1. On the origins of the Smalkaldic League, see the pioneering study of Baron, Hans, “Religion and Politics in the German Imperial Cities during the Reformation,” The English Historical Review, 52 (1937), pp. 405–427, 614–633CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Fabian, Ekkehart, Die Entstehung des Schmalkaldischen Bundes und seiner Verfassung 1524/29–1531/35. Brüok, philipp von Hessen und Jakob Sturm. 2nd ed. SKRG, No. 1 (Tübingen, 1962)Google Scholar. The Saxon reaction which began in early June, 1529, is analyzed in detail by Steglich, Wolfgang, “Die Stellung der evangelischen und Reichsstädte zu Karl V. zwisehen Protestation und Konfession 1529/1530. Ein Beitrag zur Vorgeschichte des Augsburgischen Glaubensbekenntnisses,” ARG, 62 (1971), pp. 170–172, 181–191Google Scholar. Steglich 's account is based on his editorship of the Deutsche Reichstagsakten, jüngere Reihe, 8 (2 parts; Göttingen, 1970, 1971)Google Scholar, which covers the period between the Diet of Speier (1529) and that of Augsburg (1530). The doctrinal quarrel which provided the grounds for the clerical support of the Saxon abandonment of the southwestern towns is recounted in great detail by Köhler, Walter,Zwingli und Luther, ihr Streit um das Abendmahl nach seiflen politischen und religösen Beziehungen. 2 vols. QFRG, 6, 7 (Leipzig, 1924; Gütersloh, 1953).Google Scholar

2. The best biographical sketches are by Baumgarten, Hermann, Jakob Sturm (Strassburg, 1876)Google Scholar; and Winekelmann, Otto, “Jakob Sturm,” Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie, 37 (1894), pp. 5–20Google Scholar. A partial biography (to 1532) is the present writer's unpublished dissertation, “Jacob Sturm of Strasbourg (1489–1553) and the Political Security of German Protestantism, 1526–1532” (University of Chicago, 1968).Google Scholar

3. See Baron, Hans, “Religion and Politics in the German Imperial Cities,” pp. 406–411.Google Scholar

4. The crucial text is in PCSS, 1, p. 296, No. 525 (undated, but before June 11, 1528).

5. “Annales de Sébastien Brant,” ed. Léon Dacheux, in BSCMHA, 19 (1901), p. 179, No. 4828Google Scholar. Sturm's statement of the alternatives is based on a letter to him from Land grave Philip, of Hesse, Immenhausen, 10 30, 1529 (PCSS, 1, pp. 408–409, No. 675)Google Scholar. On the Smalkalden meeting and on the policies of John the Constant which led him to force the doctrinal issue, see Steglich, W., “Die Stellung der evangelischen Reichsstände und Reichsstädte zu Karl V…,” pp. 181–185.Google Scholar

6. The negotiations leading up to this alliance are described in great detail by René Hauswirth, Landgraf Philipp von Hessen und Zwingli. Voraussetzungen und Geschichte der politischen Beziehungen zwischen Hessen, Strassburg, Konstanz, Ulrich von Württemberg und reformierten Eidgenossen 1526–1531 (BKRG, No.35; Tübingen, 1968), pp. 139–160.

7. PCSS, 1, p. 439, No. 718: “und harin den zwispalt des sacraments nit ansehen wolten, so man im houbtstugk unserer seligkeit eins wer⃜” Compare Sturm 's view in his report to the Senate after the Colloquy, Marburg (“Annales de S. Brant,” in BSCMHA, 19, p. 175, No. 4812)Google Scholar and his estimate (in 1532) of what had been achieved at Marburg, (PCSS, 2, p. 113)Google Scholar: “Es hett aber doctor Luther sich zu Marpurg uf dem gesprech so vil vernämen lossen: wo man hette bekennen wollen die ware gegenwurtigkeit des libs und bluts Christi im nachtmol, so wolt er dises punctens halb inen bruderschaft zu beweisen nit abschlagen.”

8. Sturm's remarks to Chancellor Georg Vogler of Brandenburg-Ansbach are printed by von Schubert, Hans, ed., Bekenntnisbildung and Religionspolitik (1524–1534). Untersuchungen und Texte (Gotha, 1910), pp. 169–182Google Scholar. Concerning the sacrament of baptism, Sturm said (p. 178): “Den tauff halten sie auch nit fur ein schlecht wasser, sonder fur ein widergeburt durch das wort und heiligen gaist, aber allain credentibus per fidem, in den sei er ein krefftig lebendig ding, aber bei den andern nit, doch so soil man die kinder teuffen, die weil wir nit wissen, ob sie von got zur selikait eligirt sei.—Dapei soll man aber vleissig furkommen, das die selikait allain der wurckung des heiligen gaists und dem eusserlichen werken.” Concerning the sacraments in general (p. 177): “Item das auch der glaub und gaist vor dem sacrament gegeben werd und sein musz und nit erst in empfohung der sacrament, dann solliches allain testimonium fidei und bestettigung als arrobo und sigillum sei.”

9. Ibid., p. 171: “Heten sie wolgemerkt, warauff der artiekel gesetzt wurd, alls ob Jmaandt ainich zertailung gottes und cristi machen wolt, wie Zwinglein beschuldigt, aber nit gestendig, sei auch ire maynung nit, dann sie glaubten, das cristus gottes son, warer gott und mensch, gelitten habe und gestorben sei, doch nach der menschait.”

