A. D. 1541.

Recess of

the diet of

respect to these, the emperor found all his endeavours ineffectual.-Being impatient, however, to close the diet, he at last prevailed on a majority of the members to approve Ratisbon. 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.

2 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 pro-
posed. He at this time, after a fuller exami-
nation, 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 senti-
ments; 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. iii. 353 (5). 364 (4). I give

2 Sleid. 282.

4 Seck. iii. 350.

what I take to be

clearly his intention in the latter passage: "Nil nisi dolos, et angelicæ lucis simulationes et fucos."

A. D.

1541.

CHAP.

V.

Article

cation.

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." -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. Robert

son.2

66

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

A. D.

1541.

Some correspondence followed the passing of this article, which strikingly shews the jealous care with which the true doctrine on Corresponthis fundamental point was then guarded, and dence which may furnish suggestions by no means superfluous in our own times.

The elector sharply censured the conduct of the of Melancthon in deviating from the language Elector,

Du Pin, submitted to him for a specimen, the most favour-
able one, I think, that could be given of "the book."-
"The fifth article, about justification, establishes these three
principles beforehand; I. That it is certain that since the
fall of Adam all men are born enemies of God, and children
of wrath by sin: 2. That they cannot be reconciled to God,
nor redeemed from the bondage of sin, but by Jesus Christ
our only mediator: 3. That persons of riper years cannot
obtain these graces, unless they be prevented [first visited]
by the motions of the Holy Spirit, which [prevenient grace]
inclines their mind and will to detest sin: that, after this
first motion, their mind is raised up to God, by the faith
which [the] man hath in the promises made to him that his
sins are freely forgiven him, and that God will adopt those
for his children who believe in Jesus Christ.-From these
principles it follows, that sinners are justified by a living and
effectual faith, which is a motion of the Holy Spirit, whereby,
repenting of their lives past, they are raised to God, and
made real partakers of the mercy which Jesus Christ hath
promised, being satisfied that their sins are forgiven, and
that they are reconciled by the merits of Jesus Christ; which
no man attains but at the same time love is shed abroad in
his heart, and he begins to fulfil the law. So that justifying
faith worketh by love, though it justifies not but as it leads
us to mercy and righteousness, which (righteousness) is IM-
PUTED to us through Jesus Christ and his merits, and not by
any perfection of righteousness which is inherent in us as
communicated to us by Jesus Christ. So that we are not
just, or accepted by God, on account of our own works or
righteousness, but we are REPUTED just on account of the
merits of Jesus Christ only. Yet this is not to hinder us
from exhorting the people to increase this faith and this
charity by outward and inward works: so that, though the
people be taught that faith alone justifieth, yet repentance,
the fear of God and of his judgments, the practice of good
works, &c. ought to be preached to them."