The Chimera of Concord

Contarini did not approach his mission with starry-eyed idealism and optimism. He was, after all, a seasoned diplomat who knew how extremely difficult it was for third parties to navigate between the Scylla and Charibdis of the Habsburgs and the Valois and to face German Protestant princes and theologians. He announced his appointment as legate on 21 May 1540 to Cervini, Morone, and Sadoleto in almost identical letters, with however, small and telling differences. To the first he wrote that although the task he was undertaking surpassed the strength of his mind and body, he accepted it in obedience to the pope and in the hope of doing some good to the church.^[67] In informing Morone, he strikes a more personal note: "Recognizing that this charge is beyond my strength, I place my confidence in God's goodness, which will have to come to my aid, otherwise I shall be lost."^[68] To Sadoleto he adds that he accepted the lega-

[64] The puzzling remark in the dispatch of Marco Bracci, the Florentine envoy in Rome, of 31 May 1540, shows that some curialists thought Contarini too "soft" on Lutheranism; sec note 48 above.

[65] Farnese is quite unequivocal on this point in his letter to the nuncio Poggio, Rome, 28 Jan. 1541; see NB 6:189.

[66] See GC , 511-17, and the references there to the letters exchanged with them.

[67] Monumenti Beccadelli 1(2):84.

[68] Ibid., 81; and Reg ., 125 (no. 470).

tion so that he might try to the best of his ability to do something for the honor of God during the last part of his life.^[69] These were no empty phrases, but the sentiments of a man who bore no illusions of the difficulties he would face yet who gladly undertook a task that no fallow cardinal envied him.^[70]

Contarini did not imagine a colloquy as a means of quickly healing the breach of religious unity, as can be seen from a letter to Cervini that he drafted on behalf of Cardinal Farnese in the spring or summer of 1540. He stressed that the pope did not think a colloquy likely to be useful to the church unless the Catholic participants and the two Habsburg rulers promised to submit everything to the Holy See for approval before entering into any agreements with the Protestants.^[72] Morone's dispatches had revealed to Contarini the extent of the problems he faced, as had letters from Tommaso Badia, who warned about the "obduracy" of the Protestants and expressed pessimism concerning the possibility of a genuine exchange of views with them.^[72]

Contarini knew well that as legate he could not be an independent agent and that his sphere of action would be strictly circumscribed. To Eck, who congratulated him on his legation, he wrote: "You have no reason to congratulate me. My task is very difficult, and it goes far beyond my powers. Nevertheless, as I underook it gladly, trusting in God's help, so I hope that with God's guidance some good will come of it."^[73] A few months previously, however, Contarini had written a more revealing letter to the same correspondent, emphasizing that "even in a desperate situation the Christian must not completely abandon hope, but hope against hope. . . . I believe that our task is to carry on the fight with benevolence and good deeds so that our adversaries will be ashamed, or at least should be ashamed because they are separating themselves from loving brothers."^[74] Although more than a decade separated these words from the conclusion of his Confutatio articulorum seu quaestionum Lutheranorum, we see here the same idea

[69] Reg ., 126 (no. 471); and Monumenti Beccadelli 1(2):81.

[70] Report of the Ferrarese envoy to Rome, Ruggieri, 12 Jan. 1541, as quoted by Capasso, Paolo III 2:145n.2: "Viene notato che questo signore [Contarini] mostra di andare molto volontieri forse confidandosi per la bona mente che tiene di poter trovare qualche modo et forma a questa unione delle chiese . . . et non vi è alcun di questi Rev [cardinals] che ne gli habbia una invidia al mondo." Also Pastor, Geschichte der Päpste 5:840, no. 38.

[71] Reg ., 313 (Inedita, no. 48).

[72] To Contarini, Worms, 28 Dec. 1540, in Reg ., 138 (no. 524).

[73] Regensburg, 10 Apr. 1541, in Reg ., 316 (Inedita, no. 54).

[74] Rome, 6 Jan. 1541, in Reg ., 314-15 (Inedita, no. 51).

that if only the Catholics are sincere and loving, they will impress the Protestants. This attitude has been wrongly interpreted as showing Contarini's kindness as well as his wishful thinking and lack of a clear personal plan of action.^[75] Actually, as we have seen, he consistently held the view that human beings were rational creatures responsive to reason, argument, and example. Unlike many of his contemporaries, he did not see enemies in those who had different opinions from the ones he held, but quite literally brothers who were within the bounds of the Christian family.

Although Contarini was appointed on 21 May 1540, his mission was delayed for eight months because of political and procedural issues,^[76] and the colloquy of Hagenau opened in June 1540 without a papal legate present. Morone defended the interests of the papacy with mixed success, since the German Catholics were disunited and he was not given their firm support. His situation was difficult as well as unpleasant, and his pleas for Contarini's arrival increased in urgency. What with the Venetian cardinal's delay and the calling of the colloquy to Worms, Morone became very pessimistic, predicting that the whole of Germany would become Protestant unless the pope acted decisively.^[77] He repeatedly transmitted requests from Granvelle for Contarini's presence.^[78] On 8 January 1541, Farnese informed the nuncio Poggio of the pope's decision to send a legate to Regensburg: "That legate will be my lord Contarini, who in addition to possessing the qualities of learning and prudence which His Majesty considers desirable for [someone entrusted with] this mission also has the approval of [the emperor] as a friend and confidant."^[79] Contarini was formally designated as legate two days later,^[80] and on 28 January he left Rome for the arduous trip across the Apennines and Alps in winter; as

[75] Matheson, Contarini at Regensburg , 50, maintains that "Contarini was perhaps clear enough about what he wanted to achieve. On the question of how it was to be achieved he was intolerably and inexcusably vague."

[76] See Pastor, Geschichte der Päpste 5:273-74, 277-78; GC , 523-25; and Reg ., 134 (no. 507).

[77] Morone to Farnese, Hagenau, 23 July 1540, in Franz Dittrich, Nuntiaturberichte Giovanni Morones vom deutschen Königshofe, 1539-1540 (Paderborn, 1892), 177.

[78] To Farnese, Worms, 10 Jan. 1541, in NB 6:119; or 18 Jan. 1541, ibid., 128.

[79] Dittrich, "Nuntiaturberichte Morone's," 649. See also note 63 above.

[80] ASVat, Arch. Consist., Acta Misc. 18 (1517-48), fol. 336v, records Contarini's appointment: "S.D.N. creavit in S.R.E. Legatum de latere Rm D. Gasparem Presb Cardinalem Contarenum in partibus Germaniae, et ad ea potissimum loca, ad quae eum declinare contigerit, cum facultatibus prout in literis continebatur."

Farnese repeated, he was sent "most of all in response to the wishes and judgment of His Imperial Majesty rather than for any other reason."^[81]

Contarini's written instruction, which reached him after his arrival in Trent, was drawn up by a committee composed of Cervini, Ghinucci, and Aleandro, then submitted to Farnese and the pope for the final wording. Aleandro considered himself an expert in German affairs and adopted a tone of condescension toward Contarini in the letter to Farnese that accompanied the draft of the instruction: "I am so bold as to say that, since through much experience in this matter I know German affairs very well, it has seemed [appropriate] to me to insert [into the instruction] certain specifics and suggestions for doing things which cannot be appreciated properly by those who are not as expert [as I], even though they excel in knowledge, intelligence, and good judgment."^[82] In the name of the committee he urged Farnese to be sure to remind Contarini to "[read and] reread the instruction carefully and to do what he is ordered in it, and if he has any objections, to put them in writing."^[83]

Contarini's instruction is of extraordinary importance for revealing how his mission appeared from the perspective of Paul III and his grandson.^[84] Absolutely nothing in its tone or substance hints at an interest in promoting or even countenancing genuine discussion of theological issues with the Protestants. The legate is not sent with authority to conclude anything, contrary to what the Habsburgs had hoped. The reasons for this circumstance are spelled out. First, it remained to be seen to what extent the Protestants, "who have departed from the bosom of the church," were still in accord with Catholics on such key doctrines as papal primacy, the sacraments of the church, and others

[81] See note 59 above. Contarini wrote from Bologna to Farnese about the bad roads, continuous snowfall, and the strain on men and horses; see ASVat, Arm. 62, vol. 36, fols. 5v-6r. See also the descriptions by Contarini's companions of the hardships en route in Monumenti Beccadelli 1(2):31n.44.

[82] Aleandro to Farnese, Rome, 15 Feb. 1541, in NB 7:3.

