Finally, Kolde designates the words in the title "composed, _conscriptus,_ by the scholars" as false in every respect. Likewise Tschackert. (303.) The criticism is justified inasmuch as the expression "composed, _zusammengezogen, conscriptus,_ by the scholars" cannot very well be harmonized with the fact that Melanchthon wrote the Tract. But even this superscription is inappropriate, at least not in the degree assumed by Kolde and Tschackert. For the fact is that the princes and estates did not order Melanchthon, but the theologians, to write the treatise concerning the Papacy, and that the Tract was presented in their name. Koellner writes: "It is certainly a splendid testimony for the noble sentiments of those heroes of the faith that the Elector should know of, and partly disapprove, Melanchthon's milder views, and still entrust him with the composition of this very important document [the Tract], and, on the other hand, equally so, that Melanchthon so splendidly fulfilled the consideration which he owed to the views and the interests of the party without infringing upon his own conviction." "Seckendorf also," Koellner adds "justly admires this unusual phenomenon." (471.) However, Koellner offers no evidence for the supposition that the Elector charged Melanchthon in particular with the composition of the Tract. According to the report of the Strassburg delegates, the princes declared that "the scholars" should peruse the Confession and enlarge on the Papacy. The report continues: "The scholars received orders ... to enlarge somewhat on the Papacy which _they_ did, and thereupon transmitted _their_ criticism to the Elector and the princes." (Kolde, _Anal.,_ 297.) This is corroborated by Melanchthon himself, who wrote to Camerarius, March 1, 1537: "We received orders (_iussi sumus_) to write something on the Primacy of Peter or the Roman Pontiff." (_C. R._ 3, 292.) February 17 Osiander reported: "The first business imposed on _us_ by the princes was ... diligently to explain the Primacy which was omitted from the Confession because it was regarded as odious. The latter of these duties _we_ have to-day completed, so that _we_ shall immediately deliver a copy to the princes." (3, 267.) These statements might even warrant the conclusion that the theologians also participated, more or less in the drawing up of the Tract, for which however, further evidence is wanting. Nor does it appear how this view could be harmonized with Veit Dietrich's assertion in his letter to Foerster, May 16: "Orders were given to write about the power of the Pope the primacy of Peter, and the ecclesiastical jurisdiction. Philip alone performed this very well." (3, 370.) However, entirely apart from the statement of Osiander, the mere fact that the theologians were ordered to prepare the document, and that it was delivered by and in the name of these theologians, sufficiently warrants us to speak of the document as "The Tract of the Scholars at Smalcald"