10. Ficker, Johannes, ed., “Jakob Sturms Entwurf zur Strassburger reformatorischen Verantwortung für den Augsburger Reichstag 1530,” Elsass-Lothringisches Jahrbuch, 19 (1941), p. 152Google Scholar: “und wie man nitt leer, das die christen, so in warem glauben das sacrament nyssen, schiecht brott und wine empfohen, sonder den woren lib und blut Christi, der meynong, sicut Schwenckfelder non ingenue describit,”

11. “Rathslag gottgefelliges diensts von Jac. Sturm 1525,” in Strasbourg, Archives du Chapître de St.-Thomas, No. 166, fol. 129r: “sind also zu beyden theylen christen, des gott erbarm.”

12. Ibid., fol. 129r: “sind noch vill ding zu tulden, und vbersehen noeh zur zeit, biss gott der herr ein bessern verstand verlihen würt, domit man nit durch geschwinde fürgenommene enderung nur den handel hinder dan fürdere,…” Ibid., fol. 128v: “Dweyl auch alle newerung ein vnglichen verstand und der halben zweyungen und verletzung der lieb bringen, mocht man in obgenanten gesang … so vil mit der geschrifft sich verglichen vnd verteidiget werden mocht bliben lassen.”

13. Concerning the first of the Schwabach Articles, Sturm remarked: “person und trivoltikait sind nit in der schrift und werden zu vil tailpar gesetzt. Jedoch dieweil im praueh dopey pleiben.” He made a similar comment on the Introduction to the Articles: “Nit zu articulirn. Schriftlich warheit in artickeln des glaubens zu setzen.” von Schubert, H., Bekenntnisbildung and Religionspolitik, pp. 169–170.Google Scholar

14. This fact is recorded by John Sturm, who knew Jacob Sturm well during the latter's later years. See Quarti Antipappi tres partes priores (Neustadt an der Hardt, 1580), pp. 166–167.Google Scholar

15. The Thirteen of Strasbourg to Jacob Sturm and Mathis Pfarrer, August 17, 1530 (PCSS, 1, pp. 486–487, No. 782)Google Scholar. Precisely the same view was expressed by Memmingen 's envoy to the Diet of Augsburg, Hans Ehinger: “vnd jst min rautt, das wier weder lutrisch noch zwinglisch seyen, sonder Christus bevelh nach auswaisung biblischer schrifft lert man by vns.…” Dobel, Friedrich, ed., Memmingen in Reformationszeitalter. 5 vols. (Augsburg, 1877-1878), 4, pp. 41–42, dated 07 14, 1530.Google Scholar

16. “das man hierin niemants sin verstand neme, sonder hierin ein jeden loss bliben, so verr er sonst in gott per Christum glaube und durch solchen glauben dye liebe des nachsten bezeuge.” Ficker, J., ed., “Jacob Sturm's Eutwurf,” p. 152.Google Scholar

17. Sturm studied in the theological faculty of the University of Freiburg im Breisgau between 1504 and 1509 (see Brady, T. A. Jr, “Jacob Sturm of Strasbourg,” pp. 28–32)Google Scholar. Later in his life, when he was appointed to the committee on the Interim at the Diet of Augsburg in 1548, Sturm agreed to serve, with the following reservation (PCSS, 4, p.857, No. 729)Google Scholar: “solt es aber in puncten die religion belangen gehandelt werden, dozu bekenne ich mich nit gnugsam, sondern erfordert ein ander und stattlicher man; ⃜” Whenever Sturm took part in negotiations concerning doctrine, as at Marburg in 1529, Haguenau in 1539, Worms in 1540 and Regensburg in 1541, he was always accompanied by one or more of the Strasbourg preachers.

18. Sturm's relations with Capito were normally good (see Capito, Wolfgang, In Habakuk prophetam V. Fabritij Capitonis enarrationes [Strasbourg, 1526], pp. A.ii.a–A.iii.bGoogle Scholar), and his friendship with Bucer is well known. One of the few real outbursts of anger in Sturm's letters occurs in his report on the trouble Capito had caused by sending letters and a clandestinely printed book to friends in Switzerland. Sturm wrote to Peter Butz from Speier, July 15, 1526 (PCSS, 1, pp. 263–264, No. 464)Google Scholar: “deshalben die prädicanten nit solten hoch uf new mer acht haben, wie es do oder dort zugieng, sich auch nit uf grosz oder vest stett verlossen; dans solichs bringt argwon, als ob si sich mer uf ein fleischlichen arme dan uf Christum allein verliessen.”

