord and before the tribunal of Christ, and they will then certainly render a most strict account, and suffer fearful punishment.

Book of Concord. Introduction, 7-16.

This introductory portion of The Book of Concord speaks of the Augsburg Confession (1530), the Torgau Conference (1576), and the public and, ultimately, worldwide confession of Lutheran Churchmen. The concern, as always, is to root doctrine in the Scriptures. We read of respectful language for Emperor Charles V while affirming "pure evangelical doctrine" and on"fabrications" afield. These issues concern the "salvation of the soul and eternal happiness." Adversaries were rejected some Lutheran doctrines, the Lutheran view of the Lord's Supper beng one. The Formula of Concord serves as a hermeneutical tool and commentary on the Augsburg Confession.

We bring you some photos. Aside from the first two which are readily identifiable, we have Luther's living room as well as a photo of Augsburg with St. Ulfila's Church. Augsburg, being Germany's second oldest city, was founded by Tiberius in 15 B.C.

Here are the introductory notes.

The Book of Concord, The Introduction, 7-16.

7] And, indeed, after these deliberations our predecessors, of godly and excellent memory, together with some of us, assembled at Naumburg in Thuringia. On that occasion we took in hand the Augsburg Confession, offered to the Emperor Charles V in the great assembly of the Empire at Augsburg in the year 1530, and mentioned by us several times previously, and to that godly confession, built upon solid testimonies of the truth, which cannot be shaken, and is expressed in the Word of God, we all subscribed with one mind. In this way, of course, we meant to provide for the interests of posterity, and to enable and urge them, as far as we could, to avoid false doctrines conflicting with God’s Word. This we did also with the design that, both with his Imperial Majesty, our most clement lord, and also universally among all, there might be a permanent testimony that it has never been our intention to wish to defend or spread any new and strange dogma, but that we desired, God aiding us, to constantly support and retain the truth which we professed at Augsburg in the year 1530. We were also led to entertain a not uncertain hope that in this way not only those who oppose the pure evangelical doctrine would abstain from fabricated charges and accusations, but also other good and well-disposed men would be attracted by this renewed and repeated confession of ours, and, with greater zeal and care, would seek and investigate the truth of the heavenly doctrine, which alone is our guide to salvation, and, out of regard for the salvation of the soul and their eternal happiness, would assent to it, all further controversies and disputations being rejected.

The Naumburg Conference Failed

8] But, not without agitation of mind, we were informed that this declaration of ours and that repetition of a godly confession had too little weight with our adversaries, and that neither we nor our churches were delivered from the most grievous slanders, arising from prejudice, which they had circulated against us among the people; also, that those things which we have done, with the best intention and purpose, have been received by the adversaries of the true religion in such a way as though we were so uncertain concerning our [confession of faith and] religion, and so often had transfused it from one formula to another that it was no longer clear to us or our theologians what is the Confession once offered to the Emperor at Augsburg. These fictions of the adversaries have deterred and alienated many good men from our churches, schools, doctrine, faith, and confession. To these disadvantages there is also added that, under the pretext of the Augsburg Confession, the teaching conflicting with the institution of the Holy Supper of the body and blood of Christ and also other corruptions were introduced here and there into the churches and schools.

9] When some godly men, lovers of peace and harmony, besides also learned theologians, had noticed all these things, they judged that these slanders and the dissensions in religion which were constantly increasing more and more, could not be better met than if the controverted articles would be thoroughly and accurately set forth and explained from the Word of God, the false teachings would be rejected and condemned, and, on the other hard, the truth divinely delivered be clearly and lucidly presented; because they were convinced that by this method both silence could be imposed upon the adversaries, and the more simple and godly be shown a sure way and plan as to how they should act in these dissensions, and, aided by divine grace, could also in the future avoid corruptions of doctrine.

10] In the beginning, therefore, the theologians communicated to one another certain writings concerning this subject, sufficiently comprehensive, and derived from the Word of God, in which they showed clearly and skilfully how these controversies, which were not without offense to the churches, could be put to rest and removed from sight without any loss to the truth of the Gospel; for the result would be that the opportunities and pretexts sought for slander would be cut off and removed from the adversaries. Finally they took up and accurately and in the fear of God pondered and explained the controverted articles, and accordingly in a special writing stated comprehensively in what way and by what method the dissensions which had arisen could be settled in a right and godly manner.

