of repentance and good works, and softened down the strong expressions against the freedom of will. The other and more important change which gave most offense to orthodox Lutherans, is in the tenth article, concerning the Lord's Supper, where the clause on the real presence, and the disapproval of dissenting views are omitted, and the word exhibeantur is substituted for distribuantur. In other words, the article is so changed that Calvin could give it his hearty consent, and even Zwingli-with the exception, perhaps, of the word trulymight have admitted it. The difference will best appear from the following comparison:

EDITION 1530. LATIN TEXT.

'De Coena Domini docent, quod corpus et sanguis Christi VERE ADSINT, et DISTRIBUANTUR vescentibus in Coena Domini; ET IMPROBANT SECUS DOCENTES. 10

'Concerning the Lord's Supper, they teach that the body and blood of Christ are truly present, and are distributed (communicated) to those that eat in the Lord's Supper. And they disapprove of those that teach otherwise.'

EDITION 1540.

'De Cana Domini docent, quod CUM PANE ET VINO vere EXHIBEANTUR corpus et sanguis Christi vescentibus in Cœna Domini.'

'Concerning the Lord's Supper, they teach that with bread and wine are truly exhibited the body and blood of Christ to those that eat in the Lord's Supper.'

The difference between the two editions was first observed, not by Protestants, but by the Roman controversialist, Dr. Eck, at a religious conference in Worms early in the year 1541. Melanchthon and the Saxon theologians made there the altered edition the basis of negotiations, but Eck complained of changes, especially in Art. X., from the original copy of 1530, which he had procured from the archives of Mayence. Nevertheless, the Variata was again used, either alone or alongside with the Invariata, at several subsequent conferences, probably at Ratisbon, 1541, certainly at Ratisbon in 1546, and at Worms, 1557. It was expressly approved by the Lutheran Princes at a convention in Naumburg, 1561, as an innocent and, in some respects, im

1 Zöckler, l. c. p. 38, thinks that the Calvinistic view would require credentibus instead of vescentibus. This would be true, if the original distribuantur had been retained, and not exchanged for the more indefinite exhibeantur. He admits, however, that the tenth article is 'calvinisirend' and 'bucerianisirend' in the sense of the Wittenberg Concordia of 1536, whereby Bucer, with Melanchthon's express co-operation, and the subsequent consent of Calvin, endeavored to unite the Lutherans and the Swiss.

The German text of 1530 (1531) differs from the Latin, and is even stronger: Vom Abendmahl des Herrn wird also gelehret, dass WAHRER Leib (the true body) und Blut Christi wahrhaftiglich (corresponding to the vere in the Latin text) UNTER (DER) GESTALT (under the form) des Brots und Weins im Abendmahl gegenwärtig sei, und da ausgetheilt und genommen wird (distributed and received). Derhalben wird auch die Gegenlehr verworfen.'

proved modification and authentic interpretation of the Invariata. It was introduced into many Lutheran churches and schools, and printed (with the title and preface of the edition of 1530) in the first collection of Lutheran symbols, called Corpus Doctrina Philippicum, or Misnicum (1559).1

But after 1560, strict Lutheran divines, such as Flacius and Heshusius, attacked the Variata, as heretical and treacherous, and overwhelmed it with coarse abuse. A violent theological war was waged against Melanchthonianism and Crypto-Calvinism, and ended in the triumph of genuine Lutheranism and the transition of some Lutheran countries to the Reformed Church. The Book of Concord' (1580) gave the text of the Invariata in the happy illusion of presenting it, especially the German, in its original form. The Melanchthonians and the Reformed still adhered to the Variata. The Westphalian Treaty, in 1648, formally embraced the Reformed, together with the Roman Catholics and Lutherans, in the peace of the German Empire; and henceforth subscription to the Augsburg Confession of 1530 or 1540 ceased to be a necessary condition of toleration.2

The Confession, as delivered before the Diet of Augsburg in 1530, or, in the absence of the original text, the edition of 1531, carefully prepared by Melanchthon himself, is the proper historical Confession of Augsburg, and will always remain so. At the same time, the altered edition of 1540, though not strictly speaking a symbolical book of binding authority any where, is yet far more than a private document, and represents an important element in the public history of the Lutheran Church in the sixteenth century, and the present theological convictions of a very large party in that denomination.

3

See Weber, 1. c. II. pp. 314-336; Köllner, 1. c. pp. 248 sqq.

