Page images
PDF
EPUB

A. D. 1540.

objects of high offence to the court of Rome, which regarded the proposal of them as little short of an act of treason and rebellion against the church; and accordingly stigmatized Vesalius archbishop of Lund, the emperor's ambassador at the diet of Francfort, who had proposed the conference, as a traitor that had sold himself to the Lutherans. The archbishop, who appears to have been a well-intentioned man, inclined to moderate and pacific counsels, 2 treated these charges with the contempt they deserved:3 but the opposition of the pope and his devoted adherents had the effect of long delaying and greatly interrupting the execution of the proposed measure. A meeting was to have been held at Nuremberg in August 1539, preparatory to such conference: and the protestants early appointed a goodly list of persons, venerable in the annals of reformation, to attend this meeting. It did not, however, take place; nor does any thing appear to have been done till June, 1540. Then, in the words of Dr. Robertson," in a diet held at Haguenau, 5 at matters were ripened for the conference. another diet assembled at Worms," in De- Worms, cember following," the conference was begun, Melanethon on the one side, and Eccius on the other, sustaining the principal part in the dispute; but, after they had made some progress,

7

In

1 In Sweden. He was a native of Germany, and had been deprived and banished, when Christiern II, king of Denmark, was expelled from Sweden, and eventually from Denmark also. He was afterwards made bishop of Constance. Sleid. 248.

Seck. iii. 299 (c). 3 Ib. 203 (12), 206. + Ib. 203, 205. 5 Sleid. 267, 268. Seck. iii. 258, 270.

• Sleid. 270, 271. Seck. iii. 294–299.

7 Calvin was one of those who attended on this occasion. -It is a curious circumstance, that, in this conference, the

Haguenau,

V.

and Ratisbon.

CHAP. though without concluding any thing, it was suspended by the emperor's command, that it might be renewed with greater solemnity in his own presence, in a diet summoned to meet at Ratisbon. This assembly was opened with great pomp," April 5th, 1541,1 "and with a general expectation that its proceedings would be vigorous and decisive. By the consent of both parties, the emperor was entrusted with the power of nominating the persons who should manage the conference, which it was agreed should be conducted not in the form of a public disputation, but as a friendly scrutiny or examination into the articles which had given rise to the present controversies. He appointed Eccius, Gropper, and Pflug, on the part of the catholics; Melancthon, Bucer, and Pistorius, 2 on that of the protestants; all men of distinguished reputation among their own adherents, and, except Eccius, all eminent for moderation, as well as desirous of "3 peace.

So far we may adopt the statement of this

catholic deputies, finding that those of the elector palatine,
the elector of Brandenburg, and the duke of Juliers, whom
they had reckoned to be on their side, were likely to vote
against them, and thus to leave them in the minority, of their
own accord adopted the principle for which the protestants
had ever contended; namely, that questions of truth and
duty could not be decided by a majority of votes, so as to
bind those who conscientiously differed from the decision:
and they accordingly induced Granvelle and his associates,
who presided as the ministers and representatives of the em-
peror and king Ferdinand, to lay it down, that each party
should vote, not individually but collectively, thus reducing
the whole number of votes to two-one catholic and one
protestant; a mode of proceeding, which though it must
almost necessarily lead to no conclusion, would save the
catholics from being outvoted. Seck. iii. 295, 296. Melanc-
thon published an account of this dispute. Opera, iv, 644 &c.
1 Sleid. 275, 276, 278–283. Seck. iii. 349–369.
2 Pastor of Nidda.

