The Regensburg Article 5 On Justification Inconsistent Patchwork or Substance of True Doctrine Anthony N S Lane Full Chapter

The Regensburg Article 5 on
Justification: Inconsistent Patchwork or

Substance of True Doctrine? Anthony
N. S. Lane
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmass.com/product/the-regensburg-article-5-on-justification-inconsistent-
patchwork-or-substance-of-true-doctrine-anthony-n-s-lane/
Regensburg Article 5 on Justification
OXFORD STUDIES IN HISTORICAL THEOLOGY
Series Editor
David C. Steinmetz, Duke University
Editorial Board
Irena Backus, Université de Genève
Robert C. Gregg, Stanford University
George M. Marsden, University of Notre Dame
Wayne A. Meeks, Yale University
Gerhard Sauter, Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität Bonn
Susan E. Schreiner, University of Chicago
John Van Engen, University of Notre Dame
Geoffrey Wainwright, Duke University
Robert L. Wilken, University of Virginia
GREGORY OF NAZIANZUS ON THE TRINITY THE REFORMATION OF SUFFERING

AND THE KNOWLEDGE OF GOD Pastoral Theology and Lay Piety in Late Medieval and
In Your Light We Shall See Light Early Modern Germany
Christopher A. Beeley Ronald K. Rittgers
THE JUDAIZING CALVIN CHRIST MEETS ME EVERYWHERE
Sixteenth-Century Debates over the Messianic Psalms Augustine’s Early Figurative Exegesis
G. Sujin Pak Michael Cameron
THE DEATH OF SCRIPTURE AND THE RISE MYSTERY UNVEILED
OF BIBLICAL STUDIES The Crisis of the Trinity in Early Modern England
Michael C. Legaspi Paul C. H. Lim
THE FILIOQUE GOING DUTCH IN THE MODERN AGE
History of a Doctrinal Controversy Abraham Kuyper’s Struggle for a Free Church
A. Edward Siecienski in the Netherlands
John Halsey Wood Jr.
ARE YOU ALONE WISE?
Debates about Certainty in the Early Modern Church CALVIN’S COMPANY OF PASTORS
Susan E. Schreiner Pastoral Care and the Emerging Reformed Church,
1536–1609
EMPIRE OF SOULS
Scott M. Manetsch
Robert Bellarmine and the Christian Commonwealth
Stefania Tutino THE SOTERIOLOGY OF JAMES USSHER
The Act and Object of Saving Faith
MARTIN BUCER’S DOCTRINE OF
Richard Snoddy
JUSTIFICATION
Reformation Theology and Early Modern Irenicism HARTFORD PURITANISM
Brian Lugioyo Thomas Hooker, Samuel Stone, and Their
Terrifying God
CHRISTIAN GRACE AND PAGAN VIRTUE
Baird Tipson
The Theological Foundation of Ambrose’s Ethics
J. Warren Smith AUGUSTINE, THE TRINITY, AND THE CHURCH
A Reading of the Anti-Donatist Sermons
KARLSTADT AND THE ORIGINS OF THE
Adam Ployd
EUCHARISTIC CONTROVERSY
A Study in the Circulation of Ideas AUGUSTINE’S EARLY THEOLOGY OF IMAGE
Amy Nelson Burnett A Study in the Development of Pro-Nicene Theology
Gerald Boersma
READING AUGUSTINE IN THE REFORMATION
The Flexibility of Intellectual Authority in Europe, THE GERMAN AWAKENING
1500–1620 Protestant Renewal after the Enlightenment, 1815–1848
Arnoud S. Q. Visser Andrew Kloes
SHAPERS OF ENGLISH CALVINISM, 1660–1714 THE SYNOD OF PISTOIA (1786) AND VATICAN II
Variety, Persistence, and Transformation Jansenism and the Struggle for Catholic Reform
Dewey D. Wallace, Jr. Shaun Blanchard
THE BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION OF WILLIAM REGENSBURG ARTICLE 5 ON JUSTIFICATION
OF ALTON Inconsistent Patchwork or Substance of True Doctrine?
Timothy Bellamah, OP Anthony N.S. Lane
MIRACLES AND THE PROTESTANT
IMAGINATION
The Evangelical Wonder Book in Reformation Germany
Philip M. Soergel
Regensburg Article 5
on Justification
Inconsistent Patchwork or Substance
of True Doctrine?
A N T HO N Y N . S . L A N E
1
3
Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers
the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education
by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University
Press in the UK and certain other countries.
Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press

198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, United States of America.
© Oxford University Press 2020
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in

a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the
prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted
by law, by license, or under terms agreed with the appropriate reproduction
rights organization. Inquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the
above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the
address above.
You must not circulate this work in any other form

and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Names: Lane, A. N. S., author.
Title: Regensburg article 5 on justification : inconsistent patchwork or
substance of true doctrine? / by Anthony N. S. Lane.
Description: New York, NY, United States of America : Oxford University Press, 2019. |
Includes bibliographical references.
Identifiers: LCCN 2019018493 | ISBN 9780190069421 (hardback) |
ISBN 9780190069438 (updf) | ISBN 9780190069445 (epub) | ISBN 9780190069452 (online)
Subjects: LCSH: Justification (Christian theology)—History of doctrines—16th century. |
Regensburg Colloquy of 1541 (1541 Regensburg, Germany)
Classification: LCC BT764.3 .L365 2019 | DDC 234/.7—dc23
LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2019018493
1 3 5 7 9 8 6 4 2
Printed by Integrated Books International, United States of America

To Daniel, David, and Emmanuel
Contents
Preface ix
Abbreviations xiii
Introduction 1
1. The Regensburg Colloquy 9
Background 9
The Regensburg Colloquy 13
Article 5 22
The Rest of the Colloquy 30
2. Reactions to Article 5 33
Contemporary Protestant Reactions 33
Contemporary Catholic Reactions 46
Modern Assessments 59
3. After Regensburg 67
Debates over Article 5 67
The Cologne Reformation 69
The Second Colloquy of Regensburg (1546) 83
The Council of Trent, Decree on Justification (1546–47) 85
4. Double Righteousness and Double Justification 89
Double Righteousness Prior to Regensburg 89
The Origin of the Regensburg Formula 95
Double Righteousness after Regensburg 108
Double Justification 129
Justification of the Ungodly and Justification of the Godly 129
Justification of Works as well as Persons 133
Double Formal Cause of Justification 137
Conclusion 144
5. Text and Commentary 147
The Text 147
The Commentators 149
The Commentary 152
Conclusion 248
viii Contents
6. Inconsistent Patchwork or Substance of True Doctrine? 251

The Issues 251
Doctrines Not Covered by Article 5 251
Ambiguities in Article 5 253
Duplex Iustitia 254
Reliance upon the Testimony of Works 257
The Nature of Justifying Faith 259
The Role of Fiducia 263
The Participants 266
Melanchthon 266
Bucer 266
Calvin 267
Contarini 268
Gropper 271
Pflug 272
Conclusion: Inconsistent Patchwork or Substance of True Doctrine? 273
Sed contra 273
Concerns 275
Conclusion 277
Appendix: The Drafts of Article 5 279

1. The Worms Draft 279
2. Melanchthon’s Draft (with translation) 295
3. Eck’s Draft (with translation) 302
4. Gropper’s Draft (with translation) 305
5. The Final Version (with translation) 329
Glossary of Latin Terms 335

Bibliography 337
Index 363
Preface
I began this study in the early 2000s, and at that stage, geography was a cru-
cial factor. I was (and am) fortunate to have easy access to the British Library,
the Cambridge University Library, and the Bodleian Library. Almost all the
sixteenth-century volumes to which I needed access were available at these
three. I am particularly grateful to Lord Acton for collecting books relating
to this theme, which are now in the Cambridge University Library, without
which I would not have been able to embark on this project. I am also grateful
to the staff of the Rare Books Reading Room there for their helpfulness, espe-
cially in providing photocopies. After an interval of some ten years, I returned
to this study in 2014 and discovered that, with very few exceptions, every
sixteenth-century volume that I needed could now be downloaded from
the Internet. This is thanks overwhelmingly to two bodies—the Bayerische
Staatsbibliothek in Munich and Google Books.1
Thanks are also due to a number of individuals. Colin Smith, one of my
first two research students, worked on “Calvin’s Doctrine of Justification in
Relation to the Sense of Sin and the Dialogue with Rome.” It was he who
first kindled my interest in the present topic. I am also grateful to Kevin
Vanhoozer and Dennis Okholm for invitations to speak on justification
by faith in Catholic-Protestant dialogues at Trinity Evangelical Divinity
School and Wheaton College respectively. Out of these lectures emerged the
book Justification by Faith in Catholic-Protestant Dialogue: An Evangelical
Assessment,2 and this led on naturally to the present study.
The late Vincenz Pfnür wrote extensively on the colloquies in general
and justification in particular. He offered me encouragement and kindly let
me have photocopies and transcripts of Eck’s and Melanchthon’s drafts of
Article 5. I am grateful that we had the opportunity to meet. The late Thomas
Mayer in an extensive email exchange offered valuable help with Pole’s let-
ters, including sharing the material before it was published and a proposed
1 The delay has also meant that I have been able to use three significant new editions: BSELK,
ADRG, and MBWT.

2 London: T & T Clark (Continuum), 2002.
x Preface
translation of a tricky passage. Again, I am glad that I once had the opportu-
nity to meet him. I have corresponded with Reinhard Braunisch, who very
kindly responded to my queries and generously supplied me with copies of
a number of his works. As a research student and a Gasthörer at Tübingen,
I enjoyed taking part in a seminar on Augustine’s De spiritu et littera, run
by the late Karl-Heinz zur Mühlen. Thereafter we met repeatedly at con-
ferences run on the reception of the Fathers in the fifteenth and sixteenth
centuries. We did not get to discuss the present topic, but I am grateful
to him for all his work in producing the invaluable Akten der deutschen
Reichsreligionsgespräche im 16. Jahrhundert, of which I have made heavy use.
I enjoyed nearly twenty years of working with the late Wilhelm Neuser on
the Presidium of the International Congress on Calvin Research, which he
founded. I take issue with him on his assessment of Article 5, but that does
not lessen my warm appreciation of all that he did and of our times together.
I am also greatly indebted to those who kindly read and commented on
drafts of this book. Robert Kolb commented on the Luther and Melanchthon
material in particular, as did Gordon Jensen, and Brian Lugioyo commented
on the Bucer and Gropper material. In many places I have added material in
response to their questions and suggestions. Christopher Malloy scrutinised
the relevant material from a Tridentine perspective, and I have interacted
with his comments in a few places. Dermot Fenlan also read and commented
on my material. I am especially indebted to Robert Kolb for engaging with
the material in great detail, and for giving me many helpful leads, though he
is not, of course, responsible for the line I have taken. In the course of our on-
going and detailed dialogue, he asked many penetrating questions, and these
repeatedly forced me to sharpen and clarify my argument, on occasion sub-
stantially (Prov 27:17). I am very grateful to him for this.
I am also grateful to Alister McGrath, for our helpful discussions of the
topic of justification over a period of some thirty years and for his magisterial
Iustitia Dei.
In working with the original texts, I received help with specific queries
concerning Latin (Steve Motyer, David Wright), Italian (Lisbet Diers, David
Payne, and Emily Smuts) and German (Annette Glaw, Nathalie Hallervorden,
Markus Wriedt, Berndt Hamm, and Joachim Schmid). I am also grateful to
David Payne and Richard Sturch, who provided me with draft translations
of the longer Latin documents in the Appendixes. I have revised these for
myself, and the responsibility for the final interpretations and translations
lies with me. The aforementioned folk are not to be held responsible for any
Preface xi
defects that remain. I am also very grateful to my colleague Conrad Gempf,

who has over many years offered me unstinting help on computer matters,
particularly related to the production of this book.
During the later stages of writing the book, I have frequently enjoyed the
pleasant distraction of spending time with my grandchildren. This book is
dedicated to my three grandsons, Daniel, David, and Emmanuel Djabbarov,
who have helped to keep me grounded in today’s world as I wander the
highways of the 1540s.
Abbreviations
ADRG Akten der deutschen Reichsreligionsgespräche im 16.

Jahrhundert, 3 vols., ed. K. Ganzer and K.-H. zur Mühlen
(Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000–2007).
ARC Acta Reformationis Catholicae Ecclesiam Germaniae
Concernentia Saeculi XVI, 6 vols., ed. G. Pfeilschifter
(Regensburg: F Pustet, 1959–74).
ARG Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte
ASD Opera Omnia Desiderii Erasmi Roterodami
(Amsterdam: 1969ff.).
BSELK Die Bekenntnisschriften der Evangelisch-Lutherischen Kirche, ed.
I. Dingel (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2014).
BSELK QuM1 Die Bekenntnisschriften der Evangelisch-Lutherischen
Kirche: Quellen und Materialen, Band 1, ed. I. Dingel
(Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2014).
CC Corpus Catholicorum (Münster: W. Aschendorf, 1919ff.).
CO Ioannis Calvini Opera Quae Supersunt Omnia, ed. G. Baum,
E. Cunitz, and E. Reuss (Braunschweig: Schwetschke,
1863–1900).
COR Ioannis Calvini Opera Omnia denuo recognita et adnotatione
critica instructa notisque illustrata (Geneva: Droz, 1992ff.).
CR Corpus Reformatorum. Philippi Melanthonis Opera Quae
Supersunt Omnia, ed. C. G. Bretschneider and H. E. Bindseil
(Braunschweig and Halle: Schwetschke, 1834–60).
CT Concilium Tridentinum. Diariorum, Actorum, Epistularum,
Tractatuum Nova Collectio, edidit Societas Goerresiana
(Freiburg: Herder, 1901–76).
CTS Selected Works of John Calvin, ed. H. Beveridge, Calvin
Translation Society Edition (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1983).
DTC Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique, ed. A. Vacant, E. Mangenot,
et al. (Paris: Letouzey & Ané, 1923–50).
DVRC M. Bucer, De vera ecclesiarum in doctrina, ceremoniis, et
disciplina reconcilatione et compositione (Strassburg: Wendel
Rihel, 1542).
FSKR T. C. Schlüter, Flug-und Streitschriften zur “Kölner Reformation”
(Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2005).
xiv Abbreviations
Herminjard A. L. Herminjard, Correspondance des Reformateurs dans les

pays de langue française (Geneva and Paris: H. Georg and
M. Levy, 1866–97).
JGB R. Braunisch, Johannes Gropper Briefwechsel
(Münster: Aschendorff, 1977, 2006).
Kolb and Wengert, R. Kolb and T. J. Wengert (eds.), The Book of Concord: The
Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church
(Minneapolis: Fortress, 2000).
LB Desiderii Erasmii Opera Omnia (Leiden: Vander, 1703–1706).
LC43 P. Melanchthon, Loci Communes 1543 (Saint Louis,
MO: Concordia, 1992).
LCC 22 John Calvin, Theological Treatises, ed. J. K. S. Reid, Library
of Christian Classics 22 (London and Philadelphia: SCM
and Westminster Press, 1954).
LT43 P. Melanchthon, Loci theologici recens recogniti
(Wittenberg: Peter Seitz, 1543).
LW M. Luther, Luther’s Works (St Louis, MO: Concordia, 1955ff.).
MBB Martin Bucer (1491–1551) Bibliographie, ed. H. Pils,
S. Ruderer, and P. Schaffrodt (Gütersloh: Gütersloher
Verlagshaus, 2005).
MBDS Martin Bucer, Martin Bucers Deutsche Schriften
(Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus [Gerd Mohn], 1960ff.).
MBW Melanchthons Briefwechsel, vols. 1–14, ed. H. Scheible
(Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt: Frommann-Holzboog, 1977ff.).
MBW T Melanchthons Briefwechsel, Texte, vols. 1ff., ed. H. Scheible
(Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt: Frommann-Holzboog, 1991ff.).
OS P. Barth et al. (eds.), Johannis Calvini Opera Selecta
(Munich: Chr. Kaiser, 1926–68 -1st–3rd editions).
PL Patrologia Latina Cursus Completus . . . , ed. J. P. Migne
(Paris: Migne, 1844–55).
Regesten Gasparo Contarini, Regesten und Briefe, ed. F. Dittrich
(Braunsberg: von Huye’s Buchhandlung (Emil
Bender), 1881).
Tappert T. G. Tappert (ed.), The Book of Concord: The
Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church
(Philadelphia: Fortress, 1959).
WA D. Martin Luthers Werke. Kritische Gesamtausgabe
(Weimar: H. Böhlau, 1883–2009).
WA Br. D. Martin Luthers Werke. Kritische
Gesamtausgabe: Briefwechsel.
WA Tr. D. Martin Luthers Werke. Kritische
Gesamtausgabe: Tischreden.
ZKG Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte.
Introduction
The Regensburg Colloquy of 1541 is famous for one thing above all—Article
5 on justification. What makes the colloquy remarkable is the fact that six
leading theologians, three Protestant and three Roman Catholic, in a few
days drew up a brief article on which they could all agree, at least for a short
time. It was a historic event, comparable to the 1999 Joint Declaration on
the Doctrine of Justification. Yet despite this hopeful start, the colloquy soon
descended into sharp disagreement, and its eventual failure led to an em-
phasis on polemics above conciliation, which meant that there was relatively
little ongoing interest in Article 5. As Peter Matheson notes, “its importance
has seldom been sufficiently recognised.”1
From the very beginning, there were two rival views of Article 5. Some (es-
pecially Luther) saw it as an inconsistent patchwork of contradictory views.
Others (including Calvin) saw it as a consistent statement containing the
substance of true doctrine. Furthermore, these two views survive down to
the present day. Which is correct? This book will seek to answer that ques-
tion by a careful analysis of the article, interpreting it through the writings
of its contemporaries. Pride of place goes to those who took part in the col-
loquy: Melanchthon, Bucer, Pistorius, Gropper, Eck, and Pflug, who drew up
the article; Contarini, who was the papal legate at the colloquy; and Calvin
and Pighius, who were also present at the colloquy. I will also draw upon
Luther, who was not present but was kept informed about events and oc-
casionally other contemporaries who have a relevant contribution to
make, such as Pole and Sadolet. Finally, I also compare Article 5 with the
Tridentine Decree on Justification that was to follow a few years later. With all
of these I have concentrated mostly on the primary sources, with only lim-
ited reference to the secondary literature. When I refer to sixteenth-century
commentators I put their name in bold at the beginning of each section of
material. Thus a reader wanting to know, for example, Contarini’s take on
Article 5 can easily identify the relevant material.
1 Matheson, The Rhetoric of the Reformation, 228.
Regensburg Article 5 on Justification: Inconsistent Patchwork or Substance of True Doctrine?

Anthony L. S. Lane, Oxford University Press (2020). © Oxford University Press.
DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780190069421.001.0001
2 Regensburg Article 5 on Justification
The heart of the book lies in chapter 5, where there is a sentence by sentence
commentary on the article drawn especially from the writings of those men-
tioned. The earlier chapters set the context for this. Chapter 1 sets the article
in the context of the colloquy itself and what led to it. Article 5 was not created
ex nihilo, but was preceded by four drafts. The Appendix contains the text of
these, together with translations of three of them, as well as the text and trans-
lation of the final version. Chapter 2 describes the different responses to Article
5, both by its contemporaries and in recent times. Chapter 3 looks at the after-
math of the colloquy—the literary debate concerning the article; the attempted
Cologne Reformation involving many of the same participants; the Second
Colloquy of Regensburg (1546), which also involved the topic of justification;
and, finally, the Tridentine Decree on Justification. If the teaching of Article
5 can be summarised in a brief phrase it would be “double righteousness” or
“twofold righteousness” (duplex iustitia). Chapter 4 looks at the varied usage
of this term, both before and after the colloquy, and at the related term “double
justification” (duplex iustificatio), with which it has often been confused. After
chapter 5, the concluding c hapter 6 reassesses the teaching of the article and
returns to the question posed at the outset: Was Article 5 an inconsistent patch-
work or the substance of true doctrine? considering it from the respective
perspectives of Bucer, Calvin, Melanchthon, Contarini, Gropper and Pflug.
As I was in the final stages of writing this book, the term “fake news” came
into prominence. Article 5 has been subject to more than its fair share of fake
news, or misinformation.2 One of the aims of this work is to unmask such
errors. Among these are the following:
• Article 5 teaches double justification.

