Nor is it at all surprising, that, as Luther’s views of the evils of the mass were so much clearer even at this period, he should, after seven years more time for study, and in times of peace and security, express his abhorrence of this Romish error in such strong terms as we meet in the Smalcald Articles.  Indeed, it was this undecided character of the Augsburg Confession on some points, which led the Elector, who, in other respects valued it highly, to have this new Confession prepared by Luther for the Council, which Pope Paul III. [sic] had convoked, to meet at Mantua, in 1537, for the purpose of settling these religious disputes.  Because, says Koellner, “the Augsburg Confession had been prepared with the view to give the least possible offence to the opponents.  But now, the Evangelical party, being stronger, were not only able to avow the points of difference more openly; but they were also determined to do so; and for such negotiations a different form (from that of the Augsburg Confession) was of course requisite.  Finally, the transactions at Augsburg, during the reciprocal efforts at reconciliation, and especially through the great mildness and yielding disposition of Melancthon, had in regard to many doctrines, obliterated the clear and real point of difference, so that in many of them the opponents affirmed, there was no longer any difference at all.”  Koellner’s Symbolik, Vol.  I., p. 441.

Note 1.  The reason why he was left, was because the civil authorities of Augsburg excepted him in the safe passport, which they sent to the Elector, under date of April 30.  See Koellner, Vol.  I., p. 172.

Note 2.  “Ich habe M. Philipsen’s Apologie ueberlesen, die gefaellt mir fast wohl, und weisz nichts daran zu bessern, noch zu aendern, wuerde sich auch nicht schicken:  denn ich so sanft und leise nicht treten kann.”

Note 3.  We mention here once for that all our extracts from Melancthon’s Letters are translated from C.  Niemeyer’s work, entitled Philip Melancthon im Jahre der Augsburgischen Confession, Halle, 1830.

Note 4.  Niemeyer, pp. 26, 27.

Note 5.  At that time Professor of Greek and Latin Literature in the
Gymnasium of Nurenberg.

Note 6.  Niemeyer, p. 28.

Note 7.  Niemeyer, p. 78.  “Ich kann es bei Hofe nicht erlangen, dasz von heir [sic] ein bestimmter Bote an Luther geschickt wird.”

Note 8.  Page 30.

Note 9.  Dogma nullum habemus diversum a Romana Ecclesia.

Note 10.  Here Niemeyer also gives the Latin:  “Parati sumus, obedire ecclesiae Romanae, modo ut illa pro sua dementia, qua semper ergo omnes homines usa est, pauca quaedam vel dissimulet, vel relaxet, quae jam ne quidem, si velimus, mutare queamus.

Note 11.  Ad haec Romani Pontificis auctoritatem et universam politiam ecclesiasticam, reverenter colimus, modo non abjiciat nos Romanus Pontifex.

Note 12.  Here, says Niemeyer, Melancthon probably means the Romish church as she ought to be, and not as she was.