[83] Ibid., 4.

[84] The instruction, dated 28 January 1541 and signed by Farnese, reached him on 24 February. The original is in ASVat, Arm. 64, vol. 21, fols. 5r-10r (hereafter cited as Instr .); it is printed in part in CT 12:192-93. The complete but frequently incorrect text (or one for which another version was the source) is in Ep. Poli 3:cclxxxvi-ccic, reprinted in Monumenti Beccadelli 1(2):112-22. Anton Pieper, Zur Entstehungsgeschichte der stän-digen Nuntiaturen (Freiburg i.B., 1894), 171-72, offers a very incomplete list of corrections of the text in Ep. Poli on the basis of the above manuscript; one suspects that he relied on the hasty collation of an assistant. Thus the manuscript remains the only reliable version of the document.

confirmed by Scripture and tradition. "From the very moment that there is disagreement on these issues, any attempt at agreement on other controverted matters would be bound to fail,"^[85] Contarini is told. Second, he cannot be sent as a plenipotentiary because the demands of the Protestants are not known. Finally, what can be guessed about these demands is such that not even the pope, if he were personally present in Regensburg, could grant them without consulting other nations lest he cause scandal or imperil souls.^[86]

These arguments demonstrate that in 1541 the break in Christian unity was regarded as a given at the highest levels of the Catholic church. The pope and his closest advisors on religious matters in Germany, far from searching for accommodations and compromises or showing openness to Protestant concerns, drew firm lines of defense behind which Contarini was instructed to remain. If taken literally, his instruction would have precluded any dialogue between representatives of the two confessions unless the Protestants accepted the Catholic positions on some of the most controverted issues.

The same mentality can be seen in the repeated references to heresy and heretics in the instruction. Contarini is to work for the convocation of a general council, "which has always been the specific and usual remedy of the church against heresy and schism."^[87] He must employ all his efforts to prevent a national council in Germany, where "the Lutherans could easily defend their heresies against the dogmas and glorious rituals of the Holy Catholic Church."^[88] The solution to the religious discord in Germany is simple: if the Germans really desire peace, they should strive to preserve the faith in the spiritual realm and justice in the temporal as regards the property of the church, and should submit those articles on which there is disagreement to the judgment of the pope, who as the good shepherd would find a way of settling the differences.^[89]

Paul III viewed the Protestants simply as heretics. If the role of peacemaker in Germany that he proposed for himself seems utterly unrealistic to us, we should nevertheless take it seriously as an indi-

[85] Instr ., fols. 5v-6r: "Primum quia videndum in primis est, an protestantes, et ii qui ab ecclesiae gremio defecerunt, in principiis nobiscum conveniant, cuiusmodi est huius sanctae Sedis primatus tanquam a Deo et Salvatore nostro institutus, sacrosanctae ecclesiae sacramenta, et alia quaedam, quae tum sacrarum litterarum autoritate, rum universalis ecclesiae perpetua observatione hactenus comprobata fuerunt, et tibi nora esse bene scimus. Quibus statim initio omissis, omnis super aliis controversiis concordia frustra tentaretur."

[86] Ibid., fol. 6r.

[87] Ibid., fol. 7r; and CT 12:192.

[88] Instr ., fol. 7v; and CT 12:193.

[89] Instr ., fol. 6r.

cation of his way of thinking, and also of his limited imagination. For him there was a clearly defined hierarchy in the religious universe, at the top of which stood the pope—that is, himself. In this hierarchy there was no place for heretics. He might extend his kindness to those who erred; but of a serious discussion with them there was no question. The only relation envisioned by him was a strictly vertical one. He could stoop toward the Protestants because of the duties imposed by his pastoral office to find lost sheep. Any arrangement that positioned the two sides as equals in a discussion, however, was precluded by the very definition of what heretics were thought to be in the church: the sowers of error and untruth. Paul III's view was like that of Gianpietro Carafa, who almost a decade before had written to Pope Clement VII on this subject in a similar vein, maintaining that heretics must be treated as heretics, and that gentleness toward them only increased their obduracy.^[90] Cutting the cord rather than building bridges to them would become the attitude of the Counter-Reformation church.

The pope and Cardinal Farnese, as well as the three drafters of the instruction, knew that Contarini thought otherwise and that he was no hard-liner. A hint of exasperation accompanies a telling passage of the instruction which betrays the worry that Contarini might be too accommodating to the Protestants. He is reminded of ideas he had previously expressed in conversation, that no concord could be achieved by sharp words or violent ways. What he was then told orally is now repeated in writing: Lutherans are extremely crafty, they have in the past twisted the words uttered by their opponents in good faith, and they will do so again. Contarini is enjoined quite emphatically to safeguard his dignity as papal legate first and foremost. Although he is of course an agent, he is also the pope's "deputy,"^[91] and his personal views are to be subordinated to those of the sovereign whom he represents. He is permitted to deal with the heretics (as they are flatly called) in a conciliatory manner, but warned to be on the alert to anything that might harm the Holy See.^[92]

Here we see a mistrust of Contarini's manner that reminds us of Cervini's letters from the imperial court to Farnese urging that Contarini be given explicit instructions for his mission from which he may not depart. The mind of the more conservative advisors of Paul III was

[90] "De Lutheranorum haeresi reprimenda et ecclesia reformanda ad Clementem VII [4. octobris 1532]," in CT 12:68; English translation in Gleason, Reform Thought , 59.

[91] William Roosen, "Early Modern Diplomatic Ceremonial: A Systems Approach," Journal of Modern History 52 (1980): 455, discusses the diplomat as "stand-in."

[92] Instr ., fol. 9v.

made up: they had no difficulties in drawing the sort of lines between truth and error, Catholicism and Protestantism, or obedience and rebellion over which Contarini hesitated and agonized. Quite simply, his view of Catholicism was not theirs.

A negative outlook can also be seen in the orders to Contarini on how to deal with the emperor. The legate is not to support Charles V's quest for peace in Germany if that means making any concession to Protestants. Should the emperor be inclined toward a truce with them, or toward affirming the decisions made in Nuremberg in 1532, Contarini is instructed to remind him of his duties as protector of the church. Over and over the same idea is repeated: only a general council is the proper body for the resolution of religious differences; no national assembly has any standing in the eyes of the pope.^[93] If any agreements contrary to the interests of the Holy See were to be made, Contarini is ordered to condemn and declare them void and to withdraw from the diet, without, however, leaving the imperial court before receiving further instructions.^[94] Nobody seems to have cared to imagine how extremely uncomfortable Contarini's position would have been in such a case.

This instruction proves beyond any doubt that the colloquy at Regensburg was not viewed either as an event of major importance by the pope and his curial advisors or as a real chance for solving the differences with the Protestants. The pope had to respond to the emperor's wishes or be accused of sabotaging religious peace in Germany. So he responded, without any expectation of substantive results, by sending an expert diplomat, a good and learned man who, as he well knew, would make a favorable impression on all he met or dealt with. But Paul III and his grandson also made sure that the legate's wings were clipped and that he had no freedom of movement. In fact, his chief purpose was unequivocally spelled out. Contarini was instructed to take a notary and witnesses to all his political or religious discussions, so that a documentary record might exist which would prove to posterity that the pope had made every effort in the cause of the faith, omitting no opportunity of working for the convening of a general council.^[95] In sum, Contarini was not to negotiate with the Protestants but instead was expected to speak for a pope who was anxious not

[93] Ibid., fol. 7r; and CT 12:192.

[94] Instr ., fol. 7v; and CT 12:193.

[95] Instr ., fol. 8r: "Et omnibus his per te sic dicendis, agendis et faciendis, notarium et testes adhibebis, prius secreto commonefactos, ut ea, quae in huiusmodi casibus dices et facies, et tibi respondebuntur, diligenter attendant, et observent, et notarius ipse in notam sumat, unde unum vel plura confici possit instrumentum, vel instrumenta, per quae perpetuis temporibus cognoscatur nos causae fidei nullo unquam tempore, nullisque modis defuisse."

to appear before the world as dragging his feet on the matter of the council but who resolutely rejected any purely German solution of the Protestant-Catholic split as unacceptable and harmful to the welfare of the universal church.

