Book VIII. From the year 1546 to the year 1561

A brief Summary. — The war begun between Charles V. and the Confederates of Smalcald. — Luther's Theses which had excited the Lutherans to take up arms. — A new subject of war on account of Herman, Archbishop of Cologne. — The prodigious ignorance of this Archbishop. — The Protestants defeated by Charles V. — The Elector of Saxony and the Landgrave of Hesse made prisoners. — The Interim, or the Emperor's book, which regulates matters of Religion provisionally for the Protestants alone, till the Council's meeting. — The disturbance caused in Prussia by Osiander, a Lutheran : his new doctrine concerning Justification.— Disputes among the Lutherans after the Interim. — Illyricus, Melancthon's Disciple, strives to undo him on account of indifferent ceremonies. — He renews the doctrine of Ubiquity. — The Emperor presses the Lutherans to appear at the Council of Trent. — The confession called Saxonic, and that of the Duchy of Wirtemberg, drawn up on this occasion. — The distinction between mortal and venial Sins. — The merit of Good Works acknowledged anew. — The Conference at Worms for reconciling Religions.— The Lutherans at variance among themselves, however unanimously agreeing that Good Works are not necessary to Salvation. — Melancthon's death under a dreadful perplexity. — The Zuinglians condemned by the Lutherans in a Synod held at Jena. — Assembly of the Lutherans at Faumburg in order to agree about the true edition of the Confession of Augsburg. — The uncertainty still as great as ever. — Ubiquity set up as far almost as Lutheranism extended. — New decision on the co-operation of Free will. — The Lutherans inconsistent with themselves, and, in order to answer Libertines as well as weak Christians, they fall into Demipelagianism. — An account of the Book of Concord compiled by the Lutherans, and containing all their decisions.

VIII.] THE VARIATIONS, ETC. 321

— Luther's Theses in order to stir up the People to take up Arms. — 1540, 1545.

Formidable was the Smalcaldic league which Luther had excited in a manner so furious, that the worst excesses were to be dreaded from it. Elated with the power of so many confederated Princes, he had published the Theses abovementioned. Never was anything seen more violent *. He had maintained them from the year 1540, but we learn from Sleidan that he published them anew in 1545, that is, a year before his death. There he compared the Pope to a mad wolf, " against whom the whole world takes up arms at the first signal, without waiting for commands from the magistrate. And if, after he has been shut up in an inclosure, the magistrate sets him at liberty, you may continue (said he) to pursue this savage beast, and with impunity attack those who prevented his destruction. If you fall in the engagement before the beast has received its mortal wound, you have but one thing only to repent of, that you did not bury your dagger in its breast. This is the way to deal with the Pope ; all those who defend him must also be treated like a band of robbers under their captain, be they kings, be they Cassars f." Sleidan, who relates a great part of these bloody Theses, durst not venture to repeat these last words, they appeared so horrible to him; but they were in Luther's Theses, and still are to be seen in the edition of his works J.

— Herman, Archbishop of Cologne, calls the Protestants into his Diocese. — His extreme Ignorance.

A fresh subject of feud happened at this time. Herman, Archbishop of Cologne, took it into his head to reform his diocese after the new fashion, and to that purpose had sent for Bucer and Melancthon. Of all Prelates, this was certainly the most illiterate; and a man ever resigned to the will of whosoever governed him. Whilst he gave ear to the sage counsel of the learned Gropper, he held very holy councils for the defence of the ancient faith, for the true reformation of manners. Afterwards, the Lutherans got possession of his mind, and made him fall blindly into all their sentiments. As the Landgrave was one day speaking to the Emperor about this new reformer §, " What will the poor man reform ? (answered he) scarce does he understand¹

Latin : lie never said Mass but thrice in all his life. I heard him twice ; he did not know so much as the beginning of it." The fact is certain ; and the Landgrave, who durst not say he knew a word of Latin, replied only, " he had read good books in the German tongue, and understood religion." Understanding it, in the Landgrave's notion, was favouring the party. As the Pope and the Emperor joined together against him, the " Protestant Princes promised him their assistance, in case he were attacked on the score of religion²."

— It is doubted among the Confederates whether Charles V. should be treated as Emperor. — The victory of Charles V. — The Book of Interim. — 1546.

They soon came to open force. The more the Emperor declared that he did not take up arms on account of religion, but in order to do himself justice on certain rebels that were headed by the Elector of Saxony and the Landgrave, the more these published in their manifestoes, that this war was not entered upon but by the secret instigation of the Roman Antichrist and the Council of Trent. In this manner they endeavoured, conformably to Luther's Theses, to make the war they waged against the Emperor appear lawful f : yet there was a dispute aiuongst them how Charles V. was to be treated in their public writings. The Elector, more conscientious than the rest, would not have him styled Emperor, because, " If so (said he), they could not lawfully wage war against him." The Landgrave had none of these scruples; and, besides, who had degraded the Emperor ? Who had deprived him of the empire ? Was it to become a maxim, that whosoever united himself with the Pope, resigned the title of Emperor ? The thought was as ridiculous as criminal. In conclusion, to please all parties, it was resolved, without owning or denying Charles V. for Emperor, that he should be treated as bearing himself for such, and by this expedient all hostilities were allowable. But the issue of the war was not favourable to the Protestants. Overthrown by the famous victory of Charles V. near the Elb (1547), the Duke of Saxony and the Landgrave taken prisoners, they knew not which way to turn themselves. The Emperor, of his own authority, proposed to them a form of doctrine called the Interim (1548), or the Emperor's book, which he enjoined them to follow provisionally till the Council sate. In it all

VIII.] THE VARIATIONS, ETC. 323 the errors of the Lutherans were rejected ; and the marriage of such priests as had become Lutherans, with communion under both kinds where it was re-established, were tolerated only. The Emperor was blamed at Rome for undertaking to pronounce in matters of religion. Those on his side answered, he had not taken upon him to make a decision or law for the Church, but only to prescribe to the Lutherans what they might best do till the Council met. This question belongs not to my subject ; it is sufficient to observe by the way, that the Interim cannot pass for an authentic act of the Church, since neither the Pope nor the Bishops have ever approved it. Some Lutherans accepted of it rather by force than otherwise : the greatest part rejected it, and the project of Charles V. had but little success.

— The project of the Interim. — Conference of Ratisbon in 1541.

Whilst I am on the subject of this book, it will not be amiss to observe, that it had been formerly proposed at the conference of Ratisbon in 1541. Three Catholic divines, Pflugius, bishop of Nau'mburg, Gropper and Eckius, by the Emperor's orders, were there to treat about the reconciliation of religions with Melancthon, Bucer, and Pistorius, three Protestants. Eckius rejected the book, and the Prelates, together with the Catholic States, did not think it fit that a body of doctrine should be proposed, without being communicated to the Pope's Legate, then at Ratisbon. Cardinal Contarenus was the man, a very learned divine, and whom even the Protestants have praised. Wherefore, the Legate having been consulted, answered, that an affair of this nature ought to be " referred to the Pope, in order to be regulated either in the general Council, that was going to be opened, or by some other proper method³."

— Articles agreed and not agreed upon in this Conference^ and in what manner.

The truth is, these conferences went on nevertheless ; and when the three Protestants were agreed with Pflugius and Gropper on any articles, they were called articles accorded, although Eckius all the while opposed them f. The Protestants desired the Emperor to authorize these articles y 2

324 THE HlS'fORY OF [BOOK in the mean time, while the rest were under debate. But this was opposed by the Catholics, who declared several times, they could not consent to the changing of any dogma, or rite, received in the Catholic Church. The Protestants on their side, Avho pressed the reception of the articles accorded, put their own explications on them, which were not agreed to, and made a list of " things omitted in the articles accorded⁴." Melancthon, who digested these remarks, wrote to the Emperor in the name of all the Protestants, that the "articles accorded" should be received, " provided they were well understood ;" that is, they themselves were sensible of their being conceived in ambiguous terms, and it was nothing but an imposition to press, as they did, the reception of them. Thus all the projects of accommodation vanished into smoke: the which I am pleased with remarking occasionally, that it may not be thought strange I should speak only, as it were, by-the-bye of so famous an action as the conference of Ratisbon.

— Another Conference. — The Jinishifig stroke put to the Interim. — The little success of this Book. — 1546.

Another was held in the same city, and with as little success,, in 1546+. The Emperor, nevertheless, ordered his book to be revised, and Prlugius, Bishop of Naumburg, Michael Helding, the titular Bishop of Sidon, and Islebius,a Protestant, put the finishing stroke to it. But he did but set a new example, how bad success these imperial decisions were used to have, in matters of religion.