Instrum. Pacis Osnabr. Art. VII. § 1: Unanimi quoque . . . consensu placuit, ut quicquid publica hæc transactio, in eaque decisio gravaminum ceteris Catholicis, et AUGUSTANÆ CONF. ADDICTIS statibus et subditis tribuunt, it etiam iis, qui inter illos REFORMATI vocantur, competere debeat.' Quoted by Jacobson in art. Westf. Friede, in Herzog's Real-Encycl. XVIII. p. 24. Nevertheless, some interpreted this decree as including only such of the Reformed as subscribed the Invariata. All other Christians are expressly excluded by the Treaty; and yet the Popes have always, though vainly, protested in the strongest terms (damnamus, reprobamus, cassamus, annullamus, vacuamus) even against this partial concession to the principle of religious freedom; taking the ground that Papists alone have a legal right to exist on German soil. See Gieseler, Lehrbuch der K. G. III. I. p. 431 sq.

› An attempt was made in the Bavarian Palatinate, in 1853, through the influence of Dr. Ebrard, to raise the Variata to the dignity of a symbolical book, but it proved abortive.

§ 42. THE APOLOGY OF THE AUGSBURG CONFESSION. A.D. 1530-1531.

The Literature in 88 40 and 41. The history and literature of the Apology are usually combined with that of the Confession. So in J. G. WALCH, FEUerlin-RiedereR, KÖLLNER, etc.

The best text of the Apology, and of the Roman Catholic Confutation of the Confession, in Latin and German, with all the variations, is given in the Corpus Reformatorum, Vol. XXVII., ed. Bindseil (Brunsvigæ, 1859), pp. 646, fol. There are few separate editions of the Apology. Feuerlin knew only two, one under the singular title: Evangelischen Augapfels (name of the Augsb. Conf.) Brillen-Butzer, Leipz. 1629.

The 'Apology of the Augsburg Confession' was prepared by Melanchthon in vindication of the Confession against the Roman Catholic 'Confutation,' which the Emperor and the Diet had ordered and accepted, August 3, 1530, as a satisfactory answer, although, in the eyes of scholars, it did the cause of popery more harm than good.

The Confutation follows the order of the Augsburg Confession, approves eighteen articles of the first part, either in full or with sundry restrictions and qualifications, but rejects entirely the articles on the Church (VII.), on faith and good works (XX.), and on the worship of saints (XXI.), and the whole second part; nevertheless, it acknowledges at the close the existence of various abuses, especially among the clergy, and promises a reformation of discipline. The publication of the document was prohibited, and it did not appear till many years afterwards; but its main contents were known from manuscript copies, and through those who heard it read.1

The Lutherans urged Melanchthon to prepare at once a Protestant refutation of the Romish refutation, and offered the first draft of it to the Diet, Sept. 22, through Chancellor Brück, but it was refused. On the following day Melanchthon left Augsburg in company with the Elector of Saxony, and re-wrote the Apology on the journey, and completed it at Wittenberg in April, 1531.

It

The Apology is a triumphant vindication of the Confession. far excels the Confutation both in theological and literary merit, and

The Latin text of the Confutatio was first published by Fabricius Leodius in Harmonia Confess., 1573; the German, by C. G. Müller, 1808, from a copy of the original in the archives of Mayence, which Weber had previously obtained. Both in the Corp. Reform. 1. c. Comp. also above, p. 226; Weber's Krit. Gesch. der A. C. II. pp. 439 sqq.; and Hugo Lämmer (who afterwards joined the Romish Church): Die vor-Tridentinisch-Katholische Theologie, des Reformations-Zeitalters, Berlin, 1858, pp. 33-46.

His zeal led him to violate even the law of rest on Sunday when at Altenburg, in Spalatin's house. Luther took the pen from him, and told him to serve God on that day by resting from literary labor. So Salig reports in his Hist. of the Augsb. Conf. I. p. 375.

in Christian tone and spirit. It is written with solid learning, clearness, and moderation, though not without errors in exegesis and patristic quotations. It is seven times as large as the Confession itself. It is the most learned of the Lutheran symbols. It greatly strengthened the confidence of scholars in the cause of Protestantism. Its chief and permanent value consists in its being the oldest and most authentic interpretation of the Augsburg Confession by the author himself.

The Apology, though not signed by the Lutheran Princes at Augsburg, was recognized first in 1532, at a convent in Schweinfurt, as a public confession; it was signed by Lutheran divines at Smalcald, 1537; it was used at the religious conference at Worms, 1540, and embodied in the various symbolical collections, and at last in the Book of Concord.

The text of the Apology has, like that of the Confession, gone through various transformations. The original draft made at Augsburg has no authority. The first Latin edition was much enlarged and improved, and appeared in April, 1531, at Wittenberg, together with a very free German translation by Justus Jonas, assisted by Melanchthon. The second Latin edition of the same year was again much changed, and is called the Variata. The German text was also transformed, especially in the edition of 1533. The Book of Concord took both texts from the first edition.