The literature on the colloquy of Regensburg is vast.^[96] The dramatic meeting captured the imagination of scholars especially in the nineteenth century and again in our own time, when ecumenical concerns have become important to almost all Christian denominations.^[97] But opinions on whether Regensburg was the last chance for religious concord differ considerably, as do assessments of the possibility of any substantive agreement in 1541.^[98] It is tempting to romanticize the situation and the participants, or to entertain "what if" scenarios. Even historians of the stature of Ranke and Pastor, for very different reasons,

[96] For a bibliography, see Karl Schottenloher, Bibliographie zur deutschen Geschichte im Zeitalter der Glaubensspaltung , 2d ed., vol. 3 (Stuttgart: Hiersemann, 1957), 22, nos. 28073-83. Paul Vetter, Die Religionsverhandlungen auf dem Reichstage zu Regensburg 1541 (Jena, 1889), despite its age, is still an excellent survey. Also still useful is Pastor, Die kirchlichen Reunionsbestrebungen . Among more recent works Pierre Fraenkel's Einigungsbestrebungen in der Reformationszeit (Mainz: Institut für Europläische Geschichte, 1965) is most helpful for a brief overview. See also Robert Stupperich, Der Humanismus und die Wiedervereinigung der Konfessionen (Leipzig: M. Heinsius Nachfolger, 1936); Walter Friedensburg, Kaiser Karl V. und Papst Paul III. (1534-1549 ) (Leipzig: M. Heinsius Nachfolger, 1932); August Korte, Die Konzilspolitik Karls V. in den Jahren 1538-1543 (Halle a.d.S.: E. Karras, 1905); Cardauns, Zur Geschichte der kirchlichen Unions- und Reformbestrebungen ; Cornelis Augustijn, De godsdienstgesprekken tussen rooms-katholieken en protestanten van 1538 tot 1541 (Haarlem: De Erven F. Bohn, 1967); Basil Hall, "The Colloquy Between Catholics and Protestants, 1539-41," Studies in Church History 7 (1971): 235-66; and Gerhard Müller, ed., Die Religionsgesprache der Reformationszeit (Gütersloh: Mohn, 1980). For a briefer survey, see Jedin, Trient 1:299-315.

[97] See, e.g., "U.S. Lutheran-Roman Catholic Dialogue: Justification by Faith," Origins: NC Documentary Service 13, no. 17 (6 October 1983); and H. George Anderson, T. Austin Murphy, and Joseph A. Burgess, eds., Justification by Faith , Lutherans and Catholics in Dialogue 7 (Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1985), 28-33, 200-217.

[98] Hubert Jedin, "An welchen Gegensätzen sind die vortridentinischen Religionsgespräche zwischen Katholiken und Protestanten gescheitert?" Theologie und Glaube 48 (1958): 50-55; Joseph Lortz, "Wert und Grenzen der katholischen Kontroverstheologie in der ersten Hälfte des sechzehnten Jahrhunderts," in Um Reform und Reformation , ed. A. Franzen (Münster i.W.: Aschendorff, 1968), 9-32; Karl-Heinz zur Mühlen, "Die Einigung über den Rechtfertigungsartikel auf dem Regensburger Religionsgespräch von 1541—eine verpasste Chance?," Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche 76 (1979): 331-59; and Vinzenz Pfnür, "Die Einigung bei den Religionsgesprächen 1540/41: eine Täuschung?" in Müller (ed.), Religionsgespräiche , 55-88.

were strangely optimistic, indulging in what can only be called wishful thinking when they discussed the instruction for Contarini.^[99] They saw much greater possibilities of success than a careful reading of the document in fact warrants. It is important to remember that neither knew the original. Dittrich (who also did not) is somewhat more cautious in assessing the instruction, but in the end gives the pope the benefit of the doubt: "Whether Paul III was at all prepared to make concessions remains uncertain. Perhaps he wanted to leave it up to his legate to see how far he could get in his negotiations with the Protestants, but [the pope] reserved the final decision for himself."^[100] This is a frankly apologetic interpretation of the clear directives Contarini was given, and says more about Dittrich's willingness to shed the most favorable light on the motives of the pope than about the instruction. For Rome, the question was not at all whether a genuine meeting of minds would occur during the colloquy, since Rome's understanding of concord was entirely one-sided: it meant the return of the Protestants to the one fold and its one shepherd, period. But even from the curial perspective there was a kind of last-chance atmosphere about Regensburg. At one point, the instruction compares the colloquy to a sheet-anchor; should it fail, the pope would no longer be gentle with the heretics, but was resolved to become more severe.^[101]

Contarini and his small suite arrived just outside Regensburg on 11 March. No distinguished churchman accompanied the legate. While several high-ranking prelates had originally been proposed, and Contarini had his own candidates, the group with him in the end was made up mostly of younger men in sympathy with his views, who were to fulfill various secretarial duties.^[102] On 12 March, the legate was

[99] Leopold yon Ranke, Die römischen Päpste in den letzten vier Jahrhunderten , 9th ed. (Leipzig, 1889), 1:105, writes that "in the vague nature of the papal words there lay the possibility of success"; and Pastor, Geschichte der Päpste 5:300, echoes this opinion: "This indefinite wording was chosen on purpose: it left the cardinal a certain space for maneuvering, and opened the possibility of success."

[100] GC , 568.

[101] Instr ., fol. 9r: "Nam quum constans omnium iudicium sit, si Caesarea Maiestas ab isto conventu seu Dieta Imperialis (ad quam bene gerendae rei omnis spes velut ad sacram (ut aiunt) ancoram, remissa fuerat) in üs, quae ad religionem pertinent, vel re infecta, vel male gesta discesserit, totam religionera in Germania pessum ituram, non abs re facturi videamur, si post humanitatem et mansuetudinem, quibus in hac causa usi sumus, tandem in hoc postremo articulo autoritatem nobis a Domino traditam aliquanto severius exerceamus."

[102] He was accompanied by his secretary Lodovico Beccadelli; his vicar in Belluno, Girolamo Negri; and his friends Adamo Fumano, Trifone Benci, Vincenzo Parpaglia, and Filippo Gheri; see Gigliola Fragnito, Gasparo Contarini: un magistrato veneziano al servizio della cristianità (Florence: Olschki, 1988), 57. Contarini had invited his friend Gregorio Cortese and the poet Marcantonio Flaminio to accompany him, the first as theological advisor and the second as an outstanding Latinist. But Cortese excused himself on account of illness (see Gregorii Cortesii omnia 1:140), while Flaminio refused, ostensibly fearing for his life if he had to make such a journey in his poor state of health. His letters to Beccadelli and Contarini—in which he protests perhaps too strenuously— are in his Lettere , 96-100. Flaminio clearly did not want to go. Pastore, in ibid., 97n.1, gives a list of men originally proposed to go with Contarini. Eberhard Gothein, Ignatius von Loyola und die Gegenreformation (Halle, 1895), 287, maintains that Aleandro, "der alto Intrigant," suggested that the narrowly orthodox Pedro Ortiz, Charles V's ambassador to Rome, accompany Contarini as a sort of check.

received with great ceremony, and "it seem[ed] that everyone was very glad that he had come," as Francesco Contarini, the Venetian ambassador to King Ferdinand, reported to the Senate.^[103]

The dispatches of this distant relative of the legate are an important source for the diplomatic aspects of Contarini's mission. The ambassador saw the legate frequently, was acquainted with men in his suite, and reported a good deal of hearsay that helps us to recreate the atmosphere of the meeting. That the Catholic side in the colloquy was facing no easy task can be seen even in the left-handed compliment Francesco Contarini paid the Lutherans (or was he deliberately espousing the stance of a naive observer?) when he wrote:

His Holiness [the pope] is praised to the skies for having decided to send the Rev. Contarini here. As for myself, I believe and hold that which Holy Mother Church believes, and intend to die in this [belief]. Hearing the Rev. legate talk, I am extremely pleased, and it seems to me that there is no one who understands matters better than he does. However, when I then talk with Lutherans (since it is not possible to avoid being also with them), they present so many arguments with a flood of words that I must frankly confess to Your Excellencies that I do not know what to answer them, since that is not my profession.^[104]

If even a Venetian detached from the German religious situation felt the strength of the Lutheran cause, it is not difficult to imagine the depth of support for it held by the convinced Protestants whom Contarini was about to meet.

[103] Regensburg, 13 Mar. 1541, in VBM, MSS It., C1. VII, 802 (=8219), fol. 173v (cited hereafter as F. Contarini, Dispatches). Excerpts or summaries of many of his dispatches are in CSPV , vol. 5, and some are excerpted in Reg . They deserve to be read in full for the lively quality of the reporting. Mackensen, "The Diplomatic Role of Gasparo Contarini at the Colloquy of Ratisbon of 1541," Church History 27 (1958): 322, errs in thinking that Francesco Contarini was the legate's brother.

