alone: he cannot be apprehended by works. But, if faith, before works follow, apprehends (lays hold on) the Redeemer, it is undoubtedly true, that faith alone, before works, and without works, appropriates [or applies to the believer] the benefit of redemption, which is no other than our justification, or deliverance from [the condemnation of] sin. Good works then follow after, as the fruit.2-This is our doctrine: so the Holy Spirit teaches, and the whole Christian church. In this, by the grace of God, will we stand fast. Amen." 3 Thus Luther, in his appropriate way, did his part to fortify the minds of the people, and to support the great cause of the reformation. The princes and states also did the same in their way. They held various meetings, and formed leagues for mutual defence. A. D. 1531. The landgrave, more impetuous than the League of rest, and less averse to the doctrine of the Swiss Smalkald. reformers respecting the sacrament, as early as the month of November, 1530, entered into alliance with Zurich, Basle, and Strasburg.5 The next month, and also in March following, he and the other protestant leaders met at Smalkald, in Upper Saxony, and laid the foundation of the famous league which took its name from that place. Seven princes and twenty-four cities entered into the league." The cities in general wished the Swiss to be admitted as parties to it, but the elector of Saxony, the marquis of Brandenburg, and others, would not agree to this, on account of 1 "Faith is the only hand which putteth on Christ unto justification." Hooker. 2 Church Art. xii. 3 Melch. Ad. in vit. Luth. i. 69. Seck. iii. 7. * Seck. ii. 153, 154. 6 Ibid. 142, 145, 147. Seck. iii. 2. 5 Sleid. 141. 7 Sleid. 160. CHAP. the difference subsisting between themselves and the reformed Swiss on the subject of the sacrament;-a determination in which they were unhappily confirmed by Luther. Their objections might be partly from policy; on account of the greater degree of odium which attached to Zuinglius's doctrine on this subject. They were no doubt, however, chiefly the result of a conscientious principle,2 which demands our respect, though we must consider it as in this point mistaken.-On this subject Luther, at an earlier period, previously to the opening of the diet of Augsburg, made a remarkable address, in a letter to the landgrave. "O God," he says, "it is no jest to teach new dogmas! In such causes as this we must broach no uncertain opinions. Clear and decisive proofs from scripture are necessary, such as have never yet been produced. Certainly I have endured great alarms, and vast danger, for the sake of my doctrine: I would not willingly have encountered them, or be now exposed to them for nothing. I am by no means, therefore, moved to opposition by pride or prejudice. I would have received the doctrine of the Zuinglians, (God is my witness!) if they could have shewn sufficient authority for it: but my conscience cannot acquiesce in the grounds on which they rest. I trust, also, that Christ has effected by me (though but an earthen vessel,) what may prevent their despising me, as if I had accomplished nothing in comparison with themselves.-I commend your highness to God; who sees that I act with an upright and faithful mind. May He, the father of all afflicted souls, grant us all his grace, and illuminate us with the knowledge of his truth." 3 1 Above, p. 86, note (3). 2 Sleid. 151. Seck. iii. 2 (b), 15 (6). ' Seck. ii. 154. Compare Milner, v. 201. (782.) The rejection of the Swiss alliance seems, in many points of view, to be just subject of regret it was the "discordia fratrum". discord among brethren: but, as far as it only detracted from the strength of the confederation, we may concur in the pious sentiment of Melancthon. He regards the hand of divine providence in it, and fears, that, if all had been united, confidence in their own strength might have led them to proceed with a precipitation and impetuosity unbecoming a religious reformation.1 for The confederates further addressed letters to the kings of England, France, and Denmark. To the last of these they proposed a concurrence in their league: of the two former they chiefly asked, that they would use their influence to obtain a free general council; and also that they would not listen to the calumnies which were spread concerning the protestants even an imperial envoy, it appears, had represented them, not merely as moved only by a rapacious desire of possessing themselves of the property of the church, but as denying the authority of magistrates and rulers, setting the marriage institution at naught, and asserting a community of goods and of wives! 2 Friendly answers were received from these monarchs; 3 and the king of France, in particular, would doubtless have been glad to secure allies within the empire. No specific assistance, however, was at this period derived from these foreign powers, except a small supply in money from the king of England.4 1 Seck. iii. 15. Seck. iii. 3, 14, 15, 145 (5). Sleid. 145-147. Sleid. 149-151. Seck. iii. 13, 14. + Robertson, iii. 56.-50,000 crowns. Herbert, 154. Some A. D. 1531. CHAP. II. On the law fulness of Emperor. In addition to the object of mutual defence, it appears to have been proposed by the contracting parties at Smalkald, that learned men, divines and lawyers, should be deputed by them, to draw up a scheme of rites and government to be observed in all the reformed churches, that they might not be exposed to the reproach of "doing every man what was right in his own eyes." The task, however, was found to be one of great delicacy, and attended with so many difficulties that the design was abandoned.' The question here presents itself, how far it resisting the Was lawful for the protestant prinees and states to defend themselves, by force of arms, against their superior lord, the emperor, and the decrees of the diet. Various passages of Luther, upon this subject, have been quoted by Dr. Milner, at an earlier period of the history. Thus the reformer says to the elector Frederic, "Think not of opposing the emperor by force: permit him to do what he pleases with the lives and things stated in a note on Mosheim iii. 359 belong to a later period. See below, p. 185. 1 Seck. iii. 2, 15. Compare Milner, v. 76–78. (648— 651.) This acknowledgment would be highly gratifying to a writer of the tone and temper of Bossuet, bishop of Meaux. In the fourth book of his celebrated " Histoire des Variations," he has collected proofs of the defective order and discipline of the protestant churches. But even the disorders incident to liberty are preferable to the constrained uniformity produced by absolute despotism: and, much as the Christian mind will find to lament in the collections of this acute enemy of the reformation, it will still feel itself, when taking even the most unfavourable view of the Saxon churches of the sixteenth century, in the midst of a scene much more resembling that presented by the apostolic epistles, than in taking any view, at all approaching to fairness, of the Romish church of the same period. Let the confessions and lamentations of the reformers, which Bossuet has brought together, be qualified by such passages as that of Luther, addressed to the elector of Saxony, in the preceding chapter. Above, p. 65. liberties of your subjects." On the question proposed by the elector, "Whether, in case his subjects should suffer violence on account of their religion, either from the emperor or from any of the German princes, it was lawful for him to protect them by arms" Luther, Melancthon, and Bugenhagius, “ decided at once that it was not ;" and they assigned reasons, which, however, are either temporary or not very satisfactory.2 Also, in an opinion quoted by Seckendorf, Luther insists, that, "even if the emperor should proceed by force, contrary to his capitulation," (that is, to the engagements into which he had entered on his admission to the imperial dignity,) "and thus violate the liberty promised to the princes, they yet ought not to resist him by force of arms, unless he were first by unanimous consent deposed from the imperial throne 3-by virtue of a power which, it appears, was claimed, and had repeatedly been exercised by the electors. These passages, however, do not appear to exhibit Luther's latest and most matured judgment on the question. As time advances, he somewhat relaxes, or becomes more enlightened upon it. He thinks the elector might resist any of the other princes; and, even in case the authority of the emperor were alleged, in his absence, they need not readily admit that it was alleged truly. Nay, in one place he even says, generally, If force be used," they will then have a right to repel force by force."5 On some of the passages thus cited, Secken Milner, v. 52. (623.) Milner, v. 126. (702.) • See Robertson's Charles V, i. 462. 3 Seck. ii. 151. 5 Milner, v. 454-456. (1050-1052.) See also 492--494, 557. (1091-1095, 1160.) A. D. 1531. |