11] Having been informed of this godly purpose of the theologians, we have not only approved it, but have also judged that it ought to be promoted by us with great earnestness and zeal, in view of the office and duty divinely committed to us.

The Torgau Conference of 1576

12] And accordingly, upon the counsel of some other Electors and Princes agreeing with us in religion, we, by the grace of God, Duke of Saxony, Elector, etc., summoned certain eminent and least suspected theologians, who were also experienced and endowed with preeminent learning, to Torgau in the year 1576, for the purpose of promoting the godly design of harmony among the teachers of the Church. When they had assembled, they conferred devoutly with one another concerning the controverted articles and the peace document which we have just mentioned. And indeed, after prayers had first been offered to Almighty God, and His praise and glory, they comprised, with extraordinary care and diligence,—the Spirit of the Lord aiding them by His grace,—all those things which seemed to pertain to, and to be required for, this deliberation in a very good and suitable document. Afterwards this book was transmitted to some chief adherents of the Augsburg Confession, Electors, Princes, and Deputies, with the request that they themselves, calling to their aid the most eminent and most learned theologians, should read it with anxious care and godly zeal, should diligently examine it, and commit their opinion and criticism upon it to writing, and, finally, express their judgment and the reasons therefore concerning the whole and each part.

13] Therefore, when we had received these criticisms, we found in them many godly and useful suggestions how the transmitted declaration of the pure Christian doctrine could be fortified and strengthened against corruptions and perversions by the testimonies of Holy Scripture, in order that in the course of time, under its guise, godless doctrines might not be concealed, but an altogether unvarnished declaration of the pure truth might be transmitted to posterity. Therefore, out of those things which had been considered best when they came to us, that book of godly concord of which we spoke was composed, and completed in the form in which it will be submitted.

14] Then some of our rank (for at that time not all of us, nor some others as well, were able to do this, on account of certain causes which were in the way), have caused this book to be recited article by article and distinctly to the theologians, and the ministers of the church and of the schools collectively and individually, and have caused them to be urged to a diligent and accurate consideration of those parts of the doctrine which are contained in it.

15] Accordingly, when they perceived that the explanation of the controverted articles, indeed, agreed especially with the Word of God, and then with the Augsburg Confession, they received this Book of Concord with a very ready mind and an expression of their gratitude towards God, as expressing the godly and genuine meaning of the Augsburg Confession, having voluntarily, and indeed accurately, pondered and considered it, and they approved it and subscribed to it, and publicly bore witness concerning it with heart, mouth, and hand. Wherefore that godly agreement is called, and forever will be, not only the harmonious and concordant confession of some few of our theologians, but, in general, of the ministers of our churches and rectors of schools, jointly and severally, in our provinces and realms.

The Role of the Augsburg Confession

16] Now, our conferences and those of our illustrious predecessors which were undertaken with a godly and sincere intention, first at Frankfort on the Main, and afterward at Naumburg, and were recorded in writing, not only did not accomplish that end and peaceful settlement which was desired, but from them even a defense for errors and false doctrines was sought by some, while it had never entered our mind, by this writing of ours, either to introduce, furnish a cover for, and establish any false doctrine, or in the least even to recede from the Confession presented in the year 1530 at Augsburg, but rather, as many of us as participated in the transactions at Naumburg wholly reserved it to ourselves, and promised besides that if, in the course of time, anything would be desired with respect to the Augsburg Confession, or as often as necessity would seem to demand it, we would further declare all things thoroughly and at length. And that is the reason why we have elaborated in this Book of Concord with great and godly agreement a declaration of our constant and perpetual, wish, and a repetition of our Christian faith and confession. Accordingly, in order that no persons may permit themselves to be disturbed by the charges of our adversaries spun out of their own mind, by which they boast that not even we are certain which is the true and genuine Augsburg Confession, but that both those who are now among the living and posterity also may be clearly and firmly taught and informed what that godly Confession is which both we and the churches and schools of our realms at all times professed and embraced, we emphatically testify that after the pure and immutable truth of God’s Word we wish to embrace the first Augsburg Confession alone which was presented to the Emperor Charles V, in the year 1530, at the famous Diet of Augsburg (this alone we say), and no other; copies of which, deposited in the archives of our predecessors, of excellent memory, who presented it in the Diet to Charles V himself, we caused to be compared by men worthy of confidence (lest we should be found wanting in most accurate regard for diligence) with the copy which was presented to the Emperor himself, and is preserved in the archives of the Holy Roman Empire, and we are sure that our copies, both the Latin and the German, in all things correspond to it, with like meaning. For this reason also we wished to insert the confession then presented in our explanation, which will be submitted herewith or in the Book of Concord, in order that all may understand that we have resolved to tolerate in our realms, churches, and schools no other doctrine than that which, in the year 1530, was approved at Augsburg in a solemn confession, by the above-mentioned Electors, Princes, and Deputies of the Empire. This Confession also, by the help of God, we will retain to our last breath, when we shall go forth from this life to the heavenly fatherland, to appear with joyful and undaunted mind and with a pure conscience before the tribunal of our Lord Jesus Christ. We hope, therefore, that our adversaries will hereafter spare both us and the ministers of our churches, and not employ these customary and most grievous accusations, that we cannot decide among ourselves upon anything as certain concerning our faith, and that, on this account, we are forging new confessions almost every year, yea, even every month.