[104] F. Contarini, Dispatches, 26 Mar. 1541, fol. 176r; and, in a different translation, CSPV 5:94.

Contarini found the emperor in Regensburg waiting for German princes who were slow to come or to send their representatives. Contrary to his expectations, no theologians were present, and even in late March the fate of the colloquy was still uncertain.^[105] Among Catholics, the dukes of Bavaria led the opposition to the colloquy, while on the Protestant side the powerful elector of Saxony and his supporters considered the meeting pointless. For all his experience as a diplomat Contarini was still taken aback at the extent of disagreement on the Catholic side. The difference in outlook between the Bavarians, the duke of Brunswick, and the prince-bishop and cardinal of Mainz, on the one hand, and Charles V and Granvelle, on the other, was vast. The first group wanted war against the Protestants, whereas the emperor and his chancellor, unwilling to offend the Lutherans, strove for negotiations, discussions, and compromises. Contarini was drawn into the thick of their maneuvering and had to decide quickly on a strategy that would not alienate him from either camp.^[106] Realizing that the aims of these two Catholic groups were mutually exclusive, Contarini adopted a middle way between the bellicose Bavarians and the overly compliant Granvelle, and tried to pacify the dukes while preventing Granvelle from making concessions to the Lutherans. He expressed his dismay about the lack of unity among Catholics to Cardinal Farnese: "Consider and reflect, Your Reverence, with what sorts of minds we have to deal, and yet they are all Catholics! . . . Negotiating with such heads is truly most difficult; I have great need of God's help, and hope that he will not fail me."^[107]

An added hurdle lay in the French king's suspicious attitude toward Contarini.^[108] Francis I opposed anything that might strengthen the emperor, especially a religious peace in Germany. He did his best to

[105] Report of the Frankfurt ambassador Johann von Glauburg, 30 Mar. 1541, in Pastor, Die kirchlichen Reunionsbestrebungen , 231.

[106] For his and Morone's plan of dealing with the Bavarians and Granvelle, see Morone to Cardinal Farnese, Regensburg, 17 Mar. 1541, in Victor Schultze, "Aktenstücke zur deutschen Reformationsgeschichte," Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte 3 (1878-79): 615-16. Dittrich, GC , 581, compares Contarini to the pilot of a ship steering carefully between two opposing dangers.

[107] Dispatch of 16 March 1541, in Victor Schultze, "Dreizehn Depeschen Contarini's aus Regensburg an den Cardinal Farnese (1541)," Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte 3 (1878-79): 158. See also that of 30 March, 166.

[108] Francis I made known his view that Contarini was so much under Habsburg influence that he could serve the papacy but poorly; see GC , 589-90; and Mackensen, "Diplomatic Role," 321-24, for French efforts to hamper the legate. Capasso, Paolo III 2:150n.3, shows that Francis I was spreading rumors about Contarini even before any news of the legate's action could have reached him.

hamper the plans of Charles V, instructing his envoys to counteract efforts to solve the German religious crisis, since a disunited neighbor to the east suited him well.^[109] Apprehensive of concord, he cast aspersions on Contarini as a man too weak to stand up to the emperor and an inept emissary unable to defend properly the interests of the papacy. The legate, who was prepared for confronting the Protestants, thus realized even before the colloquy opened that some of his difficulties would come also from Catholics.

Contarini found himself in an extremely complex political situation.^[110] His extensive correspondence offers detailed and often vividly written testimony of how he regarded the various interest groups assembled in Regensburg.^[111] It is a rich and important source for understanding his thought and attitudes. He was guided by a steady stream of letters and instructions from Cardinal Farnese,^[112] which reveal the concerns of the pope, his grandson, and their advisors as the meeting progressed, enabling us to follow step by step the exchanges between them and the legate.

[109] Girolamo Dandino, Nuncio to France, to Contarini, Blois, 25 Mar. 1541, in Monumenti Beccadelli 1(2):128; and the same to Cardinal Farnese, Melun, 31 Dec. 1540, in CT 4:191-92, 193-94.

[110] Paolo Prodi rightly stressed that some of the recent works dealing with the colloquy of Regensburg do not sufficiently develop the influence of politics on events and decisions made there; see Prodi, "I colloqui di Ratisbona: l'azione e le idee di Gaspare Contarini (tavola rotonda)," in Cavazzana Romanelli (ed.), Gaspare Contarini e il suo tempo , 208.

[111] Ludwig von Pastor published Contarini's letters from Regensburg in "Die Correspondenz des Cardinals Contarini wahrend seiner deutschen Legation," both in Historisches Jahrbuch der Görresgesellschaft and separately under the same title in Münster i.W. (n.d.). While still important, this collection has to be used with caution, since it is based on imperfect copies in ASVat, Fondo Pio, 58 (old signature: Bibl. Pia, D-129). As Pastor later realized, the original register of Contarini's letters is in ASVat, Arm. 62, vol. 36. Dittrich used the same codex of the Fondo Pio (Reg ., 144n.1) and later saw the original register, which he cites under the old signature of Cod. 36 (Trid.). Victor Schultze found thirteen letters of Contarini's in the Neapolitan Archives; see his "Dreizehn Depeschen." Several letters were printed earlier: to Cardinal Farnese, 28 and 30 Apr. 1541, in Ep. Poli 3:ccliii-cclvi; and to various correspondents, in Monumenti Beccadelli 1, pt. 2. The latter group was reprinted by Theodor Brieger, "Zur Correspondenz Contarini's während seiner deutschen Legation: Mitteilungen aus Beccadelli's Monumenti," Zeitschrift fur Kirchengeschichte 3 (1878-79): 492-523. Capasso, Paolo III 2:148n.1, briefly discusses Contarini's correspondence.

[112] The originals, all signed by Farnese, are in ASVat, Arm. 64, vol. 20. Pastor found the codex after he had prepared Contarini's letters for publication, and therefore drew upon it only superficially. He intended to devote greater attention to it but did not bring the project to fruition; he used selections from the letters in his History of the Popes (see "Correspondenz," 334). Ludwig Cardauns used it for NB , vol. 7, excerpting letters of special interest for German affairs. Dittrich did not know the codex at the time he published Reg .

From the beginning of the correspondence it is obvious that Contarini had a different order of priorities for his mission than did Cardinal Farnese, speaking for Paul III. Nowhere can this be seen more clearly than in the matter of the pope's rebellious subject Ascanio Colonna. This affair, which has been given too little attention in the context of the Regensburg meeting,^[113] casts no favorable light on the pope as spiritual leader, for the documents show him behaving in this case like a purely temporal prince preoccupied with the challenge of a defiant subject whose power in the papal state he wanted to break. At the very time negotiations between Catholics and Protestants were about to begin, Colonna's insubordination was of far more immediate concern to the Farnese family than events in far-off Germany, and it continued to preoccupy them. Even Dittrich, always ready to attribute the best motives to Paul III, admitted that "the letters of Cardinal Farnese to him [Contarini] during the first period of his mission to Regensburg contain more about the Colonna affair than about negotiations for concord."^[114] These letters are not just footnotes to the meeting at Regensburg, but evidence of the relative weight given to events in the scheme of papal politics in 1541. From the perspective of Paul III and Cardinal Farnese, the Colonna affair was a major issue; from that of Contarini, however, it was but another difficulty to be dealt with in the pursuit of his chief objective.

Ascanio Colonna, member of the great Roman aristocratic family and holder of extensive possessions from the pope, was also one of the emperor's most Italian partisans.^[115] He had fought on the imperial side in the conflict between pope and emperor that culminated in the terrible sack of Rome in 1527. Trusted by Charles V, who rewarded him with income and office in the kingdom of Naples, Ascanio seemed to put the past behind him when Paul III was elected and proclaimed himself a loyal vassal of the pope, even acting as one of the bearers of the new pontiff's throne on the way to church. Paul III, too, wanted a fresh beginning in his relations with the powerful Colonna clan. On 3 November 1534, he issued a lengthy bull absolv-

[113] Dittrich chronicled it summarily (GC , 592-97), while Matheson devoted less than a page to it (Contarini at Regensburg , 74-75) and did not use Farnese's letters. Mackensen, "Diplomatic Role," ignored the episode altogether. Pastor, in Geschichte der Päipste , vol. 5, incorporated it into a chapter on the papal states and the rise of the Farnese family, treating the whole episode from the vantage point of the pope challenged by a disobedient vassal, and made no reference to Farnese's letters.

