A Textual History Of The Development Of The Formula Of Concord

A Textual History of the Development of the Formula of Concord
Ryan T. Fouts
November 2006

Table of Contents
Introduction…………………………………………………………………………………………………..1
I. Early Attempts at Concord: Melanchthon & Flacius………………………………………………. 3
II. Later Attempts at Concord: The Electors Take Charge……………………………………………5
III. Andreä’s “Confession” and the Convention at Zerbst…………………………………………….7
IV. The Road to Concord…………………………………………………………………………………..9
Andreä’s “Six Sermons” ………………………………………………..…………………………9
The Swabian Concord………………………………………………..……………………………10
The Swabian-Saxon Concord………………………………..……………………………………10
The Maulbronn Formula……………………………………………………..……………………12
The Torgau Book………………………………………………………………...…………………13
The Bergen Book……………………………………………………………………...……………15
First Meeting (March 1-14) ……………………………………………………………...…15
Second Meeting (May 19-28) ………………………………………………………………17
The Process for Subscription Defined………………………………………………………18
The Preface of the Book of Concord………………………………………………………….….20
V. The Final Text……………………………………………………………………………………….….21
Appendix 1: Relevant Primary Sources…………………………………………………………………..i
Appendix 2: The Development of the Structure of the Formula of Concord……………………...…iii
Appendix 3: The Composition of the Formula (Pie Charts) ………………………………………..…v
Bibliography……………………………………………………………………………………..…………..viii

A Textual History of the Development of the Formula of Concord R. Fouts
1
The Formula of Concord (FC), completed at the Cloister Bergen in 1577 and published in
the 1580 Dresden Book of Concord, was headed by a lengthy, evocative title: “A General, Clear,
Correct, and Definitive Repetition and Explanation of Certain Articles of the Augsburg Confession,
Concerning which Controversy Has Arisen for a Time among Certain Theologians, Here Resolved
and Settled according to the Direction of God’s Word and the Summary Formulation of our
Christian Teaching.” From this designation (long titles were common in the 16th
Century) two
definitive points should be elucidated for the purpose of this essay. First, that the formulators
dubbed their consensus a “repetition” of the Augsburg Confession (AC) cannot be exaggerated.
The formulators did not pretend that they had produced a new confession to replace (or take priority
over) the definitive Augustana; it was an exposition of the AC. Second, while the FC was called a
repetition of the AC, its foil was neither Rome nor the radical Anabaptists in the pursuit of
demonstrating catholicity (as was the case with the AC), but it exposited the AC for the definitive
purpose of resolving, or settling certain controversies according to God’s Word that had erupted
among those who claimed adherence to the AC. The FC is not a historical commentary on the AC,
but a repetition of the confession of faith made at Augsburg on June 25, 1530, incarnate within a
distinct historical context. The title affixed to what would later be called the “Solid Declaration” of
the FC, as cited above, reveals much concerning the definitive purposes and goals rousing the
particular individuals who had contributed most appreciably to the textual development of the FC.
The controversies erupting among the churches of the Augsburg Confession in the later half
of the sixteenth century owe their inception to a number of factors. While some of them had
lingered dormant during Luther’s life, they each became points of contention after Luther’s death
for (at least) two primary reasons.1
First, without a living Luther to whom various disputes might
be appealed, and Melanchthon failing to secure the same deference among many evangelical
1
c.f. Irene Dingel, “Ablehnung und Aneignung: Die Bewertung der Autorität Martin Luthers in den Auseinandersetzungen um die
Konkordienformel,” in Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte 105 (1994), pp. 35-57

2
theologians, they not only lacked a central figure whose opinion would be universally respected but
they also lacked a process whereby any particular controversy might be addressed and adjudicated.
Second, during the tumultuous times of the Smalcald War, the evangelicals (particularly in electoral
Saxony) were forced into a precarious position. Under imperial threat, they were forced to choose
between compromise or conquest. Either concede to the imperial demands in “indifferent matters”
(adiaphora), and perhaps preserve the Gospel within the churches, or refuse any concessions and
instead risk the possibility of subjugation by imperial troops. The latter would likely mean the
forfeit of more substantial matters central to the evangelical confession. The drafts aimed at such
compromise, known as the “interims”,2
while never wholly enforced, elicited a vehement retort
from the “Gnesio-Lutherans” besieged in Magdeburg. While according to the theologia with which
the drafters of the Leipzig Interim (Dec., 1548) were conversant certain ceremonies might be
deemed “indifferent,” the Magdeburgers were concerned that barely a generation into the
Reformation, for the average layman these Roman “ceremonies” would indicate a wholesale return
to Rome and the papistic doctrine thus devastating the consciences of the people. The lines drawn,
largely due to the controversy over the interims, served to entrench either party against the other and
exacerbated other controversies that, had the two parties been more willing to “put the best
construction on everything,” might have been peaceably resolved. While Charles V failed to
subdue the Reformation by means of the sword, he nearly succeeded in doing so inadvertently
through the division resulting from the controversies intensified by the division surrounding the
interims he had initially demanded. While a thoroughgoing history of the textual development of the
Formula of Concord demands a survey of the controversies, others have done so more extensively
than is possible here.3
2
For a survey of the relevant “interims” and their demands/terms see Robert Kolb, “Historical Background of the Formula of Concord” in
Preus, Robert D. and Rosin, Wilbert H., eds., A Contemporary Look at the Formula of Concord (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1978)
(Hereafter Kolb, Historical Background), pp. 17-26.
3
See, for example, Kolb, Historical Background, pp. 23-68; F. Bente, “Historical Introductions to the Book of Concord” in Concordia
Triglotta (Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1921), pp. 101-208.

3
I. Early Attempts at Concord: Melanchthon and Flacius
As is often the case in modern day party-politics, the earliest attempts at unity pursued by
various representatives of the disputing parties more frequently than not only intensified the
divisions between them and left the representatives of each party more embittered toward the other
than before. The earliest such disputes, and corresponding attempts toward resolve, centered upon
the figureheads of Philip Melanchthon and Matthias Flacius Illyricus, who had himself once been
Melanchthon’s student. In as early as 1553 Flacius and Gallus jointly published their Provocation
or Sacrifice of Indifferent Half-Things upon the Conscience and Judgment of the Churches4
wherein
they proposed that ten to twenty competent men, who were not themselves implicated in the interim
controversy, might serve to arbitrate the dispute between themselves and the “interimists.”5
The Wittenbergers did not, at this time, pay much heed to Flaicus’ plea. Perhaps, still in the
infancy of the dispute, they had hoped that either time would eventually heal their wounds, or the
Flacian party would self-destruct in due course. Three years later, however, criticisms of the
Wittenbergers had yet to subside. At the instigation of the dukes of Thuringia, hoping to define the
terms for peace among the disputing parties, a convention was held at Weimar in early 1556, partied
by Amsdorf, Stolz, Aurifaber, Schneph, Strigel, and others. The Weimar convention demanded that
not only “adiaphorism,” but also synergism and Majorism, along with the doctrines of Zwingli,
Osiander, and Schwekfeldt be publicly rejected by the Wittenbergers.
In May of the same year, Flacius composed and sent his “Gentle Propositions” (Linde
Vorschläge)6
to Paul Eber, Major’s son-in-law, at Wittenberg requesting that Eber propose any
changes to his propositions, if necessary. While the Wittenbergers did not respond to Flacius’
“Gentle Propositions,” they did publish a cartoon depicting Flacius as a “braying donkey” being
4
Provokation oder Erbieten der adiaphorischen Sachen halben, auf Erkenntnis und Urteil der Kirchen
5
See Bente, 235.
6
Translated in George J. Fritschel, The Formula of Concord: Its Origin and Contents (Philadelphia: The Lutheran Publication Society,
1916), pp. 69-70. Fritschel’s translation is appended to this essay (Appendix 1).