19. Bucer's policy that cooperation should rest on common faith rather than precise doctrinal formulation dates at least from the weeks after the Marburg Colloquy (late October- early November, 1529), when he composed his commentary on the Schwabach Articles (see Bucer, M., Deutsche Schriften, III: Confessio Tetrapolitana und die Schriften des Jahres 1531, ed. Stupperich, Robert [Gütersloh-Paris, 1969], p. 443, lines 1–12Google Scholar). The influence of Zwingli on the Strasbourg preachers during the second half of the 1520s is a commonplace of the literature on the eucharistic dispute. See Köhler, W., Zwingli und Luther, 1, esp. pp. 730–735, 747–752, 816–817, 829–830Google Scholar; and Bizer, Ernst, Studien zur Geschichte des Abendmahlsstreits im 16. Jahrhundert (“Beiträge zur Förderung christlicher Theologie,” Series 2, Vol. 46; Gütersloh, 1940), pp. 21–24Google Scholar. See also Pollet, Jacques V. O.P., Martin Bucer. Etudes sur la correspondance. 2 vols. (Paris, 1958, 1962), 1, pp.9–10Google Scholar. Recent literature on Bucer, however, denies that Zwingli had a fundamental influence on his views. See the survey by Krüger, Friedhelm, Bucer und Erasmus. Ein Untersuchung zum Einfluss des Erasmus auf die Theologie Martin Bucers (bis zum Evangelien-Kommentar von 1530) (“Veröffentlichungen des Instituts für europäische Geschichte Mainz,” Vol. 57; Wiesbaden, 1970), pp. 3–37, and Krüger's own conclusions on pp. 225–227Google Scholar. This argument over Bucer's opinions does not affect the present study. All that is being maintained here is that Bucer was by policy a Zwinglian at Marburg and by policy a mediator thereafter. The relationship between his policy and his opinions is a subject for students of his biography and his theology. As for Capito, there exists no reliable, published study of his ideas and career.

20. Bucer, , Deutsche Schriften, 3, p. 325, lines 1–11Google Scholar. The preparation of this and the other documents appended to the Instruction for the Diet probably took place during April and early May. Sturm and Mathis Pfarrer were chosen as envoys to the Diet on April 11, 1530 (“Annales de S. Brant,” in BSCMHA, 19, 182, No. 4862)Google Scholar. Bucer mentions the preparations in a letter of April 18 (see Deutsche Schriften, 3, p. 15).Google Scholar

21. Ibid., p. 327, lines 7–12.

22. Ibid., p. 337, lines 19–20: “So ist den Lutherischen noch niemand neher dann die Zwinglischen.”

23. Capito's “Ratschlag D” is printed in two successive redactions in Ibid, pp. 342–392. A comparison of the order of topics shows a dependence both on his “Copey eins vssschribens” (see Ibid., pp. 15–17) and on Sturm's scheme for an Entschudigung of the reforms at Strasbourg (see Ficker, J., ed., “Jakob Sturms Entwurf,” pp. 149–152).Google Scholar

24. The later redaction of the text (“Fassung B”) shows massive alterations by Sturm (see esp. Deutsche Schriften, 3, pp. 369, 371, 376, 377, 385, 390–391Google Scholar). So far as I can see, Moeller is correct in judging (Ibid., p. 190n13) that Sturm's changes betray “immer wieder seine Bemühung um die Milderung übergrosser Schärfen.” Compare Sturm 's original schema (Ficker, J., ed., “Jakob Sturms Entwurf,” p. 152, lines 58–66)Google Scholar: “Es ist auch hoch zu bedencken, domytt man nitt ursach zu gegenschrifften gebe, das man m. hern von Strossburg, der stifftspersonen oder andere nitt zu hoch anziche, sender so vifi der handel erliden mag, ir verschone und ine ir ding nitt zu ubel usslege… Ut sit excusatio, non accusatio.“ A further change between the two Fassungen is that the later one lacks the doctrinal section contained in “Fassung A” (Bucer, , Deutsche Schriften, 3, pp. 356, line 6–361 line 25Google Scholar). This change probably reflects Sturm's original conception of an apology for innovations rather than a statement of belief.

25. Ibid., pp. 390, line 23–391, line 8.

26. Jedin, Hubert, A History of the Council of Trent, tr. Graf, Ernest, O.S.B., Vol. 1 (London-Edinburgh-New York, 1957), p. 250Google Scholar. See, in general, Ibid., pp. 245–252; Brandi, Karl, Kaiser Karl V. Werden und Schicksal einer Persönlichkeit und eines Weltreiches (6th ed.; München, 1961), 1, pp. 252–254Google Scholar. A definitive history of the Diet of Augsburg must wait until Vol. 9 of the Deutsche Reichstagsakten, jügere Reihe, appears. The following studies are worth consulting on the Diet as a whole: von Schubert, Hans, Der Reiohstag von Augsburg im Zusammenhang der Reformationsgeschichte (BVRG, No. 150; Leipzig, 1930)Google Scholar; and von Walter, Johannes, “Der Reichstag von Augsburg 1530,” Luther-Jahrbuch, 12 (1930), pp. 1–90Google Scholar. On the present state of the published sources, see Jedin, H., History, 1, p. 250n3Google Scholar. To Jedin's list must now be added Vol. 8 of the Deutsche Reichstagsakten, jüngere Reihe (Göttingen, 1970, 1971)Google Scholar, which stops just before the opening of the Diet.

27. No other leading Evangelical prince has been so little studied as has John the Constant (d. 1532). For the period before the Diet of Augsburg, much light is shed on John's policies by Steglich, W., “Die Stellung der evangelischen Reichsstände und Reichsstädte zu Karl V.…” ARG, 62 (1971), pp. 161–191Google Scholar. There is some material on John's foreign policy in Georg Mentz's biography of his son and successor, Johann Friedrich der Grossmütige 1503–1554 (3 vols.; “Beiträge zur neueren Gesehichte Thüringens,” 1; Jean, 1903, 1908), 1, chapters 2–3Google Scholar. See also the sketch of the foreign policy goals of the Saxon Electors of this period by Fabian, E., Die Entstehung des Schmalkaldischen Bundes (2nd ed.), pp. 303–307Google Scholar. Brandi, Karl (Kaiser Karl V., 1, p. 251)Google Scholar correctly sums up John's policy before the Diet of Augsburg: “Sie wollte Selbstbehauptung im Frieden mit der Reichsregierung.”