[114] GC , 593.

[115] Franca Petrucci, "Colonna, Ascanio," in DBI 27:271-75, gives an up-to-date sketch of his colorful life, with bibliography.

ing Ascanio and his followers from the excommunication imposed by Pope Clement VII and from all censures, penalties, confiscations of goods, or anathemas.^[116] This sweeping bull is impressive for the solemnity with which it stresses that the pope was not acting on a petition of Ascanio or anyone else but was proceeding freely, "de nostra mera liberalitate," in absolving Colonna from all condemnations and penalties—"[Te] absolvemus et totaliter liberamus ac penas ipsas tibi plenarie remittimus indulgemus et condonamus"—and in lifting the interdict on his territories. The kinds of crimes of which Ascanio was accused were enumerated: homicide, sacrilege, adultery, rape, arson, violence, treason, rebellion, and lèse-majesté—a lengthy catalogue that even in a violent age was unusual. Nevertheless, the pope confirmed Ascanio in possession of lands, towns, fortresses, and all rights that he held as vassal of the Holy See. Paul III at the beginning of his reign was clearly willing to go out of his way to restore order and peace in the lands of St. Peter, and to bind powerful nobles like Colonna to himself as their sovereign. The bull testifies how important these concerns were to him.

Despite this good start, frictions over taxation arose between the papal government and Ascanio as early as 1537; conflicts about other matters followed, until open defiance by the powerful noble made a serious clash likely.^[117] The immediate cause for the outbreak of hostilities was Ascanio's refusal to allow an increase of the papal salt tax in his lands. A short time before, the town of Perugia had resisted this increase and precipitated the so-called Salt War, a bitter conflict that the Perugini lost in 1540, resulting in a diminution of their rights of self-government.^[118] It is curious that Colonna persisted on the same path despite the events in Perugia. He may have placed exaggerated hopes in the support of Charles V, knowing him and the pope to be at odds and gambling that the emperor would side with his staunchest Roman partisan.^[119] The disproportion of the means for waging war between the pope and his vassal was so great that Colonna's motives called for

[116] The original is in Rome, Archivio Colonna, III BB. VII, no. 3. Its solemnity is underscored by the formal execution on parchment, the decorations, and the careful writing style. I would like to thank Donna Maria Giulia Gentile for obtaining permission for me to use this archive.

[117] Summaries of events leading to war are in Pastor, Geschichte der Papste 5: 237-39; and Capasso, Paolo III 2:184-90.

[118] Rita Chiacchella, "Per una reinterpretazione della 'guerra del sale' e della costruzione della Rocca Paolina a Perugia," Archirio storico italiano 145 (1987): 3-60.

[119] Colonna was reported to have boasted that he was waging this war in order to serve Charles V; see Dittrich, "Nuntiaturberichte Morone's," 619.

explanation. At the French court a plausible one was offered: it was assumed that Charles V had goaded Colonna into militancy for the purpose of creating difficulties for the pope, which in turn would make him grateful when help was offered and more amenable to imperial religious policy and political schemes.^[120] But Paul III this time proved entirely unwilling to bend to the pro-imperial Colonna.

In a curt papal brief of 25 February 1541, Ascanio Colonna was given three days to appear in person before Paul III.^[121] The instances of his defiance were listed, and he was threatened with confiscation of all lands, goods, privileges, and graces granted him previously, and with treatment as a rebel if he failed to obey the summons. When Ascanio ignored the writ armed conflict became inevitable, despite the efforts of his sister, the poet Vittoria Colonna,^[122] to bring about some sort of compromise, and despite the attempts of the viceroy of Naples, Pedro de Toledo, and the imperial ambassador in Rome, the marquis de Aguillar, to find a solution.

"Here they talk of nothing else but the contention between the pope and Lord Ascanio Colonna. It seems very inappropriate in these times and during the current negotiations to receive such news. His Majesty, as I heard, wrote to the one party as well as to the other, and made every effort to have them put down their arms," reported Francesco Contarini to the Senate on 18 March.^[123] The emperor was placed in the awkward position of having to dissociate himself publicly from the pope's disobedient vassal, whose loyalty to his own person he valued highly. But more unpleasant was the position of the legate who was charged with keeping Charles V informed of events in the Roman campagna . Time after time he was instructed by Cardinal Farnese to remind the emperor of his duties as protector of the church and defender of the Holy See, and he was sent detailed accounts of events so that the seriousness of Colonna's rebellion could be made manifest and the pope's severity justified.^[124]

[120] Giroloamo Dandino to Contarini, Blois, 25 Mar. 1541, in Monumenti Beccadelli 1(2):129.

[121] The original is in Rome, Archivio Colonna, III BB.XVI, no. 77 . Pastor, Geschichte der Päpste 5:239n.3, mentions its existence without giving details about its content.

[122] She was in touch with the emperor about this matter. Charles V paid her the dubious compliment that she was "too wise for a woman"; see Contarini to Cardinal Farnese, Regensburg, 20 Mar. 1541, in Schultze, "Dreizehn Depeschen," 163.

[123] F. Contarini, Dispatches, fol. 174v.

[124] Farnese to Contarini, 28 Feb. 1541, ASVat, Arm. 64, vol. 20, dwells at great length on these themes. Farnese and the pope suspected that Colonna was acting with emperor's knowledge. They thought his behavior "tanto esorbitante, che pochi sono quelli che si possino persuadere che il S Ascanio si fosse mosso a fare uno atto cosìstrano senza qualche intentione più occulta" (fol. 28r). The same words are repeated in Farnese to Poggio, 29 Feb. 1541, BAV, Chigi L. III. 65, fol. 147r, which also gives a full account of the Colonna matter for transmission to the emperor.

In his first audience with the emperor, Contarini stated forcefully that he was appointed legate because of his overriding desire for Christian unity.^[125] Although he would have preferred to dwell on religious issues, he had to bring up the matter of Ascanio Colonna, only to be informed that a courier from the latter had already arrived with news for the emperor. Contarini tried to move the discussion to the more general topic of vassals who disobeyed their lords, hoping thereby to engage the emperor's sympathy. But Charles V became Ascanio's advocate and asked Contarini to transmit his request for a papal pardon. Contarini, on his own authority, then replied that he believed that "His Holiness, because of his respect for His Majesty, and provided that his honor was satisfied, would show clemency [to Colonna]."^[126] He evidently hoped that the quarrel would be settled so that he could devote himself to more important and central matters. However, neither party budged, despite some negotiations and attempts to avert war.^[127]

Paul III was most concerned with Ascanio's attack on his authority as ruler of the papal state. He addressed the emperor as one prince would another, in the confidence that they both spoke the same language in defense of their prerogatives and that Charles V would sympathize with a fellow ruler who was protecting his state from disorder. But the irony of the situation could hardly have escaped the emperor: the pope, using the language of traditional medieval political discourse, was asking Charles V for help against Charles's own partisan.

The actions of Paul III in regard to Colonna were, however, not motivated only by the need to defend the papal state. The decision to

[125] Contarini to Farnese, Regensburg, 13 Mar. 1541, in Schultze, "Dreizehn Depeschen," 153.

[126] Ibid., 154, and again, in almost the same words, 155.

[127] Farnese to Contarini, 7 Mar. 1541, ASVat, Arm. 64, vol. 20, fol. 38r-v. This letter gives very full details about Colonna's evasion of the pope's order to appear before him. Cardinal Farnese was especially anxious that Charles V be fully informed about the "insolentia così notoria" of Ascanio; he sent reports also to the nuncios to the emperor Poggio, who was recalled to Rome, and Morone, who was replacing him. In addition, Farnese included evidence of Ascanio's deeds and a document signed by Pope Clement VII and Charles V in which each party obliged himself not to shield the other's rebellious or criminal subjects (fol. 39v).

proceed to actual war, which began on 14 March,^[128] was a small part of a vastly more significant development, that is, the gradual reduction of the Roman nobility from the status of feudal lords to that of courtiers without independent political power.^[129] Their autonomy on their lands was whittled away until they were indistinguishable from the new courtly nobles in everything but their memories of past greatness. Paul III's near obsession with Ascanio Colonna's rebellion transcended the mere pique of the old pontiff, and can be read as a conscious step in the gradual process of centralization and administrative modernization of the papal state, in which the Farnese pope played an important part.