— Bucer'1 s new Confession of Faith.

Whilst the Emperor was exerting himself to make his Interim be received in the city of Strasburg, Bucer published there a. new confession of faith, in which this Church declares, that she always unchangeably retains her first confession of faith presented to Charles V. at Augsburg in 1530, and likewise receives the agreement made at Wittemberg with Luther, namely, that act which imported that even those who have not faith, and who abuse the sacrament, receive the proper substance of the body and blood of Jesus Christ^. In this confession of faith, Bucer excludes nothing expressly but transubstantiation, and leaves whole and entire all that can establish the real and substantial presence.

ad Cur. V. -j- Sleid. lib. xx. p. 344. { Hosp.An. 1548. p. 204.

VIIl/| THE VARIATIONS, ETC. 325

— Two contrary acts are received at Strasburg at the same time.

The most remarkable thing in this is, that Bucer, who, in subscribing the Articles of Smalcald, at the same time, as hath appeared, had subscribed the Confession of Augsburg, still retained the Confession of Strasburg ; that is, he authorized two acts which were made to destroy each other ; for it may be remembered, that the Confession of Strasburg was made only to avoid the subscribing that of Augsburg, and that those of the Confession of Augsburg would never admit for brethren, those of Strasburg, nor their associates*. All this is now reconciled; that is, in the new Reformation it is lawful to change, but not lawful to acknowledge that you change. The Reformation, should it own this, would appear too human a work ; and it is better to approve four or five contradictory acts, provided it be not acknowledged that they are so, than to own one's self wrong, especially in confessions of faith.

— Bucer goes to England, where he dies, ivithout being able to change anything in Peter Martyr's Articles.

This was the last action that Bucer did in Germany. During the commotions occasioned by the Interim, he found a refuge in England among the new Protestants, who gathered strength under Edward. There he died in great esteem, yet not being able to alter anything in the Articles which Peter Martyr had established there: so that pure Zuinglianism was the religion then. But Bucer's notions 'will have their turn, and we shall see Peter Martyr's Articles changed under Elizabeth.

— Osiander also abandons his Church of Nure?nburg, and sets all Prussia in an uproar.

The troubles, caused by the Interim, dispersed very many of the Reformers. The Protestants even were scandalized to see them thus forsake their Churches. To venture their lives for them, or for the Reformation, was what they were not accustomed to : and it has been an observation of old standing, that none of them laid down their lives for their flock ; unless it were Cranmer, who yet did all he could to save his, by forswearing his religion, as long as swearing was to his purpose. The famous Osiander was one of the first that fled. On a sudden, he disappeared at Nuremburg, and left the * Sup. lib. iv. Sup. lib. iii.

Church winch he had governed twenty-five years, and ever since the beginning of the Reformation. Prussia was the place he retreated to. Of all countries this was one of the most addicted to Lutheranism. It belonged to the Teutonic Order (1525); but the great master of it, Prince Albert of Brandenburg, conceived all at once a desire of marrying, of reforming, and making himself an hereditary sovereign. And thus did the whole country become Lutheran, and the doctor of Nuremburg soon excited there new disorders.

— What sort of man Osiander was — his doctrine about Justification.

Andrew Osiander had signalized himself among the Lutherans by a new opinion he had introduced concerning Justification⁵. He would not have it to be by the imputation of Jesus Christ's justice, as all other Protestants maintained, but by the intimate union of God's substantial justice with our souls, grounded on that saying often repeated in Isaiah and Jeremy, " The Lord is our righteousness f." For, as, according to him, we live by God's substantial life and love, by the essential love he bears himself, so we are just by his essential justice communicated to us; to which, the substance of the word incarnate dwelling in us by faith, by the word, and the sacraments, is to be added. Ever since the time that the Confession of Augsburg was in hand, he had used his utmost endeavours to prevail with the whole party to embrace this prodigy of doctrine, and, to Luther's face, defended it with the greatest boldness. At the Assembly of Smalcald men were astonished at his rashness ; yet, fearing lest new divisions might break out in the party, wherein he had distinguished himself by his great learning, they chose to bear with him. He, above all men, had the talent of diverting Luther ; and Melancthon, at their return from the Conference of Marpurg, held with the Sacramentarians, wrote to Camerariuslj: that " Osiander had made Luther and all of them exceeding merry."

— Osiander' s profane spirit observed by Calvin.

This he did by playing the droll, chiefly at table, when his wit abounded most ; but in such profane jests, that I have a difficulty in repeating them. It is Calvin who informs us⁶, f Isa, xxiii. 6, 16, 33. ' Jer. xxiii. 6. f Lib. iv. Ep. 88.

VIII.] THE VARIATIONS, ETC. 327 in a letter which he writes to Melancthon concerning this man, 'c That, as often as he found good wine at an entertainment, he praised it by applying it to those words which God uttered with respect to himself, 'I am that I am.'" And, again : " Here is the Son of the living God." Calvin had been present at the banquets in which he vented these blasphemies, at which he conceived an horror. Yet they passed off without any exception being taken to them. The same Calvin⁷ speaks of Osiander as of a " brutal man, a wild beast not to be tamed. As for him (said he), the very first time I saw him, I detested his profane spirit and infamous behaviour, and always looked upon him as the shame of the Protestant party." Yet he was one of the pillars of it : the Church of Nuremburg, one of the first of the sect, had placed him at the head of her pastors from the year 1522, and he is everywhere found at the conferences among the chief of the party; but Calvin is astonished " that they were able to bear with him so long, and cannot conceive, considering all his furies, how Melancthon could have lavished so much praise upon him.

— Melancthon' 's opinion, and that of other Protestants, concerning Osiander.

It will be thought, perchance, that Calvin used him thus harshly from a particular hatred of his own, for Osiander was the most violent enemy the Sacramentarians had, and he it was that carried the subject of the Real Presence to such extremity as to maintain that they ought to say of the Eucharistic bread, " this bread is Godf." But the Lutherans entertained no better opinion of him ; and Melancthon, who often found it served his turn to praise him, as Calvin reproaches him with doing to excess, writing to his friends^, does nevertheless blame " his extreme arrogance, his ravings, his other excesses, and the monstrousness of his opinions." It was not Osiander's fault that he did not go to trouble England, where he hoped that the esteem in which his brotherin-law, Cranmer, was held, would give him credit : but Melancthon acquaints us§ that persons of authoritv and learning had represented the danger there was of bringing into that country a man who had spread in the Church so great a chaos of new opinions. Cranmer himself gave ear to

\ Lib. ii. L'p. 240, 259, 447, &c. § Ibid.

reason on this head, and listened to Calvin⁸, who spoke to him of the illusions whereby Osiander bewitched himself and others.

— Osiander, puffed up with the Prince ? favour, keeps within no bounds.

He was no sooner arrived in Prussia than he set the University of Koningsbergf in a flame with his new doctrine of Justification. However eager always in its defence, yet he stood in fear, say my authors, " of Luther's magnanimity," and, during his life, never durst write anything on that subject J. The magnanimous Luther feared him no less : in general, the Reformation, void of authority, feared nothing so much as new divisions, which she knew not how to terminate ; and, lest they should irritate a man whose eloquence was formidable, he was left at liberty to utter what he pleased byword of mouth. In Prussia, finding himself free from the party's yoke, and, what elated his heart, in great favour with the Prince, who had given him the first chair in his University, he gave himself free scope, and soon divided the whole country.

— The dispute on Ceremonies, or things indifferent.

Other disputes were enkindled at the same time in the other parts of Lutheranism. That which arose about Ceremonies, or things indifferent, was carried on with a great deal of acrimony⁹. Melancthon, supported by the Academies of Leipsic and Wittemburg, where he was all-powerful, would not have them rejected (1549). It had ever been his opinion that, in the exterior worship, the less was changed the better. For which reason, during the Interim, he made himself very easy about these indifferent practices, nor did believe, says he||, " that for a surplice, for some holy-days, or for the order of lessons," they ought to draw a persecution on themselves. This doctrine was made criminal in him, and it was decided in the party that these indifferent things ought absolutely to be rejected, because the use made of them was contrary to the liberty of the Churches, and contained, said they, a kind of profession of Popery.

% Chvtr. lib. xvii.p.445. § Sleid. lib. xxi. p. 365. xxii. p. 378.

VIII.] THE VARIATIONS, ETC. 329

— Illyricus' s jealousy and hidden designs against Me- lancthon.