4
crowned by other donkeys with a dirty crown because he had “scared away the Titans (fighting
against the gods) with his braying.”7
At Flacius’ request, several articles (reduced from thirteen articles in Flacius’ “Gentle
Propositions” to eight) were drawn up by Moerlin, Chemnitz, Henning, Wippermann, Curtius,
Schumann, von Eitzen and Westphal.8
The “8 Articles” deemed that the “basis of agreement”
between the disputing parties ought to be the “Augsburg Confession, Apology and Smalcald
Articles,” whereas Flacius’ “Gentle Proposals” had named only the Augsburg Confession. While
the “8 Articles” were more conciliatory in tone than Flacius’ “Gentle Propositions,” when they were
presented to Melanchthon at Coswig on January 14, 1557, they failed to fulfill the goal the
“mediators” had in mind. While Melanchthon was willing to concede significant points to Flacius
at this long-anticipated meeting between the two figure-heads, he nonetheless refused to submit to
the seventh point, which demanded that Melanchthon publish an opinion in regard to “the adiaphora
and the necessity of good works,” insisting that his views on these matters were already clear from
his many writings and he need not submit to the sort of scrutiny and public penitence that Flacius
and the mediators demanded. The meeting at Coswig adjourned without attaining the hoped-for
consensus between Melanchthon and Flacius. It seemed as though the words of David Chytraeus,
responding to an inquiry of the Duke of Mecklenberg, were not far from the truth: “As long as
Flacius and Melanchthon are alive no unity will be restored.”9
Only a month after the meeting at Coswig concluded, Melanchthon received lengthy articles
commissioned by Duke John Albert of Mecklenberg, who had adjured both Melanchthon and
Flacius to resolve their differences. It was Melanchthon who suggested that the Duke present a
“plan” whereby this might be accomplished. On February 25, 1577, these articles were brought
7
Fritschel, 70-71.
8
Translated in Fritschel, 76. Fritschel’s translation is appended to this essay (Appendix 1).
9
Fritschel, 71

5
before Melanchthon by George Ventus (professor at Rostock) and the councilor, Andreas Mylius.10
These articles were more severe than either Flacius’ “Gentle Propositions” or the “8 articles” of the
Coswig mediators. Ascribing the same date to his reply as the Articles had been given, in his reply
Melanchthon rejects them stating that they “simply requested him to strangle himself.”11
It was
about this time when Flacius lamented, “As long as Melanchthon is under the influence of his
Wittenberg friends, there is no hope.”12
II. Later Attempts at Concord: The Electors Take Charge
The Religious Peace of Augsburg had, for the first time, legalized the Augsburg Confession
within the Holy Roman Empire. It also demanded that the rulers, ex officio, were to be the
representatives of the territorial church.13
As such, it fell to the evangelical rulers to ensure that
their doctrine conformed to these terms – namely, the Augsburg Confession. When twelve
theologians from both the Roman and Evangelical camps met under the terms of the Peace of
Augsburg between August 24 and October 1, 1557 at a colloquy at Worms, the divisions between
the Evangelical parties soon became apparent. Unable to discern who the true adherents to the
Augsburg Confession were (hence, those who were protected under the Peace of Augsburg) the
Roman theologians refused to continue their discussion and abandoned the colloquy prematurely.
Lest the German territories be considered “in void” of the terms of the Peace of Augsburg, it
became evident to the Evangelical rulers that, if they were to prevent the future incursion of
imperial troops in their lands, the matter of unity among the Evangelical churches was a pressing
affair. Such is attempted in the Frankfurt Recess (March, 1558) and the Naumberg Assembly of
the Princes (January 23 – February 8, 1561). Neither of these, however, was properly equipped to
settle the academic disputes between the quarreling theologians.14
10
Corpus Reformatorum, IX, pp 91ff. (hereafter C.R.)
11
Fritschel, 80; C.R., IX, 103ff.
12
Fritschel, 81.
13
Ibid., 67.
14
Dingel, “Ablehunung und Aneignung,” p. 35, fn. 2.

6
The Frankfurt Recess,15
ratified by six Lutheran princes, settled on an opinion presented by
Melanchthon (one had also been offered by Brenz). The Frankfurt Recess was accepted with the
hope of inducing John Frederick of ducal Saxony, who had not attended the Recess, to accept its
terms. Rather than unifying the disputing parties, however, it had the opposite effect. The Gnesio-
Lutherans in ducal Saxony responded to the Frankfurt Recess with their Weimar Confutation
(Weimar Konfutationsbuch), 1559.16
The Weimar Confutation was a compendium of doctrine,
immediately attaining confessional status in ducal Saxony. Assuming the form of antitheses into its
structure, condemning views and individuals deemed by the Gneiso-Lutherans to be in error, it
stood in stark contrast to the Frankfut Recess which had intentionally avoided the condemnation of
various views in hopes of being a unifying document. The publication of the Weimar Confutation
“as an official norm for public teaching began the development of such norms within individual
principalities. They took their place as necessary amplifications of the Augsburg Confession.”17
The Corpus Doctrinae Philippicum (also called the Corpus Doctrinae Misnicum), first published
under the title Corpus doctrine Christianae in Leipzig, 1560, became the compendium of the faith
and confession of electoral Saxony.18
Whereas the Flacianist parties had often proposed a “general council” whereby theologians
could articulate their views and be settled according to consensus complete with the condemnation
of erring parties, the Philippists generally preferred a course of unity led by the princes whereby
theologians might be excluded and the controversies of the past might be forgotten; they were
willing to let bygones be bygones.19
Such a princely assembly occurred at Numburg in twenty-one
sessions between January 23 and February 8, 1561. Theologians were intentionally excluded from
the Naumburg Assembly lest, it was feared, their quarreling would hinder their agenda. The plan
15
Translated in Fritschel, 82-83. Fritschel’s translation is appended to this essay (Appendix 1).
16
c.f. Dingel, “Ablehunung und Aneignung,” p. 35.
17
Irene Dingel, “Philip Melanchthon and the Establishment of Confessional Norms,” Lutheran Quarterly, XX (2006), p. 151. (Hereafter,
“Dingel, ‘Confessional Norms’”)
18
Ibid., 146
19
See Robert Kolb, “The Formula of Concord as a Model for Discourse in the Church,” Concordia Journal, 32 (April, 2006), pp. 195-196
(hereafter, “Kolb, ‘Model for Discourse’”).

7
was that all editions of the Augsburg Confession were to be compared for their differences so that it
might be determined how the princes might renew their subscription to the AC. A preface was also
to be composed explaining their reason for doing so. Ultimately, however, when the preface was
presented John Frederick and Ulrich of Mecklenburg rejected it because the sacramentarian errors
had not been enumerated and condemned, and that it had failed to address recent errors that had
arisen among the Lutherans and ought to have been disapproved of. “The practical result of the
endeavors of the rulers was that the breach between the two parties within the Lutheran Church only
became wider.”20
III. Andreä’s “Confession” and the Convention at Zerbst
Jakob Andreä, chancellor or the University of Tübingen and ecclesiastical counselor to Duke
Christoph of Württemberg, was commissioned by his Duke to assist his cousin, Duke Julius of
Braunschweig-Wolfenbüttel in 1568. Julius had recently inherited his lands from his Father, Duke
Heinrich, who had been an opponent of the Reformation and supporter of Rome. Andreä’s task,
respective to Julius’ agenda for reforming the churches in his lands, was to help conduct visitations
in these churches. Christoph hoped that Andreä could also help draw Julius and the Lower Saxon
theologians in his area into Christoph’s program for Lutheran unity. In 1569, having won Julius’
favor, Julius financially supported Andreä as he toured the Evangelical lands.
As Andreä conducted his tour, he brought with him his Confession and Brief Explanation of
Certain Disputed Articles, Through Which Christian Unity May be Reached in the Churches
Subscribing to the Augsburg Confession, and Scandalous, Wearisome Division May be Set Aside
(written in 1567).21
As his full title indicates, Andreä’s “Confession” was brief. It contained five
short articles: on justification through faith (addressing Osiandrianism), good works, free will,
adiaphora, and the Holy Supper. While Andreä’s expedition inspired little response, particularly
20
Fritschel, 85-91.
21
Translated in Robert Kolb, Andreae and the Formula of Concord: Six Sermons on the Way to Lutheran Unity (Saint Louis: Concordia
Publishing House, 1977), pp. 58-60. (Hereafter Kolb, Six Sermons).

8
from the Wittenbergers and the theologians at Jena, he succeeded in persuading Landgrave Wilhelm
of Hesse (Christoph’s son-in-law) to issue a joint-invitation with Duke Julius to a number of
Evangelical princes and cities for a delegation of theologians to meet at Zerbst, in Saxony, in
pursuit of Evangelical unity. At the Zerbst Convention (May 7, 1570) it was determined that no
“new confessions” would be made, but they unanimously recognized the Augsburg Confession with
its Apology, the Smalcald Articles, and the Catechisms of Martin Luther. They explicitly declared
that both the writings of Luther, and of Melanchthon, should be interpreted and understood
according to this standard. All seemed well until the Wittenberg theologians subscribed with the
provisio that they would interpret these books through the lens of their Corpus Doctrinae
Philippicum. The Jena theologians, who did not participate at Zerbst, criticized Andreä for what
they thought to be a superficial attempt toward unity by agreeing to mere formulations of “words”
while disregarding the true differences. “The responsibility for the duplicity of the Saxons was
shouldered upon him, as if he had arranged this scheme beforehand with them.”22
Andreä had
given the Wittenbergers the “benefit of the doubt” and, perhaps naively, opened himself to such
criticism. Though, after leaving Zerbst, Andreä traveled to Wittenberg where he attended a
disputation over recent doctoral disputations from Leipzig. In the process of the disputation,
Andreä’s “Swabian” Christology was criticized, and Andreä objected to their “unchristian,
Mohammadean beliefs.”23
Andreä was soon convinced that “accord with the new Wittenberg
theology could not be achieved without sacrificing what he understood to be Luther’s and Brenz’s
doctrine of the Lord’s Supper.”24
Such concessions were unacceptable to Andreä. Further, because
the Wittenbergers presumed a sort of “secrecy” about the proceedings at Zerbst, and refused to
publish their albeit-qualified agreement, Andreä became even more skeptical about them. Duke
Julius, however, agreed with Andreä that the “recess” of Zerbst ought to be published. When
22
Fritschel, 96
23
Kolb, “Six Sermons,” 45
24
Ibid., 46