28. The spread of Zwinglianism into the Swabian towns needs to be studied. The best general account is still the old work by Keim, Karl Theodor, Schwäbische Refomationsgeschichte bis zum Augsburger Reichstag (Tübingen, 1855)Google Scholar. On Ulm, see Naujoks, Eberhard, Obrigkeitsgedanke, Zunftverfassung und Reformation. Studien zur erfassungsgeschichte von Ulm, Esslingen und Schwäb. Gmünd (“Veröffentlichungen der Kommission für geschichtliche Landeskunde in Baden-Württemberg,” Series B, Vol. 3; Stuttgart, 1958), pp. 71–81.Google Scholar

29. See Blaich, Fritz, Die Reichmnonopoigesetsgebung im Zeitalter Earls V. Ihre ordnungspolitisohe Problematik (“Schriften zum Vergleich von Wirtschaftsordnungen,” No. 8; Stuttgart, 1967), pp. 37–72Google Scholar. On the political aspects of this struggle, see Baron, H., “Religion and Politics in the German Imperial Cities during the Reformation,” pp. 407–409.Google Scholar

30. Jacob Sturm and Mathis Pfarrer to the Senate of Strasbourg, Augsburg, July 2, 1530 (PCSS, 1, p. 447, No. 728)Google Scholar. All of the official reports from Augsburg are in Sturm's hand; for the sake of brevity, they will be cited under his name alone. All were written from Augsburg.

31. Philip's policies and activities at Augsburg can be followed in Grundmann, Herbert, “Landgraf Philipp von Hessen auf dem Augsburger Reichstag,” in Aus Reichstagen des15. und 16. Jahrhunderts. Festgabe dargebracht der Historisohen Kommission zur Feier ihres hundertjährigens Bestehens (“Schriftenreihe der Historischen Kommission bei der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften,” No. 5; Göttingen, 1958), pp.341–423Google Scholar. His ineffectiveness at Augsburg is to be explained by the fact that he was torn between his desire for Charles' support in his disputes with neighboring princes and his desire to restore Duke Ulrich in Württemberg. His relations with the southern Evangelical towns and the Swiss Evangelicals, which aimed at the latter goal, are studied at great length by Hauswirth, R., Landgraf Philipp von Hessen und Zwingli, pp. 100–229.Google Scholar

32. Jacob Sturm to the Thirteen, June 7, 1530 (PCSS, 1, p. 450, No. 732Google Scholar).

33. The failure of this approach can be followed in Sturm's reports of June 2, 1530 (Ibid., p. 447, No. 728), June 16 (Ibid., pp. 455–456, No. 741), June 21 (Ibid., pp. 458–459, No. 746). The responses of Melanchthon and Brenz are revealed in a trio of letters that passed between them and the Landgrave on June 11 (CR, 2, pp. 92–103, Nos. 718–720)Google Scholar. See Moeller, B., in Bucer, , Deutsche Schriften, 3, pp. 231–322Google Scholar. The closeness with which his government followed Sturm's relations with the Lutheran princes is suggested by a special collection that Peter Butz made of extracts from Sturm's reports on the subject (in Strasbourg, Archives Municipales, AA421, No. 22, fols. 44r-47v).

34. A critical edition by Moeller, Bernd in Bucer, , Deutsche Schriften, 3, pp. 13–185Google Scholar, who prints two German redactions of the text, plus Bucer's Latin version. Capito's long version of Article 18, on the Eucharist, is edited by Pollet, J. V., Martin Bucer, 1, pp. 45–54.Google Scholar

35. Jacob Sturm to the Senate, June 25, 1530 (PCSS, 1, p. 461, No. 749)Google Scholar; Moeller, Bernd, Johannes Zwick und die Reformation in Konstanz (QFRG, XXVIII; Gütersloh, 1961), pp. 112–113Google Scholar. Sturm's canvass can be followed in the reports of Hans Ehinger to Memmingen (Dobel, F., ed., Memmingen, 4, pp. 32–33, 35–36, 37–38, 38–39, 40–41Google Scholar). The refusal of the Frankfurters to sign appears in Schirrmacher, Friedrich Wilhelm, ed., Briefe und Acten zu der Geschichte des Religionsgespräches zu Marburg 1529 und des Reich- stages zu Augsburg 1530 (Gotha, 1876), pp. 407–408Google Scholar. Sturm and Pfarrer intended to submit the version that contained Capito's long version of Article 18 (see Bucer, , Deutsche Schriften, 3, p. 134 note wGoogle Scholar): “Dissen begriff zuuberantworten waren her Jacob Sturm vnd her Matthiss pfarer bedacht, vff das wir nit möchten geachtet werden, als ob wir des liecht fiühen, auch domit nichtige gegenrede dester heller abgewendt würden.”