• The definitive article teaches the same as the original Worms draft of the
article.
• Gropper’s Enchiridion is the source of Article 5’s teaching on double
righteousness.
So what? Why does the meaning of a dead document of some 850 words
matter? Does it merit a book of about half that number of pages? In fact, the
2 “Fake news” is, of course, a recent term. The word “misinformation” by contrast goes back at least
to the sixteenth century. The word “disinformation” originated in the 1950s, derived from the title of
a KGB department. Disinformation implies the deliberate intention to deceive, whereas misinforma-
tion refers to the inaccuracy of the information, whatever the intention. I am not accusing any of the
scholars involved here of wilful disinformation, only of unintentional misinformation.
Introduction 3
book sheds light on far more than this single short document. It sheds light,
in some cases new light, on the doctrines of justification of key figures such
as Gropper, Contarini, Pole, and Calvin, examining them from the specific
perspective of their stances on Article 5.
This is a highly ideological topic, pitting Catholic against Protestant, ec-
umenical against polemical approaches, historians against theologians, and
so I owe it to the reader to declare my interests. I am aware of the histor-
ical and political dimensions of the colloquy and have sought to heed recent
scholarship; but I am primarily interested in the theological issues and am
convinced these are not merely pretexts for power struggles.3 I write as an
Evangelical (of a more Reformed than Lutheran persuasion) who believes in
the Protestant doctrine of justification, but I have made every effort to be fair
to other views. Finally, I read Article 5 with an openness to formulations that
safeguard the concerns of both sides, and not with a hermeneutic of suspi-
cion that is satisfied with nothing less than total surrender by the other side.4
When I started this study, a prime resource was volume 4 of the Corpus
Reformatorum. For many (but by no means all) of the texts this has been
superseded by the Acta Reformationis Catholicae Ecclesiam Germaniae,
the Akten der deutschen Reichsreligionsgespräche im 16. Jahrhundert, and
the Melanchthons Briefwechsel. I have continued to give references to CR
4 since some readers will have access only to that, and more importantly,
all the twentieth-century literature is based on it. It is important for the
reader to know precisely which texts these older works were citing. There
are often differences in spelling and punctuation between the different
editions. I have not drawn attention to such differences when quoting from
them. I have cited such works by volume and page number, not giving the
item number. The one exception is the Melanchthons Briefwechsel, where
the text itself is in one volume (which I cite by pages only) but the sum-
mary is in a different (Regesten) volume, for which the item number is
given.5
3 Elizabeth Gleason, in her magisterial study of Gasparo Contarini, notes that some interpret-
ations of the Regensburg Colloquy fail to take full account of the political factors involved (Gasparo
Contarini, 212 n. 110). Matheson refers to the “somewhat disembodied treatment of the pro-
fessional historians of doctrine,” without denying the value of such work (Cardinal Contarini at
Regensburg, 174).
4 For the issue of the concerns of each side, see Lane, Justification by Faith in Catholic-Protestant
Dialogue, 10–13, 98–99, 104, 112–13, 130–34, 148, 154, 160, 171–74, 183–84, 192–94, 201–203, 207–
209, 211–14, 220–21, 226–28.
5 For the value of this edition, see Graybill, “Melanchthons Briefwechsel as a Biographical Source,”
295–305. There are addenda to the Regesten volumes in MBW 9. There are also Nachträge to the Text
I have previously published five chapters related to this topic in

different books:
• Justification by Faith in Catholic-Protestant Dialogue: An Evangelical

Assessment (London : T & T Clark, 2002), 45–85.
• “Cardinal Contarini and Article 5 of the Regensburg Colloquy (1541),”
in Otmar Meuffels & Jürgen Bründl (eds.), Grenzgänge der Theologie
(Münster: Lit Verlag, 2004), 163–90.
• “Calvin and Article 5 of the Regensburg Colloquy,” in Herman
J. Selderhuis (ed.), Calvinus Praeceptor Ecclesiae (Geneva: Droz, 2004),
233–63.
• “Twofold Righteousness: A Key to the Doctrine of Justification?
Reflections on Article 5 of the Regensburg Colloquy (1541),” in Mark
A. Husbands and Daniel J. Trier (eds.), Justification: What’s at Stake in
the Current Debates (Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 2004), 205–24.
• “A Tale of Two Imperial Cities: Justification at Regensburg (1541) and
Trent (1546– 1547),” in Bruce L. McCormack (ed.), Justification in
Perspective: Historical Developments and Contemporary Challenges
(Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2006), 119–45.
There is inevitably a limited amount of verbal overlap between what is written

in these books and the present book. I am grateful to the publishers for per-
mission to reuse this material.
When the Reformers defined justification in forensic terms,6 referring
to God’s attitude to us (in the belief that this is the Pauline meaning of the
term) they did not mean to imply that forensic justification exhausts the
meaning of Christian salvation. Yet that was how their teaching was often
interpreted by their contemporary opponents (whether sincerely or for po-
lemical ends), and they were accused of teaching that Christian conversion
leads to forgiveness, but not to inner transformation. That misunderstanding
has persisted to modern times. The distinguished Catholic philosopher
Étienne Gilson stated that, “For the first time, with the Reformation, there
volumes online: http://www.haw.uni-heidelberg.de/forschung/forschungsstellen/melanchthon/

nachtraege.de.html.
6 McGrath, Iustitia Dei (2005), 212–13 correctly identifies the definition of justification as a “fo-
rensic definition” as one of the three characteristic features of Protestant doctrines of justification be-
tween 1530 and 1730. Calvin twice uses the word “forensic” (forensis) of justification (Institutio 3:11:11
[1559]), though it is, of course, possible to teach forensic justification without using the actual word.
Introduction 5
appeared this conception of a grace that saves a man without changing him,
of a justice that redeems corrupted nature without restoring it, of a Christ
who pardons the sinner for self-inflicted wounds but does not heal them.”7
The view that Gilson is attacking would not have been recognised by any of
the mainstream Reformers. Justification may be limited to our standing be-
fore God, but the totality of salvation is most certainly not. They held to jus-
tification by faith alone, and yet also held that good works are necessary for
salvation.8 As Reinhard Flogaus put it, the Formula of Concord advocates a
purely imputative doctrine of justification, but not a purely imputative un-
derstanding of the righteousness of the justified.9 Or, to put it differently,
when the Reformers distinguished between forensic justification and trans-
formative sanctification, to say that justification is forensic amounted to little
more than the statement that “the forensic side of salvation is forensic.”
In the interests of accessibility, all the material in the body of the text is
translated into English, except for a few technical terms, which are set out in
the “Glossary of Latin Terms.”10 (But in c hapter 5, where a sentence of Article
5 is being discussed, I sometimes quote the Latin of the article without trans-
lation, since each sentence of the article is followed by an English transla-
tion.) Sometimes, I have also included the original, either in the text or in the
footnotes. Those who know only English will be able to read the body of the
text, though not all of the footnotes. The translations are mine, except where
indicated. In my translations of the primary sources are many instances
when my rendering of a passage is very close to being a precise quotation,
but I have forborne from using quotation marks because my translation is
not completely precise. I hope I have not too often justified the charge of
traduttore, traditore—or of fordítás, ferdítés.
Some words about translation. The Latin words iustitia and iustificatio
are obviously closely related. Catholic scholars usually bring this out by
translating them as “justice” and “justification.” I have opted to use the
words “righteousness” and “justification,” despite the fact that it potentially
obscures the link between them.
There are many references in this discussion to duplex iustitia and du-
plex iustificatio. How should duplex be translated? Some refer to “twofold
7 Gilson, The Spirit of Medieval Philosophy, 421.

8 For more on this see chapter 5, below, on §10 of Article 5.
9 Flogaus, “Luther versus Melanchthon?,” 43.
10 The aim is not to insult the intelligence of established scholars but to widen access to those
without the languages.

righteousness” and “double justification.” There are two problems with such
a policy. It obscures the fact that the identical Latin word is being used.
Also, the English words “twofold” and “double” have different nuances. The
former lays more stress on the unity between the two items; the latter more
firmly stresses their duality. Where justification is concerned, the literature
refers to “double justification” rather than “twofold justification”; there is
not the same consensus about “twofold righteousness.” After long deliber-
ation and having discussed the issue with a number of folk, I have decided
in the interest of consistency to refer to “double justification” and “double
righteousness,” except of course when quoting people who refer to “two-
fold righteousness.”
The term iustitia inhaerens is normally translated inherent righteous-
ness/justice. Christopher Malloy argues rather for the translation inhering,
in order to avoid “the problematic implication of being something ‘native’
or ‘intrinsic’ to the human person.”11 I fully applaud the motive of avoiding
Pelagian implications, but since that does not appear to be a significant
danger in the debates discussed in this book, I have opted to retain the more
common translation.
The Latin word poenitentia can be translated “repentance” or “penance,”
with rather different connotations. The English speaker is forced to make a
binary choice that the original authors did not face. I toyed with the idea of
using the word “penitence,” thus retaining some of the ambiguity of the orig-
inal and maintaining a consistency in translation, but to translate poenitere as
“be penitent” is rather stilted. Instead, I have stayed with the words “repent-
ance” and “repent,” unless it is clear that the sacrament of penance is being
referred to.12 Some of the time I also give the Latin word.
Finally, I have translated caritas, dilectio, and amor alike as “love.” I have
not discerned any theological significance in the use of one rather than an-
other of these words in the debates surrounding Article 5.
The literature (especially the older literature) sometimes refers to the lo-
cation of the colloquy as Ratisbon, based on the Latin name Ratisbona. In
keeping with most contemporary scholarship, I use the modern German
name of the city, Regensburg. I also refer to the city of Strassburg, rather than
Strasbourg, as a reminder that it was at that time still a German city. I likewise
11
Malloy, Engrafted into Christ, 103.
12
This decision was confirmed by reading Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiciae, vol. 60. In the
translation of 3, qq. 84–90, the word poenitentia is translated variously as “penance,” “penitence,” and
“repentance” in a way that obscures the fact that Thomas is using the same word throughout.
Introduction 7
refer to the Flemish city of Leuven, to distinguish it clearly from the nearby
Louvain-la-Neuve.
As is normal, when a volume has numbered pages, these are given without
the use of “p.” or “pp.” When it is the folios that are numbered, references will
be to these with “a” and “b,” signifying the recto and verso sides, without the
use of “fol.” or “fols.” When neither pages nor folios are numbered or the nu-
meration is erratic, references will be to the printer’s signatures, with the use
of “sig.” and “sigs.”
With biblical references, sometimes the numeration differs between the
Vulgate and modern English versions, and not only in the numbering of the
Psalms. I have aimed to follow the modern English numeration in every case,
even in the Latin texts in the Appendix, since giving different references for
the same verse would be confusing.
Finally, many contemporary letters are cited. Where no year is indicated,
these are from 1541.
1
The Regensburg Colloquy
Background
During the early years of the Reformation, the doctrine of justification

was subjected to considerable scrutiny. It was, of course, one of the major
emphases of the Reformers in their protest against late medieval Roman
Catholicism. The latter had well- defined positions on many doctrines,
such as the Eucharist, which left little or no room to manoeuvre when these
doctrines were challenged by the Reformers. It was different with justifica-
tion. The Reformers presented the doctrine in a new light, posing new and
hitherto unanswered questions. This created a problem for their opponents
as there was no consensus in the Catholic Church on the doctrine of justifi-
cation; more importantly, there had been no authoritative pronouncements.1
Individual Roman Catholic theologians were free to develop their doctrines
in different ways, and these varied from uncompromising hostility to the
Protestant doctrine to almost complete agreement with it. Genuine dialogue
was possible between the two sides as the Roman response to the Protestant
doctrine was not predetermined.
Among those in the Roman Catholic Church most sympathetic to Luther’s
doctrine was an Erasmian reforming group in Italy, known as the spirituali,
which included leading cardinals.2 One of these, Gasparo Contarini, un-
derwent a conversion experience, which he described in a private letter
of 1511, and which has affinities with Luther’s (later) Tower Experience
(Turmerlebnis).3 In Germany, a significant group of Catholic humanists
1 For a brief survey of Catholic opinion in the early years of the Reformation, see Jedin, History of
the Council of Trent, 2:167–71. For a fuller account, see Laemmer, Die vortridentinisch-katholische
Theologie des Reformations-Zeitalters, 137–99; Pfnür, Einig in der Rechtfertigungslehre?, 272–384.
2 Spirituali was a contemporary term, on which see Gleason, Gasparo Contarini, 191 n. 23. On
the group, see Fenlon, Heresy and Obedience in Tridentine Italy; Firpo, Juan de Valdés and the Italian
Reformation.
3 Contarini to Giustiniani (24 April [1511]) in Jedin, “Contarini und Camaldoli,” 62–65 (53–60 for
introduction to the letters); Gleason (ed.), Reform Thought in Sixteenth-Century Italy, 24–28. On the
letter and the parallels and differences between Contarini’s experience and Luther’s, see Jedin, “Ein
‘Turmerlebnis’ des jungen Contarini.” Cf. Ross, “Gasparo Contarini and His Friends,” esp. 204–17.
Regensburg Article 5 on Justification: Inconsistent Patchwork or Substance of True Doctrine?

Anthony L. S. Lane, Oxford University Press (2020). © Oxford University Press.
DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780190069421.001.0001
were also seeking reform within the Roman Catholic system. Noteworthy
among these was Johann Gropper, who in 1538 published his highly in-
fluential Enchiridion, a handbook for the reform of the diocese of Cologne,
which set out a mediating doctrine of justification.4 Gropper shared Luther’s
theological concerns and embraced such ideas as the awareness of ongoing
sin in the justified.5 Among such Catholic humanists, there was widespread
sympathy for the Protestant idea that Christ’s righteousness is imputed or
reckoned to us. This was because in many ways, these reforming humanist
Catholics shared a similar spiritual background to the Reformers. Yarnold
notes that “the sense that the converted Christian still needs to throw himself
on the mercy of God seems to have been in the air independently of Luther.”6
This concern was in line with much patristic and medieval piety.7 Gropper
and Contarini shared the Reformers’ conviction about the imperfection of
our inherent righteousness and so were willing to embrace the concept of
imputed righteousness.8 Because our inherent righteousness is imperfect,
Christ’s righteousness needs to be imputed to us in order for us to be ac-
ceptable to God. Gropper, as an Erasmian humanist, believed in going “back
to the sources” (ad fontes), these being the Bible and the early Fathers. This
provided a common ground for discussion with Protestants, but there was
one critical difference between them. Gropper did not accept the idea of
Scripture as the final criterion, a “norma normans non normata.” He was not
open to the idea of questioning and testing the tradition, teaching, or struc-
ture of the Roman Catholic Church in the light of Scripture.9
From 1530 there was a series of colloquies10 aimed at reconciling the two
sides in Germany—to avert civil war and to enable a common front against
the Turkish threat. At the beginning of January 1539, Bucer and the former
Lutheran Georg Witzel debated one another at Leipzig and produced fifteen
4 On Gropper’s Enchiridion and its doctrine of justification, see c hapter 4 below, n. 46.
5 Lipgens, Kardinal Johannes Gropper 1503–1559, 109.
6 Yarnold, “Duplex iustitia,” 207–13, quotation on 213. The theme of the perpetual need for God’s
mercy runs throughout Yarnold’s chapter. See also Rivière, “Justification”; Ives, “An Early Effort to-
ward Protestant-Catholic Conciliation.”
7 Zumkeller, “Das Ungenügen der menschlichen Werke bei den Deutschen Predigern des
Spätmittelaters,” documents this in detail.

8 I am grateful to Smith, “Calvin’s Doctrine of Justification in Relation to the Sense of Sin and
the Dialogue with Rome,” for first drawing my attention to this point. For others in Venice and Italy
sharing Contarini’s sense of the ongoing need for mercy, see Logan, “Grace and Justification.”
9 Brosseder, “Johannes Gropper (1503–1559),” 59–60.
10 On the colloquies in general, see especially Jedin, History of the Council of Trent, 1:372–91;
Augustijn, De Godsdienstgesprekken tussen Rooms-katholieken en Protestanten and other works listed

in the bibliography.
agreed articles.11 The first of these concerned the transition from original
sin to grace and righteousness: “How people move from inborn corruption
to the grace of God, piety and bliss.”12 Luther looked favourably upon the
Leipzig articles as a step forward for the current Roman Catholic territo-
ries, and unfavourably on them as a formula for all Germany, including the
current Protestant territories. Augustijn notes that the great significance of
Leipzig was that it showed that such a colloquy could succeed in producing
agreement.13 In the light of 450 years of sharp confessional divide, this hope
appears naive and unrealistic, but in 1540 the lines had not yet hardened.
The greatest chance of success came in three gatherings that were held
in 1540 and 1541. These began with a colloquy at Hagenau (relocated from
Speyer for health reasons) in June and July 1540, but some of those expected
to attend failed to appear and the two sides could not agree on how to pro-
ceed.14 The colloquy was adjourned to Worms, where it met in November,
this time with a good line-up of theologians.15 On the Catholic side were
Eck, Cochlaeus, Gropper and Pighius; on the Protestant side were Bucer,
Capito, Calvin, Melanchthon, and others.16 On 9 and 10 November there
were preliminary talks on justification, followed later by other topics.17 After
11 Cardauns, Zur Geschichte der kirchlichen Unions-und Reformsbestrebungen von 1538
bis 1542, 1– 24; Fraenkel, Einigungsbestrebungen in der Reformationszeit, 7– 29; Augustijn, De
Godsdienstgesprekken tussen Rooms-katholieken en Protestanten, 16–24; Fuchs, Konfession und
Gespräch, 388– 409; MBDS 9/ 22; Ortmann, Reformation und Einheit der Kirche, 49–78;
1:13–
Greschat, Martin Bucer: A Reformer and His Times, 168–70; Lugioyo, Martin Bucer’s Doctrine of
Justification, 137–47.
For the text of the articles, see Bucer, Ein christlich ongefährlich bedencken (1545), B1a–G1a; also
MBDS 9/1:23–51. There was a later Latin translation of the articles (ARC 6:1–17). In 1562 Witzel
published a very brief Warer Bericht von den Acten der Leipsischen und Speirischen Collocution
zwischen Mar. Bucern und Georg. Wicelien.
On Melanchthon’s brief role at the event, see Beumer, “Zwei ‘Vermittlungstheologen’ der
Reformationszeit,” 514–17.
12 “Wie der Mensch von dem Angebornen verderben zůr gnaden Gottes frombkeyt und seligkeyt
komme” (Bucer, Ein christlich ongefährlich bedencken, B1a–2a; ARC 6:2–3; MBDS 9/1:23–25).
Bucer commented on it in Ein christlich ongefährlich bedencken, G3a–4a. On this article, see Lexutt,
Rechtfertigung im Gespräch, 75–79.
13 Augustijn, De Godsdienstgesprekken tussen Rooms-katholieken en Protestanten, 24.
14 Augustijn, De Godsdienstgesprekken tussen Rooms-katholieken en Protestanten, 36–45. For the
documents relating to Hagenau, see ADRG 1/I–II.