9
Andreä published his account of the Zerbst proceedings, “he thus unknowingly provoked the final
break between himself and the theologians of electoral Saxony.”25
IV. The Road to Concord
Andreä returned to Württemberg in late 1570 where he resumed his duties under Duke
Ludwig, the young successor to the now-passed Christoph, and returned to his position at the
University of Tübingen. Three years later, in 1573, Andreä again occupied himself with the
controversies that had divided the adherents of the Augsburg Confession. In the fall of 1572
Selnecker, in Braunschweig, published his Institutio religionis Christianae wherein he thanked the
Duke of Württemberg for the service Andreä had rendered in Braunschweig. Andreä took the
opportunity, seeming as though he may have been gaining some favor among the Gnesio-Lutherans,
to “return” the compliment and dedicate a work of his own to the Duke of Braunschweig. This
time, however, his primary audience was neither theologians nor princes, but the common pastor or
layman whose consciences may have been vexed during the ensuing controversies. Accordingly,
Andreä published his Six Sermons.26
Andreä’s Six Sermons addressed righteousness
(Osiandriansim), good works, original sin (free will), adiaphora, law and gospel, and the person of
Christ (including the Lord’s Supper). Andreä was no longer deceived by the Phillipists in
Wittneberg. In his Six Sermons he decidedly sided with the Gnesio-Lutherans. Whereas Andreä
had refrained from “naming names” or pronouncing condemnations in his Confession, in his
published edition of his Six Sermons, while not mentioning proper names within the text itself, he
did include the names of those who had taught the views condemned therein in the margins.27
Andreä forwarded his Six Sermons to Duke Julius of Braunschweig and Chemnitz accompanied by
a suggestion from the Tübingen faculty and the consistory as Stuttgart proposing that these sermons
25
Ibid.
26
The full title: Six Christian Sermons On the Divisions Which Have Continued to Surface Among the Theologians of the Augsburg
Confession From 1548 Until This Year 1573, How a Simple Pastor and a Common Christian Layman Should Deal with Them on the Basis of His
Catechism, So That They Do Not Become a Scandal For Them. Translated in Kolb, “Six Sermons,” 61-120.
27
Ibid., 51

10
might serve to unite the northern and southern Lutherans. Andreä also sent copies to Chytraeus,
Westphal, Wigand and others with the request that they acknowledge their agreement with the
views contained therein.
Duke Julius and Chemnitz were the first to respond to Andreä’s Six Sermons. While they
approved of his statements, they suggested that Andreä’s goal for unity could only be realized if his
sermons were reworked in the form of propositions, or theses/antitheses. Chemnitz recommended
following the pattern, or order, of articles he had already included within the Braunschweig Corpus,
which had reflected the pattern of the Augsburg Confession. This would maintain the desire, which
had been universally acknowledged, that they not produce a “new confession” but use the
Augustana as their basis for unity. Due to some lingering predjudices against Andreä in lower
Saxony, Chemnitz also suggested that such a statement be issued along with the theologians of
Swabia and the Tübingen faculty. Andreä did not take long finishing his revisions. He presented
the articles to the Tübingen faculty, and forwarded them to Duke Julius and Chemnitz on March 22,
1574. These articles, known as the Swabian Concord (also known as the Tübinger Buch),28
were
short and to the point (even though Andreä lamented that they had become longer than he intended).
The order of the articles, along with the articles in those documents which would succeed them on
the “Road to Concord,” can be compared on the chart found in Appendix 2 of this essay. In a letter
from Andreä to Chemnitz, dated May, 1574, he wrote:
“The work has grown to its present length against my will. But I did not want to eliminate
anything…since this writing of mine is to serve…not learned men…but most particularly the less
learned…Since therefore we are in agreement I am subjecting the document to your censorship
also…lest it have some obscurities…Please criticize it severely.”29
Having received Andreä’s permission to “criticize it severly,” Chemnitz undertook his own
revisions of the Swabian Concord. Chemnitz’ revisions, undertaken at this time, ultimately
28
The Swabian Concord was reprinted in mimeograph in George J Fritschel, Die Schwaebisch Concordie, “Schwaebischer Kirchenbegriff
zu einer heilsamen Union in Kirchensachen, No. 1 in series, “Quellen aus der Zeit der C.F.” (Dubuque: Scriptorium of Wartburg Seminary, n.d.).
29
quoted in Ernst Wolf, “Historical Introduction to the Formula of Concord,” trans. Arthur Carl Piepkorn, in Historical Introduction to the
Lutheran Confessions (St. Louis: Concordia Seminary, 1958), Part V, p. 6

11
account for approximately 25% of the final-form of the Formula of Concord.30
According to the
instructions of Duke Julius, Chemnitz held two conferences in lower Saxony wherein negotiation
over the Swabian articles occurred. The first conference convened on July 3, 1574 with the
theologians of Hamburg, Luebeck, and Luenburg. The second conference was held in October,
1574, at Bergendorf. At each conference the suggestion was made that the theologians should
consider the draft more carefully at home, forwarding their recommendations to the faculty of
Rostock where they would be revised accordingly. When the revisions were complete, each of the
various cities would receive a report. Having received the recommendations from the various
theologians in lower Saxony David Chytraeus, the leading theologian at Rostock, made significant
revisions, including many of his own, rewriting almost entirely the second (Free Will) and the
seventh (Lord’s Supper) articles. Chytraeus’ revisions conducted at Rostock would eventually
account for approximately 27% of the final form of the Formula of Concord.31
On July 11, 1575,
representatives from the four cities in lower Saxony met in Moelln and accepted Chytraeus’
revisions. It was further resolved that the articles should be sent back to the Swabians for their
approval, and to pursue the subscription of the northern cities who would then publish it as an
agreement of lower Saxony and the Swabians: the Swabian-Saxon Concord. At this time the
articles were sent to Chemnitz. Before forwarding them to Andreä and Tübingen, which he did on
September 5, 1575, he already began enlisting the support of the northern cities. Chemnitz also
forwarded the articles to Pomerania and Prussia inviting their leaders to join in their support of the
Swabian-Saxon Concord. While the Swabian Concord could be described as a relatively short,
“popular” approach to the controversies, the Swabian-Saxon revisions transformed the document
into a much more scholarly treatise, full of Latin terminology, technical theological jargon, and was
nearly three times the length of Andreä’s Swabian Concord. One can only imagine Andreä’s
30
See Appendix 3.
31
See Appendix 3.

12
surprise when the articles he had already complained had grown beyond the length he had desired
had underwent such extensive revision. There are “three” different forms of the Swabian-Saxon
Concord extant: A- A text published by Christoph Pfaff in 171932
which he had mistakenly thought
to be the Swabian-Saxon Concord. However, while the order of articles is the same, Pfaff’s text
differs entirely.33
B- A shorter text, likely bearing Chemnitz’ revisions, prior to the revisions added
by Chytraeus at Rostock. C- Is the final text as it left the hands of Chytraeus.34
A text with a unique heritage (not developing from Andreä’s efforts), ultimately wed to the
final form of the Formula, was the Maulbronn Formula, 1576. In November, 1575, Count Ernest
of Hennenberg, Margrave Karl of Baden, and Duke Louis of Würtemberg were gathered together
on the occasion of Louis’ wedding. As the three rulers casually conversed, discussion turned to the
subject of the “present conditions” of the Church. The theologians who were present, Lucas
Osiander, Balthasar Bidembach and Adam Scherdigner, were then asked for their opinion as to how
such a unifying statement should be composed. On Novermber 14, 1575, the three theologians
presented their suggestions in writing.35
First, the precise text of the Augsburg Confession under
discussion should be defined. Second, erroneous views should be outlined without mentioning the
names of the errorists. Third, the doctrine of the Augsburg Confession should be supplemented
with proof from Scripture passages. Fourth, to this should be added the historical proof from the
Apology, Smalcald Articles, and Luther’s Catechisms. Finally, a few clear quotations from Luther
should be added, but none should be taken from Melanchthon’s books. Considering their
suggestions, the three princes commissioned Osiander and Bidembach to write a statement
according to these suggestions. On January 16, 1576, representatives from each of the three princes
32
Christoph Matthaeus Pfaff, Acta et scripta publica ecclesiae Wirtembergicae (Tuebingen: Cotta, 1719).
33
cf. Lowell Green, The Formula of Concord: An Historiographical and Bibliographical Guide in “Sixteenth Century Bibliography” vol.
11. (Saint Louis: Center for Reformation Research, 1977), p 21.
34
Texts “B” and “C” can be found in Heinrich Heppe, Geschichte des deutschen Protestantismus in den Jahren 1555-1581. Col. III: Die
Geschichte des deutschen Protestantismus von 1574-1577 enthaltend. Part A, 320pp.; Beilangen, Part B, 356pp. (Marburg: N.G. Elwert, 1857).
35
Fritschel, 105-107.