But Flaccus Illyricus, who started this question, had a deeper design. His aim was directed at Melancthon's ruin, whose disciple he had been, but of whom he was afterwards become so jealous as not to endure him¹⁰. And now particular reasons urged him on more than ever : for, whereas Melancthon endeavoured then to undermine Luther's doctrine of the Real Presence, Illyricus and his friends carried it to such extremes as to maintain ubiquity. In fact, we see it decided by the greatest part of the Lutheran Churches, and the acts thereof are printed in the Book of Concord, which almost all the Lutherans in Germany have accepted. It shall bespoken of hereafter ; and, to follow the order of time, I must speak at present of the Confession of Faith called Saxonic, and of that of Wirtemburg, -J- not Wittemburg in Saxony, but the capital city of the Duchy of Wirtemburg.

— Saxonic Confession, and thai of Wirtemburg. — Why made, and by what Authors. — 1551, 1552.

They were both made much about the same time, namely, in 1551 and 1552, in order to be presented to the Council of Trent, where the victorious Charles V. would have the Protestants make their appearance. The Saxonic Confession was drawn up by Melancthon, and, as we learn from Sleidan %, by order of Maurice, the Elector, whom the Emperor had put in the place of John Frederick. All the doctors and all the pastors, solemnly convened at Leipsic, approved it with one voice ; nor ought there to be anything more authentic than a confession of faith made by so renowned a person, in order to be presented in a general council §. And, truly, it was received not only throughout all the territories of the House of Saxony and of many other Princes, but also by the Churches of Pomerania and that of Strasburg, as appears by the subscriptions and declarations of those Churches. Brentius was the author of the Confession of Wirtemberg, next to Melancthon the most famous man of the whole party ||. Melancthon's Confession was called by himself the repetition of that of Augsburg. Christopher, Duke of Wirtemburg, by whose authority the Confession of Wirtemburg was published, declares likewise that he confirms, and does but repeat,¹¹ the Confession of Augsburg ; but, in order to repeat it, there was no necessity of making another ; and this word, repeat, only shews they were ashamed of producing so many new confessions of faith.

— Article of the Eucharist in the Saxonic Confession.

Accordingly, to begin with the Saxonic ; the article of the Eucharist was there explained in terms very different from those employed at Augsburg¹². For, to say nothing of the long discourse of four or five pages which Melancthon substitutes in lieu of two or three lines of the tenth article of Augsburgf , which decided this matter ; here is what was essential in it : " It is necessary (said he) to inform mankind that the sacraments are actions instituted by God, and that things are not sacraments except in the time of their use so established ; nevertheless, in the established use of this communion, Jesus Christ is truly and substantially present, truly given to those who receive the body and blood of Jesus Christ ; whereby Jesus Christ testifies that he is in them, and makes them his members."

— Changes which Melancthon made by the Saxonic Confession, in the Articles of that ^of Augsburg and Smalcald.

Melancthon avoids saying what he had said at Augsburg, " That the body and blood are truly given with the bread and wine, and much more, what Luther had added at Smalcald, that the bread and wine are the true body and the true blood of Jesus Christ, the which are not only given and received by pious Christians, but also by the impious." These important words, which Luther had chosen with so great care, in order to explain his doctrine, although signed by Melancthon at Smalcald, as hath appeared, were by Melancthon himself cut off from his Saxonic Confession. It seems he was no longer of opinion that the body of Jesus Christ was taken by the mouth together with the bread, nor received substantially by the impious, although he did not deny a substantial presence, in which Jesus Christ came to the faithful, not only by his virtue and spirit, but also in his own proper flesh and substance, divided, nevertheless, from bread and wine : for it seems, among the many novelties on this subject, this, too, was to shew itself, and, according to the prophecy of the

VIII.] THE VARIATIONS, ETC. 331 venerable Simeon, Jesus Christ, in this mystery, was to be " a mark set for contradictions¹³" in these latter ages, as, with respect to his divinity and incarnation, he had been in the first ages of Christianity.

— Article of the Eucharist in the Wirtemburg Confession.

In this manner was the Confession of Augsburg and Luther's doctrine repeated in the Saxonic Confession. The Confession of Wirtemburgf departs no less from that of Augsburg, nor from the Articles of Smalcald. It says, " That the true body and true blood are distributed in the Eucharist, and rejects those who say the bread and wine are signs of the body and blood of Jesus Christ absent. It adds, that it is in the power of God to annihilate the substance of bread, or to change it into his body ; bat that God uses not this power in the Supper, and true bread remains with the true presence of the body. It manifestly establishes concomitancy, by deciding that, although Jesus Christ be distributed whole and entire, as well in the bread as in the wine of the Eucharist, the use, nevertheless, of both parts ought to be universal." Thus it grants us two things ; one, the possibility of transubstantiation, the other the certainty of concomitancy : but though it defends the reality so far as to admit concomitancy, it explains nevertheless these words, " This is my body," by those of Ezekiel, who says, "This is Jerusalem,'" shewing the representation of that city.

— The confusion man falls into when he delivers himself over to his own conceits.

Thus there is nothing but confusion when man departs from the straight path to follow his own ideas. As the abettors of the figurative sense receive some impression from the literal one, so the abettors of the literal sense are sometimes dazzled by the deceitful subtleties of that which is figurative. But it is not our business to examine here, whether or no, by torturing the different expressions of so many confessions of faith, some violent mode may be found out to bring them to a conformity of sense. It is enough for me to point out what difficulty those had in satisfying themselves with their own confessions of faith, who had forsaken the faith of the Church.

— God iDills not Sin. — An article better explained in the Saxonic Confession, than it had been in that of Augsburg¹⁴.

The other articles of these confessions of faith are not less remarkable than that of the Eucharist.

The Saxonic Confession acknowledges that '¹⁵ the .will is free ; that God wills not sin, nor approves, nor co-operates to it ; but that the free will of men and devils is the cause of their sin and fall." Melancthon is here to be commended for correcting Luther and correcting himself, and for speaking more clearly than he had done in the Confession of Augsburg.

23.-— The co-operation of Free-will.

I have heretofore observed, that at Augsburg, he did not own the exercise of free-will, except in the actions of civil life, and that afterwards he extended it even to Christian actionsf. This he begins to discover more plainly to us in the Saxonic Confession ; for, after explaining the nature of free-will, and the choice of the will, and that it suffices not alone for the works, which we call " supernatural," he twice repeats, that " the will, after having received the Holy Ghost, remains not idle," namely, that it is not without action ; which seems to give to it, as the Council of Trent likewise does, a free action under the guidance of the Holy Ghost who moves it interiorly.

— Melancthon 's doctrine on the co-operation of Free -will.

And what Melancthon gives us to understand in this confession of faith, he explains in his letters more distinctly ; for he proceeds even to own the human will, in supernatural works, as " a joint agent j" agens partiale, according to the school language J ; as much as to say, that man acts with God, and of both there is made one total agent. Thus he explained himself at the Conference of Ratisbon in 1541, and though he well knew that this explication would be displeasing to his companions, yet he adhered to it, because, says he, the thing is true. Thus did he come back from the excesses he had learned from Luther, though Luther persisted in them to the very last. But he delivers himself

VIII.] THE VARIATIONS, ETC 333 more at large on this subject, in a letter written to Calvin¹⁶ : " I had a friend, (says he,) who, reasoning on predestination, equally believed these two things, — that all happens among men as Providence ordains, and that there is a contingency nevertheless:" yet he owned he was not able to reconcile these points. " For my part, (proceeds he,) who hold that God is not the cause of sin, and faills not sin, I own this contingency in the infirmity of our judgment, to the end that the ignorant may confess that David fell of himself, and by his own will, into sin ; and might have preserved the Holy Ghost he had within him, and that in this combat there is some action of the will to be acknowledged," which he confirms by a passage of St. Basil, who says, '' Only have the will, and God will come unto you." Whereby Melancthon seemed to insinuate, not only that the will acts, but also begins ; which St. Basil rejects in other places, and Melancthon does not appear to me ever to have rejected sufficiently, since we have before taken notice, how he had introduced a word into the Confession of Augsburgf, by which he seemed to intimate, there was not so much harm in saying that the will could begin, as that it could finish of itself the work of God.

— The excercise of Free-will plainly owned by Melancthon in the operations of grace.

Be that as it will, it is certain he owned the exercise of freewill in the operations of grace, since he so plainly owned that David could have preserved the Holy Ghostat the time he lost it, as he might have lost it at the time he preserved it : but although this was his sentiment, he durst not declare it distinctly in the Saxonic Confession ; — happy for him he could not insinuate it gently by these words, — " The will is not idle, nor without action."