36. Seven changes in the earlier of the two German texts have been identified as stemming from Sturm (Ibid., pp. 36, 92, 122, 126, 128, 134). All seven fall within the category of stylistic improvements. Since all extant manuscripts, with the exception of Capito's long version of Article 18, are in secretarial hands, the puzzle of the authorship of the various parts of the CT cannot be solved. A later Strasbourg tradition made Bucer the sole author of the CT (see Specklin, Daniel, “Collectanea,” in BSCMHA, 14 [1889], pp. 344–345, No. 2314Google Scholar), but this tradition is too late (Specklin was born in 1536) to have independent value.

37. Moeller, Bernd, in Bucer, , Deutsche Schriften, 3, pp. 19–20Google Scholar; Gussman, Wilhelm, Quellen und Forschungen zur Geschichte des Augsburger Glaubensbekenntnisses (2 vols; Leipzig, 1911, 1930), 1, part 2, p. 43Google Scholar; Bizer, E., Studien zur Geschichte des Abendmahlsstreits, pp. 29–30Google Scholar; Anrich, Gustav, Martin Bucer (Strassburg, 1914), p. 52Google Scholar. Gussman discovered the fact that both the CT and the Confession of Augsburg were designed partly as replies to John Eck's “404 Articles.” On the debates between Eck and the Strasbourg theologians, see Rischar, Klaus, Johann Eck auf dem Reichstag zu Augsburg 1530 (“Refomationsgeschichtliche Studien und Texte,” Heft 97; Münster/Westfalen 1968), pp. 109–138.Google Scholar

38. The longer version of the article on the Eucharist affirms the Strasbourg-Zwingli position on the manducatio impiorum issue (Bucer, , Deutsche Schriften, 3, p. 133 lines 5–11)Google Scholar: “Dan so des furnembst, des der Herr in disem handel gemeint hat, ist sein gedechtnus vud die danckbare verkhundigung seins tods, … so muess auch volgen, des er von einem solichen eases geredt hab, vss dem dise gedechtnus vnd verkhundigung entspringe. Des wur aber nur das geystlich essen sein, welchs durch waren glauben geschicht…” The shorter, final version affirms that Christ “in disem sacrament seinen waren leyb vnnd wares plut warlich zuessen vnnd trincken gipt, zur speyss irer seelen vnnd ewigen ieben,…” (Ibid., p. 125 lines 1–4). In Hans Ehinger's opinion (Dobel, F., ed., Memingen, 4, p. 38Google Scholar), “so lendt sich disse bekantnus jns sonderhaitt des sacraments halben vast auff die Zwinglische maynung.” It is impossible to tell which version of Art. 18 Ehinger had seen, but a comparison of the two versions shows that the final one is far less explicitly “sacramentarian” in language than the earlier version.

39. CR, 2, pp. 221–225, Nos. 797–798.Google Scholar

40. Sturm to the Senate, July 12, 1530 (PCSS, 1, pp.469–471, No. 758)Google Scholar; Hans Ehinger to Memmingen, July 14, 1530 (Dobel, F., Memmingen, 4, pp. 40–41)Google Scholar. von Tetleben, Valentin named the signatories as “Strasburgh, Memmingen, Lindaw und Basel” (Protokoll des Augsburger Reichstages, ed. Grundmann, Herbert [“Schriftenreihe der Historischen Kommission bei der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften,” No. 7; Göttingen, 1958] p. 90)Google Scholar; while the Venetian envoy's reports do not even mention the Tetrapolitan Confession (see Die Depeschen des venezianischen Gesandten Nicolo Tiepolo über die Religionsfrage auf dem Augsburger Reichstage 1530, ed. Johannes von Walter [“Abhandlungen der Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen, philologisch—historische Klasse,” New Series, Vol. 23, Part 1]).Google Scholar

41. Hans Ehinger to Memmingen, October 26, 1530 (Dobel, F., Memmingen, 4, pp. 88–89)Google Scholar; Jacob Sturm to the Senate, October 31, 1530 (PCSS, 1, pp. 529–530, Appendix AGoogle Scholar). Sturm's verbal reply to the Confutation is in his report, but he does not mention himself as the speaker. That information comes from the Nurembergers' report to Nuremberg, October 27, 1530 (CR, 2, p. 423, No. 931).Google Scholar

42. See Köhler, Walter, “Zwinglis Glaubensbekenntnis,” Zwingliana, 5, No.4 (1930), pp. 242–261Google Scholar; Blanke, Fritz, “Zwinglis ‘Fidei ratio’ (1530), Entstehung und Bedeutung,” ARG, 57 (1966), pp. 96–101.Google Scholar

43. I first reached this conclusion in my dissertation, “Jacob Sturm of Strasbourg,” pp. 302–303. The same explanation is suggested by Hauswirth, René, Landgraf Philipp von Hessen und Zwingli, pp. 215–216Google Scholar: “Um späteren Kompromiss mit den ‘Augustanern’ möglichst offenzuhalten, musste man die Unabhängigkeit von Zwingli sicherstellen und nach aussen dokimentieren, am besten durch ihn selber.” In his review of Hauswirth's book, Rieser, Ewald complains (“Landgraf Philipp von Hessen und Zwingli. Zum Buche von René Hauswirth,” Zwingliana, 13, No. 2 [1969], p. 157)Google Scholar: “Ich vermisse an dieser Stelle Hauswirths Belege, um Sturm dieses Projekt unterschieben zu können.” It is true that the state of the evidence leaves this explanation partly hypothetical, but it is equally true that no other theory will account for the existing evidence, if that evidence is viewed from the points of view of Sturm and his government. The issue at stake is not that of Zwingli's reasons for composing the Fidei ratio but that of Sturm's reasons for asking him to do so. Given the undeniable fact that Sturm pursued Strasbourg's policy of conciliating the Lutherans, both before and after they rebuffed him at Augsburg, Sturm's request to Zwingli must be viewed as serving that policy. The only possible service that Zwingli could render is the one stated by Hauswirth.