13
met at Maulbronn where they discussed and signed the draft.36
The Maulbronn Formula finally
accounted for only 7% of the final form of the Formula of Concord, but it’s impact on the other
revisions at Torgau and Bergen was significant.
In 1574, after Elector August had finally been convinced that his Wittenberg theologians
had forsaken Luther’s doctrine of the Lord’s Supper in favor of a Calvinistic-leaning interpretation,
the elector took decisive steps toward repairing the problem.37
The leading theologians behind the
“Crypto-Calvinist” controversy were incarcerated, those who survived their imprisonment were
later exiled. From this point forward, Elector August became one of the most influential proponents
of concord among the disputing parties who remained. August was known to have exuberantly
claimed a few years later “he would willingly be subjected to the expense of a hundred thousand
guilders or more, in order to restore the peace to the church.”38
Thus, at Lichtenberg on February 15, 1576, August assembled his remaining chief
theologians requesting that they present a plan whereby unification might be realized. It was
recommended, first, that the basis for union should be the adoption of the Scriptures, the
Ecumenical Creeds, the Unaltered Augsburg Confession and its Apology, the Catechisms of Luther,
and the Smalcald Articles. Second, it was recommended that the writings formerly adopted by the
Philippist parties should be abolished (i.e. the Corpus Doctrinae Philippicum). Third, a convention
of irenic and non-controversial Lutheran theologians should be arranged in order to discuss the
articles of the Augsburg Confession. Finally, it was recommended that Chytraeus, Chemnitz,
Andreä and Marbach should be among those theologians.39
Elector August requested that Duke William grant Andreä a sabbatical for this task. Andreä
arrived in Torgau, where the meeting was to occur, nearly two months before the first meeting
36
The Maulbronn Formula was reprinted in mimeograph in George J. Fritschel, Die Maulbronner Formel, No. 2, in series, “Quellan aus
der Zeit der C.F.” (Dubuque: Scriptorium of Wartburg Seminary, 1910).
37
cf. Bente, 190
38
John T. Müller, “Historical Introduction,” in Henkel, S & A, eds., The Christian Book of Concord, (New Market VA, 1884), p. 77.
39
Fritschel, 107-108

14
convened. In this time Andreä conferred with Elector August and studied, in depth, both the
Swabian-Saxon Concord, which he had a part in, and the Maulbronn Formula. On May 28, 1576,
Andreä, Chemnitz, Chytraeus, Andreas Musculus and Christopher Körner met at Torgau with the
Saxon theologians, Crell, Harder, Mörlin, Selnecker, Greser, Mirus, Lysthenius, Jagenteufel,
Cornicälius, Sagittarius, Galser and Heydenrich. Elector August directed the theologians to discuss
the past controversies on the basis of the Maulbronn Formula and the Swabian-Saxon Concord.
Andreä, somewhat surprisingly, suggested that the Maulbronn Formula serve as the basis for their
new confession. Perhaps it was due either to the fact that his son-in-law, Lucas Osiander, was
largely responsible for it, or perhaps due to the fact that Andreä had consistently preferred a formula
for consensus more easily accessible to the common pastor and layman than the Swabian-Saxon
Concord had become after Andreä’s previous work had undergone such transformation. Chemnitz
and Chytraeus, however, preferred the Swabian-Saxon Concord, as they had both contributed to it
significantly, as the basis for their confession. By way of compromise, the motion was passed that
suitable parts from the Maulbronn Formula be inserted into the Swabian-Saxon Concord. This,
however, was hardly a compromise Andreä or Elector August was wholly satisfied with as both of
them preferred a shorter, more concise, confession; a blending of the two made for a confession
longer than either had been before. To resolve this issue, Andreä (largely for the benefit of Elector
August) composed a Brief Summarized Excerpt of the Articles Composed at Torgau, which later
became known as the Epitome of the Formula of Concord. Further, the majority of the Latin
phrases that had previously made the Swabian-Saxon Concord less accessible to the common parish
pastor and layman were translated into German.40
An article on the controversy concerning the
descent into hell was written at Torgau, though it was later entirely rewritten at Bergen. Their work
was completed on June 7, concluding with a service of thanksgiving in which Selnecker preached.
40
Fritschel, 108-111

15
Elector August had several copies of the Torgau Book printed and sent to the various Lutheran
princes and cities with the request that it be submitted to their theologians for their opinions.41
There were certainly two, perhaps three, meetings held in the Cloister Bergen, near
Magdeburg, in the first half of 1577. The purpose of these meetings was to consider the critiques of
the Torgau Book that had been solicited throughout the Evangelical territories. By their first
meeting, most of the total of twenty-one critiques of the Togau Book had been received. Anhalt and
Holstein articulated the most serious misgivings with the Togau Book. Hesse, Pfalz-Simmers, and
the cathedral chapter of Magdeburg desired closer ties to the writings of Melanchthon. On the
other hand, the critiques from the South (Württemberg, Baden, Hannenberg), from Brunswick-
Wolfenbüttel, and the maritime cities, the lower Saxon cities, Pfalz-Neuburg, electoral
Brandenburg, Mecklenburg, and Ansbach thought that “lurking” within the text were allowances far
too mediating to Melancthon. Even more extreme were the critiques of the Prussians, prepared by
Tilemann Hesshusius and John Wigland, demanding an explicit condemnation of Melanchthon.
Pfalz-Zweibrücken recommended that the mention of all names, including that of Luther and the
church fathers, be deleted.42
The first commission at Bergen, including Andreä, Selnecker and Chemnitz, met March 1-
14, 1577. Surveying the critiques, obviously expressing divergent and contradictory views, the
three made several prior decisions before beginning any edits of the Torgau Book.43
They agreed
that they would continue to appeal, as a basis for all doctrine and their confession, to Scripture, the
Augsburg Confession, the Apology, the Smalcald Articles, and Luther’s Catechisms. They further
resolved to continue to appeal to the Augsburg Confession of 1530, “We again are of the opinion
41
The first apparatus in the Goettingen edition (Die Bekenntnisschriften…) includes extracts from the Torgau Book that were excluded
from the final form of the Formula, under the letter A. The full text of the Torgau Book itself can be found in Heinrich Heppe, Der Text der
Bergischen Concordienformel, verglichen mit dem Text der schwaebischen Concordie, der schwaebisch-saechsischen Concordie und des Torgauer
Buches. (Marburg: Koch & Sipmann, 1857. Second edition 1860), 216 pp.
42
Ernst Koch, “Striving for the Union of the Lutheran Churches: The Church-Historical Background of the Word Done on the Formula of
Concord at Magdeburg” in Sixteenth Century Journal, VIII, 4 (1977), p. 116
43
As evident from the concluding report of March 14, 1577, in Leonart Hutter, Concordia Concors, 2nd
ed. (Wittenberg, 1621), pp. 432-
443.

16
that the Papists and their calumnies cannot be more conveniently met nor better refuted than by
having exclusive recourse to the original Confession, not altered in a single word.”44
It is possible
that their conviction here was strengthened by the fact that after Emperor Maximillian II died (on
October 12, 1576) his successor, Rudolf, was an active proponent of the Jesuit counter-
reformation.45
The three theologians additionally resolved to delete the names of all recent
theologians except for the name of Luther. They would include the names of the church fathers as
well, despite the recommendation from Pfalz-Zweibrücken. They resolved to considerably abridge
the articles on Free Will and the Lord’s Supper. Because it would be unavoidable in the explicit
condemnation of some writings of Melanchthon not to reject Melanchthon’s total literary
production, they agreed to “table” this question for a later meeting. They determined, as will be
discussed in depth later, that all theologians of the participating territories should subscribe to the
upcoming confession personally, bindingly and obligatorily. For this reason the institution of
visitations was considered necessary. Whereas the question of the baptismal exorcism had stirred
some controversy, they resolved that it need not be re-introduced where it had been abolished, but
that the reasons for its abolition in such places should be carefully examined. The critiques that
they had not yet received (from Holstein, Anhalt, and the Magdeburg arch-diocese) would not be
considered due to the indeterminate delay it would cause to do so. Their critiques would have to be
later addressed by way of delegation. They also agreed to review the “Epitome” after the revisions
had been complete to ensure that it still agreed with their finished text. Their procedure for
approaching the various criticisms was outlined in their concluding report:
“[We] again took [The Torgau Book] in hand, as written on the half page, diligently read it through,
and what had been suggested by all sides for further and better explanation of the pure, unadulterated
doctrine…we very carefully wrote each point in connection with each article on the other half page
and indicated the theologians of the respective electors, princes, and estates who had made the
suggestions, so that at the projected assembly the electors, princes, and estates may see that no
opinion of the theologians of the electors, princes, and estates was overlooked, but their Christian
ideas were faithfully entered in the whole document, each in its place.”46
44
Ibid., 434 as translated in Koch, 117.
45
cf. Koch, 116.
46
Hutter, 436, translated in Koch, 117.