15 Augustijn, De Godsdienstgesprekken tussen Rooms-katholieken en Protestanten, 46–58. For the
documents relating to Worms, see ADRG 2/I–II.

16 On Calvin’s role in the colloquies, see Neuser, “Calvins Beitrag zu den Religionsgesprächen von
Hagenau, Worms und Regensburg”; Stolk, Johannes Calvijn en de godsdienstgesprekken tussen rooms-
katholieken en protestanten in Hagenau, Worms en Regensburg.
It is going beyond the evidence to claim that Calvin, in the French national interest, did all that he
could to thwart theological agreement. Nestler, “Vermittlungspolitik und Kirchenspaltung auf dem
Regensburger Reichstag,” 397, following Pastor, Die kirchlichen Reunionsbestrebungen während der
Regierung Karls V, 230.
17 Neuser (ed.), Die Vorbereitung der Religionsgespräche von Worms und Regensburg, 116–
39 (Frecht’s diary and Wolfgang Musculus’s minutes for 9 and 10 November 1540); ADRG 2/
long delays, Melanchthon and Eck began to debate original sin in January
and agreement was reached in a few days.18 At this point, Nicholas Perrenot
de Granvelle, the imperial chancellor, adjourned the debate to the coming
Diet at Regensburg.19 Meanwhile, secret discussions had been taking place
at Worms between Bucer and Capito on the Protestant side and the hu-
manist Catholics Gropper and Gerard Veltwyck20 (Granvelle’s secretary).21
Gropper, with Bucer’s cooperation, went on to draw up the Regensburg
Book, a collection of twenty-three articles, which was to be used as a basis
for further discussion.22 This book went through four drafts (not all of which
survive), and Bucer produced a German translation.23
The German literature often distinguishes between the Worms Book
(Wormser Buch), the draft produced at Worms, and the Regensburg Book
(Regensburger Buch), the version which was finally presented to the Emperor
Charles V at Regensburg. Contrary to normal practice in the English-
language literature, but in the interests of greater clarity, I will refer to the first
draft of Article 5 on justification, that in the Wormser Buch, as the Worms
Draft. In January Bucer sent a copy to Philipp of Hesse, who forwarded it to
Joachim II of Brandenburg, who in turn forwarded it to Luther.24
I:470–78, 567–68. On these discussions, see Lexutt, Rechtfertigung im Gespräch, 127–49, esp. 134–49
on justification.
18 For the text of the debate on original sin, see CR 4:33–78; ADRG 3/II:902–39; abbreviated ET
in Mackensen, “Debate between Eck and Melanchthon on Original Sin at the Colloquy of Worms.”
For the formula, CR 4:32–33. On the debate, see Fuchs, Konfession und Gespräch, 409–22; Lexutt,
Rechtfertigung im Gespräch, 215–35. On the Worms and Regensburg articles on original sin, see
Vanneste, “La préhistoire du décret du Concile de Trente sur le péché originel.”
19 For the Regensburg colloquy in general, see the bibliography for works in addition to those
cited elsewhere in this chapter. I have not managed to see K. von Hertling, Granvella und die
Reunionsbestrebungen von 1540/41. Jahrbuch der Philosophischen Fakultät der Georg August-
Universität zu Göttingen. Historisch-philologische Abteilung (Göttingen, 1924).
20 On Veltwyck, see Rosenberg, Gerhard Veltwyck, esp. 26–30.
21 Eells, “The Origin of the Regensburg Book”; Stupperich, “Der Ursprung des ‘Regensburger
Buches’ von 1541 und seine Rechtfertigungslehre”; Augustijn, “De Gesprekken tussen Bucer en
Gropper tijdens het Godsdienstgesprek te Worms.” [French version: Augustijn, “L’esprit d’Érasme
pendant le Colloque de Worms”]; Augustijn, De Godsdienstgesprekken tussen Rooms-katholieken
en Protestanten, 59–72; Braunisch, “Die ‘Artikell’ der ‘Warhafftigen Antwort’ (1545) des Johannes
Gropper”; MBDS 9/1:323–36; Fuchs, Konfession und Gespräch, 423–29; Ortmann, Reformation und
Einheit der Kirche, 181–90.
22 Augustijn, “Das Wormser Buch: Der letzte ökumenische Konsensversuch,” considers a number
of aspects and contains a German translation of key sections. See also Ortmann, Reformation und
Einheit der Kirche, 191–229.
23 ARC 6:24–88 gives the Latin text with a textual critical apparatus setting out the different drafts.
MBDS 9/1:338–483 and ADRG 2/I:574–701 contain the Latin together with Bucer’s rather free
German translation (on which, see MBDS 9/1:326, 330, 332–33, 335–36).
24 MBDS 9/1:326. Joachim to Luther (4 February) in CR 4:92–96; ADRG 3/I:11–13. Luther’s re-
sponse to Joachim (21? February), expressed in general terms without any reference to the specific
contents of the Book, was negative (WA Br. 9:332–34; ADRG 3/I:14). See also Granvelle’s report to
The Regensburg Colloquy
The anticipated colloquy took place at the Regensburg Diet. Contarini was
appointed papal legate. His official instruction left him with little room for
manoeuvre and without the authority to conclude anything.25 Giovanni
Morone was present as papal nuncio, as he had been at Worms. The diet
was opened on 5 April.26 There were no official records of the colloquy,
but a number of those present published their own editions of the Acta
Colloquii.27 On 21 April the emperor selected the six debaters/negotiators
(Disputanten): Martin Bucer, Philipp Melanchthon, and Johann Pistorius
on the Protestant side; Johann Gropper, Johann Eck, and Julius Pflug on the
Catholic side.28 Others, such as Calvin and Pighius, were present but not
selected as debaters.29 Melanchthon had specifically requested that Calvin
should attend the colloquy.30 While he was not one of the debaters, that need
not mean that he had no influence upon the outcome.31
Pighius was disappointed not to be selected as a debater, Granvelle
being against him.32 He may not have been a debater, but Pighius’s time at
Regensburg was eventful. At the Worms Colloquy he wrote a modestly enti-
tled Careful and Splendid Exposition of the Controversies by which the Faith
Charles V on 10 January (ARC 3:334–47, esp. 341–43). For Philipp’s notes on the Book (but unfortu-
nately not Article 5), see Müller, “Landgraf Philipp von Hessen und das Regensburger Buch.”
25 For the text, see ADRG 3/I:5–11. Gleason, Gasparo Contarini, 204–209 points to the uncom-
promising nature of this instruction. Dittrich, Gasparo Contarini, 565–69 also comments on it. On
Contarini’s role at the colloquy, see Solmi, “Gasparo Contarini alla Dieta di Ratisbona”; Mackensen,
“The Diplomatic Role of Gasparo Cardinal Contarini at the Colloquy of Ratisbon”; and, especially,
Matheson, Cardinal Contarini at Regensburg.
26 The Emperor’s opening address is found in CR 4:151–54; ADRG 3/I:30–37. For Morone’s at-
titude to the colloquies, see Robinson, The Career of Cardinal Giovanni Morone, 31–35, and for
Morone at Regensburg, see 37–43. For relations between Morone and Contarini at Regensburg, see
Ganzer, “Gasparo Contarini und Giovanni Morone.”
27 For details of these, see the beginning of c
hapter 5.
28 CR 4:178–79; ADRG 3/I:53–54. See also ADRG 3/I:78–79. On 19 March, Eck was lamenting
to Morone that he had not been invited to attend the colloquy (Friedensburg, “Beiträge zum
Briefwechsel der katholischen Gelehrten Deutschlands im Reformationszeitalter: V. Dr. Johann Eck,”
474). Also, on 1 April to Farnese in Schultze, “Zwei Briefe Johann Ecks,” 472–73; ADRG 3/I:25–26.
Summary in Regesten, 162.
29 Calvin was representing Strassburg, alongside Bucer. For the full list of Protestant theologians at
Regensburg, see ADRG 3/I:79–80.

30 Calvin to Farel (31 January) in CO 11:146–47; Herminjard 7:11. Calvin to Farel (4 May) in CO
11:213; Herminjard 7:105. Doumergue, Jean Calvin. Les hommes et les choses de son temps, 2:625–26,
cites a Strassburg archive. Calvin was invited to Worms in part because of his knowledge of French
(Jakob Bedrotus to Peter Kunz (24 November 1540) in CO 11:120).
31 Eight years later, he described how he had declined the invitation to a discussion (colloquium)
with Contarini (dedication to Commentary on Catholic Epistles (CO 14:32; COR 2:20:5)).
32 Contarini to Farnese (28 April) in Pastor, “Die Correspondenz des Cardinals Contarini während
seiner deutschen Legation,” 371. Summary in Regesten, 173. For the unreliability of the manuscripts
used by Pastor, see Gleason, Gasparo Contarini, 212 nn. 111–12.
and Religion of Christ are Presently Harassed (hereafter referred to as his

Controversies).33 Granvelle insisted that publication be delayed while the
debates continued. Pighius thought that this meant only the Worms debate
and had the first part of his Controversies (comprising the first nine out of
sixteen Controversies) printed on his way to Regensburg. There were two
problems with that. Publication would have breached the agreement of
both sides to remain silent during the colloquy. Also, the first Controversy
expounds an anti- Augustinian doctrine of original sin that was later
branded as heretical. Publication was deferred until after the conclusion of
Regensburg colloquy, when the complete Controversies was published, with
minor changes to the first Controversy.34 At Regensburg Pighius also had an
important exchange with Contarini, concerning both original sin and justifi-
cation. He wrote two letters to Contarini, and the latter replied, terminating
the exchange.35 All of this matters because Contarini claimed that Article 5
was “largely the view of Pighius, which I saw in his writings”36 and because
some scholars have claimed Pighius to be the author of double righteousness.
These claims will be assessed in c hapter 4.
Bucer and Gropper were appointed as conciliators with the poten-
tial for reaching agreement. Bucer was the most flexible of the Protestant
negotiators.37 Before the colloquy Granvelle had told Morone that Bucer was
already won over (“già era guadagnato”),38 and by the time Article 5 had been
agreed, Morone had been convinced that Granvelle was right.39 Contarini
at the same time described how Bucer had come to visit him and how they
had discussed the evils of division and how to reach concord.40 Contarini
33 Controversiarum . . . diligens et luculenta explicatio ([1541]). Cf. Jedin, Studien über die
Schriftstellertätigkeit Albert Pigges, 34–40.

34 For a full account of this, with publication details of the Controversies and the text of the diver-
gent versions of the first Controversy, see Lane, “Albert Pighius’s Controversial Work on Original
Sin.” For Pighius’s doctrine of original sin, see especially Feiner, Die Erbsündenlehre Albert Pigges.
35 Regesten, 381–84 (on original sin) and 387–89 (on justification). Contarini’s letter is in Regesten,
349–53. None of these letters is dated.

36 See c
hapter 2 below, at n. 119.
37 For Bucer’s role in the colloquies, see Ortmann, Reformation und Einheit der Kirche, 281–
95; Lugioyo, Martin Bucer’s Doctrine of Justification, 15–35. For Bucer’s time in Regensburg, see
Ortmann, Reformation und Einheit der Kirche, 241–65. Fuchs describes Bucer as “ohne Zweifel der
verständigungsbereiteste bedeutende protestantische Theologe” (Konfession und Gespräch, 425).
38 Morone to Farnese (21 March) in Dittrich, “Die Nuntiaturberichte Giovanni Morone’s
vom Reichstage zu Regensburg,” 439. At that stage, Granvelle even had hopes of winning
Melanchthon over.
39 Morone to Farnese (3 May) in Dittrich, “Die Nuntiaturberichte Giovanni Morone’s vom
Reichstage zu Regensburg,” 454. Summary in Regesten, 178.

40 Contarini to Farnese (3 May) in Pastor, “Die Correspondenz des Cardinals Contarini während
seiner deutschen Legation,” 373. Summary in Regesten, 177.

told Bucer how great the fruit of unity would be and how profound the grat-
itude of humanity. Bucer responded by stating that both sides were guilty,
the Protestants of obstinacy and the Catholics of tolerating abuses, but that
with God’s help they would find the truth and arrive at concord.41 Morone
later claimed that Bucer had promised to preach the change in the substance
of the eucharistic elements within two months of any such agreement being
reached. Significantly, he also stated that without Bucer, the colloquy would
have already ended.42 Contarini noted at the end of June that Bucer “greatly
desired concord.”43 Bucer retained a good impression of Contarini after the
colloquy, describing him four years later as “too learned and too pious to be
a cardinal—and also too ready for reformation.”44 But while Bucer’s method
may have been flexible, his consistent aim in the colloquies was to win his
Catholic partners over to the Gospel.45
Melanchthon and Eck were appointed as hardliners, whose presence
was necessary for the credibility of the proceedings.46 Melanchthon came
with strict instructions not to deviate from the Augsburg Confession or its
Apology.47
41 Beccadelli, “Vita di . . . Messer Gasparo Contarini,” 34.

Reichstage zu Regensburg,” 459. Summary in Regesten, 180–81.
43 Contarini to Farnese (27 June) in Pastor, “Die Correspondenz des Cardinals Contarini während
seiner deutschen Legation,” 488. Summary in Regesten, 205.

44 Von der einigen rechten wegen (1545), 39–40.
45 Augustijn, “Strasbourg, Bucer et la Politique des Colloques,” 200; Neuser, “Bucers Programm
einer ‘guten leidlichen Reformation’ ”; Ortmann, “Martin Bucers Bemühungen um Reformation und
Einheit der Kirche bei den Religionsgesprächen 1540/41,” 136; Lugioyo, Martin Bucer’s Doctrine of
Justification.
46 For Melanchthon’s role in the colloquies, see Blatter, Die Thätigkeit Melanchthons bei den
Unionsversuchen, 63–143 on Regensburg; Meyer, “Melanchthon, Theologian of Ecemenism,” 201–

202 on Regensburg; Wengert, “The Day Philip Melanchthon Got Mad”; Augustijn, “Melanchthon und
die Religionsgespräche,” 217–24 on Regensburg and 226 on the different approaches of Melanchthon
and Bucer; Lexutt, “War Melanchthon ein Ökumeniker?,” 38–41 on Regensburg; Janssen, “Wir
sind zum wechselseitigen Gespräch geboren”, 196–280 on Regensburg; Gößner, “Reichspolitik und
Religionsgespräche.”
For Melanchthon’s relations with Bucer during the Worms and Regensburg colloquies, see
Scheible, “Melanchthon und Bucer,” 384–87.
On the modern image of Melanchthon as a moderate rather than a hardliner, see Keen,
“Melanchthon and His Roman Catholic Opponents.”
47 Johann Friedrich to his councillors (15 March) in CR 4:126–27. Burckhard reported several
times that Melanchthon was tough in the negotiations (to Johann Friedrich (13 May) in CR 4:289;
ADRG 3/I:190; to Pontanus (Gregor Brück) (21 May) in CR 4:317; ADRG 3/I:225–26 and (23 May)
in CR 4:324). Cf. Morone to Farnese (3 May) in Dittrich, “Die Nuntiaturberichte Giovanni Morone’s
vom Reichstage zu Regensburg,” 453: “mandato strettessimo dal Duca di Sassonia.” Summary in
Regesten, 177–78. For the unreliability of the manuscripts used by Dittrich, see Gleason, Gasparo
Contarini, 212 nn. 111–12. Unfortunately, I have not had the opportunity to consult the orig-
inal manuscripts. Any resulting minor inaccuracies will affect only the background material of
this book.
Johann Pistorius (1502–83), also known as Johann Becker or Niddanus,

is the least known of the debaters48 and is not to be confused with his more
famous son Johann Pistorius Niddanus the Younger (1546–1608).49 Having
studied in Strassburg, he became the first Protestant pastor of Nidda (in
Hesse), and in 1541, he became superintendent of the diocese of Alsfeld. He
was a lifelong friend of Melanchthon and took part not just in the Regensburg
Colloquy but also in the Diet of Augsburg (1530), the Hagenau Colloquy
(1540), two Worms Colloquies (1540 and 1557), and the second Regensburg
Colloquy (1546). He worked together with Bucer and Melanchthon in the
attempts after Regensburg to reform the archdiocese of Cologne.50 He is
significant more as a practical churchman than as a theologian. Burckhard
described him as “the Landgrave’s preacher, not unlearned (so I hear) and
of whom Philipp [Melanchthon] likewise thinks highly.”51 Pistorius dropped
out of the debates at the same time that Eck was taken ill, in order to maintain
the balance between the two sides. He and the Catholic Pflug52 were both
chosen as moderates with the aim of keeping Melanchthon and Eck in the
minority. Pistorius, however, is more often than not described as siding with
Melanchthon against Bucer’s over-readiness to make concessions.53 At the
end of his life, Pistorius worked on, but unfortunately failed to complete, a
history of the colloquies he had attended between 1540 and 1557.54
Eck, the “Achilles of the Catholics,”55 was undoubtedly a colourful figure.
Jedin brings out the different sides of his character in a brief summary: “He
In 1540 there appeared the variata secunda of the Augsburg Confession, which is relevant for
Article 5, as we will see in chapters 4 and 5. On this edition, see Lexutt, Rechtfertigung im Gespräch,
112–27 (118–27 on justification).
48 When Morone told Farnese (21 April) who had been selected to be the debaters, he referred to
Pistorius as “un Giovanni Pistorio,” indicating that he did not expect the name to be known (Dittrich,
“Die Nuntiaturberichte Giovanni Morone’s vom Reichstage zu Regensburg,” 445. Summary in
Regesten, 171).
49 Günther, Die Reformation und ihre Kinder covers both, with Part 1 (11–73) on the father. Briefer
accounts of the father are found in Stupperich, Reformatorenlexikon, 166–67; Tzschirner/Mirbt,

“Pistorius, Johannes (Niddanus)”; abbreviated ET in Mirbt, “Pistorius, Johannes Becker.”
50 Günther, Die Reformation und ihre Kinder, 26–29, 32.
51 Burckhard to Brück (22 April) in CR 4:184; ADRG 3/I:66. For further commendation, in the
light of his performance at the colloquy, see Burckhard to Johann Friedrich (13 May) in CR 4:289–90;
ADRG 3/I:190; Saxon envoys to Johann Friedrich (14 May) in CR 4:292–93; Burckhard to Brück (23
May) in CR 4:324.
52 On Pflug’s irenical orientation, see Offele, Ein Katechismus im Dienste der Glaubenseinheit, 158–
66. Pflug stressed beliefs that were shared more than those which divided (163).
53 Burckhard to Brück (5 May) in CR 4:257; ADRG 3/I:136; Burckhard to Johann Friedrich (13 May)
in CR 4:289–90; ADRG 3/I:190; Burckhard to Johann Friedrich (14 May) in CR 4:291; ADRG 3/I:197;
Saxon envoys to Johann Friedrich (14 May) in CR 4:292–93; Burckhard to Brück (23 May) in CR 4:324.
54 Günther, Die Reformation und ihre Kinder, 62–63; Hassencamp, Hessische Kirchengeschichte im
Zeitalter der Reformation, 457.