44. Ulrich Zwingli to Jacob Sturm, February 27/28, 1530 (Z, 10, pp. 473–478, No. 986)Google Scholar; Werner Bygel to U. Zwingli, March 3, 1530 (Ibid., p. 505, No. 995); U. Zwingli to W. Bygel, March 12, 1530 (Ibid., p. 508, No. 997); U. Zwingli to Johannes Oecolampadius, March 12, 1530 (Ibid., p. 511, No.998). See Hauswirth, B., Landgraf Philipp von Hessen und Zwingli, pp. 184–193Google Scholar, on these projects. On Stun's contacts with Zwingli before the Marburg Colloquy, see Ibid., pp. 147–152.

45. Aktensammlung zur Geschichte der Basler Reformation in den Jahren 1519 bis Anfang 1534, ed. Emil Dürr & Paul Roth (6 vols.; Basel, 1921-1950), 4, pp. 370, 370–371, 375–377.Google Scholar

46. J. Oecolampadius to U. Zwingli, Basel, May 22 [1530] (Z, 10, p. 588, No. 1028Google Scholar). Conrad Joham, banker and silk merchant, was a member of the Thirteen and one of the richest men in Strasbourg. He probably belonged to the pro-Swiss faction in the government. See Ficker, Johannes and Winckelmann, Otto, Handsohriftproben des 16. Jahrhunderts nach Strassburger Oniginaien. 2 vols. (Straasburg, 1902, 1905), 1, No. 13Google Scholar; Brady, T. A. Jr, “Jacob Stun of Strasbourg,” pp. 65n1, 163–164, 164n1.Google Scholar

47. The date of Sturm's departure for Augsburg is given in M. Bucer to U. Zwingli, [Strasbourg], May 25, [1530] (Z, 10, p. 593, No. 1031Google Scholar). Since Sturm knew that his government was trying to quash the plan for a common statement devised at Basel, his suggestion to Zwingli on May 31 (see note 49 below) very probably stemmed from some plan of his own. Both Köler, W. (“Der Augsburger Reichstag von 1530 und die Schweiz,” p. 179Google Scholar) and Blanke, F. (“Zwinglis ‘Fidei ratio’,” p. 97Google Scholar) concluded that Sturm was merely following the original plan; and Blanke tried to soften that contradiction by alleging that Sturm's suggestion was “half-hearted.”

48. [Jacob Sturm] to [U. Zwingli], Augsburg, May, 1530 (Z, 10 pp. 599–604, No. 1035)Google Scholar. This and Sturm's subsequent letters are signed “psi” and addressed to “phi”. Identifications of the writer and addressee are confirmed in a letter from Zurich to Bern, June 25, 1530 (EA, 4, 1b, pp. 677–678)Google Scholar. Sturm explained the reasons for using code letters in his first letter to Zwingli (Z, 10, p. 603Google Scholar): “Si literas ad me daturus es, vide ut cautius et quam tectissime deinceps scribas; nam si has, quas misisti, aliquis intercepisset, inerant quedam de inscitia et atultitia quorundam, quae etiam non sine periculo meo, ad quam scribebatur, vulgari potuissent. Scis, quam teneras quidam aures habeant.”

49. Ibid., p. 604: “Si tu et tui interim [Apologeticos] parassetis ad caesarem et principes, in quibus quam piissime, citra cuiusquam, quantum fieri potest, suggillationem fidei vestre rationem redderetis, ita tamen, ut non ederentur, nisi consultum nobis, qui hic agimus, visum fuisset, non credo omnino operam et impensam perdituros vos.” Sturm was even more explicit in his letter to Zwingli on June 19 (Z, 10, p. 630Google Scholar): “Si quid in his consilii habes, rogo communices vel michi vel Catto [se. Landgrave Philip], quanquam si ad me miseris, facile Catto comune faciam.” Zwingli was probably meant to assume that the “Schwabach Articles” represented Luther's rejection of the agreements made at the Marburg Colloquy. Actually, the articles were more than a year old, and Sturm knew that they dated at least to November, 1529, if not earlier.

50. Jacob Sturm to the Senate, June 2, 1530 (PCSS, 1, p. 447, No. 728Google Scholar): “möchte vileicht nit unnutz sein, das etlich e. w. predicanten auch dabei weren, irer leer und glaubens halben rechnung und antwort zu geben.”

51. Z, 10, pp. 633–634, No. 1046Google Scholar: “Verum principes Saxonum et Cattus parant se ad reddendam fidei sue rationem. Itaque tu cogita, anne consultum videatur, ut et nostri fidei sue et de his, que hactenus novarunt, rationem reddant. Nam etsi non dubitem hos, qui a consiliis sunt caesari, non hue spectare, ut rem in melius restituant, quis tamen scit, an eas via velit deus eaesarem informare de his, que hactenus perperam a pontifice Romano et suis acta sunt. Itaque pro tua prudentia cogitabis, anne et per te et tuos a caesare petendum sit, ut et eorum, que hactenus gesta sunt a vobis, ratio audiatur, si forte dominus daret, ut, quod hostes nostri in salutem suam excogitarunt, in pernitiem verteretur.” Sturm's letters of June 19 and June 20 are in Ibid., pp. 625. 630, No. 1045; pp. 631–634, No. 1046.

