CHAPTER I. THE DIET AND CONFESSION OF AUGSBURG. A. D. 1530. Milner's In closing the last portion of the "History of the Church of Christ" which has been given to the public, the learned and very reverend author observes, "In the next volume the Close of reader will find a more particular description of History. the contents" of the Confession of Augsburg, "together with a brief detail of the proceedings of the diet, and also of the consequences of the infamous decree of that assembly in November, 1530." This sentence points out to any one, who might attempt to continue the work, the subject with which he would have to commence. -"The diet of Augsburg," the same writer further remarks, "forms a sort of era in the history of the reformation." On this, and on every ground, the proceedings of that period will claim to be somewhat minutely detailed. The blessed reformation had now been thir- Previous the refor teen years in progress. progress. Its origin, its preser- history of vation, its advancement, had all been alike mation. beyond human expectation. It had seemed throughout to maintain a precarious existence, dependent on the will of its adversaries. And scarcely ever before had those adversaries shewn themselves deficient either in vigour or sagacity: but, in their treatment of the reformation in its earliest stages, a remarkable want ' Milner, v. 561. (1164.) 1 B CHAP. I. Proposed general council. of those qualities had been manifested. Their disunion among themselves, and the distractions arising to the emperor Charles V, from the rivalry existing between him and Francis I, king of France, and to the popes from their jealousy of both these potentates, as well as from their regard to private family interests; together with the alarms excited by the threatening advances of the Turks: these, sometimes conjointly and sometimes separately, proved the means of sheltering the reformation, till it gradually acquired that root and establishment which no human power could subvert.1. But, in fact, it was the work of God; and the greatest and best of his works for the children of men in these latter ages; and he would not suffer" the gates of hell to prevail against it." He caused all these agents and events, and whatever others may be pointed out as having contributed to the grand result, to fulfil his purposes. The friends and promoters of the great cause were made to feel constantly their dependence upon him; but the requisite help was never withheld in the time of need.2 Amidst the divisions and disorders (as they were esteemed,) to which the proceedings of Luther and his coadjutors, in exposing the errors and corruptions of the church of Rome, had given occasion, the great remedy to which the hopes of all those who wished to combine some reformation of abuses, with the preserva 1 Milner, v. 546. (1148.) Even Robertson, who is thought to have treated the subject with great coldness for a Christian divine, affirms, that the history of the reformation is such as to afford "no slight proof, that the same hand which planted the Christian religion protected the reformed faith, and reared it, from beginnings extremely feeble, to an amazing degree of strength and maturity." Charles V. ii. 105. tion of the sort of order which had previously subsisted in the Christian world, were directed, was the convocation of a general council. Much as such assemblies had hitherto disappointed the expectations entertained from them, the repetition of the experiment was the only resource which suggested itself. The reformers, whether they looked for any very satisfactory result from the deliberations of a council, or not, yet acted prudently in appealing to one: the princes and people, in general, felt the necessity of something being done, which only such an assembly seemed properly authorized to do the court of Rome alone stood cordially opposed to the measure; and they could not with decency openly reject the numerous and repeated applications made, from the most respectable, and even from the very highest quarters, for the calling of a council, under such circumstances as might induce all to refer the points in dispute to its decision. A. D. 1530. VII. and Clement VII, however, who now filled the Clement papal chair, viewed the convocation of a council Charles V. with a degree of aversion and dread surpassing that usually manifested by those who had occupied his situation. The proceedings of the councils of Pisa and Constance, which had deposed the popes Benedict XIII, Gregory XII, and John XXIII, excited his fears; and the circumstances of his own birth and elevation (neither of which was free from reproach,) confirmed his terrors.1 The emperor had now been spending several months with him in the same palace at Bologna; where he had received the imperial crown from 1 Mosheim, iii. 361. Robertson ii. 276. Compare Seckendorf, iii. 519 (12), where a prevalent report is mentioned of his having never been baptized! CHAP. 1. Preceding Diets. his hands. He had, in consequence, been fully instructed in the views of his Holiness, and at his coronation had sworn "to be, with all his powers and resources, the perpetual defender of the pontifical dignity, and of the church of Rome" though we must conclude, that he neither felt himself inclined, if he had been able, nor able, if he had been inclined, to carry matters with that high hand against the adherents of the reformation, which the pope would have wished. 2 As, however, a council was so much dreaded by Clement, that he would offer none, but upon terms which he knew would be rejected by the protestants, the effect of a diet of the empire was once more to be tried and this was accordingly summoned to meet at Augsburg on the eighth day of April, in the year 1530. This celebrated diet was the sixth, before which the subject of the religious differences in Germany had been brought. The first was that of Worms in 1521, which proscribed Luther as an excommunicated heretic; forbad all persons to harbour him, under the penalties of high treason; and declared all his adherents obnoxious to the same punishments with himself.3 -The second, that of Nuremberg in 1522-3 : at which the pope (Adrian VI,) acknowledged the need of reformation, and the German princes presented their list of a "hundred grievances" which the empire suffered from the court of Rome. The decree of this diet virtually abrogated the edict of Worms.-The third, again held at Nuremberg, 1523-4, when Clement 1 Sleidan, 126. Seck. ii. 151. 2 Milner, v. 559. (1162.) Sleid. 130. 4 Ibid. v. 101-116. (675-691.) VII had succeeded to the papal chair. The members resolved to observe the edict of Worms" as far as they could."-The fourth, convoked at Augsburg, 1525, and afterwards adjourned to Spire, 1526. Here a general council was demanded, and all left at liberty till it should be held. The fifth, that of Spire, in 1529, after peace had been concluded between the emperor and the pope. Here the indulgence granted at the preceding diet was rescinded: which produced the protest, whence the protestants derived their name, and led to a league among them for mutual defence.3 A. D. 1530. The diet of Augsburg, though originally Diet of summoned for the eighth of April, had been Augsburg. postponed to the first of May. The emperor, however, did not arrive till the fifteenth of June; and till his arrival the diet was not opened. The elector of Saxony was the first of the German princes who reached Augsburg. He came on the second of May. It had been the subject of some deliberation, whether he and the other princes of his party should trust themselves at Augsburg; and even Pontanus, his ex-chancellor, whom we shall see acting a conspicuous part in these affairs, dissuaded it. 4 On the other hand, Maimbourg the Jesuit pretends that the protestants, anticipating the hostile intentions of the emperor, entertained thoughts of intercepting him in the passes of the Alps: and the emperor, on being informed of the elector's early arrival, is said to have suspected 1 Milner, 160-168. (739-748.) 2 Ibid. 428-433, 442-448. (1023-1028, 1038-1044.) -Dr. Milner treats this as two distinct diets: but it is not generally so considered. 3 Ibid. 552, 556, 558. (1155, 1159, 1160.) * Seck. ii. 152, 153. |