V. CHAP. danger because it was in some degree disguised. The rigid protestants, especially Luther himself, and his patron the elector of Saxony, were for rejecting it as an impious compound of error and truth, craftily prepared that it might impose on the weak, the timid, and the unthinking."-It is true, as our author observes, that "the divines, to whom the examination of the book was committed, entered upon that business with greater deliberation and temper. As it was more easy in itself, as well as more consistent with the dignity of the church to make concessions, and even alterations, with regard to speculative opinions, the discussion whereof is confined chiefly to the schools, and which present nothing to the people that strikes their imagination or affects their senses, they came to accommodation about these without much labour, and even defined the great article concerning justification to their mutual satisfaction. But, when they proceeded to points of jurisdiction, where the interest and authority of the Roman see were concerned, or to the rites and forms of external worship, where every change that could be made must be public, and draw the observation of the people, there the catholics were altogether untractable; nor could the church either with safety or with honour abolish its ancient institutions. All the articles relative to the power of the pope, the authority of councils, the administration of the sacraments, the worship of saints, and many other particulars, did not, in their nature, admit of any temperament; so that, after labouring long to bring about an accommodation with 1 This too common appellation, so improper as applied to Christian doctrines, may be allowed to pass in this connexion and as illustrated by the contrast in which it stands. A. D. 1541. respect to these, the emperor found all his endeavours ineffectual.-Being impatient, however, to close the diet, he at last prevailed Recess of on a majority of the members to approve the diet of of the following recess: That the articles, July 28. concerning which the divines had agreed in the conference, should be observed inviolably by all; that the other articles, about which they had differed, should be referred to the determination of a general council, or, if that could not be obtained, to a national synod of Germany; and, if it should prove impracticable likewise to assemble a synod, that a general diet of the empire should be called within eighteen months, in order to give some final judgment upon the whole controversy; that the emperor should use all his interest and authority with the pope, to procure the meeting either of a general council or a synod; that in the mean time no innovations should be attempted, no endeavours should be employed to gain proselytes, and neither the revenues of the church nor the rights of monasteries should be invaded. "All the proceedings of this diet, as well as the The Pope recess in which they terminated, gave great disgusted. offence to the pope. The power, which the Germans had assumed, of appointing their own divines to examine and determine matters of controversy, he considered as a very dangerous invasion of his rights; the renewing of their ancient proposal concerning a national synod, which had been so often rejected by him and his predecessors, appeared extremely undutiful; but the bare mention of allowing a diet, composed chiefly of laymen,' to pass judgment with re 1 I apprehend it is not correct that the majority were laymen. I find frequent complaints of the princes being outvoted CHAP. V. Further remarks on the book. spect to articles of faith, was deemed no less criminal and profane than the worst of those heresies which they seemed zealous to suppress. On the other hand, the protestants were no less dissatisfied with a recess, which considerably abridged the liberty that they enjoyed at that time. As they murmured loudly against it, Charles, unwilling to leave any seeds of discontent in the empire, granted them a private declaration, in the most ample terms, exempting them from whatever they thought oppressive or injurious in the recess, and ascertaining to them the full possession of all the privileges which they had ever enjoyed."2 Several particulars may be added, and some corrections perhaps made in this account. First, we may offer some remarks on the book which occupied so much attention in the conferences at Ratisbon. Whether Gropper, under whose name it commonly passes, was the author of it, is left in uncertainty. The emperor represented it as the work of "certain learned men." Eckius suspected it to have been composed by Vicelius, an apostate from Lutheranism, who from a friend became a bitter enemy to the Saxon reformer; 3 and it does appear that it was the same performance which had before this time been shewn to Luther by the elector of Brandenburg, who entertained a better opinion of Vicelius than others did, and kept up a communication with by the ecclesiastical members of the diet: and Sleidan (p. 279.) says expressly, "The senate of princes consists for the most part of bishops." 1 At a time when he had danger to apprehend both from the Turk and from the king of France, • Robertson iii. 212–215.—Sleid. 283. Seck. iii. 366. 3 Seck. i. 231. iii. 65. He published a book intitled, A Refutation of Lutheranism. Mel. Ep. vi. p. 386. him. This, however, did not render it the more acceptable to Eckius, who hated Vicelius; and he said of it, that "the use and custom of the fathers were therein slighted, and the phrase and cant of Melancthon were to be found in it all over."2 Maimbourg affirms that it had passed under the eye of Bucer, who had "with subtilty infused the poison of his heresy into it." This, he adds, "was detected by cardinal Contarini," the pope's legate at Ratisbon," and that he corrected it in twenty articles."3 The former of these assertions, however, seems to be uncertain, and the latter untrue. The re mark which Luther made upon the book, after a cursory inspection, when it was shewn to him at Berlin by the elector of Brandenburg, was that it would lead only to such a reformation as duke George and the bishop of Misnia proposed. He at this time, after a fuller examination, as it may be presumed, pronounced a severer judgment; that it was "full of artifice and deceit," nay of the machinations of "Satan transformed into an angel of light to deceive."6 Melancthon in different parts of his writings makes remarks upon it, little to its advantage. "In many instances," he says, "its language may be interpreted in favour of opposite sentiments; it excuses and varnishes over received abuses." "The author has cast a shade over our sentiments, to their prejudice and injury, and advantageously exhibited whatever he thought tolerable on the other side." "Never 1 Seck. i. 350 (5). 364 (4). 3 In Seck. iii. 348. 5 Ibid. See above, p. 248, 253. 6 Seck, iji. 353 (5). 364 (4). I give 2 Sleid. 282. what I take to be clearly his intention in the latter passage: "Nil, nisi dolos, et angelicæ lucis simulationes et fucos.' A. D. 1541. .V. CHAP. Will I admit those articles of the book which we have censured, for they are full of error and deceit. They can only excite new and vehement contentions.... Even in what we have allowed to pass, there are many obscurities, and some things almost insulting towards us."i -Thus far Melancthon. A pretty copious abstract of its several articles, I presume as corrected by the collocutors in the conference, is furnished by Du Pin; from which I certainly should not have concluded that it deserved the praise of clearness, simplicity, and other like qualities, commended in it by Dr. Robertson.2 Article cation. It will no doubt have surprised the reader to on Justifi- be told, that the collocutors had succeeded in defining the great article concerning justification to their mutual satisfaction." Indeed that statement is too strong. Melancthon himself was not satisfied; and still less were Luther and the elector of Saxony. An article, however, was agreed upon and passed in the conference, subject (as all others were to be,) to the approbation of the diet; and certainly it affords evidence of what Melancthon had formerly asserted, concerning the success of the reformers' arguments, and the ground which had been gained upon this important topic.3 Though any thing rather than "simple," it yet makes very important concessions, and involves the substance of the true doctrine.4 1 Pezelii Consil. Melancth. i. 447, 457, 458, 462. See Du Pin, vi. 162-166. Compare Seck. iii. 350, 357-359. 3" The times have much softened down the controversy respecting justification: for the learned are now agreed on many points concerning which there were at first fierce contests." Ad Gallos, de moderand. Controv. Mel. Consil. i, 228. The reader shall have this whole article, as reported by |