Smalcald Articles. Second Part. Article II.1-15

The Mass in the Papacy is a great abomination. One will not hear that from Anglicans today in leadership, Jim Packer included. In fact, Jim's go around with the Anglican Church is puny compared to what Luther faced. The silliness of of all the hoorahs over the new Province seceding over gay bishops is that...silly. Meanwhile, we read serious things in the Smalcald Articles that trump these silly Anglicans. For example, one billion Romish sectaries still believe that the sacrifice or work of the Mass frees men from sins, in this life but also in purgatory. Not one word of analysis or inquiry from the modern Manglicans, to wit, that the Mass is nothing else than the fiction of scoundrels unenlightened by St. Paul's epistles. It is Ich-theologie at its finest. In the Mass, one seeks to obtain and merit the remission of sins and grace. In Luther's excellent words: "...this dragon's tail, [I mean] the Mass, has begotten a numerous vermin-brood of manifold idolatries." Here started the traffic and trade of purgatory masses, or Requiem Masses, vigils, weekly, monthly, and yearly celebrations of obsequies. The Mass itself was almost for the dead rather than the living. Articles are not framed from the works and words of ancient men. Otherwise, vestments, relics, etc., would become articles of faith, like the Anglo-Romanists. 2.2.15 closes with this Catholic and Reformational rule: "The Word of God shall establish articles of faith, and no one else, not even an angel." As always, brother Martin is edifying.

The Second Part.

Article II: Of the Mass.

1] That the Mass in the Papacy must be the greatest and most horrible abomination, as it directly and powerfully conflicts with this chief article, and yet above and before all other popish idolatries it has been the chief and most specious. For it has been held that this sacrifice or work of the Mass, even though it be rendered by a wicked [and abandoned] scoundrel, frees men from sins, both in this life and also in purgatory, while only the Lamb of God shall and must do this, as has been said above. Of this article nothing is to be surrendered or conceded, because the first article does not allow it.

2] If, perchance, there were reasonable Papists we might speak moderately and in a friendly way, thus: first, why they so rigidly uphold the Mass. For it is but a pure invention of men, and has not been commanded by God; and every invention of man we may [safely] discard, as Christ declares, Matt. 15:9: In vain do they worship Me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

3] Secondly. It is an unnecessary thing, which can be omitted without sin and danger.

4] Thirdly. The Sacrament can be received in a better and more blessed way [more acceptable to God], (yea, the only blessed way), according to the institution of Christ. Why, then, do they drive the world to woe and [extreme] misery on account of a fictitious, unnecessary matter, which can be well obtained in another and more blessed way?

5] Let [care be taken that] it be publicly preached to the people that the Mass as men's twaddle [commentitious affair or human figment] can be omitted without sin, and that no one will be condemned who does not observe it, but that he can be saved in a better way without the Mass. I wager [Thus it will come to pass] that the Mass will then collapse of itself, not only among the insane [rude] common people, but also among all pious, Christian, reasonable, God-fearing hearts; and that the more, when they would hear that the Mass is a [very] dangerous thing, fabricated and invented without the will and Word of God.