The thing was, Luther had so dreadfully thunderstruck free-will, and bequeathed to his sect such an aversion to the exercise of it, that Melancthon durst not utter, but with fear and trembling, what lie believed regarding it, and even his own confessions of faith were ambiguous.

— His doctrine condemned by his Brethren.

But all his precautions could not secure him from censure. Illyricus and his followers would never forgive him this short

334' THE HISTORY OF [BOOK sentence which he had placed in the Saxonic Confession, — " The will is not idle, nor without action." They condemned this expression in two synodical assemblies, together with the text of St. Basil, which, as we have seen, Melancthon made use of.

This condemnation is set down in the Book of Concord¹⁷. All they did to save Melancthon's honour, was not to name him, but only to condemn his expressions under the general name of new authors, or papists, or scholastics. But whoever shall consider with what care the very expressions of Melancthon were culled out for condemnation, will plainly see that he was the person aimed at, and the sincere Lutherans own as much.

— Confusion of the new Sects.

Here is, in short, the nature of these new sects. Men suffer themselves to be prejudiced against certain doctrines, of which they take up false notions. Thus did Melancthon, at first, run into extremes with Luther against free-will, and would allow it no action in works supernatural. Convinced of his error, he leans to the opposite extreme, and so far from excluding the action of free-will, he proceeds to attribute to it even the beginning of supernatural actions. When a little inclined to return to truth, and to own that free-will hath its agency in the operations of grace, he stands condemned by his own people : such is the confusion and perplexity man falls into, by casting off the salutary yoke of Church authority.

— Doctrine of the Lutherans, which contradicts itself.

But although one part of the Lutherans will not receive these terms of Melancthon, the will is not without action in works of grace. I see not how they can deny the thing, since they all confess, unanimously, that man, under grace, may reject and lose it.

This'is what they have asserted in the Confession of Augsburg ; what they have repeated in the Apology ; what they have anew decided and inculcated in the Book of Concord f ; so that nothing among them is more certain. Whence it is plain they acknowledge with the Council of Trent a freewill, acting under the operation of grace, so as to be able to reject it ; which thing it is proper to remark, on account of some of our Calvinists, who, for want of well understand- * Page 5, 82, 680. t Ibid. p. 675, etc.

VIII.] THE VARIATIONS, ETC. 335 ing the state of the question, make that doctrine criminal in us, which they support, nevertheless, in their brethren the Lutherans.

— A considerable article of the Saxonic Confession concerning the distinction of mortal and venial si?is*.

There is also an article in the Saxonic Confession, so much the more deserving of notice, as it overthrows one of the foundations of the new Reformation, which will not own that the distinction betwixt sins, mortal and venial, is grounded on the nature of sin itself. But here the divines of Saxony confess with Melancthon, that there are two sorts of sin ; " one which banishes the Holy Ghost from the heart ; the other, which does not banish him." In order to explain the nature of these different sins, they observe two kinds of Christians ; " one who repress concupiscence ; the other, who obey it. In those who combat against it (proceed they) sin is not reigning ; it is venial ; it bereaves us not of the Holy Ghost ; it subverts not the foundation, and is not against conscience." They add, " that such sort of sins are covered," i. e. they are not imputed " through God's mercy." Certain it is, according to this doctrine, that the distinction of mortal and venial sins consists, not only in God's pardoning some, and not pardoning others, as is commonly said in the pretended Reformation, but that it proceeds from the nature of the thing. Now, to condemn the doctrine of imputed justice, no more than this is requisite ; since it is allowed for certain, notwithstanding the sins the just man falls into daily, that sin reigns not in him, but rather charity reigns in him, and consequently justice, which suffices to denominate him truly just, since a thing takes its denomination from what is prevailing therein. Whence it follows, that to explain " gratuitous justification," there is no necessity of saying, we are justified by imputation, but rather, that we'are truly justified by a justice which is in us, yet proceeding from the gift of God.

— Merit of Works in the Confession of Wiriemburg.

Melancthon omitted, for what reason I know not, to insert in the Saxonic Confession, what he had inserted in the Augsburg Confession and Apology concerning the merit of good worksf. But it must not be concluded from hence, that the Lutherans had rejected this doctrine, since, at the same time, a chapter is found in the Confession of Wirtemburg, where * Page 75. t Conf. Wirt.c. de bonis operib. Ibid. p. 106.

it is said, " that good works ought necessarily to be practised, and through the gratuitous bounty of God they merit their corporal and spiritual rewards:" which, by the way, makes it appear, that the nature of merit perfectly agrees with grace.

— The conference of Worms to reconcile both Religions. — Division of the Lutherans. — 1557.

In 1557, a new assembly, by the appointment of Charles V., was held at Worms for settling religion. Pflugius, the author of the Interim, presided in it. Mr. Burnet, ever attentive to turn everything to the advantage of the new Reformation, gives a short account of it, in which he represents the Catholics as men, " who, unable to bear down those they call heretics with open force, divide them among themselves, and engage them into heats about lesser matters." But Melancthon's own testimony, in this case, will discover the true state of the affair *. As soon as the Protestant doctors named for the conference were come to Worms, the ambassadors of their respective princes assembled them together to acquaint them, from the said princes, that, above all things, and before they conferred with the Catholics, they were " to agree among themselves, and, at the same time, to condemn four sorts of errors. 1. That of the Zuinglians. 2. That of Osiander about justification. 3. That proposition which affirms good works are necessary to salvation. 4. And lastly, the error of those who had received indifferent ceremonies." This last article expressly glanced at Melancthon, and it was Illyricus with his cabal that proposed it. Melancthon had been warned of his designs, and in his journey wrote to his friend Camerarius % that, " at table, and over the bottle, certain preliminary articles were drawn, with the design of making him and Brentius sign them." With the. last he was very much united, and represents Illyricus, or some one of that cabal, " as a fury that went from door to door to exasperate people." It was also believed in the party, that Melancthon was pretty favourable to the Zuinglians, and Brentius to Osiander. The same Melancthon appeared much inclined to the necessity of good works, and this whole enterprise visibly aimed at him and his friends. Hitherto, therefore, it was not the Catholics that laboured

VIII.] THE VARIATIONS, ETC. 337 to divide the Protestants. They were sufficiently divided of themselves; nor was it, as Mr. Burnet pretends, "about lesser matters;" since, except the question of indifferent ceremonies, all the rest, concerning the real presence, Osiander's monstrous justification, and the manner in which good works were to be judged necessary, were of the utmost consequence.

— The Lutherans unanimously condemn the necessity of Good Works for Salvation¹⁸.

As to the first of these points, Melancthon agreed, that the " Zuinglians deserved to be condemned as well as the Papists." To the second, that Osiander was not less worthy of censure. To the third, that from this proposition, " good works are necessary for salvation," the last word should be cut off, so that good works, in spite of the Gospel, which denounces that, without them, we have no share in the kingdom of God, remain " necessary" it is true, but not " for salvation ;" and whereas Mr. Burnet hath affirmed that the " Protestants always declared good works indispensably and absolutely necessary to salvation ;" quite on the contrary, we find this equally rejected by Melancthon's enemies, and by himself, — namely, by both parties of the Protestants in Germany.

— Osiander spared by the Lutherans.

As for Osiander, Brentius did not fail to take his part, not by defending the doctrine imputed to him, but by maintaining that they had not comprehended this author's sense, though Osiander had so plainly expressed himself, that neither Melancthon nor anybody else doubted of it. It appeared, then, to the Lutherans, a very easy matter to agree all in the condemnations required by Illyricus and his friends ; but Melancthon put a stop to it, who was ever apprehensive of raising new disturbances in the Reformation, which, by its great divisions, already seemed threatened with destruction.

— The Divisions of the Lutherans break forth, which the Catholics endeavour to improve for their Salvation.

These disputes of the Protestants soon reached the ears of the Catholics, for Illyricus and his friends raised great clamours, not only at Worms, but over all Germany. The Catholics

338 THE HISTORY OP [BOOK had resolved to press, in the conference, the necessity of submitting to the church's judgment, in order to put an end to disputes arising among Christians ; and the contentions of Protestants very opportunely fell in with this design, they making it appear that they themselves, who spoke so much of the perspicuity of Scripture, and its full sufficiency to terminate all disputes, agreed so little among themselves, nor had hitherto found out the way of finishing the least debate. The weakness of the Reformation, so ready at starting difficulties, so bad at solving them, was visible to every eye. Then Illyricus and his friends, to show the Catholics they were not unprovided of means to repress others bred in the Protestant party, laid before the Catholic deputies a copy of condemnations they had drawn, but which was rejected by their companions ; thus the division blazed abroad in a manner not to be concealed. The Catholics judged it to no purpose to continue on these conferences, where, indeed, everything was at a stand, and accordingly left the Illyricans to dispute with the Melancthonists, as St. Paul * left the Pharisees to dispute with the Sadducees, drawing all the advantage he could from their notorious dissensions.