52. Blanke, F., “Zwinglis ‘Fidei ratio’,” pp. 98–99Google Scholar. The Fidei ratio is printed in Z, 6, No. 163.

53. A good survey of reactions by Blanke, F., “Zwinglis ‘Fidel ratio’,” pp. 100–101Google Scholar. See Andreas Eck to Joaehim Vadian, Augsburg, July 16, 1530 (Vadianische Briefsammlung der Stadtbibliothek St. Gallen, eds. Emil Arbenz & Hermann Wartmann [7 parts; “Mitteilungen zur vaterändischen Geschiehte,” Vols. 24–25, 27–30a; St. Gallen, 1890–1913], 4, p. 217, No. 608Google Scholar): “Hab Zwinglii bekantnus glesen, die er dem kaiser zuschribt. Summe placet etc.” Hans Ehinger's sentiments are revealed in his reports to Memmingen, (Dobel, F., ed., Memmingen, 4, pp. 38, 39).Google Scholar John Brenz' opinion, dated July 12, 1530, is in CR, 2, p. 187, No. 777. See also P. Melanchthom to M. Luther, July 14, 1530 (Ibid., p. 193, No. 781); and M.Luther to Justus Jonas, July 21, 1530 WABr, 5, No. 1657).

54. Jacob Sturni to the Thirteen, October 8, 1530 (PCSS, 1, p. 482, No. 778Google Scholar): J. Sturm to the Thirteen, October 12, 1530 (Ibid., pp. 527–528, No. 828). See Bucer, , Deutsche Schriften, 3, pp. 189, 189n5.Google Scholar

55. See the texts quoted in note 50 above. Both the Lutheran and the Strasbourg confessions were signed and submitted by governments, not by individual theologians. Although Zwingli's confession was submitted to the emperor, it was not signed by his government, and there were no official Swiss envoys to the Diet. It is, therefore, highly improbable that Sturm simply wanted Zwingli's views to be heard by the emperor alongside those of the Lutheran and other Evangelical estates.

56. Jacob Sturm to the Thirteen, August 8, 1530 (PCSS, 1, p. 483, No. 778).Google Scholar

57. Mathis Pfarrer to Peter Butz, September 18, 1530 (Ibid., p. 498, No. 792).

58. The Thirteen of Strasbourg to Jacob Sturm and Mathis Pfarrer, August 17, 1530 (Ibid., pp. 486–487, No. 782): “das si nachmols, umb ein guetlich gesprech eisa christ- lichen verstands halb ze haben, bewilligen wolten … si dahin zu bewegen, das sie mit ein verstand, wie hievor davor gehandelt worden, annemen und sich deshaib von uns nit trennen lossen … dan ein er. rathe mit irn churf. gnoden des sacraments halben … kein span haben wolten.’

59. Ibid., p. 487: “die wir doch im haubthandel einhellig und dem lebendigen gotswort anhengig sin, also zertrennt werden,… ”

60. Jacob Sturm to the Thirteen, August 31, 1530 (Ibid., p. 492, No. 786). The articles are printed in CR, 2, p. 224, No. 798.Google Scholar

61. This opinion is attributed to Melanchthon in a Strasbourg source, which must be evaluated accordingly. See Specklin, Daniel, “Collectanea,” BSCMHA, 14, p. 346, No. 2316Google Scholar. Jonas', Justus view is in an opinion labelled “De missa privata” (CR, 2, p. 309, No. 59Google Scholar). The negotiations were begun at least by August 26 (see Ibid., pp. 315–316, No. 864, of that date).

62. On the Landgrave's mediation efforts, see Fabian, E., Die Entstehung des Schmalkaldischen Bundes (2nd ed.), pp. 106–108Google Scholar. On the beginnings of Luther's change in his attitude toward the emperor, see Baron, H., ‘Religion and Politics in the German Imperial Cities,” pp. 423–425, 423n2Google Scholar; Heckel, Johannes, Lex Charitatis. Eine juristische Untersuchung über das Recht in der Theologie Martin Luthers (“Abhandhingeu der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, philosophisch—historische Klasse,” New Series, No. 36; Göttingen, 1953), pp. 184–191Google Scholar. Sturm reported, on September 10, Luther's failure to respond to the articles sent to him from Augsburg (PCBB, 1, p.496, No. 789).Google Scholar

63. Jacob Sturm to the Thirteen, Augsburg, September 23, 1530 (Ibid., pp. 499–500, No. 794); Specklin, Daniel, “Colleetanea,” in BBCMHA, 14, p. 346, No. 2318Google Scholar; Ehinger, Hans, in Dobel, F., ed., Memmingen, 4, p. 64Google Scholar. On Brüek's change-of-heart, see Köhler, W., Zwingli und Luther, 2, pp. 235–236.Google Scholar

64. The extant evidence indicates that the Strasbourg preachers were sent on their missions during the autumn of 1530 and that they were to serve their government's policy (which may or may not have been their own). Sturm sent Capito to Switzerland at the end of August (PCSS, 1, p. 490, No. 785)Google Scholar; and he sent Bucer to Koburg on September 19 (Ibid., p. 499, No. 794): “Wir haben den Butzer … bemeltem Baumgartner [of Nuremberg] angehenkt….”