55 Quirini (ed.), Epistolarum Reginaldi Poli, 3:XLIX.
was well-read, sagacious, unbeaten in dispute, endowed with an impeccable

memory, but coarse, sensual, a deep drinker, a witty controversialist, sure
of himself to the extent of arrogance and an enemy of compromise.”56 Eck
was “the most vigorous champion of the Catholic cause.”57 Apart from his
natural inclination towards belligerency, he came with strict instructions
from his Bavarian rulers not to compromise.58 This was no hardship for Eck,
who was opposed to the whole approach of reaching concord by a compro-
mise formula.59 In January Contarini wrote to him from Rome telling him
that Christians should not despair (desperandum) in desperate situations
(desperata) but should in hope believe against hope (Rom 4:18), placing their
hope in God’s providence and Christ’s mercy.60
Eck did not enjoy the Regensburg colloquy.61 He found it unfortunate and
inauspicious,62 and claimed that to describe the tragedy of Regensburg would
require a whole book.63 He complained that his proposals were not heeded.64
A week after the agreement on justification, on 10 May, ill health forced him
to withdraw from the colloquy. “Doctor Eck has already taken to bed for sev-
eral days, being sick with a fever, caused by intemperance, draining (so we
hear) many pitchers, sometimes of wine, sometimes of water.”65 On hearing
at one point that Eck was getting better, Calvin commented dryly to Farel
that the world did not yet deserve to be set free from that wild beast, a senti-
ment doubtless shared on occasions by Eck’s Catholic colleagues.66
56 Jedin, History of the Council of Trent, 1:395.

57 Quirini (ed.), Epistolarum Reginaldi Poli, 3:XLV.
58 Luttenberger, “Johann Eck und die Religionsgespräche,” 208– 209 describes the instruc-
tion that Eck received before the Worms Colloquy. The Bavarians did not trust Gropper or Pflug
and at one point were even concerned about Eck. (Morone to Farnese (21 April) in Dittrich,
“Die Nuntiaturberichte Giovanni Morone’s vom Reichstage zu Regensburg,” 445. Summary in
Regesten, 171). They were not in favour of having a colloquy (Contarini to Farnese (30 March)
in Schultze, “Actenstücke zur deutschen Reformationsgeschichte I,” 164. Summary in Regesten,
162). For more on their approach, see Ganzer, “Die Herzöge von Bayern und das Regensburger
Religionsgespräch.”
59 Luttenberger, “Johann Eck und die Religionsgespräche,” 194, 219.
60 Contarini to Eck (6 January) in Regesten, 314–15.
61 On Eck and the colloquy, cf. Wiedemann, Dr. Johann Eck, Professor der Theologie an der
Universität Ingolstadt, 292–324; Iserloh, Johannes Eck (1486–1543), 74–78; Luttenberger, “Johann
Eck und die Religionsgespräche”; Pfnür, “Johannes Ecks Verständnis der Religionsgespräche.”
62 Eck to Morone (mid- July), in Friedensburg, “Beiträge zum Briefwechsel der katholischen
Gelehrten Deutschlands im Reformationszeitalter: V. Dr. Johann Eck,” 476: “infortunata, infausta et
inauspicata.”
63 Eck to Nausea (20 December), in Epistolarum Miscellanearum ad Fridericum Nauseam, 330.
64 Johann Eck, Apologia . . . adversus mucores et calumnias Buceri super actis comitiorum Ratisponae,
3b, 34a.
65 Cruciger to Bugenhagen (19 May), in CR 4:306; ADRG 3/I:218.
66 Calvin to Farel (12 May) in CO 11:217–18; Herminjard 7:116; ADRG 3/I:186. Eck also receives
unfavourable mention in Calvin’s poem Epinicion Christo cantatum, written at Worms on 1 January
1541, but not published until 1544 (CO 5:427; de Boer, Loflied en Hekeldicht, 115. ET in Ocker,
“Calvin in Germany,” 344).
Eck’s relations with his fellow Catholic debaters were stormy. He later
stated that he was not happy having to work with those two dubious debaters
(collocutoribus) whom, in matters of faith, he never fully trusted.67 In his
Apologia, he repeatedly made derogatory remarks about them and, es-
pecially, against the author of the Worms Book, whom he described as
“someone so unlearned in theological matters.”68 He claimed that after his
departure from the colloquy not only did they gain nothing further from the
other side, but the good things that had already been achieved were lost (“in
spongiam ceciderint”).69 At the end of June a Protestant report contrasted
Gropper and Pflug, who were well disposed towards the Gospel, with Eck,
who was opposed to it.70
Eck began the colloquy being vehemently opposed to the Worms Book.
Morone wasn’t sure whether Eck was motivated by zeal for religion, hatred
for his opponents, or simply the desire to dominate the proceedings, and he
stated that Eck had difficulty with the emperor’s choice of the Worms Book,
which he saw as “not very Catholic, but badly arranged because it had not
been arranged in his way.”71 Contarini reasoned with him and brought him
temporarily into compliance.72 Contarini “succeeded in taming even so diffi-
cult and pretentious an individual as Johann Eck.”73 Melanchthon noted that
Eck’s colleagues had managed to restrain his violence.74 Pfnür sums up Eck’s
issues:
67 Eck to Contarini (20 January 1542) in Friedensburg, “Beiträge zum Briefwechsel der
katholischen Gelehrten Deutschlands im Reformationszeitalter: V. Dr. Johann Eck,” 479. For further
negative comments about Gropper, see Dittrich (ed.), “Miscellanea Ratisbonensia,” 22, 24; ADRG 3/
II:586–89.
68 Apologia, 39b–40a. Also, “duo . . . collocutores, non magni nominis in Theologia” (1a); “Si Autor
libri fuisset doctus in Theologia” (36a); “Neotheologus” and “novicios Theologos” (40a–b), all cited
by Pfnür, “Die Einigung bei den Religionsgesprächen von Worms und Regensburg 1540/41 eine
Täuschung?,” 73.
69 Eck to Morone (mid- July) in Friedensburg, “Beiträge zum Briefwechsel der katholischen
Gelehrten Deutschlands im Reformationszeitalter: V. Dr. Johann Eck,” 476.
70 ADRG 3/II:548 (28 June).
71 Morone to Farnese (3 May), in Dittrich, “Die Nuntiaturberichte Giovanni Morone’s vom
Reichstage zu Regensburg,” 453. Summary in Regesten, 178, where it is inaccurately stated that Eck
called the book “unkatholisch.” Dittrich, Gasparo Contarini, 620 more accurately renders it “wenig
katholisch.”
seiner deutschen Legation,” 369–70. Summary in Regesten, 173. Morone to Farnese (28 April) in
Dittrich, “Die Nuntiaturberichte Giovanni Morone’s vom Reichstage zu Regensburg,” 449. Summary
in Regesten, 174.
73 Jedin, History of the Council of Trent, 1:390.
74 Melanchthon to Luther (30 April) in CR 4:239; WA Br. 9:385; ADRG 3/I:109; MBW T10:156
(MBW 3:165 [#2682]).

Eck could not get over the fact that he, the great theologian, was
passed over. At first, he was not invited to Regensburg, then as a basis
for the negotiations a work was prescribed that had been composed by
people who had “no great name in theology,” who had not graduated
(“promoviert”) in theology, who were neotheologians (“neotheologus”)
and novice theologians. He himself was allowed to change nothing in the
[Worms/Regensburg] Book, while they were allowed to make changes.
His proposals were not given appropriate consideration. Because of ill-
ness he was unable to take further part in the deliberations. He was not
even informed in advance about the final version of the Regensburg
Book.75
At the time of the colloquy Pflug was bishop elect of Naumburg.76 He was
unique in attending all of the colloquys from 1530 to 1557.77 Like Pistorius,
he was chosen as a moderate, with the aim of keeping Eck in the minority.
The records indicate that Pflug lived up to expectations, siding with Gropper
against Eck. During the colloquy he took a back seat, preferring to remain in
Gropper’s wake or shadow.78 J. V. Pollet has made a study of the development
of Pflug’s teaching on justification.79 In 1539 Pflug was teaching that through
the righteousness of Christ our sins are not counted against us, but our faith
is reckoned for righteousness.80 At the Regensburg colloquy he encoun-
tered the doctrine of duplex iustitia and embraced it.81 Like Contarini and
Gropper, his was a Theology of Humility (Demuttheologie) emphasising the
75 Pfnür, “Die Einigung bei den Religionsgesprächen von Worms und Regensburg 1540/41 eine
Täuschung?,” 73–74. These complaints are drawn almost entirely from Eck’s Apologia.
76 On Pflug, see Offele, Ein Katechismus im Dienste der Glaubenseinheit, 25– 44; Erbe and
Bietenholz, “Julius Pflug of Eytra,” 77–78; Pollet, Julius Pflug (1499–1564). Pollet, “Julius Pflug,” 129–
46, 140–44 focuses on his role as an irenical theologian in the colloquies.
Müller, “Schriften von und gegen Julius Pflug bis zu seiner Reise nach Trient 1551/1552,” contains
nothing pertinent to our topic.
77 Pollet, “Julius Pflug,” 140– 41. He ceased to expect a good outcome after the failure of the
Regensburg Colloquy.
78 Pollet, Julius Pflug, 134–42 covers Regensburg, reproducing, with some changes, material from
Pflug, Correspondance, 2:197–208. In the process, the analogy of remaining in Gropper’s wake (199)
becomes that of remaining in his shadow (137).
79 Pollet, “Die Lehre der Rechtfertigung in den unedierten Werken von Julius Pflug,” 60–92.
80 Pollet, “Die Lehre der Rechtfertigung in den unedierten Werken von Julius Pflug,” 62–63.
81 Pollet, “Die Lehre der Rechtfertigung in den unedierten Werken von Julius Pflug,” 60 claims
that Pflug embraced the doctrine of double justification and refers to the influence on him of Pighius
as well as Gropper. In Pollet’s account of the colloquy (67–71) Gropper’s role is argued; Pighius is
(rightly) never mentioned. Regarding double justification, on p. 60 Pollet understands this to refer to
the need for imputed righteousness to compensate for the imperfections of inherent righteousness,
which he elsewhere describes as doppelte Gerechtigkeit (70 n. 17). The two terms also appear to be in-
terchangeable on 88–89.
weakness of sinners, and he believed that we should glory not in ourselves

but in God.82
In addition to the six debaters, six lay witnesses were appointed, and
Granvelle and Count Frederick of the Palatinate were chosen to act as pres-
idents.83 The Emperor put the debaters under oath to seek the way to peace
and unity under one true and Catholic faith, with good intentions and
without bitterness or strife.84
The participants came with varied expectations. Contarini was prepared to
go to great pains in the hope of saving “these lost people.”85 He was believing
all things, hoping all things, and enduring all things (1 Cor 13:7).86 He urged
praying for the aid of the Holy Spirit, given the importance of this opportu-
nity.87 Morone feared that the debaters might reach an accord which was based
on error.88 Melanchthon feared the colloquy as a most hazardous threat to
sound doctrine. There was, however, one grain of comfort in this dangerous sit-
uation: “The danger will be less if Eck behaves more violently, as is his custom.”
He goes on to state that he fears Gropper’s moderation more than Eck’s rough-
ness and uproar.89 Burckhard expressed a similar view of Eck, describing him
as a drunk sophist, more devoted to Bacchus than to any religion.90
At the Emperor’s insistence, the Worms Book became the basis for the
discussion.91 Its origin was a closely guarded secret; the Emperor stated that
it had been composed by learned theologians in Flanders.92 Contarini and
82 Pollet, “Die Lehre der Rechtfertigung in den unedierten Werken von Julius Pflug,” 87. For these
themes in Pflug, see Offele, Ein Katechismus im Dienste der Glaubenseinheit, 211–13.
83 ADRG 3/I:78–79.
84 Negri to bishop of Corfu (27 April) in Schultze, “Actenstücke zur deutschen
Reformationsgeschichte II,” 635. Summary in Regesten, 172.

85 Negri to? (16 April) in Schultze, “Actenstücke zur deutschen Reformationsgeschichte II,”
634. Summary in Regesten, 170; Negri to bishop of Corfu (27 April) in Schultze, “Actenstücke zur
deutschen Reformationsgeschichte II,” 635–36. Summary in Regesten, 172.
86 Negri to bishop of Corfu (27 April) in Schultze, “Actenstücke zur deutschen
Reformationsgeschichte II,” 635. Summary in Regesten, 172.

87 Contarini to Gonzaga (30 April) in Regesten, 175.
88 Morone to Farnese (21 April) in Dittrich, “Die Nuntiaturberichte Giovanni Morone’s vom
Reichstage zu Regensburg,” 445. Summary in Regesten, 171.

89 Melanchthon to Camerarius (23 April) in CR 4:186; ADRG 3/ I:71; MBW T10:147 (MBW
3:163–64 [#2678]). See Melanchthon to Medler (6 April) in CR 4:154–55; ADRG 3/I:38–39; MBW
T10:114–15 (MBW 3:155 [#2658]) for further mention of the dangers of the colloquy. Shortly
after, Melanchthon wrote more positively about Gropper and Pflug’s moderation to Balthasar von
Promnitz (1 May) in CR 4:251; ADRG 3/I:110; MBW T10:161 (MBW 3:166 [#2684]).
90 Burckhard to Brück (22 April) in CR 4:185; ADRG 3/I:66.
91 Fraenkel, “Die Augustana und das Gespräch mit Rom,” 98, correctly notes that the Augsburg
Confession did not serve as a Grunddokument at Regensburg in the way that it had at Augsburg
(1530) and Worms (1541).
seiner deutschen Legation,” 368; ADRG 3/I:75. Summary in Regesten, 173.

Morone soon realised that Gropper was the author.93 The participants were
not allowed unrestricted access to it, as Granvelle brought it to the sessions
each morning and took it away at the end of the day.94 Some referred to it
as “the Talmud.”95 The Emperor invited the debaters to correct all in it that
was contrary to “divine Scripture and truth” and thus to promote concord.96
Gropper had previously showed it to Contarini, who had made some twenty
corrections to it, the most significant being the marginal addition of the word
“transubstantiation” in Article 14.97 Melanchthon and Eck were both reluc-
tant to base the debate on the Worms Book, but they eventually gave way.98
Each day the Catholic debaters met up with Contarini (“as a private person,
not in his capacity as legate”), the nuncio Morone, and Tomasso Badia, the
pope’s theologian (magister sacri palatii).99 They also returned after the day’s
debate for a debriefing.100
On 27 April the first four articles, on human innocence before the
Fall, free choice, the cause of sin, and original sin, were quickly agreed,
building on the agreement reached at the Worms Colloquy.101 But even
93 Ibid.; Morone to Farnese (3 May) in Dittrich, “Die Nuntiaturberichte Giovanni Morone’s vom
Reichstage zu Regensburg,” 454. Summary in Regesten, 178

94 Saxon envoys to Johann Friedrich (26 May) in CR 4:338.
95 Burckhard to Johann Friedrich (13 May) in CR 4:289–90; ADRG 3/I:189–90; Protestant Report
(28 June) in ADRG 3/II:548–49.

96 Saxon councillors to Johann Friedrich (5 May) in CR 4:254; ADRG 3/I:133–34. Cf. Imperial
Declaration (18 May) in CR 4:297.

97 Contarini to Farnese (28 April) in Pastor, “Die Correspondenz des Cardinals Contarini
während seiner deutschen Legation,” 368; ADRG 3/I:75. Summary in Regesten, 173. Contarini to
Farnese (9 May) in Pastor, “Die Correspondenz des Cardinals Contarini während seiner deutschen
Legation,” 377–78; ADRG 3/I:155–56. Summary in Regesten, 179. For addition of “transubstantiatis,”
see CR 4:217 n. 56; ARC 6:69 n. w; MBDS 9/1:437, n. v for the marginal addition “illis nimirum
hoc est pane et vino in corpus et sanguinem domini transmutatis et transusbstantiatis distribuanter.”
See Matheson, Cardinal Contarini at Regensburg, 101, 126. ARC 6:69, n. u; ADRG 2/I:660, n. r gives
Bucer’s marginal comment in a different manuscript: “Hic videndum est, ne nos conentur vexare de
figmento suo transsusbstantiationis.”
98 Report of Melanchthon (24/29 June) in CR 4:420; ADRG 3/II:529; MBW T10:313 (MBW 3:192–
93 [#2740]). Eck stated to Nausea (20 December), “Is miser et infoelix liber intrusus est Imperatori, cui
ego ut indocto contradixi” (Epistolarum Miscellanearum ad Fridericum Nauseam Libri X, 330).
seiner deutschen Legation,” 370–71; ADRG 3/I:76–77. Summary in Regesten, 173. Negri to? (30 April)
in Schultze, “Actenstücke zur deutschen Reformationsgeschichte II,” 639. Summary in Regesten, 176.
Contarini to Farnese (3 May) in Pastor, “Die Correspondenz des Cardinals Contarini während seiner
deutschen Legation,” 372; ADRG 3/I:115. Summary in Regesten, 177. The quotation is taken from
the last of these letters. Priuli to Beccadelli (20 May) in Dionisotti, “Monumenti Beccadelli,” 267, also
refers to Contarini’s role (together with Badia) “come privato et non come Legato.”
100 Contarini to Farnese (30 April) in Quirini (ed.), Epistolarum Reginaldi Poli, 3:CCLVI. Summary
in Regesten, 175. Cf. Contarini to Gonzaga (30 April) in Regesten, 175. Contarini to Gonzaga (3 May)
in Regesten, 324–25. Summary in Regesten, 177.
101 Report of Melanchthon (24 May) in CR 4:332; ADRG 3/I:265 (cf. 3/I:263 n. 1); MBW T10:212
(MBW 3:175–76 [#2705]): “de his locis nunc quidem rixae nullae fuerunt.” On the first four arti-
cles, see Lexutt, Rechtfertigung im Gespräch, 246–49; Lugioyo, Martin Bucer’s Doctrine of Justification,
163–74.
here, there was not complete agreement. Melanchthon stated that he had
set aside his reservations in order not to be accused of sabotaging the
colloquy without good cause.102 Eck also had reservations and thought
the Worms article on original sin inferior to the agreement reached at
Worms.103
Article 5
The fifth article, De restitutione regeneratione et iustificatione hominis gratia

et merito, fide et operibus (the Worms Draft), was discussed from 27 April to 2
May,104 though not on Sunday 1 May.105 There is no official record, but there
are a number of brief accounts from those who were present. Pflug wrote
brief notes on the colloquy, which survive in a manuscript at Zeitz.106 This
manuscript also contains his notes on both the agreed and the disputed arti-
cles. In these he summarises the debate about Article 5 in seven words: “De
iustificatione substituitur articulus. De quo convenit” (“They produced an
alternative article on justification, on which they are agreed”).107 Doubtless,
102 Report of Melanchthon (24/ 29 June) in CR 4:420; ADRG 3/II:529; MBW T10:313 (MBW
3:192–93 [#2740]). Cf. Report of Melanchthon (25 June) in CR 4:413–14; ADRG 3/II:538–39; MBW
T10:303–304 (MBW 3:190–91 [#2738]). On 12 July, in Melanchthon’s official Reply to the Emperor
concerning the Regensburg Book on behalf of the Protestant Princes and Estates, he spelt out specific
ambiguities relating to Articles 2 and 4 on free choice and original sin (CR 4:484–85; ADRG 3/II:626;
MBW T10:348–49 (Latin); CR 4:498–99; ADRG 3/II:614–15; MBW T10:340–41 (German) (MBW
3:196–97 [#2749])).
103 Apologia, 38b. In his discussion of the first four articles (34b–41b) he noted that the first and
the third were not necessary, there being no controversy between Catholics and Protestants on those
issues (34b, 38a). He also expressed at some length his dissatisfaction with Article 4 (38b–41b). The
Saxon councillors informed Johann Friedrich (5 May) that Eck had queried various points and “so
haben es die unsern auch nicht allenthalben approbirt” (CR 4:254; ADRG 3/I:134).
104 See Appendix 1 for the text of this. On this draft of Article 5, see Stupperich, Der Humanismus
und die Wiedervereinigung der Konfessionen, 105–19; von Loewenich, Duplex Iustitia, 23–26;
Martens, Die Rechtfertigung des Sünders, 55–67, which is far more about this draft than the final
article; Lexutt, Rechtfertigung im Gespräch, 204–15; Ortmann, Reformation und Einheit der Kirche,
199–209; Lugioyo, Martin Bucer’s Doctrine of Justification, 174–88. Ortmann devotes rather less
space to the final version of Article 5 (244–45). Lugioyo demonstrates that Bucer saw this not as a
finished product but as a starting point for further discussion. He also argues that this draft is com-
patible with Bucer’s own teaching on justification.
Lössl, “Augustinus im ‘Regensburger Buch’,” 41–43, is about this draft rather than the final version.
105 Jakob Sturm and Batt von Dunzenheim to the Strassburg Council on 2 May (Winckelmann
(ed.), Politische Correspondenz der Stadt Strassburg im Zeitalter der Reformation, 3:181).
106 Notiunculae de dialogis inter catholicos et luteranos collocutores Ratisponae anno 1541. For in-
formation on this and the item covered in the next note, see http://ivv7srv15.uni-muenster.de/mnkg/
pfnuer/pflug-regenburg1.html. Pflug’s notes on Article 5 are found in ADRG 3/I:83–86.
107 Notae de articulis conciliatis et non conciliatis in colloquio Ratisponensi anno 1541. ADRG 3/
I:237.
they were helped in this task by the preliminary talks on justification that had
taken place at Worms in November 1540.108
Eck and Melanchthon both found the Worms Draft unsatisfactory, and it was
agreed that it should be set aside and that there would be free discussion to draw
up a new article.109 Contrary to the impression sometimes given, this decision was
not reached immediately. Eck states that it was only after they had lost time by use-
lessly wasting two sessions that he proposed setting the first draft aside.110
Melanchthon later states that he saw the Worms Draft as a hodgepodge (far-
rago) that satisfied neither party, containing much that was obscure and am-
biguous. Parts of it correctly stated that we are righteous by faith on account of
Christ; other parts, that we are righteous on account of the virtues granted to us,
sounding like Thomas or Plato.111 He would have strongly disagreed with those
today who claim that the Worms Draft and the final version teach much the
same things. Melanchthon later admitted that during the discussion of Article 5,
he had been inclined to terminate the colloquy, fearing the dangers that would
come from the topics yet to be discussed. Bucer and Johann Sturm had been
more optimistic, and Melanchthon had given way.112 Others also refer to the
discussion of the Worms Draft.113
During the discussions a number of drafts were produced, in which order
there is no way of telling. Unfortunately, the records give only the sketchiest
account of what took place during these days of discussion, and the precise
course of events remains obscure.114 A number of modern writers are too
108 On which, see at n. 17, above.