— Osiandefs triumph in Prussia. — The memorable conversion of Slaphylus.

In Prussia, something vigorous, and some i¹⁹esolute decision, was expected against Osiander, whose insolence was no longer to be borne with. He made it openly appear how little account he made of the Augsburg Confession, of Melancthon, its author, and of the merits even of Jesus Christ, which he did not so much as mention in the justification of sinners, Some divines of Koningsberg did what they could to oppose his doctrine, and among others, Frederick Staphylus, one of the most renowned professors in divinity of that university, who, for sixteen years together at Wittemberg, had heard Luther and Melancthon f ; but finding they gained nothing by their learned works, and Osiander's eloquence prevailed universally, they had recourse to the authority of the Church of Wittemberg, and the rest of the Protestant Churches in Germany. When, instead of distinct and vigorous condemnations, which the weak faith of the people stood in need of, they beheld nothing came from those quarters but timorous

VIM.] THE VARIATIONS, ETC. 339 writings, from which Osiander reaped advantage, they pitied the weakness of the party thus bereft of all authority against errors. Staphylus opened his eyes, and returned to the bosom of the Catholic Church.

— A new form of the Lutherans in order to explain the Eucharist in the Assembly of Frankfort. — 1558.

The Lutherans assembled themselves at Frankfort the year after, in order to agree about a form relating to the Eucharist, as if, till then, they had done nothing. They began, according to custom, by saying, they did but repeat the confession of Augsburg *. Notwithstanding, they added to it, " that Jesus Christ was given in the use of the Sacrament, truly, substantially, and in a vivifying manner ; and that this Sacrament contained two things, — namely, the bread and the body ; and that it is an invention of the Monks, unknown to all antiquity, to say, that the body is given us under the species of bread."

Strange confusion ! they did nothing, said they, but repeat the confession of Augsburg ; yet this expression, condemned by them at Frankfort, viz., " this body is present under the species," is found in one of the editions of that same Confession which they pretended to repeat, and even in that edition owned at Frankfort to be so genuine, that to this day, in the rituals used by the French church of that city, we read the tenth article of the Augsburg Confession, couched in these terms — " The body and blood are received under the species of bread and winef."

— The question of Ubiquity made Melancthon turn towards the Sacrame?itarians. — 1559.

But the concern of most weight among the Lutherans at that time, was that of ubiquity, which Westphalus, James Andrew Smidelin, David Chythrceus, and others, set up with all their might. Melancthon opposed two reasons against them, than which nothing could be more convincing: one, that this doctrine confounded the two natures of Jesus Christ, making him immense, not only according to his divinity, but his humanity likewise, and even with respect to his body ; the other, that it destroyed the mystery of the Eucharist, by taking away everything that is peculiar to it, should Jesus Christ, as man, be no other way therein present than he is z 2²⁰²¹ in wood and stone. These two reasons made Melancthon look with horror on the doctrine of ubiquity, and the aversion he had to it made him insensibly begin to incline towards those who defended the figurative sense. He held a particular communication with them, above all with Calvin. But certain it is, he did not find in his sentiments what he desired.

— The incompatibility of Melancthon's sentiments with those of Calvin.

Calvin obstinately maintained *, that a believer once regenerated could not lose grace ; and Melancthon agreed with the Lutherans, that this doctrine was damnable and impious. Calvin could not endure the necessity of baptism, and Melancthon would never depart from it. Calvin condemned what Melancthon taught on the co-operation of free-will, and Melancthon did not believe he could recant.

It appears sufficiently they were no less at variance about predestination ; and although Calvin repeated frequently that Melancthon in his heart could not help thinking as he did, yet he never could draw anything from him to that purpose.

— Whether or no Melancthon was a Calvinist with respect to the Eucharist.

As for what concerns the Supper, Calvin boasts everywhere that Melancthon was of his opinion ; but as he does not produce one word of Melancthon's clearly to that purpose, but, on the contrary, taxes him in all his letters and books with having never explained himself sufficiently on that subject, methinks one may reasonably doubt of what he has advanced ; and what seems to me to be most probable is this, that neither of these two authors thoroughly understood the other : Melancthon being imposed upon by the expressions of a proper substance, which Calvin everywhere affected, as we shall see; and Calvin, drawing to his own sense the words by which Melancthon separated the bread from the body of our Lord, yet without the design of derogating thereby from the substantial presence, which he owned in the faithful communicants.

If Peucer, Melancthon's son-in-law, may be believed, his father-in-law was a downright Calvinist. Peucer became one himself, and suffered greatly afterwards for his correspondence with Beza, in order to introduce Calvinism into

VIII.] THE VARIATIONS, ETC. 341

Saxony *. He took a pride in following the sentiments of his father-in-law, and wrote books where he gives an account of what he had heard from him in private relating to this subject. But without impeaching Peucer's credit, it is no unlikely thing that he, in a matter they had so perplexed with equivocal expressions, might not have fully comprehended Melancthon's meaning ; and for want of that, have adapted his words to his own preconceived opinions.

After all, to know what Melancthon thought one way or other, is to me of very small importance. Many Protestants in Germany, more interested in this cause than we are, have undertaken his defence ; in whose behalf I shall only say, what candour and truth oblige me to, viz., that I have nowhere found in any of this author's writings, that Jesus Christ is not received, except by faith ; which, howsoever, is the true characteristic of the figurative sense. Neither do I find that he has ever said, with those that maintain it, that the unworthy do not receive the true body and true blood ; but, on the contrary, it appears to me that he persisted in what was determined on this subject in the Wittemberg agreement f.

— Melancthon dares not speak.

What we know for certain is, that through the fear Melancthon was in of increasing the scandalous divisions of the new Reformation, which he saw was quite void of all moderation, he scarce ventured to express himself but in terms so general, that each one might find in them whatever meaning he thought fit. The Sacramentarians did not suit him: the Lutherans ran all into ubiquity. Brentius, almost the only Lutheran he had maintained a perfect union with, went over to that side ; this prodigy of doctrine spread insensibly through the whole sect. He would willingly have spoken, but knew not what to say ; so great was the opposition he met with to what he believed was trnlhj. " Havel the power (said he) to unfold truth whole and entire in the country lam in, and would the court endure it?" To which he often added: " I will speak the truth when courts shall not prevent me."

It is true, it is the Sacramentarians that make him speak after this manner: but, besides that they produce his letters, which they pretend to have the originals of, one needs but²²²³ read those his friends have published, to see that these discourses, which pass for his, agree perfectly with that disposition which the implacable dissensions of the new Reformation had placed him in.

His son-in-law, who relates the facts with a great deal of simplicity, affirms he was so hated by the Ubiquitarians, that one time Chythraeus, one of the most zealous of them, said, " They ought to make away with Melancthon, otherwise they should find in him a perpetual obstacle to their designs." He himself, in a letter he wrote to the Elector Palatine, which Peucer makes mention of²⁴, says, " That he would no longer dispute against men whose cruelties he did experience." And this was but a few months before his death. " How many times (says Peucer), and with how many sighs, hath he unfolded to me the reasons which hindered him from discovering to the world the bottom of his sentiments ? " But what could constrain him in the court of Saxony, where he then was, and in the midst of Lutherans, but the court itself, and the violence of his companions ?

— Melancthon 's sad condition, and his Death.

How deplorable a state, never to meet with peace, or truth, as he understood it ! He had left the ancient Church, which had on her side succession, and all preceding ages. The Lutheran Church, which he and Luther had founded, and which he believed the only refuge of truth, embraced ubiquity, which he abhorred. The Sacramentarian churches, which, next to the Lutheran, he believed the most pure, were full of other errors he could not endure, and which, in all his confessions of faith, he had rejected. He was respected, as appeared, by the Church of Wittemberg ; but the grievous restraints he lay under, and the measures he was bound to follow, prevented his speaking all he thought ; and in this state he ended his miserable life in 1560.

— The Zuinglians condemned by the Lutherans, and the Catholics justified by this conduct. — 1560.