17
Selnecker, in his Recitations, speaks of a “thrice-convened meeting at Bergen.” According
to Wolfe, one might infer that between the two meetings an intermediate session took place during
which, he conjectures, significant sections of Article IX were eliminated, as this is not accounted in
the concluding reports of either of the other two meetings.47
What is generally considered to be the
“second meeting,” however, occurred May 19-28. Andreä, Chemnitz and Selnecker were joined by
Musculus, Corner and Chytraeus. There are four distinct documents which describe the work they
accomplished at Bergen in May, 1577: According to the concluding report of May 28, they “read
through the Torgau settlement and the critiques that had been received, weighed the material and
diligently considered in what form during the past March, on the basis of these documents, all the
necessary and useful memoranda were incorporated into the Torgau book, each in its proper place,
some additional ones added, and thus finally out of all this composed a firm exemplar of the correct
Christian understanding, assembled into one book and subscribed.” 48
Martin Chemnitz also offers a
similar report to Duke William the Younger of Brunswick-Lüneburg.49
Andreä reports that their
proceedings were often quite tedious, “For although the work, God be praised, is progressing, and
the Brandenburg theologians together with Dr. Chytraeus have come to a Christian agreement with
us assembled here, yet it would take much more time than we anticipated to read all the documents,
of which there are many, and to assign each its place in its form and give the reason for it in order to
improve the Torgau opinion.” 50
Finally, Koch has summarized what he found in a fragment of
Musculus’ private hand-written notes concerning the May meetings at Bergen:
“First they ran through the territories once more and arranged the twenty-three critiques that had been
submitted according to their origin. Then they worked the critiques into the individual articles.
Among the arrivals since March was certainly the opinion of the Pomeranians, which had not been
47
Wolfe, 17
48
Concluding Report of May 28, 1577, to August of Saxony and John George of Brandenburg, in Karl Themel, “Dokumente von der
Enstehung der Konkordienformel,” Arichv für Reformationsgeschichte 64 (1973) 301-302, Translated in Koch, 119.
49
Martin Chemnitz to Duke William, Jun 14, 1577, in Johann Gerog Bertram, Das Evangelische Lüneburg (Braunschweig, 1719), p. 365.
50
Staatsarchiv, Dresden, Loc. 10303, Concordia III, ff. 66v-67r. quoted in Koch, 119.

18
completed until March 7. It is possible that later problems with the condition of the text, for example,
of Article II, must be traced back to this supplement.”51
The theologians a Bergen also turned their attention to the manner by which their completed
Bergen Book, which would later be known as the Solid Declaration of the Formula of Concord,
would be subscribed to among the Evangelical estates. It had been assumed that a general synod
would be convened for the purpose of ratifying and subscribing to the Formula. Though, as had
been decided already during the March meeting at Bergen, it would be necessary that every
theologian within each territory subscribe personally. Further, there was reason to believe that such
a “general synod,” whereby individuals who had been feuding for the better part of three decades
would be brought together, might risk unnecessary bickering and could compromise their formula
consensus. This concern was reflected in the concluding report for Elector August of the second
meeting at Bergen, May 28, 1577:
“Unfortunately, from the last critiques we received we discover this much, that at some places not
only the servants of the church act very suspiciously in regard to doctrine, but that also the rulers at
those places might be harboring such opinions and prejudices. If now the theologians come together
in such large numbers and some of them, no matter how few, might conspire and influence their rulers
or be influenced by them in their opinions, so that no agreement can be reached with them and under
such circumstances should separate from each other, since such a matter would not remain secret,
Your Electoral Grace is asked graciously to consider, not only what great rejoicing would ensue
among the papists and sacramentarians, but also what serious offense might arise among the orthodox
in our churches.”52
In a letter of Martin Chemnitz to Duke William, June 14, 1577, Chemnitz says that it was
John George of Brandenburg who had submitted an opinion in which he warned against a general
synod; in that connection he recalled the division that had been caused by unnecessarily quarrels at
the Naumburg assembly of princes.53
Great concern was also given that there not be the least
suspicion that any were coerced, or forced, into subscription. In conducting these visitations, all
pastors in the imperial cities were to subscribe individually. The visitors should proceed very
carefully so that these might not complain “that subscription was imposed on them more by a
51
Koch, 119-120 The note fragment is located at Domarchiv Brandenburg, Ephoralarchiv Brandenburg-Neustadt, Nr. 11, ff. 282r-290v.
The “problems” Koch refers to are reflected in BSLK, pp. 880-881, or Tappert, p. 525, or Kolb/Wengert, p. 548 (FC SD II, par. 23).
52
Concluding Report of May 28, 1577, in Themel, 302, Translated in Koch, 120.
53
Koch, 120.

19
majority of votes than by a witness to the truth, and hence they were not given the proper freedom
that should be customary and fitting in the church.”54
In other words, they did not want a minority
of theologians or pastors to be compelled or forced to conform to a mere majority. If a simple
“majority” vote were all that was required for Christian concord it could have been achieved long
ago. In every “division” there is almost always a majority no matter how slight. As such, to force
subscription in conformity with a mere majority vote would not, in any way, settle the controversy
but would ultimately exacerbate the very problem of division the Bergen Book had intended to
settle.
Shortly after the conclusion at the Cloister Bergen, the visitations began. Andreä, Selnecker,
and Polycarp Leyser, Andreä’s nephew and recent addition to the Wittenberg faculty, visited the
parishes and schools in electoral Saxony. “Through sermons and personal discussions they induced
subscriptions to their Formula of Concord.”55
The whole text of the Formula was to be read aloud,
and those present were to be asked to subscribe accordingly.56
They encountered some hesitation
among the Philippists concerning the person of Christ. Melanchthon had tended to focus his
doctrine of the real presence on the body and blood of Christ, whereas the Gnesio-Lutherans,
strictly following Luther’s emphasis, continued to emphasize the real presence of the person of
Christ in the Sacrament. While Melanchthon himself had clearly taught that Christ, in His person,
is present “vere et substantialier” (truly and substantially), in the Saxon Confession of 1551, other
Philippists who were more sympathetic to the Calvinist doctrine of the Lord’s Supper rejected such
Christological expositions of the Holy Supper.57
Some Philippists were also troubled by the Bergen
Book’s definition of the Gospel and its exposition of the role of the human will in conversion.
54
Concluding Report of May 28, 1577, in Themel, 303-304, Translated in Koch, 121.
55
Kolb, “Historical Background,” 83
56
The details of the commission in electoral Saxony are presented in Theodor Pressel, “Churfürst Ludwig von der Pfalz und
dieKonkordienformel.” Zeitschrift für die historiche Theologie N.F. 37 (1867): 38-39. The details in other lands are discussed in Werner-Ulrich
Deetjen, “Concordia Concors – Concordia Discors. Zum Ringen um das Konkordienwerk in Süden and mittleren Westen Deutschlands,” Bekenntnis
und Einheit der Kirche, Studien zum Konkordienbuch, ed. Martin Brecht and Reinhard Schwarz (Stuttgart: Calwer Verlag, 1980). 329-334.
57
cf. Dingel, “Confessional Norms,” 160-161.

20
However, apart from a few outspoken Philippists in Wittenberg and Leipzig the visitors met little
resistance in electoral Saxony.
Musculus and Corner led a commission of visitors in Brandenburg. Chemnitz conducted
visitations throughout Lower Saxony and in Braunschweig . In Brandenburg, and elsewhere,
commissions were headed by Ansbach, Oldenburg, Mecklenburg, Baden, Hennenberg, the
archbishopirc of Magdeburg, and the princes in Prussia. While some pastors and theologians
objected at points, “few were so strongly opposed to the text of the Bergic Book that they risked –
and suffered – deposition.”58
In locales where Philippism and Calvinism were particularly influential the Bergen Book
was rejected - in Bremen, Nuremberg, Anhalt, Holstein, Pomerania, and elsewhere. Landgrave
William of Hesse, in the fall of 1577, organized opposition to the Bergen Book headed by the exiled
former-Wittenberger and “crypto-Calvinist” Christoph Pezel. Queen Elizabeth, of England,
supported William’s resistance. Count Johann Casimir of the Palatinate also joined the coalition
against the Bergen Book in the later part of the year.
Elector August, concerned about the growing opposition to the Bergen Book, called a
special conference of theologians and counselors from his own lands, and those of Brandenburg, in
March 1578. August suggested that the Bergen Book undergo further revision in hopes of winning
the opposing parties, if possible. The theologians counseled against such a revision. It seemed
impossible to entirely satisfy everyone, and the theologians recognized that those who had
committed themselves to thoroughgoing Calvinism would be impossible to sway toward their cause.
Nonetheless, the groundswell of support for the Bergen Book during 1578 and early 1579 had been
encouraging. Plans began to publish the Bergen Book, which had itself come to be called The Book
of Concord,59
alongside the other Confessions that the new Book of Concord, or Bergen Book, had
58
Kolb, “Historical Background,” 83
59
According to J.T. Müller, the Formula was “at first called the Book of Concord, and afterwards, so far as we can learn from Selnecker’s
Recitations, in the edition of Heidelberg of 1582 it was called the Formula of Concord. For Selnecker remarks, - that ‘Some one, in reference to the