65. Jacob Sturm to the Thirteen, Augsburg, October 5, 1530 (Ibid., p. 504, No. 799); M. Pfarrer to Peter Butz, Augsburg, October 12, 1530 (Ibid., p. 512, No. 807).

66. The Senate of Strasbourg to Jacob Sturm and Mathis Pfarrer, October 9, 1530 (Ibid., p. 507, No. 802). The three extant accounts of these talks are the reports by Jacob Sturm to the Thirteen, October 15, 1530 (Ibid., pp. 517–518, No. 810), by Count Albrecht of Mansfeld to the Elector of Saxony, October 13, 1530 (in Förstemann, Karl Eduard, ed., Urkundenbuch zu der Geschichte des Reichstags von Augsburg im Jahre 1530. 2 vols. [Halle, 1833, 1835], 2, pp. 726–729, No. 250Google Scholar), and by Konrad Zwick to Constance (Constance, Stadtarchiv, “Reformations-Akten” 4, fols. 274r-276v; summary in EA, 4, 1b, pp. 813–816Google Scholar). Zwick was not a participant, and his report is based on information from Sturm. Zwick's remark that Mansfeld proposed the talks is contradicted by Sturm (PCSS, 1, 517). See Lenz, Max, “Zwingli und Landgraf Philipp,” ZEIG, 3, (1879), pp. 250–252Google Scholar, who used Zwick's report; and Winckelmaan, Otto, Der schmalkaldische Bund und der Nürnberger Religionsfriede (Straasburg, 1892), pp. 270–271Google Scholar, who used those of Zwick and Sturm.

67. Förstemann, K. E., ed., Urkundenbuch, 2, p. 727Google Scholar. Mansfeld's report covers only the session of October 12, while Sturm's covers only that of October 13. How little part Mathis Pfarrer took in these talks is shown by the fact that Mansfeld calls him “Ehr Jacob Pfaff” (Ibid., p. 726).

68. Ibid., p. 728.

69. PCSS, 1, pp. 517–518, No. 810. Zwick stresses Mansfeld's lack of powers to commit his lord to another meeting (Constance, Stadtarchiv, “Reformations-Akten” 4, fols.275r-275v): “Dann durch graff Albrechten von Mansfelden, wiewol durch sich selbs on bevelch der fursten, verschiner tagen mitt ettlicher bottschafft jetz zu Ougspurg allerlay ist geredt werden vff mainung, ob nit nochmals vff das zehandlen were, was zu Schmalkalden… nit mocht ain furgang haben.” Sturm, too, exceeded his instructions.

70. Ulm, Stadtarchiv, “Reichsstadt Ulm” 1201, foi 39; an extract in PCSS, 1, pp. 535–536, No. 830Google Scholar. The military agreement by Sturm (Ibid., p. 518) and by Zwick (Constance, Stadtarchiv, “Reformations-Akten” 4, fols. 276r-276v).

71. The campaign against the Evangelical governments that began after the Diet of Augsburg was a series of legal suits aimed at forcing those governments to restore confiscated ecclesiastical properties to their former owners. See Schelp, Robert, Die Reformationsprozesse der Stadt Strassburg am Reichskammergeicht zur Zeit des Schmlkaldischen Bundes (1524)/1531–1541/ (1555) (Kaiserslautern, 1965), pp. 58–62Google Scholar; Buck, Herman, Die Anfänge der Konstanzer Reformationsprozesse. Oesterreich, Eidgenossenschaft und Schmalkaldischer Bund 1510/22–1531 (SKRG, Nos. 29–31; Tübingen, 1964), p. 511.Google Scholar

72. “Erstlich wer es alles gelegen an dem, ob man ain rechte lieve anainander hab; dann, wann man sich schon zuainander verbunden, und dieselb lieb söllt nit vorhanden sein, so were es vergebens und möcht sich ainer zur nott wol von ainer klainfuegen ursachen ausser der halfter ziehen; deshalb vor allen dingen gutt were, dieselb zuerst zu erlernen; ….” Fabian, Ekkehart, ed., Die Beschlüsse der oberdeutschen Schmalkaldischen Städtetage, Part I: 1530/1531 (SKRG, No. 9; Tübingen, 1959), p. 57Google Scholar. The document is in the hand of a secretary of Ulm. In translating, I have transposed it from the third into the first person.

73. Ibid.: “soll man aber anderwaid tag besuchen, und der churfurst und ander söllen auf irer mainung verharren und zu niemant verpunden wöllen, dan die eben das, so si glauben, so werd es aber zu nichte; dann er kundt nicht achten, das ine sein oder ander herren masz dess glaubens geben lassen werden;….”

74. PCSS, 2, p. 16, No. 19Google Scholar: “haben wir doch nit unterlassen wollen, euch als dem, der uns nun fur andern bekant ist, die ding auch zu furdern weis undvon den gnaden des almechtigen vor andern verstehet, zu schreiben, ganz gnediglich begerend, ir wollet mugelichen vleis dapei haben, domit es auch der prediger halb bei euch zwuschen uns allen vorberurts artikels halben gleichmesig gehalten muge werden.”