Illyricus and his companions triumphed upon his death ; Ubiquity was established almost throughout all Lutheranism, and the Zuinglians were condemned by a Synod held at Jena, a town in Saxony -f : till then, Melancthon had re-

VIII.] THE VARIATIONS, ETC. 343 strained them from pronouncing such a sentence. From the time it passed, nothing in all writings against the Zuinglians was spoken of, but the authority of the church, to which all were bound to yield without further dispute. The principal party of the new Reformation, the Lutherans, began to discover that nothing but church authority could curb men's minds and prevent divisions ; and, indeed, we see Calvin²⁵ never ceases to reproach them for laying greater stress on the name of the church than the very Papists did, and for going counter to the principles established by Luther. This was true, and the Lutherans, in their turn, were obliged to answer all the arguments which the Protestant party had opposed against the Catholic church and her council. They objected against the church, that she made herself judge in her own cause, and that the pope, with his bishops, were at one and the same time the accused, the accusers, and the judges. The Sacramentarians said as much of the Lutherans, by whom they stood condemned. The whole body of Protestants said to the church, that their pastors ought to take their place amongst the rest, in the council going to be held, and to judge on questions of faith ; otherwise, it were prejudging against them without a hearing. The Sacramentarians made the same reproach to the Lutherans, and maintained to them, that by taking on themselves the authority to condemn them without calling their pastors to the sitting, they began themselves to do that which they had called tyranny in the church of Romef. It appeared evident that they must ultimately imitate the Catholic church, which alone knew the true method of judging questions of faith : nor did it appear less manifest, by the contradictions the Lutherans fell into upon following this method, that it did not belong to innovators, nor could subsist but in a body, which had practised it from the origin of Christianity.

— Assembly of the Lutherans at Naumburg to agree about the Confession of Augsburg. — 1 56 1 .

It was resolved at this time to choose, among all the editions of the Augsburg Confession, that which should be deemed authentic^. It was a surprising thing, that a confession which regulated the faith of all the Protestants in Germany and the whole North, and had given a name to the whole f Hosp. An. 1560. pp. 270, 871.

{ Act. conv, Naum. ap. Hosp. 1561. p. 280, et seq.

party, should have been published so many ways, and with such considerable differences, at Wittemberg and elsewhere, under Luther and Melancthon's inspection, without any care taken to adjust these variations. At last, in 1561, thirty years after this confession was made, in order to silence the reproaches which were flung at Protestants, of not having as yet fixed a confession, they met at Naumburg, a city of Thuringia, and there selected an edition, but in vain, inasmuch as the other editions having been printed by public authority, they never could suppress them²⁶, nor hinder one from following one, others another, as we have elsewhere mentioned.

What is still more, the assembly of Naumburg, in choosing one edition, declared expressly, it was not thence to be concluded that they disapproved of all the rest, especially that which had been made at Wittemberg in 1540, under the inspection of Luther and Melanct.hon, which, besides, had been publicly made use of in the Lutheran schools, and in the conferences with Catholics.

Nay, it cannot even be decided which of these editions were preferred at Naumburg. It seems most probable to have been that which is printed with the consent of almost all the princes, and stands at the beginning of the book of Concord ; but even that is not certain, since we have shewn four editions of the supper-article, equally owned in the same book f. Again, if the merit of good works was cut olF from the Confession of Augsburg, we have found it remaining in the Apology ; and that even is a proof of what was originally in the Confession, since it is certain that the Apology was made on no other account than to defend and explain it.

But the dissensions of the Protestants, on the sense of the Confession of Augsburg, were so far from being terminated at the assembly of Naumburg J, that on the contrary, Frederic the Elector Palatine, who was one of the members of it, believed, or would seem to believe, that he found in this Confession the Zuinglian doctrine he newly had embraced ; so that he adhered to the Confession of Augsburg, and, not concerning himself about Luther, still remained a Zuinglian.

— Raillery of the Zuinglians.

Thus, it seems, every thing was found in this Confession §. The jeering and malicious Zuinglians called it Pandora's box, whence issued forth good and evil ; the apple of

•S.J. iii. f Ibid. J Hosp, An. 1561.p.28J. § Ibid,

VIII.] THE VARIATIONS, ETC. 345 discord, among the goddesses ; a shoe for every foot ; a vast wide cloak which Satan might hide himself in, as well as Jesus Christ. These men had proverbs at their fingers' ends, and dealt them out not sparingly to ridicule the different senses that each one found in the Confession of Augsburg. Ubiquity was the only thing that could not be discovered in it ; and yet this ubiquity became a dogma among the Lutherans,, authentically inserted into the book of Concord.

— Ubiquity established.

Here is what we find in that part of the book which bears this title, — •' An abridgment of articles controverted among the Divines of the Confession of Augsburg²⁷." In the seventh chapter, entitled — Of the Lord's Supper: — "The righthand of God is everywhere, and Jesus Christ is truly and effectually united to it according to his humanity." And still more expressly in the eighth chapter, entitled — Of the Person of Jesus Christ, — wherein is explained what that Majesty is, which in the Scriptures is attributed to the word " incarnate :" there we read these words, — " Jesus Christ, not only as God, but also as man, knows all things ; is able to do all things ; is present to all creatures." This is a strange doctrine. True it is, the Holy Soul of Jesus Christ can do all it will in the church, since it wills nothing but what the Divinity wills who governs it. True it is, this Holy Soul knows all that regards the world present, since all therein hath a relation to mankind, whereof Jesus Christ is the redeemer and judge, and the angels themselves, who are the ministers of our salvation, are subject to this power. True it is, Jesus Christ may render himself present where he pleases, even according to his humanity, and with respect to his body and blood ; but that the soul of Jesus Christ knows, or can know, all that God knows, is attributing to a creature an infinite knowledge, or wisdom, and equalling it to God himself. To make the human nature of Jesus Christ be necessarily wherever God is, is giving it an immensity not suitable to it, and manifestly abusing the personal union ; for it ought to be said by the same reason, that Jesus Christ, as man, is in all times, which would be too open an extravagancy, but, nevertheless, would follow as naturally from the personal union, according to the reasoning of the Lutherans, as the presence of Jesus Christ's humanity in all places,

346 THE HISTORY OP [BOOK

— Another declaration about Ubiquity, under the name of a repetition of the Confession of Augsburg.

The same doctrine of ubiquity may be seen, but with more perplexity and a wider compass of words, in a part of this same book "which bears this title²⁸: — "A solid, easy, and clear Repetition of some Articles of the Augsburg Confession, which have been disputed on for some time by some Divines of this Confession, and are here decided and accorded by the rule and analogy of God's word, and the brief form of our Christian doctrine." Let who will expect from such a title the clearness and brevity it promises him ; for my part, I shall only observe two things on this word repetition f : the first, that although the doctrine of ubiquity, which is here established, be in no kind spoken of in the Augsburg Confession, this is called, nevertheless, " a repetition of some articles of the Augsburg Confession." They were afraid of making it appear that they were obliged to tack some new doctrine to it, and all the novelties they had breached were thus made to pass under the name of a repetition. The second, that it hath never been the luck of Protestants to have explained themselves aright the first time. They were always forced to come to repetitions, which, when all was said, were not a whit clearer than what went before.

47, — The design of the Lutherans in setting up Ubiquity.

To conceal no doctrine of the Lutherans of any importance in the book of Concord, I hold myself obliged to say, that they do not place ubiquity for the foundation of Jesus Christ's Presence in the Supper : it is certain, on the contrary, that they make this Presence depend on the words of the institution only ; but they set up this ubiquity to stop the mouths of the Sacramentarians, who had ventured to say, that it was impossible for God to put Jesus Christ's body in more than one place at once ; which appeared to them, not only contrary to the article of God's Omnipotence, but also to the Majesty of Jesus Christ's person.

— Two memorable decisions of the Lutherans, on the co-operation of Free-ivill.

We must now consider what the Lutherans say concerning the co-operation of the will with grace : so weighty a question in our controversies, that we cannot refuse it our attention.

VIII.] THE VARIATIONS, ETC. 347

On this the Lutherans say two things, which will afford great light towards the finishing of our contests. I am going to propose them with as much order and clearness as I am able, and shall use my utmost endeavour to ease the reader's mind, which might be wearied with the subtilty of these questions.

— Doctrine of the Lutherans, that we are without action in our conversion.

The first thing the Lutherans do * in order to explain the co-operation of the will with grace, is to distinguish the moment of conversion, from what ensues; and having taught, that man's co-operation hath no place in the conversion of~a sinner, they add, that this co-operation ought only to be owned in the good works which we do afterwards.

