I do not know what to expect concerning the peace which is to be established at Nürnberg between the Emperor3 and us.4 While still traveling,5 our friends wrote that the Turk, who has been totally immobile6 thus far, is now moving against Germany with a horrifying army of countless soldiers in order to attack7
Ferdinand and Charles simultaneously, and to devour both brothers. The Pope is in France,8 and he and the King of the French9 have broken off with the Emperor, and refuse him any help against the Turks.10 Look at these monstrosities of our age! This is [how they use] the money which the popes have been collecting for so many centuries by means of the indulgences for fighting the Turks.11
It is said that the Emperor presses the sovereigns for their promised aid against the Turks.12 Perhaps for this reason the diet and the peace negotiations may shortly come to an end. Karlstadt13 is said finally to have gone to Friesland in search of a refuge, since in Switzerland14 he was unable to find any work other than farmwork; earlier, when he was still with us, he quickly had enough of farmwork.15 This is the news we have.
May the Lord do whatever is good in his eyes; I commend you to his grace. Amen.
Wittenberg, June 29, 1532 The Nürnberg peace conference was scheduled to begin on June 3.2 Since the Electors of Mainz and the Palatinate3 had not yet received their final instructions from the Emperor,4 the beginning had to be delayed. Finally on June 10 the two Electors presented to the evangelicals articles which were to function as the basis for a truce between the evangelicals and the Emperor. These articles were rejected by the evangelicals on June 13. Now the Electoral negotiators had to seek new instructions from the Emperor. In the meantime they tried their best to influence the evangelicals to accept the articles. Both sides, however, stubbornly clung to their positions, and refused to give in. On June 24 Duke John Frederick5 sent to his father, Elector John, a detailed report of the negotiations which had taken place, together with the necessary documentation. On June 28 the Elector forwarded this material to Wittenberg, requesting a judgment on the situation by return mail. This request was addressed to Luther, Jonas, Bugenhagen, and Melanchthon.6 On June 29 Luther and Jonas jointly issued a brief and forwarded it to the Elector.7 Letter
No. 250, also dated June 29, is Luther's covering letter for this brief. On that same day Luther also wrote a short personal letter to Duke John Frederick in Nürnberg,8 and dispatched it via the Electoral court at Torgau. Even though on June 30 the Elector had lust (about one hour before) sent off a letter to his son in Nürnberg, upon receipt of the material from Wittenberg he immediately dispatched another messenger to forward this material to Nürnberg.9 While in the covering letter the Elector did not bind his representatives in Nürnberg, he nevertheless strongly endorsed Luther's position.10 By July 4 this material was well known among the evangelicals in Nürnberg,11 and it contributed substantially to getting the negotiations off dead center, since the Emperor, too, was ready to bend.
In his covering letter Luther points out that the time has come to demonstrate whether there is an honest interest in peace on the part of the evangelicals. If there is, then the conditions for peace should be accepted with trust that God will take care of the problems which might arise. If there is no genuine interest in peace, then Luther does not wish to have any further part in the matter. Whatever evil might come from a refusal of the peace offered by the Emperor would be someone else's responsibility, says
Luther. He sees in the stubbornness with which some members of the evangelical party insist on having their own way in (what Luther considers to be) unimportant matters an attempt at perfection, a lack of faith, and a type of cleverness which does not want to yield to divine governance. Therefore Luther admonishes the Elector to do everything possible so that the offered peace is not rejected by the evangelicals. He concludes his letter with a short prayer for God's guidance, and a blessing for the On Elector John, see LW 48, 269, n. 8.
Text in German: WA, Br 6, 325–327.
Grace and Peace in Christ!
- 23 Most Serene, Noble Elector, Most Gracious Lord! I am herewith returning to Your Electoral Grace the documents, together with our humble judgment.12
Since I notice in all the proceedings that some of our party wish to be too clever and too much on the safe side, and wish to have what they call a peace beyond debate, etc.,13 I certainly cannot but assume that these people have no desire for peace, or (and this would be the same thing) are aiming for the impossible.
For when has there ever been signed, made, or promulgated a treaty, law, contract, sealed document, or letter14 against which one could not debate, or through which one could not poke a hole? If we want cleverly to arrange matters exactly as we wish them to be, and not to entrust everything to God in these matters, and let him also have a word, then certainly nothing good will come out of it; it will be for us as Solomon says: "He who blows his nose too hard forces blood from it,"15 and he who despises little things will never own bigger ones.
Certainly if His Imperial Majesty approves these articles, as we have received them now, changed through this one amendment (concerning the [privilege to grant] protection to persons who flee to us),16 then His Imperial Majesty has done enough, and it would be both our responsibility and our fault [if peace did not come about]. God meets us graciously; if we are ungrateful to him, we shall sin against him heavily, and in addition shall have no success.