3 Robertson, iii. 210.

A. D. 1541.

the em

peror.

accomplished historian, as conveying a correct abstract of the proceedings on this occasion: in what follows, where opinion is equally involved with matter of fact, we must regard his representations with caution, or even with distrust. "As they were about to begin their consultations," he states, "the emperor put into their Book subhands a book, composed, as he said, by a learned mitted by divine in the Low-Countries, with such extraordinary perspicuity and temper, as, in his opinion, might go far to unite and comprehend the two contending parties. Gropper, a canon of Cologne, whom he had named among the managers of the conference, a man of address as well as of erudition, was afterwards suspected to be the author of this short treatise. It contained positions with regard to twenty-two of the chief articles in theology, which included most of the questions then agitated in the controversy between the Lutherans and the church of Rome. By ranging his sentiments in a natural order, and expressing them with great simplicity; by employing often the very words of scripture, or of the primitive fathers; by softening the rigour of some opinions, and explaining away what was absurd in others; by concessions, sometimes on one side, and sometimes on the other; and especially by banishing as much as possible scholastic phrases, those words and terms of art in controversy, which serve as badges of distinction to different sects, and for which theologians often contend more fiercely than for opinions themselves; he at last framed his work in such a manner, as promised fairer than any thing that had hitherto been attempted, to compose and to terminate religious dissensions."1

1 Robertson, iii. 211.

CHAP.
V.

Remarks on Dr.

Robertson.

It is manifest what is the character that Dr. Robertson here affects, which is that of the philosopher and the statesman, in preference, if not to the disparagement of that of the Christian divine. This is entirely to the taste of the times, and will be sure to secure him the praise of large and liberal views, among those who regard a high sense of the importance of revealed truth, and all" contending earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints," as the infallible mark of narrow mindedness and bigotry. Yet it would not be easy, perhaps, to give a better description, couched in the language of a friend to such measures, than that which Dr. R. has here supplied, of the plausible arts by which attempts have in all ages been made to fritter away the great truths of the gospel, sometimes one sometimes another, till none were left.' Listen even to the Unitarian : what does he aim at, but a natural order' -'great simplicity'-'the very words of scripture,' exclusively of all others, and indeed of many of them-to soften the rigour of some opinions'-to explain away absurdities'—to 'banish scholastic phrases,' and terms of art,' the badges of distinction to different sects, for which theologians often contend more fiercely than for opinions themselves'-and thus to compose and terminate religious dissensions? Let me not be misunderstood: far be it from me to insinuate that Dr. R. would designedly furnish a screen, under which Socinian errors should be covertly introduced: far be it from me also to deny, that there are truth and propriety in some of the suggestions which he would here convey: all error has some truth at

1 Jude 3. Compare John xvii. 17; xxiii. 37. Gal. ì. 6–9 ; ii. 5. 1 Tim. vi. 20, 21. 2 Tim. iv. 1-4. &c.

the bottom of it: but the whole passage is dangerous-from many writers I should style it insidious-and the more dangerous as proceeding from so high an authority, and being precisely adapted to the prejudices of the age in which we live.

The interests of divine truth have little to fear from open opposition, compared with what is to be apprehended from indifference, and frequently from plausible but enfeebled statements, which preserve perhaps the form or the semblance of sound doctrine, or what may be construed to imply it, but from which all the "vivida vis," the "igneus vigor "the force and spirit of truth have been evaporated.

A. D.

1541.

the book.

Gropper's book, we shall find reason to con- Character clude was of this kind: and it met with the and fate of fate which must ever attend all such attempts to unite what is irreconcilable 1-it pleased neither party-rather it much offended both. Dr. Robertson goes on to remark: "But the attention of the age was turned, with such acute observation, towards theological controversies, that it was not easy to impose on it by any gloss, how artful or specious soever. The length and eagerness of the dispute2 had separated the two parties so completely, and had set their minds at such variance, that they were not to be reconciled by partial concessions. All the zealous catholics, particularly the ecclesiastics who had a seat in the diet, joined in condemning Gropper's treatise as too favourable to the Lutheran opinion, the poison of which heresy

1 The reader may be referred to the observations made on Erasmus's treatise on religious Concord, at the beginning of the third chapter.

And surely something beyond its "length and eager

ness!"

« PreviousContinue »