21
committed its adherents to as a “binding summary, basis, rule and guiding principle” whereby all
teachings should be judged. It only lacked, Andreä informed Elector August on April 12, 1579, a
preface and a complied list of signatures that had been previously affixed to the text during the
visitations.60
Andreä, however, had already been commissioned by August to compose such a
preface in the special meeting convened in March, 1558. It was the “preface” that was to address
some of the critiques that had been articulated by the opponents of the Bergen Book, functioning as
a sort of “last chance” to get on board with the Concordia settlement. They reserved the most hope
of converting Elector Ludwig VI of the Palatinate. Andreä presented two different drafts in
December, 1578. The “preface” addressed such questions as whether the Lord’s Supper should be
interpreted primarily through the Words of Institution of by means of Christology. Some objections
had complained that the Augsburg Confession of 1540 (the “Altered” edition) had already been
deemed acceptable at Naumberg, 1561. As such, the preface softens the pejorative term “Altered”
and simply calls the 1540 edition the “second” edition, allowing that it be deemed salutary insofar
as it is not read in such a way to contradict the “first” edition. While the preface succeeded in its
goal, with Ludwig ultimately subscribing to the Formula of Concord, his territory only remained
Lutheran until his death in 1583 when his Calvinist brother, Johann Kasimir succeeded him.61
V. The Final Text
The original manuscript of the Formula is supposed to have been lost, since it was
supposedly deposited in the sacristy of the Church of Our Lady in Dresden, where it was likely
destroyed in a fire on July 19, 1760. Nonetheless, Andreä’s original manuscript copy has been
title of the book, intimates that Formula of Concord may seem too ostentatious.’ The latter appellation became the most generally current, as the
former might easily have been confounded with ‘The Book of Concord,’ that is, the full collection of the Symbolic books, the Codex Symbolicus of
the Lutheran Church. The appellation ‘Book of Bergen’ was originally applied by the Lutheran theologians, but at a later period it was retained only
by the opponents of the work of Concord, to whom ‘Formula of Concord’ was very naturally a quite repulsive term.” (Müller, 78). As such, when
the signatories page published in the 1580 Dresden Book of Concord included in its title “Buch der Concordien” it referred to, most immediately,
what would only later become known as the Formula of Concord and had, at this time, more frequently called the Bergen Book by those who had
rejected it. Having refused to sign the text, it would have been most unnatural to affix the title its dissenters preferred to the signatories page. As
such, Buch der Concordien was the common term most frequently given to the later-named Formula by its supporters.
60
Irene Dingel, “The Preface of the Book of Concord as a Reflection of Sixteenth-Century Confessional Development,” Lutheran
Quarterly XV (2001), p. 375.
61
Ibid., 377-392.

22
preserved in the Dresden archives, and shows signs of having been used as a printer’s copy.62
The
editio princeps of the Formula of Concord is that first published on the 50th
anniversary of the
presentation of the Augsburg Confession, June 25, 1580, in the German Dresden edition of the Book
of Concord. It was formally placed on sale at the annual Dresden fair on June 28. The first Latin
translation was made by Lucas Osiander and Selnecker, and was included in the 1580 Leipzig Book
of Concord. Due to extensive criticism of the Osiander/Selnecker translation, a revised edition was
composed in 1582. Due to further criticism, largely from the theologians of Brunswick, at a
convention assembled at Quedlinburg, 1583, the translation was further revised and improved under
the direction of Chemnitz, and was published in the Leipzig Book of Concord of 1584.
62
Wolfe, 17

Appendix 1 – Relevant Primary Sources R. Fouts
i
Flacius’ Lenient Propositions (Linde Vorschläge) – 155663
1. A written statement, composed under the direction of both
parties, is to be drawn up. 2. In regards to the controversy
concerning the adiaphora we agree in the following points: 3.
We recognize and confess that the pope is the true Anti-Christ,
and we will denounce and condemn him as such. 4. We hear
unanimously to the Augsburg Confession as a certain, short
synopsis of the difference between the Lutheran and Reformed
doctrine. 5. We agree in condemning the Council of Trent and
the Augsburg Interim, and whatever is in accordance with it in
belongs to it. 6. We confess that no agreement in religion can
be made with the Papists. 7. Though in the past an attempt
had been made with good intentions to bring about a union in
religion and ceremonies, yet we deisire that in the future no
one of our side should undertake to make an agreement
respecting doctrine or ceremonies contrary to the Augsburg
Confession and the Smalcald Articles, unless they desist from
persecuting, and accept and openly confess the pure doctrine
of the gospel summed up in the Augsburg Confession. 8. We
declare that it is not proper for the civil government to make
any changes in good and tolerable ceremonies without the
knowledge and consent of the churches; much less that they
have the rights to ameliorate or accommodate these according
to the demands of the persecutors for the sake of temporal
peace. 9. We condemn and reject unanimously the double-
tongued and doubtful and offensive phrase: “opera sunt
necessaria ad salutem.” For howsoever interpreted, if remains
a thorn in the hearts of the poor sinners, and can be utilized by
the Romanists against us. 10. We condemn the error of the
Zwinglians concerning the eucharist, and of the Anabaptists,
which is renewed and secretly introduced at present. 11.
Wherever an error should creep in (as was the case with the
error of Osiander and Schwenkfeld), we will oppose the same
unanimously in our writings and sermons, in public and
private from the very beginning. 12. Whenever, the public or
private, persons holding harmful errors against religion in the
welfare of conscience should arise and spread, we will not
recognize them as brethren, nor receive them into fellowship
until they have condemned and revoked their error; for such
wounds of the church cannot be healed are tolerated in silence.
13. All intelligent, pious, earnest people must understand that
it is necessary to act otherwise in matters of faith than in civil
affairs, where and misty is conceded, i.e., errors are passed
over in silence.
8 Articles by the Coswig Mediators – Jan. 14, 155764
1. The basis of the agreement shall be, the Augsburg
Confession, Apology and Smalcald Articles. 2. All errors of
the Papists, Interimists, Anabaptists and Sacramentarians are
to be rejected. 3. In regard to the doctrine of justification all
corruption should be removed, especially the corruption
concerning the necessity of good works unto salvation. 4. This
Saxons uphold their confession in the Interimistic controversy.
5. No agreement is to be made with the Papists, unless an
agreement has first been reached in regard to pure doctrine. 6.
63
Translated in George J. Fritschel, The Formula of Concord: Its
Origin and Contents (Philadelphia: The Lutheran Publication
Society, 1916), pp. 69-70.
64
Ibid., 76
In persecution a public and sincere confession must be
rendered, and no servitude is to be permitted which is contrary
to Christian liberty. 7. We request the honored Preceptor to
declare his opinion in regard to the adiaphora and the
necessity of good works and that he agrees with the confession
of the Church. Such statement is to be printed. 8. In case he
suspects errors on the other side (Flacious), a statement should
be elicited.
The Frankfurt Recess – March, 155865
Princes, considering the lamentable disharmony, declare that
they adhere to the Augsburg Confession. Since the recent
Colloquy of Worms the Romanists have spread the report that
all kinds of heresies are disseminated among the Lutherans.
Hence the princes desire to publish a statement concerning the
rumors, not as a new symbol, but as a declaration concerning
these controversies. 1. Concerning justification. Faith trusts
in the mercy of God promised for the sake of Christ. Through
this faith man is justified before God, i.e., is considered just,
has forgiveness and Christ’s righteous is considered as his.
After this God makes his habitation in man and good works
follow. But the righteousness Of their works is only incipient
and connected with much weakness within us. There for
whom we place the righteousness only in faith and in no way
in the newness of life. 2. Concerning good works. New
obedience is necessary, but this must be understood correctly
(Necessitas debiti). Man must do what God commands,
because God demands such works. “Necessary” is not
compulsory. “Good works” does not mean merely the
external acts, but the new light, intention underlying such
works (Necessitas causae et effectus). These works of the
necessary effect of the Holy Spirit received in conversion.
Hence many good works follow after conversion. Paul himself
used the expression, therefore it must not be condemned. But
we must not trust in them. The phrase, “good works are
necessary unto salvation,” should not be used, as it might be
construed as if they were a merit, and would thus conflict with
the doctrine of justification. 3. Concerning the Eucharist.
Nothing can be a Sacrament without divine institution. Hence
the idolatrous practice connected with the mass (adoration,
carrying around the bread, etc.) must be condemned. We
teach, as declared in the Augsburg Confession: In this
institution Christ is truly, livingly, essentially present with the
bread and wine; we Christians receive them to testify that we
are his members. Hence there are two gifts - the celestial and
the terrestrial. With the latter, body in blood are given. The
participation is for the purpose of applying the Son of God and
his promise. We reject the doctrine that the Sacrament is
merely an external symbol and confession of Christians. 4.
Concerning the adiaphora. Wherever the pure doctrine is
held, these may be retained. Where the pure doctrine is not
held or is persecuted, not only these but all ceremonies are
detrimental. Among the Lutheran estates none shall attack the
other on account of different customs.
65
Ibid., 82-83