It was predictable that German princes and nobles, upon learning of the conflict, would side with Colonna. The Protestants used the war as yet another proof of the pope's worldliness and, like many Catholic princes present in Regensburg, identified with a fellow noble rather than with a ruler trying to reduce his vassal's power. Charles V was criticized for defending the pope's interests against his own loyal supporter,^[130] despite the emperor's ostensible evenhandedness. The accounts of the war brought by the special imperial emissary to Colonna, a Captain Maldonato, only heightened sympathy for Ascanio at the imperial court. "In truth, if the pope only knew how much harm he is doing to his side in the current negotiations, he would think twice before waging war in Italy as he does," was the pithy assessment of the Venetian ambassador, who thought that the pope's behavior would come home to roost when the question of papal power was considered in the colloquy. "[The pope] gives everyone cause to speak against him," was his conclusion.^[131]

Lively, at times impassioned, letters and a multitude of documents

[128] On 9 March the pope discussed preparations for war in consistory; see Farnese to Contarini, 11 Mar. 1541, ASVat, Arm. 64, vol. 20, fol. 55r. The pope's son, Pierluigi Farnese, left Rome with seven thousand troops on 14 March and on the following day attacked Marino, the first town of the Colonna; see same to same, 22 Mar. 1541, fol. 57r.

[129] Paolo Prodi, The Papal Prince (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987), 48-49, 72-73, sees this process as a consistent part of papal politics from Nicholas V to Paul III, and suggests that "its final drama was played out in the political waning of the Colonna family with the capture of the fortress of Palliano in 1542 [actually in 1541 ]" (49). Capasso, Paolo III 2:186, thinks that Ascanio Colonna's rebellion appeared to Paul III as an attempt by a feudal noble to assert autonomy against his lord, and as such had to be stopped.

[130] F. Contarini, Dispatches, 25 Apr. 1541, fol. 180r. Also CSPV 5:99-100; and Girolamo Negri to the Bishop of Corfu, Regensburg, 27 Apr. 1541, in Schultze, "Dreizehn Depeschen," 637.

[131] F. Contarini, Dispatches, 16 May 1541, fol. 183r.

enable us to follow the war against Colonna almost day by day. Not only were Contarini and Morone supplied with full details of the affair, but the pope asked the emperor to listen to their explanation of events "as if we ourselves were speaking to you."^[132] Whatever their own views on the matter, the two diplomats were ordered to be spokesmen and apologists for Farnese politics. Morone's defense of the pope's course of action was extremely skillful: he mustered strong arguments in its favor, and reported that the emperor had admitted Colonna's actions to be foolhardy and reckless.^[133] With great finesse and diplomatic ability Morone fastened on the weak points of Colonna's case in order to nudge Charles V toward supporting Paul III. To what extent his well-organized dispatches with their clear summaries of what was said impressed the pope, or whether the latter realized that Contarini was handling both religious and political affairs to the point of being overburdened, is impossible to determine. Rather suddenly, though, in a letter of 28 April, there is mention that the conduct of the Colonna affair had been entrusted to Morone.^[134]

Nonetheless, Contarini continued to receive information about the progress of the war, and was told that he and Morone should act together in keeping the emperor abreast of events.^[135] Thus the Colonna matter continued to occupy Contarini, who was by no means as unburdened of it as he had hoped to be. For two and a half months, until the Colonna town of Palliano surrendered on 10 May, and its fortress on the twenty-sixth, the war was a central concern to the Farnese pope, his son, and his grandson. After the papal victory the fortifications of the former Colonna towns of Marino, Rocca di Papa, and Palliano were razed, and Ascanio had to go into Neapolitan exile with his family and adherents.^[136] Patti III, refusing to grant pardon, proved that he was master in his own house; but his actions appeared far different in Germany than they did in Rome.

[132] Brief from Paul III to Charles V, I Mar. 1541, ASVat, Arm. 64, vol. 20, fol. 45r.

[133] To Farnese, 28 Apr. 1541, in Dittrich, "Nuntiaturberichte Morone's," 447-49. This letter is a good example of Morone's eloquence and skill.

[134] Contarini to Farnese, ASVat, Arm. 20, vol. 36, fol. 76v, where Contarini thanks the pope "che mi habbi scaricato del negocio del S Ascanio et commessolo al Rev. Nuntio [Morone], il qual oltra le altre ragioni potendo più frequentare l'audientia di Cesare di quello che posso io, potrà etiam più facilmente expedirlo."

[135] Cardinal Farnese to Contarini, 12 May 1541, ASVat, Arm. 64, vol. 20, fol. 77r.

[136] Pastor, Geschichte der Papste 5:241-42. The victory was to be celebrated in the whole papal state, and the pope was extremely pleased about it; see Cardinal Farnese to the Duke of Castro, Rome, 11 May 1541, ASVat, Carte Farnesiane, vol. 2, fol. 143. Valuable materials for the course of the war are Giovanni Guidiccione's detailed reports in his Lettere 2:222-79.

Contarini and Morone were well aware of thc growing resentment caused by the pope's intransigence. The former constantly slid recommendations for pardon of the rebellious noble into his dispatches, whereas the latter could hardly have been more forceful in reporting the emperor's "bitterness of soul" on account of the sums of money Paul III had spent for the war, which "our Lord [the pope] as head of all Christians should have spent for the good of Christianity."^[137] The emperor was annoyed that he had received no papal aid for the defense of Hungary against the Turks, as also were the German princes. Morone bluntly counseled that the pope should send money for Hungary and make peace with Colonna in order to counteract the scandal caused by his course of action. The letter closed with a fervent appeal to Paul III to do the right thing by God, man, and posterity.^[138]

The two papal diplomats had not only to defend an unpopular cause, but also to deal with the marked sympathy for Ascanio Colonna among German princes. "It is impossible to put into words how much His Holiness is talked about by everyone because of the war he is waging in Italy," reported Francesco Contarini to the Venetian Senate.

It is generally thought that [the pope] does not care if he ruins the church if [only] he succeeds in aggrandizing his own family. I was recently told at a banquet of German princes by someone who is trustworthy that at the diet nothing else is discussed every day but this. The majority [of the princes] said that the Lord Ascanio should come here, and if the emperor does not want to help him, he will be assisted by others. [All this was said] with such coarse words, and such strong language was used against His Holiness, that I am ashamed to write it.^[139]

The Venetian ambassador correctly caught the mood of many princes who were present at Regensburg. The Protestants gloated, and many Catholics felt alienated from the head of the church, whom they saw behaving first and foremost as an Italian secular ruler. Their ill will toward the pope affected their attitude toward what he proposed through his legate. If Contarini was personally well liked, he still represented a power toward which the hostility in Germany was increasing, not least because of the war against Colonna.

Contarini conscientiously kept Cardinal Farnese informed about religious issues in his dispatches, only to receive in return detailed reports about fighting, sieges, or surrenders. During the first period of

[137] To Cardinal Farnese, 12 May 1541, in Dittrich, "Nuntiaturberichte Morone's," 462.

[138] Ibid., 463.

[139] F. Contarini, Dispatches, 29 May 1541, fol. 184r.

Contarini's mission political concerns were uppermost in Farnese's letters.^[140] His father, Pierluigi, commander of the papal troops, could not prevent his soldiers from looting, raping, and committing brutalities against the civilian population in Colonna territory. Neither could he deter armed bands from the kingdom of Naples from coming to the support of Ascanio Colonna. Although the imperial ambassador to Rome stated that this was happening in contravention of the emperor's express orders, the pope was particularly upset by what he took to be interference in the internal affairs of his state, and instructed Contarini to protest to Charles V.

Contarini's situation was highly ironic. He had been fearless in his outburst before Clement VII in 1529, when he argued that it would be far better for Christianity and the church if the pope had no state.^[141] Now, as a cardinal of the Roman church, he had to justify the Colonna war. It would be easy to think him vacillating or worse, a "trimmer" who adjusted his sails to the prevailing wind. But a close reading of his dispatches shows that he was consistent in his views.