I17 most humbly beg Your Electoral Grace, therefore, to write a serious, precise, and sharp letter to our friends,18 honestly admonishing them to consider the many and gracious concessions His Imperial Majesty is making to us, which we may accept with a good conscience, and that in addition His Imperial Majesty himself does not wish to mix the issue of the king19 into this matter. [Therefore] they should by no means reject such a gracious [offer of] peace for the sake of some highly detailed and forced marginal issues.
God certainly will heal and take care of these unimportant, quibbled-over deficiencies (if the central points are continued in peace).20 Our friends will not, after all, make a bull's eye,21 and it is not necessary to make one; it is enough to hit the target. All our lives and dealings with God and man (being full of shortcomings) have to be based on toleration and forgivenesss of sins. If we wished to be absolutely perfect22 in relationship to God and our neighbors, and absolutely pure and spotless, we would never be saved, and would never be at peace with our neighbor. If our friends seriously desire peace, then (as [I] said) they ought definitely to accept these articles. If they do not desire peace, however, then they need neither our counsel23 nor judgment. They are easily clever and capable24 enough all by themselves to cause a disaster, but they have to do it without our approval. If they cook too much soup they must eat it.25 I for my part shall thank His Imperial Majesty from my heart if His Imperial Majesty approves these articles.
Should there be something fraudulent in the articles, which words never reveal anyhow, then I commend it to him who knows, judges, and governs all hearts; he will protect me well in such a danger and keep me unharmed. It is not up to me to be suspicious of His Imperial Majesty, much less to perhaps ascribe evil to His Imperial Majesty's intention—which is unknown to me—and [therefore] judge it as being evil. For I certainly know that he who deceives a heart which trusts in God and someone who loves his neighbor deceives himself, while faith and love remain unharmed. Should this peace accomplish nothing else, this [alone] would be a great gain, that by this peace the threats, obstinacy, insistence, and bragging of the papists, our enemies, would be cut down. This would truly be a great grief26 and pain for them.
Most Gracious Lord, God knows that in this matter I know nothing further to do or suggest. If [in spite of everything] no peace comes, or if a war should develop over this gracious offer of His Imperial
Majesty, then truly we are not guilty of all the evil which might arise.
God has graciously listened to our humble prayer and offers us peace. May that same dear Father further give us also a grateful heart which recognizes such grace, and accepts and uses it well to his praise and honor. Amen. To this same faithful, kind God I faithfully and diligently commend Your Electoral
Grace with my humble prayer.
Wittenberg, June 29, 1532 Your Electoral Grace's humbly dedicated To the Regents and Councilors of the Margraviate of - 24 Brandenburg-Ansbach and to the Council of the City of Wittenberg, August 1, 1532
Since the first half of 1528 the Margraviate of Brandenburg-Ansbach and the city of Nürnberg had cooperated, with some interruptions, in organizing the evangelical church, first by jointly drafting a church ordinance and conducting a visitation of the parishes, and then by working toward a new church ordinance.1 After many delays, the Nürnberg theologians, in November of 1531, produced a drab of a church ordinance for which the councilors and theologians of the Margraviate sent suggested changes from Ansbach. The officials in Ansbach also suggested that the ordinance be submitted to Luther for an opinion. After new delays, a version of the church ordinance was finally sent to Wittenberg on July 17,
1532, and the judgment of the Wittenberg theologians was requested.2 Letter No. 251 is the response to this request.
The reply of the Wittenberg theologians is divided into a summary judgment and a brief of details. In the summary judgment Luther and his colleagues wholeheartedly approve of the church ordinance itself, and also of the attempt to organize the church in the two territories on the basis of such an ordinance. The brief of details is divided into two sections, the first one dealing with the ban, the second one with the "dry mass" (missa sicca).3 (Actually it ought to be divided into three sections, since in the second section, in addition to the dry mass, a number of miscellaneous items are discussed.) Concerning the ban, it is pointed out that at the present in the Wittenberg parish only that ban is being used by which someone who is living publicly in sin is excluded from the Lord's Supper. Concerning the dry mass the Wittenberg theologians point out that this "spectacle" ought to be abolished, just as the custom of reserving the elements of the Lords Supper ought to be abolished. Luther and his colleagues also urge the elimination of the paragraphs in the ordinance which deal with a government that acts unjustly and with the exegesis of Acts 13:38 f., since the interpretation of this passage does not do justice to the Pauline teaching concerning the law. Finally Luther and his colleagues point out that the whole ordinance needs to be polished in order to avoid repetitions; they suggest Osiander for this task.