109 Melanchthon on 23 May (CR 4:328; ADRG 3/I:232–33; MBW T10:206 (MBW 3:174 [#2702])),
25 June (CR 4:414; ADRG 3/II:538–39; MBW T10:304 (MBW 3:190–91 [#2738])), 24/29 June (CR
4:420; ADRG 3/II:529; MBW T10:313 (MBW 3:192–93 [#2740])) and 13 July (CR 4:581; ADRG 3/
II:662–63; MBW T10:399 (MBW 3:199–200 [#2754])). Also, a brief Protestant Report of 20–22 May
(ADRG 3/I:230). Cf. Report of the Saxon Counsellors on 5 May (CR 4:254–55; ADRG 3/I:134).
110 Apologia, 154b. Cf. the Report of the Saxon envoys (19 May), which suggests that it only took
one day to draw up the agreed Article (CR 4:299–300).

111 Report of Melanchthon (24 May) in CR 4:332; MBW T10:212 (MBW 3:175–76 [#2705]). This is
repeated almost identically in his Report of 22/23 July in CR 4:572; ADRG 3/II:691; MBW T10:428–
29 (MBW 3:207 [#2767]). ADRG 3/I:265 contains a very similar Report by Pistorius to Heinrich
Bullinger (30 May), drawing on Melanchthon’s text (ADRG 3/I:263 n. 1).
112 Report of Melanchthon (25 June) in CR 4:414; ADRG 3/ II:538–39; MBW T10:304 (MBW
3:190–91 [#2738]); Report of Melanchthon (24/29 June) in CR 4:420–21; ADRG 3/II:529; MBW
T10:313 (MBW 3:192–93 [#2740]); Report of Melanchthon (13 July) in CR 4:581; ADRG 3/II:663;
MBW T10:399 (MBW 3:199–200 [#2754]).
113 The Saxon councillors (5 May) in CR 4:254; ADRG 3/I:134. Cruciger to Bugenhagen ([5]‌May)
in CR 4:252–53. (This letter appears twice in ADRG 3/I: on 132–33, dated 5 May, with an additional
paragraph, and on 180–81, dated 10 May, without the additional paragraph. The letter is dated 10
May, but a footnote in CR 4:253 argues that this is an error for 5 May.) Report of the Saxon envoys (19
May) in CR 4:299–300. Report of Pistorius (c. 30 June) in CR 4:441; ADRG 3/I:490–91.
114 Musculus implies that Eck’s Draft was followed by Gropper’s, which was followed by
Melanchthon’s, all by 30 April (ADRG 3/I:108–109). Melanchthon, also on 30 April, refers to “nostras
confident in ascribing responsibility for the outcome to this or that partici-

pant. Cruciger notes the debaters’ desire to keep the proceedings secret, “be-
cause of which I am unable to write much about these matters.”115
There are four definite drafts of Article 5, and there is a possibility of a fifth:
(1) The Worms Draft from the Wormser Buch, which is by far the longest
of the drafts, at almost 6,400 words. The text is found in Appendix 1,
without a translation.116 There are significant parallels with Gropper’s
Enchiridion at a number of points, but these should not be exag-
gerated.117 This draft teaches two justifications: the first and initial
justification freely by faith without merit or works, and the second jus-
tification by works of faith and love, as described in James 2. Claims
that this draft teaches the same as the final Article are very wide of the
mark, inasmuch as the Worms Draft contains many things not found in
the final Article.118
Almost half of the Worms Draft is incorporated into Gropper’s Draft, with
some minor verbal changes and the insertion of some extra words. The re-
mainder is unused. The unused material includes all of §§1–29, 31–34, and
45, which means that the used material is from §§30, 35–44, and 46–71, con-
stituting the entirety of those sections save 107 words.
(2) A draft by Melanchthon, dated 29 April, which is found in manuscripts

at Wolfenbüttel and Zurich and to which various sources refer.119 This
formulas” (including Melanchthon’s Draft?), then Eck’s Draft, then Gropper’s Draft (CR 4:239; WA Br.
9:385; ADRG 3/I:109; MBW T10:156 (MBW 3:165 [#2682])). It may be that they are both using for-
mula to refer to a specific formulation rather than a draft of the whole article. Alternatively, it may be
that Musculus, not being present at the debates, was misinformed about the precise order of events.
115 Cruciger to Menius (5 May) in CR 4:259. Also, Cruciger to Bugenhagen ([5]‌May) in CR 4:252–
53; ADRG 3/I:132, 181. The Catholics were more concerned about secrecy than the Protestants
(Eells, “The Failure of Church Unification Efforts during the German Reformation,” 173).
116 A translation is given by Pederson, “The Religious Colloquy of Regensburg,” 346–83. Pederson
also expounds the teaching of this draft (235–79).

117 Stupperich, “Der Ursprung des ‘Regensburger Buches’ von 1541,” documents this, and also
notes points of difference. For more details, see Appendix 1, below.

118 Pastor, Die kirchlichen Reunionsbestrebungen während der Regierung Karls V, 245, claims
that the first and definitive versions “inhaltlich vollkommen übereinstimmen”; Vetter, Die
Religionsverhandlungen auf dem Reichstage zu Regensburg, 91, claims that the final version does not
differ much “inhaltlich” from the Worms Draft. Fuchs, Konfession und Gespräch, 443, also claims
“inhaltlich” agreement.
119 Cruciger to Bugenhagen ([5]‌May) in CR 4:252; ADRG 3/I:132 and 181; Cruciger to Bugenhagen
(19 May) in CR 4:304; ADRG 3/I:217. Pflug in his Notiunculae (ADRG 3/I:85): “Lectus est articulus
concordiae Melanchthonis.” Also, probably by Wolfgang Musculus (30 April): “Item a nostris aliam
is the shortest of the drafts, some 430 words. The text is in Appendix 2,
together with an English translation.
(3) A draft by Eck, which is found in a manuscript at Zeitz and to which var-
ious sources refer.120 This is slightly longer than Melanchthon’s Draft,
some 465 words. The text is in Appendix 3, together with an English
translation. A number of key points in the final article can be traced to
Eck’s Draft, without implying that he is necessarily the source.121
(4) A shorter version of the original Worms Draft, produced by Gropper,
which is found in a manuscript at Zeitz. On 30 April Wolfgang
Musculus refers to a more tolerable (than Eck’s) formula that was pro-
posed by Pflug and Gropper, but not accepted by Eck.122 That probably
refers to this draft. The same day Melanchthon informed Luther that
he had yesterday rejected “their formula” but that they had improved
it to prevent us from breaking off discussions.123 That also probably
refers to Gropper’s Draft, which is a modification of the Worms Draft.
Cruciger reported that the Catholics had allowed “their formula” to be
emended and abridged to produce the final article, and since Article 5
is drawn in part from Gropper’s Draft that is probably the “formula” to
which he was referring.124 There are other references to a formula or
Artikel, which could well refer to this draft.125 The text is in Appendix 4,
[formulam], quae hic etiam praelecta nobis est, sed nondum ab adversariis acceptam” (ADRG 3/I:109).
Melanchthon to Luther (30 April) refers to “nostras formulas” but the plural probably implies specific
formulations rather than a draft article (CR 4:239; WA Br. 9:385; ADRG 3/I:109; MBW T10:156 (MBW
3:165 [#2682])). The Saxon envoys reported on 5 May that the Protestants had responded to a Catholic
Artikel with one of their own, which is most likely Melanchthon’s Draft (CR 4:254; ADRG 3/I:134).
ADRG 3/I:169 identifies Melanchthon’s draft as the “Philipps schrift” referred to in Luther and
Bugenhagen to Johann Friedrich (10/11 May) in WA Br. 9:406, but the description does not fit. WA
Br. 9:410 suggests that the reference is to Melanchthon’s letter of 30 April (CR 4:238–39; WA Br. 9:385;
ADRG 3/I:109; MBW T10:156 (MBW 3:165 [#2682])) or rather to a lost letter. I agree.
120 Wolfgang Musculus (30 April) refers to a “formula Ecciana” that was proposed by Bucer. He
notes that it failed to mention the imputation of righteousness and was therefore (“ideoque”) rejected
(ADRG 3/I:108–109). Pflug, in his Notiunculae (ADRG 3/I:85): “Dominus Eccius pollicetur se
exhibiturum suam concordiam.”
Melanchthon to Luther (30 April) refers to a Catholic formula (CR 4:239; WA Br. 9:385; ADRG
3/I:109; MBW T10:156 (MBW 3:165 [#2682])). The Saxon councillors reported on 5 May that the
Catholic theologians had produced “einen Artikel von der Justification” (CR 4:254; ADRG 3/I:134).
Both of these could refer to Eck’s Draft.
121 For the details, see c
hapter 5, below.
122 ADRG 3/I:109.
123 CR 4:239; WA Br. 9:385; ADRG 3/I:109; MBW T10:156 (MBW 3:165 [#2682]).
124 Cruciger to Bugenhagen (5 May) in CR 4:252; ADRG 3/I:132, 181. Similar words Cruciger to
Medler (9 May) in CR 4:268.

125 The Saxon councillors reported on 5 May that the Catholic theologians had produced “einen
Artikel von der Justification” (CR 4:254; ADRG 3/I:134). Cruciger to Bugenhagen (19 May) also
refers to a Catholic “formula” (CR 4:304; ADRG 3/I:217). Both of these could refer to Gropper’s Draft.
together with an English translation. At almost 3,600 words, this draft

is a little over 55 per cent of the length of the Worms Draft. It is basically
an abridged, rearranged, and revised version of the Worms Draft.126
The changes are as follows:
(a) Variant readings are found in both the Worms Draft and Gropper’s
Draft, and often there is a reading in common between them.
(b) A number of minor verbal changes have been made to the material
from the Worms Draft, including the addition of new words. This
affects about ninety words of Gropper’s Draft.
(c) There are completely new sentences, totalling about 325 words,
and §§10, 19, and 39 are totally new. In addition, substantial
new material is added to some existing sentences, totalling some
eighty words.
(d) Finally, the headings in Gropper’s Draft are all new, totalling
seventy-one words.
The upshot is that about 85 per cent of the text of Gropper’s Draft is taken
from the Worms Draft, with minor changes affecting about fifty words. The
remaining 15 per cent of Gropper’s Draft is composed of the section headings
(all new) together with some 440 new words. These new words are found es-
pecially in sections 1, 2, 10, 16, 18, 19, 35, 39, three of which are totally new.
Substantial portions (230 words) of Gropper’s Draft found their way into
the final version (especially §§6–8), these words constitute most of §§10,
18–19, 35, and 39 (of Gropper’s Draft) and a little from §40. Significantly,
these 230 words are taken exclusively from the 405 words of new text men-
tioned under (c), above. That is, they constitute most of the significantly
new material added by Gropper, nothing at all being taken from the original
Worms Draft.
(5) In addition to these drafts, Cruciger refers to a Catholic “formula”

written, so he had heard, by Contarini.127 However, he goes on to
126 Dittrich, “Zu Art. V des Regensburger Buches von 1541,” 196–97 refers to the manuscript, and
again in his “Miscellanea Ratisbonensia,” 3–5, with a summary of it in 9–12 showing how it relates to
the Worms Draft. He correctly identifies this as a draft submitted at the colloquy (4). Jedin, Studien
über die Schriftstellertätigkeit Albert Pigges, 120 mistakenly describes this as a memorandum written
by Gropper before the Worms Colloquy and so before the Worms Draft, citing in support Dittrich,
“Miscellanea Ratisbonensia,” 7. He has misread Dittrich and cited the wrong page. Unfortunately,
Schäfer, “Hoffnungsgestalt und Gegenwart des Heiles,” 209 recycles both errors.
Lugioyo, Martin Bucer’s Doctrine of Justification, 189–90, briefly expounds this draft.
127 Cruciger to Bugenhagen (5 May) in CR 4:252; ADRG 3/I:132, 181.
say that the Catholics allowed “this formula” (the same one?) to be
emended and abridged to produce the final article. Since Article 5 is
drawn in part from Gropper’s Draft, that is probably the “formula”
to which he was referring. Maybe what Cruciger had heard was that
Contarini had played a role in drawing up Gropper’s Draft. Two
weeks later Melanchthon states that Contarini himself submitted
a most absurd formula (insulsissimam formulam) that was totally
repudiated.128 To what does this refer? It is possible that this was a
draft of the whole article, as is argued by Vetter.129 Against this sug-
gestion is the fact that no draft has survived, unlike the other four.
Also, as Matheson notes, such a direct intervention by the Legate
would have been both unnecessary and inappropriate.130 Philip
McNair claims (without reference to Melanchthon’s or Cruciger’s
statements) that it was Contarini who proposed the duplex iustitia
formula.131 McNair’s claim is definitely mistaken, as we shall see
in chapter 4. Brieger argued that Contarini intervened only on the
specific point of certainty of justification,132 on the basis of an-
other statement by Melanchthon two months later that Contarini
sent a formula (ein form) in response to a dispute about whether we
should doubt that we are in God’s grace.133 Dittrich and Matheson
have followed Brieger on this.134 Either way, this is not proof of
Contarini’s positive influence on the outcome, since Melanchthon
claims, in both statements, that everyone rejected the formula.135
Even if Melanchthon is exaggerating, it is clear that this contribu-
tion of Contarini was not accepted by the Protestants.
As already noted, the various records give only the sketchiest account of
what took place during these days of discussion, and it is not always clear
to which drafts they may be referring. With Melanchthon’s, Eck’s, and
Gropper’s Drafts we have the hard evidence of a physical copy. For Contarini,
128 Melanchthon in a letter to Luther (19 May) in CR 4:303; WA Br. 9:414; ADRG 3/I:213; MBW
T10:200 (MBW 3:172 [#2699]).

129 Vetter, Die Religionsverhandlungen auf dem Reichstage zu Regensburg, 92.
130 Matheson, Cardinal Contarini at Regensburg, 106.
131 McNair, Peter Martyr in Italy, 15.
132 Brieger, Gasparo Contarini und das Regensburger Concordienwerk, 54.
133 Melanchthon (13 July) in CR 4:582; ADRG 3/II:663; MBW T10:399–400 (MBW 3:199–200
[#2754]).
134 Dittrich, Gasparo Contarini, 622; Matheson, Cardinal Contarini at Regensburg, 106.
135 See nn. 128, 133, above.
we have only three mentions of a formula/form, which may not all be refer-
ring to the same thing. Against the idea that Contarini submitted his own
draft of the article is the lack of any surviving text and the inappropriateness
of such an action. Whatever the nature of Contarini’s formula/form, Brieger
warns against underestimating his influence on the outcome simply because
he was not present at the debates. He quotes a letter of Priuli which states that
the agreement was reached “with the counsel, approbation and considera-
tion” of the Legate.136 Contarini’s influence on Article 5, he argues, was most
extensive.137
Draft and counter-draft were discussed.138 Eventually, on 2 May, ac-
cording to the Protestant Caspar Cruciger, the Catholics “allowed that
[Gropper’s?] formula to be emended and abridged to the point that it
neither differed nor dissented from our view.”139 Melanchthon also
implies substantial flexibility on the Catholic side.140 Anton Corvinus,
an adviser to Philipp of Hesse, significantly states that the “opponents”
gave way on the idea of justification by faith alone through the merit
of Christ alone, not through our own works or merit, but insisted on
the inclusion of repentance.141 All the parties gave their consent to the
final draft, now entitled De iustificatione hominis.142 Melanchthon states
that Granvelle wrote it out himself.143 Granvelle and Contarini were ju-
bilant and the latter expressed his joy to Cardinal Alessandro Farnese
(Pope Paul III’s grandson) in Rome: “God be praised, these Catholic and
Protestant theologians resolved to agree on the article of justification,
136 Priuli to Beccadelli (20 May) in Dionisotti, “Monumenti Beccadelli,” 267, cited by Brieger,
Gasparo Contarini und das Regensburger Concordienwerk, 53.

137 Brieger, Gasparo Contarini und das Regensburger Concordienwerk, 49–55.
138 CR 4:242–46; ADRG 3/II:520–23 contains material that may belong to this debate.
139 Cruciger to Bugenhagen ([5]‌May) in CR 4:252; ADRG 3/ I:132 & 181: “passi sunt eam
formulam ita emendari et circumscribi, ut e nostra sententia non discrepet nec dissentiat.” Very sim-
ilar comment in Cruciger to Medler (9 May) in CR 4:267–68. The Saxon envoys reported to Johann
Friedrich (19 May) that the agreed article came through “Disputationes und allerlei Unterrede und
Emendationes” (CR 4:299–300).
140 Melanchthon to Luther (30 April) in CR 4:239; WA Br. 9:385; ADRG 3/I:109; MBW T10:156
(MBW 3:165 [#2682]).

141 In a report from after 2 May (Tschackert, “Antonius Corvinus’ ungedruckter Bericht vom
Kolloquium zu Regensburg,” 96; ADRG 3/I:114).