His strong sense of order and hierarchy, so marked in his career in the service of Venice, militated against his sympathy for Ascanio. Despite his friendship with and affection for Vittoria Colonna, Contarini could not in conscience defend the actions of her brother. His cardinalate had not changed the political views he had expressed in the treatise on the Venetian state of how society is best governed. As the lawful sovereign of a state, the pope in his eyes was justified in preserving order. Contarini the Venetian aristocrat would not take the part of someone who broke the compact between subject and ruler, of which he was especially conscious after the troubled period of the War of the League of Cambrai. Pietro Ghinucci, the Mantuan agent in Rome, accurately picked up the close and continuing identification of Contarini with Venice when he reported shortly before the legate left for Germany: "This lord [Contarini], as Your Grace knows better than I do, is considered wise, learned, and good, but he has the reputation of being too attached to his patria , and is held as such [too Venetian]."^[142]

[140] Of the thirty-three letters in ASVat, Arm. 64, vol. 20, from Farnese to Contarini, eight include reports of the war against Colonna, while nine are written after the end of the diet and are brief instructions concerning the legate's return to Italy. Of the remaining sixteen, several deal with subjects other than the colloquy.

[141] VBM, MS It., Cl. VII, 1043 (=7616), fols. 150v-151r; also Reg ., 43-44 (no. 126).

[142] Ghinucci to Cardinal Ercole Gonzaga, Rome, 8 Jan. 1541, in Solmi, "Contarini alla Dieta di Ratisbona," 16. Beccadelli, "Vita," 56, mentions that Contarini remained in close contact with Venetian ambassadors in Rome, who confided their affairs to him, "believing him to be no less of a [Venetian] gentleman [zentilhuomo ] than a cardinal."

Despite his defense of political hierarchy, however, Contarini's impatience with the deflection of the pope's attention from the colloquy in Germany to a local war in the papal state is detectable. In a full account of the discussion he and Morone had with the emperor after the taking of Palliano became known, Contarini skillfully inserts criticism of the pope by putting it in the mouth of Charles V, who he reports was suspicious that the Colonna feudal holdings would be declared vacant and transferred to the Farnese. Contarini writes that he reiterated his confidence in the pope by saying to the emperor, "I do not doubt that he [Paul III] will use all [possible] clemency [toward Ascanio Colonna], because he who is magnanimous habitually does this, that is, he shows clemency and kindness toward those who humble themselves."^[143] The legate obviously wished that the pope would bring the war to an end by acting not like a secular prince but as the spiritual leader of Christianity, and by giving an example of Christian behavior. Yet Paul III turned a deaf ear to the emperor's appeals, and Colonna was never forgiven by the "papal prince," who made an example of his rebellious subject for the benefit of other nobles.^[144]

The clearest indication that Contarini had not changed his views on the nature of papal power is in another report of a conversation with the emperor, in the course of which the legate remarked:

Your Majesty went to Tunis [in 1535] at enormous cost for the sake of the temporal state of Christians, exposing your own life, yet the temporal state is not the substance of [our] faith. The martyrs lived at a time when Christians had no temporal state, but then the faith was most efficacious, having as its body and essence the articles [of faith, including transubstantiation]. . .. The temporal state, in comparison to them, is like clothing, accidental to the body.^[145]

These words are strikingly similar to those Contarini spoke to Clement VII when he stressed the spiritual nature of the papacy before the papal state came to exist. Now, though, as cardinal, he obeyed his lord notwithstanding his own views.

[143] To Farnese, 23 May 1541, ASVat, Arm. 62, vol. 36, fol. 98v. An incorrect copy is in Reg ., 328-31.

[144] The strongest defense of Paul III's dealing with Colonna is in the letter of Cardinal Farnese to Morone, Rome, 29 May 1541, NB 7:57-59. Farnese demanded that Charles V punish Colonna, and adopted a remarkably censorious tone regarding the emperor throughout his letter.

[145] To Farnese, 15 May 1541, in Pastor, "Correspondenz," 389.

The Colonna affair called on Contarini's diplomatic skill for a purpose distinctly tangential to his mission, and embarrassed him by glaringly revealing the political aims of the Farnese family. He honored fully his obligations as legate to be the spokesman of Paul III, without, however, going along uncritically with what the pope wanted. For him personally, the Colonna war could hardly have occurred at a more inopportune time. Francesco Contarini summed up the situation at the end of the war: "Everyone has concluded that just as the emperor seeks in every possible way to make peace, to calm the [German] princes, and to support and defend the affairs of the pope, so His Holiness does everything to start a fire in Italy and to keep it going, [and to do] things that are not fitting for the vicar of Christ. And everyone speaks of these things publicly."^[146]

The one good result for Contarini was the growth of his friendship with Morone. The precocious nuncio, who was only thirty-two but already a seasoned diplomat when Contarini joined him in Regensburg, had been decidedly hostile to the idea of religious colloquies.^[147] Gradually, under the influence of the older man, Morone became more sensitive to the enormous complexities of the religious situation and modified his views. The story of the friendship between the two men still remains to be written.^[148] Their close collaboration and continuous exchange of information, especially about the Colonna war, cemented a friendship that flourished and deepened as long as Contarini lived.

Thus, between his arrival in Regensburg on 11 March and the opening of the diet on 5 April, Contarini was fully initiated into the diplomatic intricacies^[149] With which he would have to deal. "I see little good here in Germany, nor am I surprised that the people are in such confusion, given the conditions I see prevailing among their secular and ecclesiastical leaders and those of religious orders," he wrote to Farnese.^[150] The counselors of the Bavarian dukes annoyed him with their suspicions. He tried to pacify them with assurances that he would not cede an iota of the truth to the Protestants, and by going out of his

[146] F. Contarini, Dispatches, 23 May 1541, fol. 183v.

[147] To Farnese, Regensburg, 5 Feb. 1541, in Dittrich, "Nuntiaturberichte Morone's," 435.

[148] Heinrich Lutz, "Kardinal Morone: Reform, Konzil und europäische Staatenwelt," Politik, Kultur und Religion im Werdeprozess der fruhen Neuzeit , ed. M. Csàky (Klagenfurt: Universitätsverlag Carinthia, 1983), 185-86.

[149] Mackensen, "Diplomatic Role," 316-26; and Matheson, Contarini at Regensburg , chap. 6, give sketches of the diplomatic tangle into which Contarini entered.

[150] Dispatch of 30 March 1541, in Schultze, "Dreizehn Depeschen," 166.

way to try to charm them.^[151] Contarini's personality once again proved to be a major asset. The documents repeatedly mention the esteem in which he was held and his ability to win over men who initially were hostile to him.^[152]

Contarini had to be on his guard with Granvelle, who was most anxious to impress his and the emperor's point of view on the legate. Their first long interview is of particular significance for understanding Contarini's mind. Granvelle warned him that unless a solution were found at the diet, the Catholic religion would be ruined, since the license introduced by the Protestants attracted people to their teaching everywhere, even in Italy. Granvelle pressed him hard to support fully the emperor's religious policy of appeasement, arguing that otherwise all would be lost. The two men engaged in a discussion that perhaps more than any other indicates Contarini's attitude before the colloquy even began. To Granvelle's remark that Lutherans agreed about Christ's presence in the sacrament of the Eucharist but denied the transubstantiation of the bread, a matter that should be referred for decision to a future council, Contarini replied: "This article is essential and most certain, and a [future] council cannot determine anything to the contrary"; the Fourth Lateran Council, after all, had decreed it. He firmly believed that there were essential articles of faith, every word of which must be accepted, since they were proclaimed by the teaching authority of the church. At the same time, disputes about words must be avoided because they were fraught with danger for the church, as could be seen in the disagreement over the word filioque , which had resulted in the schism between Greek and Roman Christianity.^[153]

Contarini did not doubt the existence of clearly defined essential articles of faith, belief in which was necessary for salvation. He came to Regensburg firm in the conviction that central Christian doctrines were beyond discussion. Those he considered not essential were the

[151] Ibid., 164-65.

[152] Morone to Cardinal Farnese, 3 May 1541, in Dittrich, "Nuntiaturberichte Morone's," 454: "La sodisfattione, qual si ha del R Legato, ogni hora cresce, et Mons di Granvella et gli altri Ministri dicono, ch'Iddio per sua bontà l'ha creato a questo effetto, perchè si porta con grandissima mansuetudine, prudentia et dottrina, nella quale (pace d'ognuno) è reputato avanzare tutti gl'altri, quali sono in questo luoco, di maniera che gli adversarii istessi cominciano non solo ad amarlo, ma ancora a reverirlo con grande honore di N.S. et de quella Santa Sede Apostolica."

