Note 1089 — Chapter XVIII

Cp. J. Ficker, “Die Konfutation des Augsburger Bekenntnisses,” Gotha and Leipzig, 1891, where the “Confutatio” is reprinted in its original form (p. 1 ff.). Adolf Harnack says (“Lehrb. der Dogmengesch.,” 34, 1910, p. 670, n. 3): “The duplicity of the ‘Augustana’ has become still more apparent in Ficker’s fine book on the ‘Confutatio.’ The confuters were unfortunately right in many of the passages they adduced in proof of the lack of openness apparent in the Confession. In the summer of 1530 Luther was not so well satisfied with the book as he had been in May, and he too practically admitted the objections on the score of dissimulation made by the Catholics.” Harnack quotes in support of “the dissimulation” the passage at the end of Article xxi. (“Symb. Bücher”10, p. 47): “Hæc fere summa est doctrinæ apud nos [Harnack: suos] in qua cerni potest nihil inesse, quod discrepet a scripturis vel ab ecclesia catholica vel ab ecclesia romana, quatenus ex scriptoribus nota est.” On p. 684 Harnack says concerning the Confession of Augsburg: “That the gospel of the Reformation has found masterly expression in the Augustana I cannot admit. The Augustana was the foundation of a doctrinal Church; to it was really due the narrowing of the Reformation movement, and, besides, it was not entirely sincere.... Its statements, both positive and negative, are intentionally incomplete in many important passages; its diplomatic readiness to meet the older Church is painful, and the way in which it uses the sectarians [Zwinglians] as a whipping-boy and deals out ‘anathemas’ is not only uncharitable but unjust, and dictated not merely by spiritual zeal but by worldly prudence.” Still he finds “jewels in the earthen vessel”; “but, as regards the author, we may say without hesitation that Melanchthon in this instance undertook—was forced to undertake—a task for which his talents and his character did not fit him.”