6] Fourthly. Since such innumerable and unspeakable abuses have arisen in the whole world from the buying and selling of masses, the Mass should by right be relinquished, if for no other purpose than to prevent abuses, even though in itself it had something advantageous and good. How much more ought we to relinquish it, so as to prevent [escape] forever these horrible abuses, since it is altogether unnecessary, useless, and dangerous, and we can obtain everything by a more necessary, profitable, and certain way without the Mass.

7] Fifthly. But since the Mass is nothing else and can be nothing else (as the Canon and all books declare), than a work of men (even of wicked scoundrels), by which one attempts to reconcile himself and others to God, and to obtain and merit the remission of sins and grace (for thus the Mass is observed when it is observed at the very best; otherwise what purpose would it serve?), for this very reason it must and should [certainly] be condemned and rejected. For this directly conflicts with the chief article, which says that it is not a wicked or a godly hireling of the Mass with his own work, but the Lamb of God and the Son of God, that taketh away our sins.

8] But if any one should advance the pretext that as an act of devotion he wishes to administer the Sacrament, or Communion, to himself, he is not in earnest [he would commit a great mistake, and would not be speaking seriously and sincerely]. For if he wishes to commune in sincerity, the surest and best way for him is in the Sacrament administered according to Christ's institution. But that one administer communion to himself is a human notion, uncertain, unnecessary, yea, even prohibited. And he does not know what he is doing, because without the Word of God he obeys a false human opinion and invention.

9] So, too, it is not right (even though the matter were otherwise correct) for one to use the common Sacrament of [belonging to] the Church according to his own private devotion, and without God's Word and apart from the communion of the Church to trifle therewith.

10] This article concerning the Mass will be the whole business of the Council. [The Council will perspire most over, and be occupied with this article concerning the Mass.] For if it were [although it would be] possible for them to concede to us all the other articles, yet they could not concede this. As Campegius said at Augsburg that he would be torn to pieces before he would relinquish the Mass, so, by the help of God, I, too, would suffer myself to be reduced to ashes before I would allow a hireling of the Mass, be he good or bad, to be made equal to Christ Jesus, my Lord and Savior, or to be exalted above Him. Thus we are and remain eternally separated and opposed to one another. They feel well enough that when the Mass falls, the Papacy lies in ruins. Before they will permit this to occur, they will put us all to death if they can.

11] In addition to all this, this dragon's tail, [I mean] the Mass, has begotten a numerous vermin-brood of manifold idolatries.

12] First, purgatory. Here they carried their trade into purgatory by masses for souls, and vigils, and weekly, monthly, and yearly celebrations of obsequies, and finally by the Common Week and All Souls' Day, by soul-baths so that the Mass is used almost alone for the dead, although Christ has instituted the Sacrament alone for the living. Therefore purgatory, and every solemnity, rite, and commerce connected with it, is to be regarded as nothing but a specter of the devil. For it conflicts with the chief article [which teaches] that only Christ, and not the works of men, are to help [set free] souls. Not to mention the fact that nothing has been [divinely] commanded or enjoined upon us concerning the dead. Therefore all this may be safely omitted, even if it were no error and idolatry.

13] The Papists quote here Augustine and some of the Fathers who are said to have written concerning purgatory, and they think that we do not understand for what purpose and to what end they spoke as they did. St. Augustine does not write that there is a purgatory, nor has he a testimony of Scripture to constrain him thereto, but he leaves it in doubt whether there is one, and says that his mother asked to be remembered at the altar or Sacrament. Now, all this is indeed nothing but the devotion of men, and that, too, of individuals, and does not establish an article of faith, which is the prerogative of God alone.

14] Our Papists, however, cite such statements [opinions] of men in order that men should believe in their horrible, blasphemous, and cursed traffic in masses for souls in purgatory [or in sacrifices for the dead and oblations], etc. But they will never prove these things from Augustine. Now, when they have abolished the traffic in masses for purgatory, of which Augustine never dreamt, we will then discuss with them whether the expressions of Augustine without Scripture [being without the warrant of the Word] are to be admitted, and whether the dead should be remembered at the Eucharist.

15] For it will not do to frame articles of faith from the works or words of the holy Fathers; otherwise their kind of fare, of garments, of house, etc., would have to become an article of faith, as was done with relics. [We have, however, another rule, namely] The rule is: The Word of God shall establish articles of faith, and no one else, not even an angel.