Text in German (with some words, especially technical terms, in Latin): WA, Br 6, 339–342.4
To the Noble, Honorable and Brave, Respectable, Distinguished, and Prudent5 Margravial Viceroys and Councilors, and to the Mayors and the Council of the City of Nürnberg, our Dear Sirs and Friends6
God's grace and peace in Christ! Noble, Honorable, Brave, Respectable, Distinguished, Wise, and especially Gracious Sirs and Friends! We have carefully read through the church ordinance7 and the institution of a visitation8 which was sent to us and which is to be unanimously and uniformly introduced and instituted throughout the territory9 of the serene, noble sovereign and lord, Sir George, margrave in Brandenburg,10 and also in the terrritory which is subject to Your Honors, the lords of Nürnberg,11 in order to avoid diversity both in teachings and also in certain external ceremonies. We have studied this document carefully, and as much as was possible at this time have scrutinized it. We have come to the conclusion that in its core it does not conflict with God's Word, and that it agrees with our visitation ordinance.12 Therefore we are highly pleased with it. Attached, however, you will find our opinion on certain articles which in part you too, have specially marked, as, for instance, concerning the ban,13 how it is to be used and practiced, and certain other points. As understanding people, you certainly will know how to consider and judge this material with a Christian mind, according to opportunity and necessity, so that especially pure teaching and preaching are preserved, and that nevertheless, for the sake of unity and good order, Christian ceremonies might also be conducted without abuse. For even though events occur everywhere so rapidly in our days that church ordinances cannot be drawn up and instituted everywhere as quickly as necessary, nevertheless in order to maintain pure teaching, and also external Christian discipline and behavior, and to prevent much wrong from occurring, one must daily improve on the situation14 until the Almighty grants more peace and unity both in ecclesiastical and secular governments.
If there is any way in which we are able to be of service to you in such or similar Christian undertakings, we shall be ready to do it, according to the best of our abilities.
Written at Wittenberg, August 1, 1532 - 25 JUSTUS JONAS, OCTOR15 JOHN BUGENHAGEN POMER16 1. At present we have instituted no other ban than that those who live in public sins18 and do not desist are not admitted to the sacrament of Christ's body and blood. This can be accomplished because no one among us receives the holy sacrament unless he has first been examined by the pastor or deacon. Further, we do not see how at this time another ban could be introduced, for many matters occur for which a preliminary investigation19 would be necessary. We are unable to see how at this time such a procedure of investigation could be instituted and organized, since secular government does not wish to be bothered with such an investigation. Therefore we are content to withhold the holy sacrament from those who live and remain in public sins, even though the world is now so crude and beastly as to be in no hurry at all for the sacrament and church, so that this exclusion from the Lord's Supper might not be considered to be a punishment. If someone excommunicates himself in this way, be content; when even secular authority is ready to permit the existence of public vices [what are we to do?] Nevertheless, in their sermons the preachers ought to censure such pagan ways and behavior by reciting the divine threats20 in all seriousness; at the same time they ought to admonish the authorities21 to check such pagan ways.
If discipline would again be restored by instituting examination prior to communion, as certainly would be very useful and good, then one could more easily come to the point where one could institute a system of ecclesiastical discipline22 which would hold parents responsible for urging their children and members of their household to go to the sacrament and to church, [and] for preventing the young people from falling into such pagan contempt of the sacraments and of all divine matters.
If the public ban is also instituted, then, of course, the secular authority has to enforce an order for ostracizing the person who has been banned, if the public ban is to do any good at all; at the present this might cause many wrongs, especially in the large cities and territories. But our type of ban, by which someone is excluded in private from the sacrament, has no impact on citizenship and business dealing. In spite of this action, a Christian may work and have other civic dealings with the person who is banned, as one would have dealings with a pagan, but in such a way that he makes clear to the one who is banned and to others that he does not approve of, nor is pleased with, the ungodly and censurable teachings and actions [which caused the ban].
2. Concerning the mass which is to be celebrated without [giving] the sacrament, we are very much pleased with Brenz's judgment;24 we, too, are of the opinion that one is not to conduct this spectacle of the dry mass. For what else would this be than a public and powerful confirmation of the papal private masses,25 a confirmation by which people would be incited to think more highly of the papal private masses and to run to them more than previously? If people became accustomed to thinking anything at all of this dry mass, then they would consider the papal private mass to be even more important and sacred, while one obviously knows that the papal private mass is an abomination, and a wrong service of God.26
[MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS] 3. Concerning the reserving of the sacrament in the ciborium, we think that even though it might still be the custom to reserve the sacrament and lock it up, this custom ought to be abolished; for sacrament and Word ought to be together. We know, of course, that this sacrament has been instituted for the purpose of being used and not for the purpose of making a special worship of God with [one] piece of the sacrament apart from the usage of the sacrament and the Word.
[4.] On the fifty-seventh folio27 the following is written concerning secular governmental authority which abuses its office: Whoever conducts himself in the exercise of secular authority and its power in such a way that one has to be afraid of him, even if one is doing what is right, is in God's eyes no governmental authority, etc. It is our opinion that it would be better to omit this paragraph in order to avoid offense and a difficult disputation. Even though Holy Scripture and secular law teach how to deal with an unjust ruler, nevertheless an evil governmental authority still remains governmental authority, as every understanding person knows. For if in God's eyes an evil governmental authority should be no governmental authority, then the subjects would be free of all obligations, etc. Even if one intends to bring said words into a