I own, it is hard enough to comprehend what they would be at. For the co-operation, which they exclude from the moment of conversion, is explained in certain places after such a manner, as seems to exclude nothing -j-, but " the cooperation which is made by our own natural strength and of ourselves," as St. Paul speaks. If it be so, we are agreed : but then we do not see what need there was of distinguishing betwixt the moment of conversion, and all that followed after, since man neither operates, nor co-opei*ates through the whole sequel, any more than in the moment of conversion, but by the grace of God. Nothing, therefore, is more ridiculous than to say with the Lutherans £, that in the moment of conversion man acts no more than a stone or clay, since it cannot be denied, but in the moment of conversion he begins to repent, to believe, to hope, to love by a true action, Which a log or stone can nowise do. And it is plain, that a man who repents, who believes, and loves perfectly, repents, believes, and loves with more force, but not in the main after another manner, than when he begins to repent, to believe, and to love : so that, in one and the other state, if the Holy Ghost operates, man co-operates with him, and subjects himself to his grace, by an act of the will.

— The confusion and contradiction of the Lutheran doctrine.

In effect, it seems that the Lutherans, in concluding for the co-operation of free-will, would exclude that only which is attributed to our own strength. " When Luther," say they,

% Ibid. p. 662. .

" affirms that the will is purely passive, and in nowise acts in the conversion, his intention was not to say that no new motion was excited in our souls, and no new operation therein begun ; but only to give to understand, that man can do nothing of himself, or by his own natural strength²⁹."

This was setting out well ; but what follows is not of a piece. For after saying, what is very true, " That man's conversion is an operation and gift of the Holy Ghost, not in any of its parts only, but in the whole, they conclude very preposterously, that the Holy Ghost acts in our understanding, our heart, and our will, as in a subject that suffers, man abiding without action, purely passive."

This bad conclusion, which they draw from a true principle, makes it plain they do not understand themselves ; for, after all, what seems to be their meaning is, that man can do nothing of himself, and that grace anticipates him in all, which, I say again, is incontestable. But if it follow from this principle, that we remain without action, this consequence reaches not only the moment of conversion, as the Lutherans pretend, but extends itself also, contrary to their notions, to the whole Christian life, since we can no more pi'eserve grace by our own strength, than acquire it, and whatever state we are in, it anticipates us in everything.

— Conclusion. — If we understand one another, there remains no dispute about co-operation.

I know not, then, what the Lutherans mean when they say, it must not be believed, that " man converted, co-operates with the Holy Ghost, as two horses concur to draw a cart f ;" for that is a truth which no one disputes with them, since one of these horses receives not the strength he has from the other : whereas, we agree that man co-operating hath no strength which is not given him by the Holy Ghost ; and that nothing is more true than what the Lutherans say in the same place J, viz., "When you co-operate with grace, it is not by your own natural powers, but by new powers which the Holy Ghost bestows upon you."

Thus, the least right understanding between us cleai's this point of all shadow of difficulty. When the Lutherans teach, that our will does not act in the beginning of conversion, they only mean to say, that God excites good motions in us, which, though in us, are not from ourselves : the thing is

VIII.] THE VARIATIONS, ETC. 349 unquestionable, and it is what is called exciting grace. If they will say, that the will, when consenting to grace, and, by this means, beginning to convert itself, acts not by its own natural strength, this again is a point avowed by Catholics, if they will say, it acts not at all, but is purely passive, they do not understand themselves, and, contrary to their own principles, destroy all action and co-operation, not only in the beginning of conversion, but also through the whole course of a Christian life.

— The objection of Libertines, and the difficulty of weak Christians, concerning co-operation.

The second thing which the Lutherans teach, concerning the co-operation of the will, deserves to be observed, because it discovers to us what a labyrinth man bewilders himself in when he forsakes his guide.

The book of Concord strives to clear the following objection raised by libertines on the foundation of Lutheran doctrine *. iC If it be true," say they, u as is taught amongst you, that the will of man hath no part in the conversion of sinners, but the Holy Ghost does all therein, I have no occasion either to read or hear sermons, or frequent the Sacraments, but will wait till the Holy Ghost sends me his gifts."

This same doctrine involved the faithful in great perplexities : for as they were taught, that as soon as ever the Holy Ghost acted in them, he alone wrought upon them in sucli a manner, that they had nothing at all to do ; all those, who did not feel this ardent faith within them, but rather nothing, only misery and weakness, fell into these dismal thoughts, this dangerous doubtfulness — Am I of the number of God's elect, and will God ever send me his Holy Spirit?

— The Lutherans' solution grounded on eight propositions, the four first containing general principles.

In answer to these doubts of libertines and weak Christians, who deferred their conversion, there was no saying to them that they resisted the Holy Ghost, whose grace interiorly solicited them to yield themselves up to him ; since they were told, on the contrary, that in these first moments of a sinner's conversion, the Holy Ghost did all himself, and a man acted no more than a log of wood. Wherefore, they take another method to make sinners comprehend that it is their fault if³⁰ they be not converted, and, in order to that, they lay down these positions : —

" I³¹. God wills that all men be converted, and attain to eternal salvation.

" II. For that end he hath commanded the Gospel to be preached in public.

" III. Preaching is the means whereby God gathers together from amongst mankind a Church, the duration whereof has no end.

" IV. Preaching and hearing the Gospel are the instruments of the Holy Ghost, whereby he acts effectually in us, and converts us."

Having laid down these four general positions touching the efficacy of preaching, they apply them to the conversion of a sinner, by four other more particular ones, viz. —

— Four other propositions in order to apply the first.

" V+ . Before ever a man is regenerated, he may read, or hear the Gospel outwardly; and in these exterior things he hath, in some manner, his free-will to assist at Church assemblies, and there to hear, or not to hear, the word of God.

"VI. They add to this : that by this preaching, and by the attention given to it, God mollifies hearts ; a little spark of faith is inkindled in them, whereby the promises of Jesus Christ are embraced, and the Holy Ghost, who works these good sentiments, is, by this means, sent into the hearts of men.

" VII. They observe, that, although it be true that neither the preacher nor the hearer can do anything of themselves, and that it is necessary for the Holy Ghost to act in us, to the end we may believe the word ; yet neither the preacher nor the hearer ought to have any doubt of the Holy Ghost's being present by his grace, when the word is denounced in its purity according to God's commandment, and men give ear to, and meditate seriously thereon.

" VIII. Lastly, they conclude that, in truth, this presence and these gifts of the Holy Ghost do not always make themselves be felt, yet, nevertheless, it ought to be held for certain that the word hearkened to is the instrument of the Holy Ghost, whereby he displays his efficacy in the hearts of men."

VIII.] THE VARIATIONS, ETC. 351

— The resolution of the Lutherans grounded on the eight preceding propositions, is downright Demipelagian.

By this way, therefore, the whole difficulty, according to them, is clearly solved, as well in regard to libertines as weak Christians. In regard to libertines, because by the first, second, third, fourth, sixth, and seventh propositions, preaching, attentively given ear to, operates grace. Now, by the fifth, it is laid down that man is free to hear preaching; he is, therefore, free to give to himself that, by which grace is given him, and so libertines are content. And for weak Christians, who although attentive to the word, know not whether they be in grace, inasmuch as they do not feel it ; there is a remedy for their doubt from the eighth proposition, which teaches them that it is not lawful to doubt but the grace of the Holy Ghost, though not felt, does accompany attention to the word : so that there remains no difficulty, according to the Lutheran principles, and neither the libertine nor weak Christian have anything to complain of; since, for their conversion, all, in short, depends on attention to the word, the which itself depends on the free-will.

— A proof of the Lutherans' Demipelagianism.

And that it may not be doubted what attention it is they speak of, 1 observe they speak of attention,³² inasmuch as it precedes the grace of the Holy Ghost : they speak of attention, applied by the free-will to hear or not to hear ; they speak of attention, whereby one gives ear externally to the Gospel, whereby one assists at Church assemblies, where the virtue of the Holy Ghost displays itself, whereby an attentive ear is given to the word, which is his organ. It is this free-attention to which the Lutherans annex divine grace; and they are excessive in everything, since they will have it on one hand, when the Holy Ghost begins to move us, that we do not act at all ; on the other, that this operation of the Holy Ghost, which converts us without any co-operation on our side, is attracted necessarily by an act of our will, in which the Holy Ghost has no part, and wherein our liberty acts purely by its natural strength.

— Semipelagianism of the Lutherans. — An example proposed by Calixtusf.

