We have read all the writings sent to us among ourselves and pondered them especially the final measure and the opposition writings. Insofar as we can understand and since we previously considered the Schweinford dealing we know of no article to assail other than the third which states: "that also Saxony and those with it and the other estates of the Empire therein there should be no party subject to another."etc. Then this article might be understood that should an ecclesiastical person or someone else without the consent of their authority betake themselves to a place of this party they would not be accepted or protected and this would be especially difficult for poor people should a foreign authority do that to us; in addition the authority of this party could be very dangerous. We respect however, that the Emperor earnestly wants to make peace and the measure in this article could be easily supported as it was stated by our party in Schweinfurt.
Regarding the first article and the words:"and others in a future time" etc.-we have previously given our thinking that these words are not to be quarrled about or the peace declined on that account although we did not assent to this appendix; we know nothing that would change our opinion. How can we force the Emperor to make his people secure according to our pleasure? We cannot force him to keep us secure but it
is by grace of the over-lord.
Thus it is certain that we cannot attain to this appendix. How could it be hoped for that Duke Georg would permit it that should Leipzig adopt our doctrine that he would be their security?
Although one now knows that it is futile and that it hinders the peace and much good
and we are not obligated to quarrel over it we know not what else to advise than that the peace should not be declined because of this article. And though it is likely several others have written or advised differently, as we perceive, let them take the responsibity for their opinion. It is possible several people do not have a desire for peace.
As to the second part on the word Zwinglian and Council etc.-these are fighting words
(pugnae verborum) as everyone of understand might well remove them.
As to our stopping being opposed to the Zwinglians apart from the article on the Sacrament we think that this is the extent of it: they are secure if they hold to our
Confession herin and accept it.
Also regarding the Jurisdictio we see it as a complete Cavillation (sophistry?)when it is stated in opposition that that Juridictio should stay as it is now. Although we are now on that account assailed does it follow that on that account we will be assailed etc: that is pure sophistry. In the compromise (Mittel) it is clearly expressed what the process is with the alliance and Rotweil (city in Germany?) and therfore it should be revoked.
On the preaching in camp situations it is not so difficult as it seems. If the text of the Gospel is preached so that there is no straying from it; one could add a verse from Paul and explanation from the Scripture which is in accord with the text of the Gospel and Christian understanding.
In summary, so far as we understand, the final compromise (Mittel) can well be tolerated and accepted should the Point on the acceptance of foreigners etc. be clarified and something declared; we have held that we do not have a great Disputatio
on this. We must also consider what a danger it is for us to be offered peace and not to accept it. We must watch that we do not tempt God and also it is easy to assume that there is something else hidden. The Cavilationes (sophistries?) are very much so that one may well note that different matters are meant. Martinus Luther,D. Justus Jonas.
NOTE: This is a hard one as it is difficult to determine the thrust of an article when only a few words are quoted. Check this one with the experts.
No comments:
Post a Comment