142 The text is in ARC 6:52–54; MBDS 9/1:397–401; ADRG 3/I:288–95. It is found in chapter 5,
with a full list of textual variants and with an English translation, and the bare text (Latin and English)
is in Appendix 5.
143 Report by Melanchthon (13 July) in CR 4:582; ADRG 3/II:663; MBW T10:400 (MBW 3:199–
200 [#2754]). Hequet, The 1541 Colloquy at Regensburg, 53–54, takes this to mean that Granvelle
was the author of the article, but Matheson correctly sees Granvelle’s role here as scribal (Cardinal
Contarini at Regensburg, 107), as does Pederson, “The Religious Colloquy of Regensburg,”
174–75.
faith and works.”144 Eck needed some persuasion to sign,145 though

Gropper and Pflug later claimed that Eck had accepted all of the agreed
articles as “sound and Catholic.”146 Contarini notes that, in addition to
the Catholic debaters, Morone and Badia also acknowledged the article
to be “Catholic and holy” and that Cochlaeus was happy with it.147 It was
decided not to show it to Pighius.148 Brieger dramatically describes the
accord that was reached as follows: “Without doubt, at Regensburg the
Wittenberg Reformation and the reforming strand of the ancient Italian
Church joined hands.”149 The initial response was predominantly posi-
tive.150 The Protestant Elector of Brandenburg even sent his musicians
to serenade Contarini!151 Morone reported to Rome his hope for a good
outcome to the colloquy, though he feared Melanchthon’s and Eck’s in-
transigence.152 Augustijn sums up the mood: “It was a golden hour in the
history of attempts at union: the most important controversy between
Rome and Wittenberg had been fully discussed and a result had been
achieved, with which both parties could be content.”153
144 “[D]‌io laudato, questi theologi et Cattolici et Protestanti si risolsero et convennero nell’ articolo
de iustificatione, fide et operibus” (Contarini to Farnese (3 May) in Pastor, “Die Correspondenz

des Cardinals Contarini während seiner deutschen Legation,” 372; ADRG 3/I:115). Summary in
Regesten, 177.
145 Cruciger to Bugenhagen ([5]‌May) in CR 4:252; ADRG 3/I:132 & 181. Morone to Farnese (3
May) in Dittrich, “Die Nuntiaturberichte Giovanni Morone’s vom Reichstage zu Regensburg,” 453–
54. Summary in Regesten, 178. Corvinus, in a report from after 2 May, wrote that “so ists gleichwol
dahin kommen, das vorgangenen tags Eccius, der grosse unschampar tichter und wescher, zusampt
seinem anhang und zugeordneten (welche gleichwol viel beschedener un behertzigter sein dan
derselbig shamloß mensch ist) sich unserer meinung und sententz von der justification und guten
wercken unterschrieben und derselben anhengig worden sein” (Tschackert, “Antonius Corvinus’
ungedruckter Bericht vom Kolloquium zu Regensburg,” 92–93 (also quoted on p. 87); ADRG 3/
I:112). In his Replica Ioan. Eckii adversus Scripta Secunda Buceri apostatae super Actis Ratisponae,
44b, Eck affirms that he had not agreed with the article.
146 Pflug and Gropper to Granvelle and Count Frederick (6/7 July) in JGB 1:194; CR 4:462; ADRG
3/II:600.
seiner deutschen Legation,” 372–73; ADRG 3/I:115–16. Summary in Regesten, 177, where the refer-
ence to Cochlaeus is wrongly summarised.
148 Contarini to Farnese (3 May) in Pastor, “Die Correspondenz des Cardinals Contarini
während seiner deutschen Legation,” 372–73; ADRG 3/I:115–16. Not mentioned in the summary in
Regesten, 177.
149 Brieger, Gasparo Contarini und das Regensburger Concordienwerk, 55–56: “Es ist keine Frage,
in Regensburg hat sich die Wittenberger Reformation und die reformatorische Strömung der alten
Kirche Italiens die Hand gereicht.”
150 Winkler, “Das Regensburger Religionsgespräch 1541,” 83, gives an overview.
seiner deutschen Legation,” 374; ADRG 3/I:116. Summary in Regesten, 177.

Reichstage zu Regensburg,” 453. Summary in Regesten, 178, mentions his fears but not his hope.
153 Augustijn, “Melanchthon und die Religionsgespräche,” 220.
The Rest of the Colloquy
The joy and the hope engendered were to be short-lived. The colloquy
soon began to founder, but that was because of differences on other
doctrines, such as the infallibility of councils and transubstantiation,154
not because of shortcomings in the statement on justification. Ironically,
it was the same Contarini who was willing to be flexible over justification
who torpedoed the colloquy with his intransigence over the word tran-
substantiation. He insisted on inserting it and would not countenance
any compromise. He rejected Granvelle’s suggestion that discussion of
the word be deferred to the end of the colloquy. While the doctrine of
justification had not been defined by the church, transubstantiation had
been proclaimed by the Fourth Lateran Council, which meant that it was
non-negotiable.155 Ultimately, as always, the colloquy foundered over the
question of authority,156 an outcome that was foreseen in Contarini’s of-
ficial instruction to the colloquy as papal legate.157 On 22 May the col-
loquy came to a close, the article on justification being its only significant
achievement. The dream of agreement had foundered on the reality of the
differences.158 On the thirty-first the revised version of the Regensburg
Book was delivered to the Emperor, together with nine new articles that
the Protestants had composed in opposition to some of the articles in the
Book that had not been agreed.159 On 8 June these were then laid before
154 For details, see Matheson, Cardinal Contarini at Regensburg, chh. 9, 10, respectively. See
also Schultheis, Die Verhandlungen über das Abendmahl und die übrigen Sakramente auf dem
Religionsgespräch, in Regensburg 1541.
seiner deutschen Legation,” 382–83; ADRG 3/I:184. Summary in Regesten, 179–80. Contarini to
Farnese (13 May) in Pastor, “Die Correspondenz des Cardinals Contarini während seiner deutschen
Legation,” 385–86; ADRG 3/I:192–93. Summary in Regesten, 181.
156 The authority of the church was the issue on which all the colloquies failed (Jedin, “An welchen
Gegensätzen sind die vortridentinischen Religionsgespräche zwischen Katholiken und Protestanten

gescheitert?”).
157 Dittrich, Gasparo Contarini, 565– 69; ADRG 3/ 11. Cf. Gleason, Gasparo Contarini,
I:5–
204–205.
158 The title of c hapter 8 of Jedin, Geschichte des Konzils von Trient, 1:287, is “Der Traum der
Verständigung und die Wirklichkeit der Gegensätze.” The translation, “Dream of Understanding,” in
Jedin, History of the Council of Trent, 1:355, is less happy.
159 CR 4:378. For the text of the revised Regensburg Book, see ARC 6:24–88 (Latin); ADRG 3/
I:268–391 (Latin and German). For the text of the Protestant articles, see CR 4:348–76; ADRG
3/I:392–437. These are described by Negri to the bishop of Corfu (28 June) as “9 articoli bestiali
di questi Protestanti” (Schultze, “Actenstücke zur deutschen Reformationsgeschichte II,” 641.
Summary in Regesten, 206). For an account of which articles were not agreed and why, see ADRG 3/
II:440–46.
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
la poursuite devenait impossible: Constantin,
fuyant à toute bride, avait eu la précaution de faire Lact. de mort.
couper les jarrets à tous les chevaux de poste qu'il pers. c. 24.
laissait sur son passage; et la rage impuissante du
tyran ne lui laissa que le regret de n'avoir pas osé Praxag. ap.
faire le dernier crime. Photium, cod.
62.
Constantin traverse comme un éclair l'Illyrie et les
Alpes, avant que Sévère puisse en avoir des
nouvelles, et arrive au port de Boulogne (Bononia) AN 306.
lorsque la flotte mettait à la voile. A cette vue
inespérée on ne peut exprimer la joie de xii. Constantin
Constance: il reçoit entre ses bras ce fils que tant s'échappe des
de périls lui rendaient encore plus cher; et mêlant mains de
ensemble leurs larmes et toutes les marques de Galérius.
leur tendresse, ils arrivent dans la Grande-
Bretagne, où Constance, après avoir vaincu les Lact. de mort.
Pictes, mourut de maladie le 25 juillet de l'an 306. pers. c. 24.
Il avait eu de son mariage avec Théodora, trois fils:
Delmatius, Jule-Constance, Hanniballianus, et trois Anony. Vales.
filles, Constantia, qui fut femme de Licinius,
Anastasia qui épousa Bassianus, et Eutropia mère
de Népotianus, dont je parlerai ailleurs. Mais il Zos. l. 2, c. 8.
respectait trop la puissance souveraine, pour
l'abandonner comme une proie à disputer entre xiii. Il joint son
ses enfants; et il était trop prudent pour affaiblir ses père.
états par un partage. Le droit d'aînesse, soutenu
d'une capacité supérieure, appelait à l'empire Eumen. paneg.
Constantin, qui était déja dans sa trente-troisième c. 7 et 8.
année. Le père mourant couvert de gloire, au
milieu de ses enfants qui fondaient en larmes et
Anony. Vales.
qui révéraient ses volontés comme des oracles,
embrassa tendrement Constantin et le nomma son
successeur; il le recommanda aux troupes, et Till. note 5, sur
ordonna à ses autres fils de lui obéir. Constantin.
Toute l'armée s'empressa d'exécuter ces dernières dispositions de

Constance: à peine eut-il les yeux fermés, que les officiers et les
soldats, excités encore par Éroc, roi des Allemans
auxiliaires, proclamèrent Constantin Auguste. Ce xiv. Il lui
prince s'efforça d'abord d'arrêter l'ardeur des succède.
troupes; il craignait une guerre civile; et pour ne
pas irriter Galérius, il voulait obtenir son agrément Liban. in
avant que de prendre le titre d'empereur. Basilico.
L'impatience des soldats se refusa à ces
ménagements politiques: au premier moment que
Euseb. vit.
Constantin, encore tout en larmes, sortit de la Const. l. 1, c.
tente de son père, tous l'environnèrent avec de 21.
grands cris: en vain voulut-il leur échapper à
course de cheval; on l'atteignit, on le revêtit de la
pourpre malgré sa résistance; tout le camp xv.
Proclamation de
retentissait d'acclamations et d'éloges; Constance Constantin.
revivait dans son fils, et l'armée n'y voyait de
différence que l'avantage de la jeunesse.
Eumenius,
Le premier soin du nouvel empereur fut de rendre Paneg. c. 8.
à son père les derniers devoirs: il lui fit faire de
magnifiques funérailles, et marcha lui-même à la
tête avec un grand cortège. On décerna à Euseb. Vit.
Const. l. 1, c.
Constance, selon la coutume, les honneurs
22.
divins[5]. M. de Tillemont rapporte, sur le
témoignage d'Alford et d'Ussérius, qu'on montre
son tombeau en divers endroits de l'Angleterre, et Vict. epit.
particulièrement en un lieu appelé Caïr-Segeint ou
Sejont, quelquefois Caïr-Custeint, c'est-à-dire, Ville Zos. l. 2, c. 9.
de Constance ou de Constantin; et que, en 1283,
comme on prétendit avoir trouvé son corps dans Hist. misc. l. 11.
un autre lieu qui n'est pas loin de là, Edouard I, qui apud Muratori,
régnait alors, le fit transporter dans une église, T. I, p. 71.
sans se mettre beaucoup en peine si les canons
permettaient d'y placer un prince païen. Il ajoute
xvi. Sépulture
que Cambden raconte que peu de temps avant lui,
de Constance.
c'est-à-dire au commencement du seizième siècle,
en fouillant à York dans une grotte où l'on tenait
qu'était le tombeau de Constance, on y avait Euseb. Hist.
ecc. l. 8, c. 13 et
trouvé une lampe qui brûlait encore; et Alford juge Vit. Const. l. 1,
que selon les preuves les plus solides, c'était, en c. 22.
effet, le lieu de la sépulture de ce prince.
[5] Beaucoup de médailles frappées après la mort de ce Numism.
prince, portent les légendes: DIVO. CONSTANTIO. AVG. ou Mezzab.
DIVO. CONSTANTIO. PIO. PRINCIPI ou bien DIVVS.
CONSTANTIVS. Quelques-unes, frappées par les ordres de
Maxence, portent IMP. MAXENTIVS. DIVO. CONSTΑΝΤIΟ. Till., art. 7.
AD-FINI vel COGN.—S.-M.
Sa mort semblait favoriser les desseins de Alford, Ann.
Galérius: elle entrait dans le plan qu'il avait dressé Brit., an 306 §
6.
pour se rendre le seul monarque; mais elle était
arrivée trop tôt, et ce contre-temps rompait toutes
ses mesures. Son projet avait été de substituer à Usserius, Brit.
Constance, Licinius son ancien ami: il s'aidait de Eccl. Antiq. p.
ses conseils, et comptait sur une obéissance 60.
aveugle de sa part. Il lui destinait le titre d'Auguste,
et c'était dans cette vue qu'il ne lui avait pas fait [Eckhel, doct.
donner celui de César. Alors maître de tout, et ne num. vet. t. viii,
laissant à Licinius qu'une ombre d'autorité, il aurait p. 28-32.]
disposé à son gré de toutes les richesses de
l'empire; et après avoir accumulé d'immenses xvii. Projets de
trésors, il aurait quitté, comme Dioclétien, au bout Galérius.
de vingt ans la puissance souveraine, et se serait
ménagé une retraite assurée et tranquille pour une Lact. de mort.
vieillesse voluptueuse; en laissant pour empereurs pers. c. 20 et
Sévère avec Licinius, et pour Césars Maximin et seq.
Candidianus son fils naturel, qui n'avait encore que
neuf ans, et qu'il avait fait adopter par sa femme Valéria, quoique cet
enfant ne fût né que depuis le mariage de cette princesse.
Pour réussir dans ces projets il fallait exclure
Constantin: mais Galérius s'était rendu trop odieux xviii. Ses
par sa cruauté et par son avarice. Depuis sa cruautés.
victoire sur les Perses, il avait adopté le
gouvernement despotique établi de tout temps dans ce riche et
malheureux pays; et sans pudeur, sans égard pour les sentiments
d'une honnête soumission, à laquelle une longue habitude avait plié
les Romains, il disait hautement que le meilleur usage auquel on
pouvait employer des sujets, c'était d'en faire des esclaves. Ce fut
sur ces principes qu'il régla sa conduite. Nulle dignité, nul privilége
n'exemptait ni des coups de fouet, ni des plus horribles tortures les
magistrats des villes: des croix toujours dressées attendaient ceux
qu'il condamnait à mort; les autres étaient chargés de chaînes et
resserrés dans des entraves. Il faisait traîner dans des maisons de
force des dames illustres par leur naissance. Il avait fait chercher par
tout l'empire des ours d'une énorme grosseur, et leur avait donné
des noms: quand il était en belle humeur, il en faisait appeler
quelqu'un, et se divertissait à les voir non pas dévorer sur-le-champ
des hommes, mais sucer tout leur sang et déchirer ensuite leurs
membres: il ne fallait rien moins pour faire rire ce tyran sombre et
farouche. Il ne prenait guère de repas sans voir répandre du sang
humain. Les supplices des gens du peuple n'étaient pas si
recherchés: il les faisait brûler vifs.
Galérius avait d'abord fait sur les chrétiens l'essai
de toutes ces horreurs, ordonnant par édit, xix. Contre les
qu'après la torture ils seraient brûlés à petit feu. Chrétiens.
Ces ordres inhumains ne manquaient pas
d'exécuteurs fidèles, qui se faisaient un mérite d'enchérir encore sur
la barbarie du prince. On attachait les chrétiens à un poteau; on leur
grillait la plante des pieds, jusqu'à ce que la peau se détachât des
os; on appliquait ensuite sur toutes les parties de leur corps des
flambeaux qu'on venait d'éteindre; et pour prolonger leurs
souffrances avec leur vie, on leur rafraîchissait de temps en temps
d'eau froide la bouche et le visage: ce n'était qu'après de longues
douleurs que, toute leur chair étant rôtie, le feu pénétrait jusqu'aux
entrailles, et jusqu'aux sources de la vie. Alors on achevait de brûler
ces corps déja presque consumés, et on en jetait les cendres dans
un fleuve ou dans la mer.
Le sang des chrétiens ne fit qu'irriter la soif de
Galérius. Bientôt il n'épargna pas les païens xx. Contre les
mêmes. Il ne connaissait point de degré dans les païens mêmes.
punitions: reléguer, mettre en prison, condamner
aux mines, étaient des peines hors d'usage; il ne parlait que de feux,
de croix, de bêtes féroces: c'était à coups de lance qu'il châtiait ceux
qui formaient sa maison; il fallait aux sénateurs d'anciens services et
des titres bien favorables, pour obtenir la grace d'avoir la tête
tranchée. Alors tous les talents qui, déja fort affaiblis, respiraient
encore, furent entièrement étouffés: on bannit, on fit mourir les
avocats et les jurisconsultes; les lettres passèrent pour des secrets
dangereux, et les savants pour des ennemis de l'état. Le tyran,
faisant taire toutes les lois, se permit de tout faire, et donna la même
licence aux juges qu'il envoyait dans les provinces: c'étaient des
gens qui ne connaissaient que la guerre, sans étude et sans
principes, adorateurs aveugles du despotisme, dont ils étaient les
instruments.
Mais ce qui porta dans les provinces une
désolation universelle, ce fut le dénombrement xxi. Rigueur des
qu'il fit faire de tous les habitants de ses états, et impositions.
l'estimation de toutes les fortunes. Les
commissaires répandaient partout la même inquiétude et le même
effroi que des ennemis auraient pu causer; et l'empire de Galérius
d'une extrémité à l'autre ne semblait plus être peuplé que de captifs.
On mesurait les campagnes, on comptait les ceps de vignes, les
arbres, et, pour ainsi dire, les mottes de terre; on faisait registre des
hommes et des animaux: la nécessité des déclarations remplissait
les villes d'une multitude de paysans et d'esclaves; les pères y
traînaient leurs enfants. La justice d'une imposition proportionnelle
aurait rendu ces contraintes excusables, si l'humanité les eût
adoucies, et si les impositions en elles-mêmes eussent été
tolérables; mais tout retentissait de coups de fouets et de
gémissements; on mettait les enfants, les esclaves, les femmes à la
torture, pour vérifier les déclarations des pères, des maîtres, des
maris; on tourmentait les possesseurs eux-mêmes, et on les forçait,
par la douleur, de déclarer plus qu'ils ne possédaient: la vieillesse ni
la maladie ne dispensaient personne de se rendre au lieu ordonné;
on fixait arbitrairement l'âge de chacun; et comme, selon les lois,
l'obligation de payer la capitation devait commencer et finir à un
certain âge, on ajoutait des années aux enfants et on en ôtait aux
vieillards. Les premiers commissaires avaient travaillé à satisfaire
l'avidité du prince par les rigueurs les plus outrées: cependant
Galérius, pour presser encore davantage ses malheureux sujets, en
envoya d'autres, à plusieurs reprises, faire de nouvelles recherches;
et les derniers venus, pour enchérir sur leurs prédécesseurs,
surchargeaient à leur fantaisie, et ajoutaient à leur rôle beaucoup
plus qu'ils ne trouvaient ni dans les biens ni dans le nombre des
habitants. Cependant les animaux périssaient, les hommes
mouraient; et après la mort on les faisait vivre sur les rôles, on
exigeait encore la taxe des uns et des autres. Il ne restait d'exempts
que les mendiants: leur indigence les sauvait de l'imposition, mais
non pas de la barbarie de Galérius; on les rassembla par son ordre
au bord de la mer, et on les jeta dans des barques qu'on fit couler à
fond.
Telle est l'idée qu'un auteur contemporain, très-
instruit et très-digne de foi, nous a laissée du xxii. Les crimes
gouvernement de Galérius. Quelque méchant que de ses officiers
fût ce prince, une partie de ces vexations doit sans doivent lui être
doute être imputée à ses officiers. Mais telle est la imputés.
condition de ceux qui gouvernent; ils prennent sur leur compte les
injustices de ceux qu'ils emploient: ce sont les crimes de leurs
mains. Les noms de ces hommes obscurs périssent avec eux; mais
leurs iniquités survivent et restent attachées au supérieur, dont le
portrait se compose en grande partie des vertus et des vices de
ceux qui ont agi sous ses ordres.
Galérius était occupé de ces rapines et de ces
violences, quand il apprit la mort de Constance: xxiii. Il refuse à
bientôt après on lui présenta l'image de Constantin Constantin le
couronnée de laurier. Le nouvel empereur la lui titre d'Auguste,
envoyait, selon la coutume, pour lui notifier son et le donne à
Sévère.
avénement à l'empire. Il balança long-temps s'il la
recevrait: son premier mouvement fut de la jeter au
feu avec celui qui l'avait apportée; mais on lui Lact., de mort.
représenta ce qu'il avait à craindre de ses propres pers. c. 25.
soldats, déja mécontents du choix des deux
Césars, et tout disposés à se déclarer pour Till. art. 5.
Constantin, qui viendrait sans doute lui arracher
son consentement à main armée. Plus susceptible de crainte que de
sentiment de justice, il reçut à regret cette image; et pour paraître
donner ce qu'il ne pouvait ôter, il envoya la pourpre à Constantin.
Ses vues sur Licinius se trouvaient trompées; mais afin d'abaisser
du moins le nouveau prince, autant qu'il pourrait le faire, il s'avisa de
donner le titre d'Auguste à Sévère, qui était le plus âgé, et de ne
laisser à Constantin que le rang de César après Maximin, le faisant
ainsi descendre du second degré au quatrième. Le jeune prince,
dont l'ame était élevée et l'esprit solide, parut se contenter de ce
qu'on lui accordait, et ne jugea pas à propos de troubler la paix de
l'empire, pour conserver le titre d'un pouvoir dont il possédait toute la
réalité. En effet, c'est de cette année qu'on commença à compter
celles de sa puissance tribunitienne.
Sévère, qui commandait en Italie, fort satisfait de
cette nouvelle disposition, ne différa pas d'envoyer xxiv. Maxence
à Rome l'image de Constantin, pour l'y faire élevé à l'empire.
reconnaître en qualité de César. Mais le dépit d'un
rival méprisé jusques alors, et qui prétendait avoir Incert. Paneg. c.
plus de droit à l'empire que tous ces nouveaux 4.
souverains, renversa l'ordre établi par Galérius.
Marcus Aurelius Valerius Maxentius était fils de
Lact. de mort.
Maximien. Ses mauvaises qualités, et peut-être pers. c. 18 et
ses malheurs, ont fait dire qu'il était supposé; on 26.
prétend même que sa mère Eutropia avoua qu'elle
l'avait eu d'un Syrien. C'était un prince mal fait de
corps et d'esprit, d'une ame basse, et plein Anony. Vales.
d'arrogance, débauché et superstitieux, brutal
jusqu'à refuser le respect à son père. Galérius lui Eutrop. l. 10.
avait donné en mariage une fille qu'il avait eue de
sa première femme; mais ne voyant en lui que des
Till. note 12 et
vices dont il ne pouvait faire usage, il avait 13.
empêché Dioclétien de le nommer César. Ainsi
Maxence, oublié de son père, haï de son beau-père, avait, jusqu'à
ce temps, mené une vie obscure, enveloppé dans les ténèbres de la
débauche, tantôt à Rome, tantôt en Lucanie. Le bruit de l'élévation
de Constantin le réveilla: il crut devoir sauver une partie de son
héritage, qu'il se voyait enlever par tant de mains étrangères. La
disposition des esprits lui donnait de grandes facilités: l'insatiable
avidité de Galérius alarmait la ville de Rome; on y attendait des
commissaires chargés d'exercer les mêmes vexations qui faisaient
déja gémir les provinces; et comme Galérius craignait la milice
prétorienne, il en avait cassé une partie: c'était donner à Maxence
ceux qui restaient. Aussi les gagna-t-il aisément par le moyen de
deux tribuns nommés Marcellianus et Marcellus; et les intrigues de
Lucien, préposé à la distribution des viandes, qui se faisait aux
dépens du fisc, firent déclarer le peuple en sa faveur. La révolution
fut prompte; elle ne coûta la vie qu'à un petit nombre de magistrats
instruits de leur devoir, même à l'égard d'un prince odieux; entre
lesquels l'histoire ne nomme qu'Abellius, dont la qualité n'est pas
bien connue. Maxence, qui s'était arrêté à deux ou trois lieues de
Rome sur le chemin de Lavicum, fut proclamé Auguste le 28
octobre.
Galérius qui était en Illyrie, ne fut pas fort alarmé
de cette nouvelle. Il faisait trop peu de cas de xxv. Maximien
Maxence pour le regarder comme un rival reprend le titre
redoutable. Il écrit à Sévère, qui résidait à Milan, et d'Auguste.
l'exhorte à se mettre lui-même à la tête de ses
troupes et à marcher contre l'usurpateur. Maxence, Lact., de mort.
aussi timide que Sévère, n'osait s'exposer seul à pers. c. 26.
l'orage dont il était menacé. Il eut recours à son
père Maximien, qui peut-être était d'intelligence Baluzius in Lact.
avec lui, et qui se trouvait alors en Campanie. p. 315.
Celui-ci, qui ne pouvait s'accoutumer à la vie
privée, accourt à Rome, rassure les esprits, écrit à
Dioclétien pour l'engager à reprendre avec lui le Eutrop. l. 10.
gouvernement de l'empire; et sur le refus de ce
prince, il se fait prier par son fils, par le sénat et Incert. Pan.
par le peuple, d'accepter de nouveau le titre Maxim. et
d'Auguste. Const. c. 10.
Maximin ne prit point de part à ces premières