This is the current doctrine of the Lutherans, and the most

352 THE HISTORY OP [BOOK leanied of all of them, that have written in our days, has explained it by this comparison. He supposes all mankind plunged into a deep lake, on the surface of which God has provided a salutary oil to swim, which by its virtue alone will deliver all these wretches, provided they will use the natural strength that is left them to draw near to this oil, and swallow but some drops of it. This oil is the word announced by preachers. Men of themselves may apply their attention to it ; but as soon as they approach by their natural strength, in order to listen thereto, of itself, without their further intermeddling, it diffuses a virtue in their hearts which heals them.

— The confusion of the new Sects passing from one extremity to the other.

Thus all the vain scruples, which made the Lutherans, under pretext of honouring God, at first destroy free-will, and afterwards grow fearful at least of allowing too much to it, end at last in giving to it so great power, that to its action, and the most natural exercise of it, all is annexed. This it is to walk without rule, the rule of tradition once forsaken : they think to avoid the error of Pelagians, but, winding about, they return to it another way, and the compass they take brings them back to Demipelagianism.

— The Calvinisls come into the Semipelagianism of the

Lutherans.

This Demipelagianism of the Lutherans, by little and little, spreads even to Calvinism, from the inclination that party hath of uniting itself with the Lutherans ; in whose favour they have begun to say already, that Demipelagianism does not damn, that is, there is no harm in attributing to free-will the beginning of salvation³³.

— A difficulty in the book of Concord, concerning the certainty of Salvation.

I find, moreover, another thing in the book of Concord-f-, which, were it not well understood, might cause a great confusion in the Lutheran doctrine. It is there said, that the faithful, in the midst of their weaknesses and combats, " ought by no means to doubt either of the justice which is

VIII.] THE VARIATIONS, ETC. 353 imputed to them by faith, or of their eternal salvation.'1 Whereby it might seem that Lutherans admit the certainty of their salvation as well as Calvinists. But this would be too visible a contradiction in their doctrine, since, to believe the certainty of salvation in every one of the faithful, as the Calvinists believe, they ought also to believe, with them, the inamissibility of justice, which, as hath been seen, the Lutheran doctrine expressly rejects.

— A solution from the doctrine of Doctor John Andrew

Gerard

To adjust this contrariety, the Lutheran Doctors answer two things : one, that by the doubt of salvation, which they exclude from the faithful soul, they understood nothing but the anxiety, agitation, and trouble, which we exclude as well as they³⁴ ; the other, that the certainty they admit in all the just, is not an absolute certainty, but conditional, and supposes that the faithful soul does not depart from God by voluntary wickedness. The matter is thus explained by Doctor John Andrew Gerard, who has published lately an entire body of controversy ; the meaning of which is, that, in the Lutheran doctrine, the believer may rest fully assured that God on his side will never be wanting to him, if he be not first wanting; to God — a thiner not to be doubted of. To give the just more certainty, is too evidently contradicting that doctrine which teaches us that, be we never so just, we may fall from justice, and lose the spirit of adoption ; a point as little questioned by Lutherans as Catholics.

— A brief Account of the book of Concord.

Since the book of Concord has been compiled, I take it the Lutherans in body have never made any new decision of faith. The parts of which this book is composed are from different authors and of different dates ; and the Lutherans' design was to give us in this collection what is most authentic amongst them. The book came out in 1579, after the famous assemblies held at Torg and Berg in 1576 and 1577. This last place, if I am not mistaken, was a monastery near Magdeburg. I shall not relate in what manner this book was subscribed in Germany, nor the tricks and force which, as is reported, were put on those who received it, nor the oppo- sitions of some princes and cities who refused to sign it. Hospinian * has written a long history of it, which appears well enough grounded as to the chief of its facts. Let the Lutherans who are concerned therein, contradict it. The particular decisions, which relate to the Supper and Ubiquity, were made near the time of Melancthon's death, viz. about the years 1558, 1559, 1560, and 1561.

— The troubles in France begin. — Confession of Faith drawn by Calvin.

These years are famous amongst us for the beginnings of our disturbances in France. In the year 1559, our pretended Reformists drew up a confession of faith, which they presented to Charles IX. in 1561, at the Conference of Poissy-f³⁵. This was one of Calvin's productions, whom I have often already spoken of; and the reflections I must make on this confession of faith, oblige me to set forth more thoroughly the conduct and doctrine of this its author.

IX.] THE VARIATIONS, ETC. 355

SleiJ. 1. i., n. 25. t Sleid. lib.xvi. p. 261. } T. i. Wit. p. 407. § Sleid. lib. xvii. p. 276 . VOL. I. Y ↩
Epist. Wit. Theod. inter Ep. Cal. p. 82. t Sleid. lib. xvii. p. 289, 295, &c. Ibid. p. 297. ↩
Sleid. lib. xiv. Act. coll. Ratisb. Argent. 1542. p. 199. Ibid. 132. Mel. lib. i. Ep. 24, 25. Act. Ratisb. Ibid. 136. t Ibid. 153. Sleid. Ibid. 157. ↩
Act. Ratisb. llesp. Princ. 78. Annotata, out omissa in artic. Concil.8'2. Lib, Ep.29. ↩
Chyt. lib. xvii. Saxon, tit. Osiandrica. p. 444. ↩
Cal. Ep. ad'Mel. 146. ↩
Cal. Rp. ad Mel. 140. t S. 1. ii. n. 3. ↩
Calv. Ep. ad Cranm. Col. 134. f Acad. Regiomontana. ↩
Lib. i.Ep. 16. ad Phil. cant. An. 1525. Lib.i.Ep.70. Lib.ii. Ep. 36. Concord. p. 514, 789. ↩
Slekl. ante. f Synt. Gen . Part ii. p. 48, 98. % Lib.xxii. ↩
Syut. Gen. Part ii. p. 9-l,etseq. || Ibid. ↩
Cap. de Ccena. f Synt. Gen. Part ii. p. 72. ↩
Luke ii. 34. Positus in signum, cui contradicelur. f Conf. Wirt. C. de Euch. Ibid. p. 115. ↩
Conf. Wirt. C. de Eucli. p. 53. ↩
Cap. de rem. pecc, de lib. arb., etc. Synt. Gen. part ii. p. 54, 60, 61, etc. ↩
Demipelagian, lib. iv. Ep. 240. ↩
Ep. Mel. inter Cal. Ep. p. 384. t Conf. Aug. art. xviii. S. 1. iii. n. 191. p. 20. ↩
Mel. lib. i. Ep. 70. Burn, part ii. lib. ii. p. 355. Lib. i. Ep. 70. ejusd. Ep. ad Albert. Hardenb. et ad Bulling, apud Hospin. An. 1557, 250. t Lib, iv. 868. et seq. ↩
Loc. sup. cit. S. lib. vii. n, 108. VOL. I. Z ↩
Acts xxiii. 6. f Chyt. in Sax. lib. xvii. Tit. Osiand. p. 444, et seq. Ibid. 448. ↩
Hosp. f, 264. •)• Sous les especes du pain et du vin. ↩
Lib. i. EjJ. 70. ↩
Peuc. narr. hist, de sent. Mel. It. hist, career. &c. -J- S. lib. iv. n. 23. % Hosp. ad An. 1557. pp. 2-W, 250. ↩
Peuc. Hist. car. Ep. ad. Pal. ap. Hosp. 1559. 260. Peuc. Aulicus. t Hosp. 1560. p. 269. 2. Def. cont. Westph. ↩
Cal. Ep. p. 324, ad 111. Germ. Prin. 2. Defens. cont. West, opusc. 286. Hosp. An. 1560. p. 269, etseq. ↩
Lib. Concor. p. 600. ↩
Solida. plana, &c. Cone. p. 628. t C vii. de Ccena. p. 752, et seq. viii. de pers. Ch. p. 761, et seq. p. 782, et seq. ↩
Con. pp. 58'2, 673, 680, 681, 682. t Pp. 656, 662, 668, 674, 678, 680, et seq. ↩
Con., p. 680. t Ibid. p. 674. $ Ibid. ↩
Con., p. 6fi9. ↩
Con., p. 669, et seq. f Ibid. ↩
Con., p.671. | Calixt. judic. n. 32, 33, 34. ↩
Jur. Syst. de l'Eg. lib. ii. ch. iii. pp. 249, 253. f Con., p. 585. ↩
Conf. Cath. 1G79, Lib. ii. Part iii. Art. 22. c. 2. Thesi. iii. ft. 2, 3; 4, and Art. xxiii. c. 5. Thesi. unic. n. G. pp. 1426 et 1499. VOL. I. 2 A ↩
Hosp. Concord, discors. imp. 1G07, t Bez. Hist. Ecc. I, iv. p. 520, ↩

Chapter 10 of 18

Book VIII. From the year 1546 to the year 1561

Footnotes