Appendix 1 – Relevant Primary Sources R. Fouts
ii
Andreä’s “Confession and Brief Explanation of Certain
Disputed Articles, Through Which Christian Unity May be
Reached in the Churches Subscribing to the Augsburg
Confession, and Scandalous, Wearisome Division May be
Set Aside” (1567).66
I. On Justification Through Faith. Concerning the article
on the justification of the poor sinner in God’s sight, we
believe, teach, and confess on the basis of God’s Word and the
position of our Christian Augsburg Confession that the poor,
sinful person is justified in God’s sight – that is, he is
pronounced free and absolved of his sins and receives
forgiveness for them – only through faith, because of the
innocent, complete, and unique obedience and the bitter
sufferings and death of our Lord Jesus Christ, not because of
the indwelling, essential righteousness of God or because of
his own good works, which either precede or result from faith.
We reject all doctrines contrary to this belief and confession.
For although God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, who is
essential righteousness Himself, dwells in believers and
impels them to do right and to live according to His divine
will, nevertheless God’s indwelling does not make them
perfect in this life. Therefore, they cannot be considered
righteous in God’s sight because of this indwelling. Instead,
all their consolation is to be found alone in the unique and
innocent obedience and the bitter suffering and death of our
Lord Jesus Christ. This obedience is credited to all repentant
sinners as righteousness in God’s sight. II. On Good Works.
Concerning good works we believe, teach, and confess on the
basis of the divine Word and the position of the Christian
Augsburg Confession that we do not become righteous nor are
we saved through good works, as the term is commonly
understood. For Christ has earned salvation as well as
righteousness (that is, the forgiveness of sins) with His
believers as righteousness only through faith. We reject all
who teach otherwise. Along with this we steadfastly teach
that whoever wants to be a true Christian and wants to be
saved eternally is obligated to do good works and should do
them – not to earn or obtain salvation through them, but to
demonstrate his faith and gratitude for the merits of Christ and
also to demonstrate the obedience he owes to God, as it is
written: “If you live according to the flesh, you will live”
(Rom. 8:13). We also reject all those who teach that
righteousness in God’s sight is credited to us on account of the
works which we perform out of faith, and that salvation is
earned and obtained through them. III. On the Free Will.
Concerning the free will of man after the fall, we believe,
teach, and confess on the basis of God’s Word and the
position of the Christian Augsburg Confession that we poor
sinners are not just mortally wounded through sin and
transgression (insofar as rebirth, spiritual and heavenly
matters, and works which please God the Lord are concerned);
we also, as St. Paul shows, are completely dead in this regard.
Thus we are not even capable of conceiving of something
good. Instead, the Lord causes us both to will and to carry out
that will through the Holy Spirit, so that the honor belongs to
66
Translated in Robert Kolb, Andreae and the Formula of Concord:
Six Sermons on the Way to Lutheran Unity (Saint Louis: Concordia
Publishing House, 1977), pp. 58-60. (Hereafter Kolb, Six Sermons).
God alone. He, out of His pure grace, has made us alive and
righteous and has saved us from death in sin. Nevertheless,
since man is not a block of wood but is still a reasoning
creature even after the fall, he has a free, though weak, will in
externals. In divine and spiritual matters and in the mysteries
of the Kingdom of God his understanding is totally blind, so
that he does not perceive the things of God’s Spirit. They are
foolishness to him, and he cannot discern them when he is
asked about spiritual matters. Thus his will is held captive and
has died in regard to the good. If God does not create a new
will in him, he cannot, out of himself and his own powers,
restore himself, nor can he accept the grace of God shown us
in Christ. We reject those who teach otherwise. IV. On
Indifferent Matters, Called Adiaphora. Concerning
ceremonies and ecclesiastical usages, which God has neither
commanded nor forbidden in His Word, we believe, teach, and
confess on the basis of God’s Word and the position of the
Augsburg Confession that they should be made subservient to,
not superior to, the pure doctrine of God’s Word. If a denial
of the Christian religion, doctrine, and confession is associated
with or attached to the acceptance of such things, so that they
are no longer free, they should be abandoned and may not be
used with a good conscience. We reject all who teach
otherwise. V. On the Holy Supper. Concerning the holy
sacrament of the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, we
believe, teach, and confess on the basis of God’s Word and the
position of the Christian Augsburg Confession that in it, with
the bread and wine, the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus
Christ, who is present in a heavenly way unfathomable by
human reason, is distributed and received by all who use this
sacrament according to His command and received by all who
use this sacrament according to His command and institution.
We believe, teach, and confess also that not only true believers
and genuine Christians but also the godless and unrepentant
hypocrites, who are baptized and intermingled among saved
Christians, receive the true body and blood of Christ in the
holy sacrament – of course, to their judgment. That judgment
is either temporal punishment for those who repent or eternal
punishment for those who persist in their sinful life and do not
turn to God. For Christ is not only a true savior but also a
judge. He brings judgment upon the unrepentant, who are
intermingled among true believers in the use of this sacrament,
just as He also brings life to the true Christians. Thus, the
presence of Christ in the sacrament does not depend on the
worthiness or unworthiness of the individual who distributes
or uses the sacrament but on Christ’s word, which established
and instituted it. We reject all who teach otherwise
concerning this sacrament.

Appendix 2 – The Development of the Structure of the Formula of Concord R. Fouts
iii
Andreä’s Confession
(1567)
Andreä’s “Six
Sermons” (1573)
Andreä’s “Swabian
Concord” (1574)
“Swabian-Saxon
Concord” (1575)
“Maulbronn
Formula” (1576)
“Torgau Book”
(1576)
“Bergen Book”
(1577)
1. Righteousness 1. Righteousness 1. Original Sin 1. Original Sin 1. Original Sin 1. Original Sin 1. Original Sin
2. Good Works 2. Good Works 2. Free Will 2. Free Will 2. The Person of Christ 2. Free Will 2. Free Will
3. Free Will 3. Original Sin/Free Will 3. Righteousness 3. Righteousness 3. Righteousness 3. Righteousness 3. Righteousness
4. Adiaphora 4. Adiaphora 4. Good Works 4. Good Works 4. Law & Gospel 4. Good Works 4. Good Works
5. Lord’s Supper 5. Law & Gospel 5. Law & Gospel 5. Law & Gospel 5. Good Works 5. Law & Gospel 5. Law & Gospel
6. Person of Christ 6. 3rd Use of the Law 6. 3rd Use of the Law 6. Lord’s Supper 6. 3rd Use of the Law 6. 3rd Use of the Law
7. Adiaphora 7. Adiaphora 7. Adiaphora 7. Lord’s Supper 7. Lord’s Supper
8. Lord’s Supper 8. Lord’s Supper 8. Free Will 8. Person of Christ 8. Person of Christ
9. Person of Christ 9. Person of Christ 9. 3rd Use of the Law 9. Descent into Hell 9. Descent into Hell
10. Election 10. Election 10. Adiaphora 10. Adiaphora
11. Other Sects 11. Other Sects 11. Election 11. Election
12. Other Sects 12. Other Sects
As mentioned in the introduction of this essay, the textual history of the Formula of Concord
reflects a two-fold concern: to “reflect” or “repeat” the Augsburg Confession, and to do so according to
the context of the controversies that had arisen since. The structure and ordering of articles, beginning
with the Swabian Concord, and continuing throughout the later texts, reflect this two-fold concern.
Reflecting the later concern, several articles are paired with one another not so much to reflect the
ordering of articles in the Augsburg Confession, but to reflect the close relationship between various
articles and their corresponding controversies in historical context. This is reflected, in those documents
following the Swabian Concord, in all except the Maulbronn Formula.
In the Swabian Concord, Swabian-Saxon Concord, Torgau Book, and the Bergen Book, due to the
close connection between the controversies addressed in the articles on “Original Sin” and “Free Will,”
these two articles are ordered together. Similarly, the articles on “Law and Gospel” and the “Third Use
of the Law” are connected. The articles on “The Lord’s Supper” and the “Person of Christ,” as is
evidenced by the introductory words of the later article in its final form, could not be separated. Allied
also to the article on the “Person of Christ”, in the later developments of the Torgau Book and the Bergen
Book, is the article on the “Descent into Hell” because of the obvious concerns reflected therein with
respect to Christology.
The revisions of its predecessor in the Swabian-Saxon Concord did not include a reordering of
articles. The parallel of these with the Augsburg Confession is evident. The first two articles, Original
Sin/Free Will, likely reflect AC 2, “Original Sin.” The article concerning “Righteousness” and the
aberrations of Osiander parallels AC 4, “Justification.” The article on “Good Works” follows the pattern
of the Augsburg Confession in AC 6, “The New Obedience.” The articles on Law and Gospel/Third Use
of the Law could arguably be seen also in connection with AC 6, but likely are intended also to reflect AC
7 “Concerning the Church” and “What is the Church?” due to the emphasis in these articles on the
preaching of the Gospel. The article on “Adiaphora” might also be considered reflective of AC 7/8
particularly when considering the discussion on human tradition, rites and ceremonies in AC 7. The
articles on the Lord’s Supper/Person of Christ, being that the latter is ultimately tangential to issues
surrounding the Lord’s Supper, probably parallel with the articles on the Sacraments in the Augsburg
Confession, particularly AC X, “The Lord’s Supper.” The article on Election might be reflective of AC
18-20, (Free Will, The Cause of Sin, Faith and Good Works). Finally, the article on “Other Sects,” could
be seen either as an appendix, or paralleling in general the second part of the Augsburg Confession
addressing now, not the “abuses” that had crept into Rome, but the abuses that have crept into the genuine
Evangelical Confession through the various sects cited therein.
The Maulbronn Formula is primarily concerned with the former of the aforementioned concerns,
paralleling most closely with the Augsburg Confession irrespective of the relationship between various
controversies and their corresponding articles. The article on Original Sin also likely parallels AC 2.
Rather than coupling the article on the Person of Christ with the Lord’s Supper, the Maulbronn Formula
intends for this article to reflect its parallel in AC 3, “The Son of God.” The article on Righteousness
similarly parallels AC 4. The article on Law and Gospel stands alone in likely parallel to AC V due to
the emphasis on the Predigtamt and the preaching of the Gospel and the Holy Spirit’s instrument through