agitations. Tranquille en Orient, et livré à ses xxvi. Maximin
plaisirs, il goûtait un repos dont il ne laissait pas ne prend point
jouir les chrétiens. Étant à Césarée de Palestine le de part à ces
mouvements.
20 novembre, jour de sa naissance, qu'il célébrait
avec grand appareil, après les divertissements
ordinaires, il voulut embellir la fête par un Eus. de Mart.
spectacle dont les païens étaient toujours fort Palæst. c. 6.
avides. Le chrétien Agapius était depuis deux ans
condamné aux bêtes. La compassion du magistrat, ou l'espérance
de vaincre sa fermeté, avait fait différer son supplice. Maximin le fait
traîner sur l'arène avec un esclave qu'on disait avoir assassiné son
maître. Le César fait grace au meurtrier, et tout l'amphithéâtre
retentit d'acclamations sur la clémence du prince. Ayant fait ensuite
amener le chrétien devant lui, il lui promet la vie et la liberté, s'il
renonce à sa religion. Mais celui-ci protestant à haute voix qu'il est
prêt à tout souffrir avec joie pour une si belle cause, court lui-même
au-devant d'une ourse qu'on avait lâchée sur lui, et s'abandonne à la
férocité de cet animal, qui le déchire. On le reporte à demi mort dans
la prison, et le lendemain comme il respirait encore, on le jette dans
la mer avec de grosses pierres attachées à ses pieds. Tels étaient
les amusements de Maximin.
Constantin signalait les commencements de son
empire par des actions plus dignes d'un souverain. xxvii.
Quoiqu'il fût encore dans les ténèbres du Occupations de
paganisme, il ne se contenta pas, comme son Constantin.
père, de laisser aux chrétiens, par une permission
tacite, le libre exercice de leur religion, il l'autorisa Lact., de mort.
par un édit. Comme il avait souvent dans la pers. c. 24.
bouche cette belle maxime: que c'est la fortune qui
fait les empereurs, mais que c'est aux empereurs à Lamprid. in
justifier le choix de la fortune, il s'occupait du soin Helag. c. 34.
de rendre ses sujets heureux. Il s'appliqua d'abord
à régler l'intérieur de ses états, et songea ensuite à en assurer les
frontières.
Après avoir visité les provinces de son obéissance,
en rétablissant partout le bon ordre, il marcha xxviii. Sa
contre les Francs. Ces peuples, les plus belliqueux victoire sur les
des barbares, profitant de l'absence de Constance Francs.
pour violer les traités de paix, avaient passé le
Rhin et faisaient de grands ravages. Constantin les vainquit, fit
prisonniers deux de leurs rois, Ascaric et Régaïse;
et pour punir ces princes de leur perfidie, il les fit Eus. vit. Const.
dévorer par les bêtes dans l'amphithéâtre: action l. 1, c. 25.
barbare qui déshonorait sa victoire, et à laquelle la
postérité doit d'autant plus d'horreur, que la basse Eumen. Paneg.
flatterie des orateurs du temps s'est efforcée d'en c. 10 et 11.
faire plus d'éloge.
Ayant forcé les Francs à repasser le fleuve, il le Nazar. Pan. c.
passa lui-même sans être attendu, fondit sur leur 16 et 17.
pays[6], et les surprit avant qu'ils eussent eu le
temps de se sauver, comme c'était leur coutume, Incert. Pan. c. 4
dans leurs bois et leurs marais. On en massacra, et 23.
on en prit un nombre prodigieux. Tous les
troupeaux furent égorgés ou enlevés; tous les
xxix. Il acheva
villages brûlés. Les prisonniers qui avaient l'âge de de les dompter.
puberté, trop suspects pour être enrôlés dans les
troupes, trop féroces pour souffrir l'esclavage,
furent tous livrés aux bêtes à Trèves, dans les jeux Eumen. Pan. c.
qui furent célébrés après la victoire. Le courage de 12 et 13.
ces braves gens effraya leurs vainqueurs, qui
s'amusaient de leur supplice: on les vit courir au- Vorburg, Hist.
devant de la mort, et conserver encore un air Rom. Germ., l.
intrépide entre les dents et sous les ongles des 2, p. 112.
bêtes farouches, qui les déchiraient sans leur
arracher un soupir. Quoi qu'on puisse dire pour Incert. Pan. c.
excuser Constantin, il faut avouer qu'on retrouve 23 et 24.
dans son caractère des traits de cette férocité
commune aux princes de son siècle, et qui s'échappa encore en
plusieurs rencontres, lors même que le christianisme eut adouci ses
mœurs.
[6] Constantin ravagea le pays des Bructères, tribu de la nation des Francs.—S.-
M.
Pour ôter aux barbares l'envie de passer le Rhin,
et pour se procurer à lui-même une libre entrée sur xxx. Il met à
leurs terres, il entretint, le long du fleuve, les forts couvert les
déja bâtis et garnis de troupes, et sur le fleuve
même une flotte bien armée. Il commença à terres de la
Cologne un pont de pierre qui ne fut achevé qu'au Gaule.
bout de dix ans, et qui, selon quelques-uns,
subsista jusqu'en 955. On dit aussi que ce fut pour Eumenius, Pan.
défendre ce pont qu'il bâtit ou répara le château de c. 13.
Duitz vis-à-vis de Cologne[7]. Ces grands ouvrages
achevèrent d'intimider les Francs; ils demandèrent Vorb. Hist. Rom.
la paix, et donnèrent pour ôtages les plus nobles Germ. t. 2, p.
de leur nation. Le vainqueur, pour couronner ces 170.
glorieux succès, institua les jeux franciques, qui
continuèrent long-temps de se célébrer tous les Till., art. 10.
ans depuis le 14 de juillet jusqu'au 20.
[7] C'est une conjecture de Bucher (Hist. Belg., l. 8, c. 2, § 5). Les anciens ne
disent rien de pareil.—S.-M.
Tout était en mouvement en Italie. Sévère, parti de
Milan au milieu de l'hiver de l'an 307, marcha vers An 307.
Rome avec une grande armée, composée de
Romains et de soldats Maures, qui tous avaient xxxi. Sévère
servi sous Maximien, et lui étaient encore trahi.
affectionnés. Ces troupes, accoutumées aux
délices de Rome, avaient plus d'envie de vivre
Incert. Pan. c. 3.
dans cette ville que de la ruiner. Maxence ayant
d'abord gagné Anullinus, préfet du prétoire, n'eut
pas de peine à les corrompre. Dès qu'elles furent à Lact., de mort.
la vue de Rome, elles quittèrent leur empereur et pers. c. 26.
se donnèrent à son ennemi. Sévère abandonné
prend la fuite, et rencontrant Maximien à la tête Anony. Vales.
d'un corps qu'il venait de rassembler, il se sauve à
Ravenne, où il se renferme avec le petit nombre
de ceux qui lui étaient demeurés fidèles. Cette ville Zos. l. 2, c. 10.
était forte, peuplée, et assez bien pourvue de
vivres pour donner à Galérius le temps de venir au Vict. epit. p.
secours. Mais Sévère manquait de la principale 221.
ressource: il n'avait ni bon sens, ni courage.
Maximien pressé par la crainte qu'il avait de Eutrop. l. 10.
Galérius, prodiguait les promesses et les serments
pour engager Sévère à se rendre: celui-ci plus pressé encore par sa
propre timidité, et menacé d'une nouvelle désertion, ne songeait qu'à
sauver sa vie; il consentit à tout, se remit entre les mains de son
ennemi, et rendit la pourpre à celui qui la lui avait donnée deux ans
auparavant.
Réduit à la condition privée, il revenait à Rome, où
Maximien lui avait juré qu'il serait traité avec xxxii. Sa mort.
honneur. Mais Maxence, pour dégager son père
de sa parole, fit dresser à Sévère une embuscade Anony. Vales.
sur le chemin. Il le prit, l'amena à Rome comme un
captif, et l'envoya à trente milles sur la voie
Appienne, dans un lieu nommé les Trois- Zos. l. 2, c. 10.
Hôtelleries (Tres tabernæ), où ce prince infortuné,
ayant été retenu prisonnier pendant quelques [Victor, epit. p.
jours, fut forcé de se faire ouvrir les veines. On 221].
porta son corps dans le tombeau de Gallien, à huit
ou neuf milles de Rome. Il laissa un fils nommé Sévérianus qui ne
fut héritier que de ses malheurs.
Maximien s'attendait bien que Galérius ne tarderait
pas de venir en Italie pour venger la mort de xxxiii. Mariage
Sévère. Il craignait même que cet ennemi violent de Constantin.
et irrité n'amenât avec lui Maximin; et quelles
forces pourraient résister aux armées réunies de Lact., de mort.
ces deux princes? Il songea donc de son côté à se pers. c. 27.
procurer une alliance capable de le soutenir au
milieu d'une si violente tempête. Il met Rome en
Du Cange, in
état de défense, et court en Gaule pour s'attacher numm. Byz. p.
Constantin en lui faisant épouser sa fille Flavia- 45.
Maximiana-Fausta, qu'il avait eue d'Eutropia, et
qui, du côté de sa mère, était sœur cadette de
Theodora, belle-mère de Constantin. Elle était née Till. art. 11.
et avait été élevée à Rome. Son père l'avait
destinée au fils de Constance dès l'enfance de l'un Incert. Paneg.,
et de l'autre: on voyait dans son palais d'Aquilée Max. et Cons. c.
un tableau, où la jeune princesse présentait à 6.
Constantin un casque d'or. Le mariage de
Minervina rompit ce projet: mais sa mort arrivée
avant celle de Constance donna lieu de le Baluzius, in
reprendre, et il semble que ce prince avait consenti Lact., c. 27.
à cette alliance. L'état où se trouvait alors
Maximien la fit promptement conclure: le mariage fut fait à Trèves, le
31 mars. Nous avons encore un panégyrique qui fut alors prononcé
en présence des deux princes[8]. Pour la dot de sa fille, Maximien
donna à son gendre le titre d'Auguste, sans s'embarrasser de
l'approbation de Galérius.
[8] Cet ouvrage, dont on ignore l'auteur, se retrouve dans le Recueil des anciens
panégyristes (Panegyrici veteres).—S.-M.
Ce prince était bien éloigné de l'accorder. Plein de
courroux et ne respirant que vengeance, il était xxxiv. Galérius
déja entré en Italie avec une armée plus forte que vient assiéger
celle de Sévère, et ne menaçait de rien moins que Rome.
d'égorger le sénat, d'exterminer le peuple, et de
ruiner la ville. Il n'avait jamais vu Rome, et n'en Incert. Pan. c. 3.
connaissait ni la grandeur ni la force: il la trouva
hors d'insulte: l'attaque et la circonvallation lui
Lact., de mort.
paraissant également impraticables, il fut contraint pers. c. 27.
d'avoir recours aux voies de négociation. Il alla
camper à Terni en Ombrie, d'où il députa à
Maxence deux de ses principaux officiers, Licinius Anony. Vales.
et Probus, pour lui proposer de mettre bas les
armes, et de s'en rapporter à la bienveillance d'un beau-père, prêt à
lui accorder tout ce qu'il ne prétendrait pas emporter par violence.
Maxence n'avait garde de donner dans ce piége. Il
attaqua Galérius avec les mêmes armes qui lui xxxv. Il est
avaient si bien réussi contre Sévère; et profita de contraint de se
ces entrevues pour lui débaucher par argent une retirer.
grande partie de ses troupes, déja mécontentes
d'être employées contre Rome, et par un beau-père contre son
gendre. Des corps entiers quittèrent Galérius et s'allèrent jeter dans
Rome. Cet exemple ébranlait déja le reste de l'armée, et Galérius
était à la veille d'éprouver le même sort que celui qu'il venait venger,
lorsque ce prince superbe, humilié par la nécessité, se prosternant
aux pieds des soldats et les suppliant avec larmes de ne pas le livrer
à son ennemi, vint à bout, à force de prières et de promesses, d'en
retenir une partie. Il décampa aussitôt et s'enfuit en diligence.
Il ne fallait qu'un chef avec une poignée de bonnes
troupes, pour l'accabler dans cette fuite précipitée. xxxvi. Il ruine
Il le sentit; et pour ôter à l'ennemi le moyen de le tout sur son
poursuivre, et payer en même temps ses soldats passage.
de leur fidélité, il leur ordonna de ruiner toutes les
campagnes et de détruire toutes les subsistances. Jamais il ne fut
mieux obéi. La plus belle contrée de l'Italie éprouva tous les excès
de l'avarice, de la licence et de la rage la plus effrénée. Ce fut au
travers de ces horribles ravages que l'empereur, ou plutôt le fléau de
l'empire, regagna la Pannonie; et la malheureuse Italie eut lieu de se
ressouvenir alors que Galérius, recevant deux ans auparavant le
titre d'empereur, s'était déclaré l'ennemi du nom romain, et qu'il avait
projeté de changer la dénomination de l'empire, en l'appelant
l'empire des Daces, parce que presque tous ceux qui gouvernaient
alors tiraient, comme lui, leur origine de ces barbares.
Maximien était encore en Gaule. Indigné contre
son fils, dont la lâcheté avait laissé échapper xxxvii.
Galérius, il résolut de lui ôter la puissance Maximien
souveraine. Il sollicita son gendre de poursuivre revient à Rome
d'où il est
Galérius, et de se joindre à lui pour dépouiller
chassé.
Maxence. Constantin s'y trouvait assez disposé,
mais il ne put se résoudre à quitter la Gaule, où sa
présence était nécessaire pour contenir les Lact. de mort.
barbares. Rien n'est plus équivoque que la pers. c. 28.
conduite de Maximien. Cependant, quand on suit
avec attention toutes ses démarches, il paraît qu'il Incert. Paneg. c.
n'avait rien d'arrêté que le désir de se rendre le 3.
maître. Sans affection comme sans scrupule,
également ennemi de son fils et de son gendre, il
Zos. l. 2, c. 10.
cherchait à les détruire l'un par l'autre, pour les
faire périr tous deux. Il retourne à Rome: le dépit
d'y voir Maxence plus honoré et plus obéi, et de Eutrop. l. 10.
n'être lui-même regardé que comme la créature de
son fils, joignit à son ambition une amère jalousie.
Il pratiqua sous main les soldats de Sévère, qui Zonar., l. 12, t. i,
avaient été les siens: avant même que d'en être p. 644.
bien assuré, il assemble le peuple et les gens de
guerre, monte avec Maxence sur le tribunal; et après avoir gémi sur
les maux de l'état, tout-à-coup il se tourne d'un air menaçant vers
son fils, l'accuse d'être la cause de ces malheurs, et, comme
emporté par sa véhémence, il lui arrache le manteau de pourpre.
Maxence effrayé se jette entre les bras des soldats qui, touchés de
ses larmes et plus encore de ses promesses, accablent Maximien
d'injures et de menaces. En vain celui-ci veut leur persuader que
cette violence de sa part n'est qu'une feinte, pour éprouver leur zèle
à l'égard de son fils; il est obligé de sortir de Rome.
Galérius avait donné le consulat de cette année à
Sévère et à Maximin: le premier n'avait pas été xxxviii.
reconnu dans les états de Maxence, qui avait Maxence lui ôte
nommé son père consul pour la neuvième fois: et le consulat.
Maximien, en donnant à Constantin la qualité
d'Auguste, l'avait fait consul avec lui, sans Buch. de cycl.
s'embarrasser du titre de Maximin. Maxence ayant p. 238.
chassé son père, lui abrogea le consulat, sans lui
substituer personne. Il cessa même alors de Till. note 15 sur
reconnaître Constantin pour consul, et fit dater les Constantin.
actes par les consulats de l'année précédente en
ces termes: Après le sixième consulat; c'était celui
de Constance Chlore et de Galérius, qui tous deux Idat. chron.
avaient été consuls pour la sixième fois en 306.
Maximien se retira en Gaule, soit pour armer
Constantin contre Maxence, soit pour le perdre lui- xxxix. Maximien
même. N'ayant pu réussir dans l'un ni dans l'autre va trouver
projet, il se hasarda d'aller trouver Galérius, Constantin et
ensuite
l'ennemi mortel de son fils, sous prétexte de se
Galérius.
réconcilier avec lui, et de prendre de concert les
moyens de rétablir les affaires de l'empire: mais en
effet pour chercher l'occasion de lui ôter la vie, et Lact., de mort.
pers. c. 29.
de régner en sa place, croyant ne pouvoir trouver du repos que sur
le trône.
Galérius était à Carnunte en Pannonie. Désespéré
du peu de succès qu'il avait eu contre Maxence, et xl. Portrait de
craignant d'être attaqué à son tour, il songea à se Licinius.
donner un appui dans Licinius, en le mettant à la
place de Sévère. C'était un Dace, d'une famille Lact., de mort.
aussi obscure que celle de Galérius; il se vantait pers. c. 29.
pourtant de descendre de l'empereur Philippe. On
ne sait pas précisément son âge, mais il était plus
Zos. l. 2, c. 11.
âgé que Galérius, et c'était une des raisons qui
avaient empêché celui-ci de le créer César, selon
la coutume, avant que de l'élever à la dignité Eutrop. l. 10.
d'Auguste. Ils avaient formé ensemble une liaison
intime, dès le temps qu'ils servaient dans les Aurel. Vict. de
armées. Licinius s'était ensuite attaché à la fortune Cæs., p. 174 et
de son ami, et avait beaucoup contribué, par sa 176.
valeur, à la célèbre victoire remportée sur [le roi de
Perse] Narsès. Il avait la réputation d'un grand
Vict. epit. p. 221
homme de guerre, et il se piqua toujours d'une et 222.
sévère exactitude dans la discipline. Ses vices,
plus grands que ses vertus, n'avaient rien de rebutant pour un
homme tel que Galérius: il était dur, colère, cruel, dissolu, d'une
avarice sordide, ignorant, ennemi des lettres, des lois et de la
morale; il appelait les lettres le poison de l'état; il détestait la science
du barreau, et il prit plaisir, étant empereur, à persécuter les
philosophes les plus renommés, et à leur faire souffrir, par haine et
par caprice, les supplices réservés aux esclaves. Il y eut pourtant
deux sortes de personnes qu'il sut traiter avec assez d'équité: il se
montra favorable aux laboureurs et aux gens de la campagne; et
retint dans une étroite contrainte les eunuques et les officiers du
palais, qu'il aimait à comparer à ces insectes qui rongent sans cesse
les choses auxquelles ils s'attachent.
Pour rendre l'élection de Licinius plus éclatante,
Galérius invita Dioclétien à s'y trouver. Le vieillard xli. Dioclétien
y consentit: il partit de sa paisible retraite de refuse l'empire.
Salone, et reparut à la cour avec une douce
majesté, qui attirait les regards sans les éblouir, et Vict. epit. p.
les respects sans mélange de crainte. Maximien, 221.
toujours agité du désir de régner, comme d'une
fièvre ardente, voulut encore exciter en secret son ancien collègue,
devenu philosophe, à reprendre la pourpre et à rendre le calme à
l'empire, qui, dans les mains de tant de jeunes souverains, n'était
que le jouet de leurs passions. Ce fut alors que Dioclétien lui fit cette
belle réponse: Ah! si vous pouviez voir à Salone ces fruits et ces
légumes que je cultive de mes propres mains, jamais vous ne me
parleriez de l'empire! Quelques auteurs ont dit que Galérius se
joignit à Maximien pour faire à Dioclétien cette proposition: si le fait
est vrai, ce ne pouvait être qu'une feinte et un pur compliment de la
part de ce prince, qui n'était pas d'humeur à reculer d'un degré; mais
l'ambition de Maximien nous répond ici de sa sincérité.
Ce fut donc en présence et du consentement des
deux anciens empereurs, que Galérius honora xlii. Licinius
Licinius du titre d'Auguste, le 11 novembre 307, lui Auguste.
donnant, à ce qu'on croit, pour département la
Pannonie et la Rhétie, en attendant qu'il pût lui Chron. Alex. vel
donner, comme il espérait le faire bientôt, toute la Paschal, p. 278.
dépouille de Maxence. Licinius prit les noms de C.
Flavius Valerius Licinianus Licinius: il y joignit le
Noris, de num.
surnom de Jovius, que Galérius avait emprunté de Licinii.
Dioclétien.
Constantin, qui n'avait pas été consulté, garda sur Till. n. 19 sur
cette élection un profond silence. Maxence, de son Constantin.
côté, créa César son fils M. Aurélius Romulus.
Mais le dépit de Maximin ne tarda pas à éclater.
Pour faire sa cour à Galérius, et pour gagner dans [Eckhel, doct.
num. vet. t. viii,
son esprit l'avantage sur Licinius, qui commençait p. 61-68.]
à lui donner de la jalousie, il avait redoublé de
fureur et de cruauté contre les chrétiens. Mennas,
préfet d'Égypte, était chrétien: Maximin, l'ayant xliii. Maximin
appris, envoie Hermogènes pour prendre sa place continue à
persécuter les
et pour le punir. Le nouveau préfet exécute ses chrétiens.
ordres, et fait cruellement tourmenter son
prédécesseur; mais ébranlé d'abord par sa Baronius, ann.
constance, éclairé ensuite par plusieurs miracles 307.
dont il est témoin, il se convertit et embrasse le
christianisme. Maximin outré de colère vient à Alexandrie: il leur fait
à tous deux trancher la tête; et pour tremper lui-même ses mains
dans le sang des martyrs, il tue d'un coup d'épée Eugraphus,
domestique de Mennas, et qui osait devant l'empereur professer la
religion proscrite. Mon dessein n'est pas de mettre sous les yeux de
mes lecteurs tous les triomphes des martyrs: ce détail appartient à
l'histoire de l'Église, dont ils furent l'honneur et la défense. Je me
propose seulement de rendre compte des principaux faits de ce
genre, auxquels les empereurs ont eu part immédiatement et par
eux-mêmes.
Les édits de Maximin remplissaient tout l'Orient de
gibets, de feux et de carnage. Les gouverneurs xliv. Punition
s'empressaient à l'envi à servir l'inhumanité du d'Urbanus et de
prince. Urbanus, préfet de la Palestine, se signalait Firmilianus.
entre les autres, et la ville de Césarée était teinte
de sang. Aussi possédait-il toute la faveur du Eus. Hist. Mart.
tyran: sa complaisance barbare couvrait tous ses Pal. c. 7. et 11.
autres crimes, dont il espérait acheter l'impunité
aux dépens des chrétiens. Mais le Dieu qu'il attaquait dans ses
serviteurs, ouvrit les yeux du prince sur les rapines et les injustices
du préfet. Urbanus fut convaincu devant Maximin, qui devint pour lui
à son tour un juge inexorable, et qui, l'ayant condamné à la mort,
vengea, sans le vouloir, les martyrs sur celui qui avait prononcé tant
de condamnations injustes. Firmilianus, qui succéda à Urbanus,
ayant été comme lui le fidèle ministre des ordres sanguinaires du
tyran, fut comme lui la victime de la vengeance divine, et eut
quelques années après la tête tranchée.
Quoique les rigueurs que Maximin exerçait contre
les chrétiens ne coûtassent rien à sa cruauté, An 308.
cependant plus il s'était étudié à se conformer aux
volontés de Galérius, plus il se sentit piqué de la xlv. Maximin
préférence que ce prince donnait à Licinius. Après prend le titre
s'être regardé comme tenant la seconde place d'Auguste.
dans l'empire, il ne voulait pas reculer à la
troisième. Il en fit des plaintes mêlées de Lact., de mort.
menaces. Pour l'adoucir, Galérius lui envoie pers. c. 20.
plusieurs fois des députés; il lui rappelle ses
bienfaits passés; il le prie même d'entrer dans ses
vues, et de déférer aux cheveux blancs de Eus. Hist. eccl.
l. 8, c. 14.
Licinius. Maximin, que ces ménagements
rendaient plus fier et plus hardi, proteste qu'étant
depuis trois ans revêtu de la pourpre des Césars, il Numism.
ne consentira jamais à laisser à un autre le rang Mezzab. et
qui lui est dû à lui-même. Galérius, qui se croyait Banduri.
en droit d'en exiger une soumission entière, lui
reproche en vain son ingratitude: il lui fallut céder à Toinard et
l'opiniâtreté de son neveu. D'abord pour essayer Cuper. in Lact.
de le satisfaire il abolit le nom de César; il déclare
que lui-même et Licinius seront appelés Augustes, [Eckhel, doct.
et que Maximin et Constantin auront le titre non num. vet. t. viii,
plus de Césars, mais de fils des Augustes. Il paraît p. 71-95].
par les médailles de ces deux princes, qu'ils
adoptèrent d'abord cette nouvelle dénomination. Mais Maximin ne la
garda pas long-temps; il se fit proclamer Auguste par son armée, et
manda ensuite à son oncle la prétendue violence que ses soldats lui
avaient faite. Galérius, forcé avec chagrin d'y consentir, abandonna
le plan qu'il avait formé, et ordonna que les quatre princes seraient
tous reconnus pour Augustes. Galérius tenait sans contredit le
premier rang; l'ordre des trois autres était contesté: Licinius était le
second selon Galérius, qui ne donnait que le dernier rang à
Constantin; mais Maximin se nommait lui-même avant Licinius; et
selon toute apparence, Constantin dans ses états était nommé avant
les deux autres. D'un autre côté, Maxence ne reconnaissait d'abord
que lui seul pour Auguste; il voulut bien ensuite faire part de ce titre
à Maximin. Mais enfin toutes ces disputes de prééminence se
terminèrent par la mort funeste de chacun de ces princes, qui
cédèrent l'un après l'autre au bonheur et au mérite de Constantin.
Maximien, empereur honoraire, puisqu'il n'avait ni sujets, ni
fonctions, que celles que lui imposait son humeur turbulente, avait
été compté pour rien dans ces nouvelles
dispositions. Il était dès lors brouillé avec Galérius: xlvi. Maximien
il paraît qu'au commencement de cette année ils consul.
avaient vécu en bonne intelligence, puisqu'on voit
dans les fastes le dixième consulat de Maximien, Till. note 21 sur
joint au septième de Galérius. Maxence, qui ne Constantin.
reconnaissait ni l'un ni l'autre, après avoir passé
près de quatre mois sans nommer de consuls, se nomma lui-même
le 20 avril avec son fils Romulus, et se continua avec lui l'année
suivante.
Comme il se voyait tranquille en Italie, il envoya
ses images en Afrique pour s'y faire reconnaître. Il xlvii. Alexandre
s'attribuait cette province: c'était une partie de la est nommé
dépouille de Sévère. Les troupes de Carthage, empereur à
regardant Maxence comme un usurpateur, Carthage.
refusèrent de lui obéir; et craignant que le tyran ne
vînt les y contraindre à main armée, elles prirent le Zos. l. 2, c. 12.
long du rivage la route d'Alexandrie, pour se retirer
dans les états de Maximin. Mais ayant rencontré Aurel. Vict., de
en chemin des troupes supérieures, elles se Cæs., p. 174 et
jetèrent dans des vaisseaux et retournèrent à 175.
Carthage. Maxence, irrité de cette résistance,
résolut d'abord de passer en Afrique, et d'aller en
personne punir les chefs de ces rebelles; mais il Vict. 221.
epit. p.
fut retenu à Rome par les aruspices, qui
l'assurèrent que les entrailles des victimes ne lui promettaient rien
de favorable. Une autre raison plus solide, c'est qu'il craignait
l'opposition du vicaire d'Afrique, nommé Alexandre, qui avait un
grand crédit dans le pays. Il voulut donc s'assurer de sa fidélité, et lui
demanda son fils pour ôtage: c'était un jeune homme fort beau; et le
père, informé des infâmes débauches de Maxence, refusa de le
hasarder entre ses mains. Bientôt des assassins, envoyés pour tuer
Alexandre, ayant été découverts, les soldats plus indignés encore
proclamèrent Alexandre empereur. Il était Phrygien selon les uns,
Pannonien selon les autres; peut-être était-il né dans une de ces
provinces, et originaire de l'autre: tous conviennent qu'il était fils d'un
paysan; ce qui ne le rendait pas moins digne de l'empire que