2

3

1 Manuscript copies of this 'Apologia prior,' which was based on an imperfect knowledge of the Romish Confutatio, still exist. The Latin text of it was published forty-seven years afterwards by Chytræus (from Spalatin's copy), 1578, better by Förstemann, in his Neues Urkundenbuch (1842), pp. 357–380 (from a copy written partly by Spalatin and partly by Melanchthon). The best edition is by Bindseil, in the Corp. Reform. Vol. XXVII. pp. 275 sqq. in Latin, and in German, pp. 322 sqq.

During the preparation of the editio princeps he wrote to Brentius (February, 1531): 'Ego retexo Apologiam et edetur longe auctior et melius munita,' and to Camerarius (March 7): ‘Apologia mea nondum absoluta est, crescit enim opus inter scribendum.' Quoted by Köllner, I. p. 426. Six sheets were reprinted, and a copy of the first print is preserved in the library of Nuremberg. See Corp. Reform. Vol. XXVII, pp. 391 sqq.

* See the titles of the various editions in Corp. Reform. Vol. XXVI. pp. 235-242, and the best text of the 'Apologia altera' of 1531, with the changes of later editions till 1542 (viz., of the ed. II. 1531, ed. III. 1540, ed. IV. 1542), in Corp. Reform. Vol. XXVII. pp. 419–646.

וי

843. LUTHER'S CATECHISMS. A.D. 1529.

Literature.

L EDITIONS. See 40. We only mention the critical editions.

C. MONCKEBERG: Die erste Ausgabe v. Luthers Klein. Katechismus. Hamburg, 1851. (Reprint of the LowGerman translation of the first edition, 1529.)

K. F. TH. SCHNEIDER: Dr. Martin Luthers Kleiner Katechismus. Nach den Originalausgaben kritisch bearbeitet. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Katechetik. Berlin, 1853. (Reprint of the standard edition of 1531; with a critical introduction, pp. lxx.)

THEODOS. HARNACK: Der Kleine Katechismus Dr. Martin Luthers in seiner Urgestalt. Kritisch untersucht und herausgegeben. Stuttgart, 1856, 4to. (Reprint of two editions of 1529, and one of 1539; with Ixiv. pp. of introduction, and a table of the principal variations of the text till 1542.)

The popular editions of the Smaller Catechism, especially in German, with or without comments and supplements, are innumerable.

II. WORKS:

A. FABRICII: Axiomata Scripturæ Catechismo Lutheri accommodata, etc. Isleb. 1583.

C. DIETERICI: Instit, catech. Ulm, 1613; often reprinted.

PH. J. SPENER: Tabula catech. Frf. 1683, 1687, 1713.

GREG. LANGEMACK: Hist. catechetica oder Gesammelte Nachrichten zu einer Catech. Historie. Strals. 1729-1740, 3 vols. Part II., 1733, treats of Lutheri und anderer evang. Lehrer Catechismis.

J. C. KooUER: Einleitung in die catech. Theol. Jena, 1752. And Biblioth, theol, symb. catech. P. I. 1751; P. II. 1769.

J.C. W. AUGUSTI: Versuch einer hist. kritischen Einleitung in die beiden Haupt-Katechismen der Evang, Kirche. Elberf. 1824.

G. VEESENMEYER: Liter. bibliograph. Nachrichten von einigen evang. katechet. Schriften und Katechismen vor und nach Luthers Kat., etc. Ulm, 1830.

G. MOHNIKE: Das sechste Hauptstück im Katechismus. Stralsund, 1830.

C. A. GERH. VON ZEzschwitz: System der christlich kirchlichen Katechetik. Leipz. 1863–69, 2 vols. Vol. II. P. I. treats of Luther's Catechism very fully.

Comp. the Literature in FABRICIUS, FEUERLIN, WALCH, BAUMGARTEN, Köllner, Symbolik, I. p. 473.

CATECHETICAL INSTRUCTION.

Religious instruction preparatory to admission to church membership is as old as Christianity itself, but it assumed very different shapes in different ages and countries. In the first three or four centuries (as also now on missionary ground) it always preceded baptism, and was mainly addressed to adult Jews and Gentiles. In length and method it freely adapted itself to various conditions and degrees of culture. The three thousand Jewish converts on the day of Pentecost, having already a knowledge of the Old Testament, were baptized simply on their profession of faith in Christ, after hearing the sermon of St. Peter. Men like Cornelius, the Eunuch, Apollos, Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Cyprian, Jerome, Ambrose, Augustine, needed but little theoretical preparation, and Cyprian and Ambrose were elected bishops even while yet catechumens. At Alexandria and elsewhere there were special catechetical schools of candidates for baptism. The basis of instruction was the traditional rule of faith or Apostles' Creed, but there were no catechisms in our sense of the term; and even the creed which the converts professed at baptism was not committed to writing,