Appendix 2 – The Development of the Structure of the Formula of Concord R. Fouts
iv
the same “when and where it pleases” Him to work faith. The article on Good Works likely corresponds
with AC 6. The article concerning the Lord’s Supper similarly reflects its parallel in AC X. Perhaps the
most influential element upon later developments is the location of the article on Adiaphora, likely
paralleling AC 14-16 (Use of the Sacraments, Church Order, Church Rites, Civic Affairs) rather than
paralleling AC 7/8 as had been done in the Swabian-Saxon Concord. The article on Free Will, rather than
being appended to the earlier article on Original Sin, parallels the same article in the Augsburg
Confession, AC 18. Finally, the Third Use of the Law, separate from the article on Law and Gospel,
seems to parallel AC 20.
The theologians meeting at Torgau, 1576, had resolved to essentially insert portions of the
Maulbronn Formula into the Swabian-Saxon Concord. In reality, however, the theologians at Torgau did
not merely insert the former into the later. The order of the articles in the Maulbronn Formula,
particularly with respect to Adiaphora, seems to have been deemed preferable by the assembly at Torgau.
As such, the Torgau theologians followed the lead of Osiander/Bidembach’s Maulbronn Formula moving
the article on Adiaphora from its previous location before the articles on the Lord’s Supper/Person of
Christ in the Swabian-Saxon Concord and located the article on Adiaphora after the Person of Christ
likely preferring the parallel between Adiaphora and AC 14-16. Also at Torgau an article on the Descent
into Hell is added and is wed to the article on the Person of Christ. While the Bergen Book completely
rewrote the article on the Descent into Hell, the articles in the Bergen Book (and consequentially our
Formula of Concord) maintain the ordering of the Torgau Book completely.
What hermeneutical insights might be involved with respect to the intended parallel of each article
in the Formula of Concord with the Augsburg Confession has not been explored and, along the lines
articulated above, requires further study.

Appendix 3 – The Composition of the Formula R. Fouts
v

vi

vii
The process whereby the above data was collected can be summarized as follows. The data is based primarily upon the study of the original texts of each of
the relevant documents in George J. Fritschel, The Formula of Concord: Its Origin and Contents (Philadelphia: The Lutheran Publication Society, 1916).
Where Fritschel’s data was insufficient or incomplete I consulted Robert Kolb’s conclusions (also based upon Fritschel’s analysis) reflected in the marginal
identifications in his translation of the Formula of Concord in Robert Kolb and Timothy J. Wengert, editors, The Book of Concord: The confessions of the
Evangelical Lutheran Church (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2000). Having assumed the data according to these sources, I proceeded to count the lines of
type in the German edition of the Formula of Concord, ultimately identical to the editio princeps, as printed in the Göttingen edition of Die
Bekenntnisschriften der evangelisch-lutherischen Kirche. The appropriate mathematics revealed the data reported above. What is above attributed to Andreä
is that which comes from his Six Sermons and the Swabian Concord. What is attributed to Chemnitz and Chytraeus reflects their revisions of the Swabian
Concord as can be discerned from the Swabian-Saxon Concord. It is worth nothing that this does not account for relatively minor revisions. For example,
while Chemnitz and Chytraeus might have made minor alterations in grammar or vocabulary to Andreä’s Swabian Concord, the text itself surely owes its
authorship to Andreä and is reflected accordingly. Similarly, the above method does not account for the influence of particular individuals over the various
revisions at Torgau or Bergen. Finally, while the text attributed to Chytraeus is almost certainly attributed to his pen, and much of it is original to him, his
revisions were nonetheless made in consideration of the critiques that had been received in lower Saxony with respect to the Swabian Concord. As such, while
it comes from his pen, an indeterminate amount of what is attributed to Chytraeus may, in fact, be an incorporation of various suggestions from the received
critiques or from his colleagues at Rostock.

Bibliography R. Fouts
viii
Bibliography
Bente, F. “Historical Introductions to the Symbolical Books of the Evangelical Lutheran Church” Pages 3-266 in Concordia
Triglotta St. Louis: Concordia Publishign House, 1921.
Dingel, Irene. “Ablehnung and Aneignung: Die Bewertung der Autorität Martin Luthers in den Auseinandersetzungen um die
Konkordienformel.” Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte 105 (1994), pp. 35-57
______. “Philip Melanchthon and the Establishment of Confessional Norms.” Lutheran Quarterly XX (2006), pp. 146-169
______. “The Preface of The Book of Concord as a Reflection of Sixteenth-Century Confessional Development.” Lutheran
Quarterly XV (2001), pp. 373-393
Fritschel, George J. The Formula of Concord: Its Origin and Contents. Philadelphia: The Lutheran Publication Society,
1916.
Green, Lowell C. The Formula of Concord: An Historiographical and Bibliographical Guide. St. Louis: Center for
Reformation Research, 1977.
Koch, Ernst. “Striving for the Union of Lutheran Churches: The Church-Historical Background of the Work Done on the
Formula of Concord at Magdeburg.” Sixteenth Century Journal VIII, no. 4 (1977), pp. 105-122.
Kolb, Robert. Andreae and the Formula of Concord: Six Sermons on the Way to Lutheran Unity. St. Louis: Concordia
Publishing House, 1977.
______. “Historical Background of the Formula of Concord.” Pages 12-87 in A Contemporary Look at the Formula of
Concord. Edited by Robert D. Preus and Wilbert H. Rosin. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1978.
______. “The Formula of Concord as a Model for Discourse in the Church.” Concordia Journal 32 (April, 2006), pp. 189-210.
Kolb, Robert and Timothy J. Wengert, eds. The Book of Concord: The Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church.
Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2001.
Müller, John T. “Historical Introduction” Pages 2-86 in The Christian Book of Concord. Edited by Ambrose Henkel and
Socrates Henkel. New Market, VA: S.D. Henkel, 1854.
Preus, J.A.O. “Chemnitz and the Book of Concord.” Concordia Theological Quarterly 44, no. 4 (1980), pp. 200-212.
Preus, Robert D., and Wilbert H. Rosin, eds. A Contemporary Look at the Formula of Concord. St. Louis: Concordia
Publishing House, 1978.
Wolf, Ernst. “Historical Introduction to the Formula of Concord” in Historical Introduction to the Lutheran Confessions.
Translated by Arthur Carl Piepkorn. St. Louis: Concordia Seminary, 1958.

A Textual History Of The Development Of The Formula Of Concord

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to A Textual History Of The Development Of The Formula Of Concord

Similar to A Textual History Of The Development Of The Formula Of Concord (11)

More from Tony Lisko

More from Tony Lisko (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

A Textual History Of The Development Of The Formula Of Concord