The Regensburg Article 5 On Justification Inconsistent Patchwork or Substance of True Doctrine Anthony N S Lane Full Chapter

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Regensburg Article 5 On Justification Inconsistent Patchwork or Substance of True Doctrine Anthony N S Lane Full Chapter

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Regensburg Article 5 on

Justification: Inconsistent Patchwork or

GREGORY OF NAZIANZUS ON THE TRINITY THE REFORMATION OF SUFFERING

Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press

© Oxford University Press 2020

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in

You must not circulate this work in any other form

Library of Congress Cataloging-​in-​Publication Data

Printed by Integrated Books International, United States of America

6. Inconsistent Patchwork or Substance of True Doctrine? 251

Appendix: The Drafts of Article 5 279

Glossary of Latin Terms 335

ADRG, and MBWT.

defects that remain. I am also very grateful to my colleague Conrad Gempf,

ADRG Akten der deutschen Reichsreligionsgespräche im 16.

Herminjard A. L. Herminjard, Correspondance des Reformateurs dans les

1 Matheson, The Rhetoric of the Reformation, 228.

Regensburg Article 5 on Justification: Inconsistent Patchwork or Substance of True Doctrine?

• Article 5 teaches double justification.

I have previously published five chapters related to this topic in

• Justification by Faith in Catholic-​Protestant Dialogue: An Evangelical

There is inevitably a limited amount of verbal overlap between what is written

volumes online: http://​www.haw.uni-​heidelberg.de/​forschung/​forschungsstellen/​melanchthon/​

7 Gilson, The Spirit of Medieval Philosophy, 421.

without the languages.

During the early years of the Reformation, the doctrine of justification

Regensburg Article 5 on Justification: Inconsistent Patchwork or Substance of True Doctrine?

Spätmittelaters,” documents this in detail.

Augustijn, De Godsdienstgesprekken tussen Rooms-​katholieken en Protestanten and other works listed

documents relating to Hagenau, see ADRG 1/​I–​II.

documents relating to Worms, see ADRG 2/​I–​II.

The Regensburg Colloquy

Regensburg, see ADRG 3/​I:79–​80.

and Religion of Christ are Presently Harassed (hereafter referred to as his

Schriftstellertätigkeit Albert Pigges, 34–​40.

349–​53. None of these letters is dated.

Reichstage zu Regensburg,” 454. Summary in Regesten, 178.

seiner deutschen Legation,” 373. Summary in Regesten, 177.

41 Beccadelli, “Vita di . . . Messer Gasparo Contarini,” 34.

seiner deutschen Legation,” 488. Summary in Regesten, 205.

Unionsversuchen, 63–​143 on Regensburg; Meyer, “Melanchthon, Theologian of Ecemenism,” 201–​

Johann Pistorius (1502–​83), also known as Johann Becker or Niddanus,

accounts of the father are found in Stupperich, Reformatorenlexikon, 166–​67; Tzschirner/​Mirbt,

Zeitalter der Reformation, 457.

was well-​read, sagacious, unbeaten in dispute, endowed with an impeccable

56 Jedin, History of the Council of Trent, 1:395.

(MBW 3:165 [#2682]).

weakness of sinners, and he believed that we should glory not in ourselves

Reformationsgeschichte II,” 635. Summary in Regesten, 172.

Reformationsgeschichte II,” 635. Summary in Regesten, 172.

Reichstage zu Regensburg,” 445. Summary in Regesten, 171.

seiner deutschen Legation,” 368; ADRG 3/​I:75. Summary in Regesten, 173.

Reichstage zu Regensburg,” 454. Summary in Regesten, 178

(28 June) in ADRG 3/​II:548–​49.

Declaration (18 May) in CR 4:297.

The fifth article, De restitutione regeneratione et iustificatione hominis gratia

108 On which, see at n. 17, above.

one day to draw up the agreed Article (CR 4:299–​300).

confident in ascribing responsibility for the outcome to this or that partici-

(2) A draft by Melanchthon, dated 29 April, which is found in manuscripts

also expounds the teaching of this draft (235–​79).

notes points of difference. For more details, see Appendix 1, below.

Medler (9 May) in CR 4:268.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

• Justification by Faith in Catholic-Protestant Dialogue: An Evangelical

volumes online: http://www.haw.uni-heidelberg.de/forschung/forschungsstellen/melanchthon/

Augustijn, De Godsdienstgesprekken tussen Rooms-katholieken en Protestanten and other works listed

documents relating to Hagenau, see ADRG 1/I–II.

documents relating to Worms, see ADRG 2/I–II.

Regensburg, see ADRG 3/I:79–80.

Schriftstellertätigkeit Albert Pigges, 34–40.

349–53. None of these letters is dated.

Unionsversuchen, 63–143 on Regensburg; Meyer, “Melanchthon, Theologian of Ecemenism,” 201–

Johann Pistorius (1502–83), also known as Johann Becker or Niddanus,

accounts of the father are found in Stupperich, Reformatorenlexikon, 166–67; Tzschirner/Mirbt,

was well-read, sagacious, unbeaten in dispute, endowed with an impeccable

seiner deutschen Legation,” 368; ADRG 3/I:75. Summary in Regesten, 173.

(28 June) in ADRG 3/II:548–49.

one day to draw up the agreed Article (CR 4:299–300).

also expounds the teaching of this draft (235–79).

Kolloquium zu Regensburg,” 96; ADRG 3/I:114).

seiner deutschen Legation,” 374; ADRG 3/I:116. Summary in Regesten, 177.