[153] To Farnese, Regensburg, 18 Mar. 1541, in Schultze, "Dreizehn Depeschen," 159-60.

adiaphora ; these could be debated, and on them reasonable men could well differ. While similar to that of Erasmus,^[154] Contarini's distinction had a more profoundly subjective basis. At this stage, he did not yet realize the extent to which agreement on what constituted central articles of faith would in itself be a major problem. He assumed a broader area of consensus than existed in actuality, not because of some sort of naïveté or inexcusable vagueness,^[155] but because he belonged to the last generation whose intellectual and theological formation had occurred before the Reformation. It was still possible for Contarini to think of Lutherans as protesters who could be brought back to the one church from which they had temporarily dissociated themselves. The means for accomplishing this task were understanding and discussion of Lutheran grievances with kindness and patience on the part of Catholics,^[156] who, in turn, had to take reform of the church seriously.

An overwhelming mass of documents sheds detailed light on the events connected with the religious colloquy.^[157] Thanks to these abundant sources, it is possible to follow Contarini's mind closely. But actually understanding the legate's thinking is another matter. The most recent monograph on Regensburg hardly offers the reader much help by asserting that the "denizen of the modern theological world . . . is confronted with the almost total incomprehensibility of Contarini's language and thought-patterns . . . the code [of which], it appears, has yet to be cracked."^[158] The legate is seen by the author as an eclectic, with the clue to his theology lying "in the coexistence, in rather unstable equilibrium," of his "ecumenism, his Catholicism, and his Curialism,"^[159]

[154] Erasmus's position is expressed in his Inquisitio deride ; I have used the translation by Craig Thompson (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1950). Here Erasmus repeatedly reminds both Protestants and Catholics that they are in agreement on the most important articles of the faith. Luther and post-Tridentine Catholic teaching rejected the distinction between Fundamentalartikel and those that can be doubted or denied salva ride et salute ; see "Fundamentalartikel," Lexikon für Theologie und Kirche , vol. 4 (Freiburg i.B.: Herder, 1960), cols. 450-51.

[155] This is the accusation of Matheson, Contarini at Regensburg , 50.

[156] Jedin, Trient 1:154, points to the paradox that nothing promoted the split between the confessions as much as the illusion that it was not serious or that it did not exist.

[157] Prodi thinks it unlikely that significant new documents about the colloquy and diet will emerge: "We can only change the angle from which we take the shots, and of course the interpretation of the testimonies themselves" ("I colloqui di Ratisbona," 207).

[158] Matheson, Contarini at Regensburg , 173.

[159] Ibid., 178.

A different interpretation of Contarini's mind will be offered here. We see in Regensburg not the confusion of a well-meaning man face to face with hard facts, or his arcane thought pattern, but a critical stage in his intellectual and religious development. Contarini was a prelate of the pre-Tridentine Catholic church, which was much more open and doctrinally indeterminate compared with the church of the Counter-Reformation. Yet even in the Catholic church of 1541 ever clearer lines were being drawn as a result of continuous confrontation with Protestantism. At Regensburg, Contarini had to make choices for which he had not been prepared. Individualistic and emotional in his own spiritual life, which had justification by faith as its cornerstone, he was at the same time traditional in his views of ecclesiastical institutions, the structure of authority in the church, and the theology of the sacraments. Now he was forced to rethink the relation between his personal religious stance, church doctrine, and ecclesiology. He did arrive at a conclusion. But in his letters from Regensburg we see how difficult, painful, even bitter the process of human and religious maturation of a Catholic reformer of that time could be.

The religious colloquy of Regensburg opened on 28 April, and the discussions ended on 22 May. The emperor chose the six participating theologians: for the Protestants, Philip Melanchthon, Martin Bucer, and Johannes Pistorius; for the Catholics, Johannes Gropper, Julius Pflug, and Johann Eck. Granvelle and Count Frederick of the Palatinate were to preside, while six witnesses were to be present at all discussions.^[160] Except for Eck, championed by the Bavarian dukes, and Melanchthon, whose prestige among the Lutherans made his inclusion mandatory, the participants were men sympathetic to or even adherents of Erasmian humanism and genuinely interested in religious concord. Contarini as the representative of the pope was excluded from the talks, since they were not recognized as official in Rome. But Granvelle ordered the Catholic collocutors to consult Contarini every morning, with Badia and Morone also present, and to report to him again after the meetings. The basis for discussion at the colloquy was to be the Regensburg Book, equally disliked by Melanchthon and Eck. The former had called it "a hyena"—presumably because of the belief

[160] Contarini to Cardinal Farnese, 28 Apr. 1541, in Pastor, "Correspondenz," 367-68. Augustijn, "Religionsgespräche der vierziger Jahre," 50, regards the colloquies of 1539-41 as "dominated by Erasmians," in the sense that these men sought to formulate the central religious doctrine of sola fide in such a way as to make it compatible with both Lutheran and Catholic understanding of Christianity.

that this animal can speak with a human voice and tempt people into sin^[161] —whereas the latter rejected it so vehemently that the legate had to put pressure on him to soften his stand.^[162] Contarini himself was not entirely comfortable with the text, to which he added more than twenty annotations; he realized that the document was an attempt to create a single, united German church, which in itself would be a danger to Rome.

We can well imagine the setting for the colloquy: the religious discussions were conducted at the same time that the disunited German princes and estates met in the diet, with Charles V and Granvelle desperately trying to forge some sort of agreement among the religious and political factions, to avert further conflict or even war, and to obtain aid against the Turks. All the while, intransigent Lutherans on the one side and their Catholic counterparts on the other were intent on sabotaging accord. That the theologians were not free agents in this tense atmosphere is obvious. The Protestants deferred to Melanchthon, who in turn deferred to the elector of Saxony and to Luther. Sick and under pressure from his prince, Melanchthon did not show his mild face this time. He attacked the Catholics as intending to cheat and harm the Protestants.^[163] Bucer vainly tried to exert his influence over the other two men on his side, only to be met with suspicion by Melanchthon. Among the Catholics, Eck was the dominant figure, and he openly supported the political aims of the bellicose Bavarian dukes.

Contarini's vicar Negri described the legate on the eve of the colloquy as instructing his troops like a good captain, and added: "He believes everything, hopes for everything, and sustains everything. His Reverence would gladly remain here for a long time in order to recover this poor lost people, if that were possible."^[164] But in his own letters Contarini does not seem quite so otherworldly. "If we cannot do anything good this time, that will be the end," he wrote to Cardinal Gonzaga.^[165] Therefore, he set out to make things work. As a seasoned diplomat, he cultivated both friend and foe. Eck was soon under his influence. When Sturm and later Bucer came to see him, he was so

[161] Bretschneider (ed.), Corpus Reformatorum 10, col. 576.

[162] Contarini to Cardinal Farnese, 28 Apr. 1541, in Pastor, "Correspondenz," 369-70. According to Morone, Contarini succeeded even to the point of getting Eck to be gentle and change his mind on questions of philosophy and theology; see his letter to Cardinal Farnese, 28 Apr. 1541, in Dittrich, "Nuntiaturberichte Morone's," 449.

[163] Vetter, Religionsverhandlungen , 73.

[164] Reg ., 172 (no. 687).

[165] Letter of 30 April 1541, Reg ., 175 (no. 696).

gentle and tactful that Bucer eventually judged him "much too learned and too pious for a cardinal, as well as too willing to reform the church."^[166] Contarini wanted to impress these men with only one objective in view: to soften the "harshness" of the Protestants and to induce them to return to the "fight way" of the Catholic church.^[167]

Already on the first day both sides agreed on the four initial articles of the Regensburg Book dealing with the condition of man and human nature before the fall, free will, the cause of sin, and original sin.^[168] The theologians then moved on to a discussion of the fifth article, on justification. Because the original wording pleased neither side, several alternative versions were drafted, only to be rejected one after the other.^[169] On 2 May, after four days of deliberations, a formula was worked out on the basis of article 5 to which both Catholic and Protestant collocutors assented.^[170]

At Regensburg the impossible seemed to have been achieved. Justification by faith was the articulus stantis et cadentis of the entire Protestant edifice, the doctrine by which it stood or with which it fell. If theologians agreed on that central article of faith, could there be a more auspicious beginning of the colloquy?

Article 5, "On man's justification,"^[171] was a curious theological compromise offering a theory that came to be called, not entirely accurately, double justification. It begins with the acknowledgment that all justification comes through Christ. But then, two quite different views demanded recognition. Justification is thought to begin when the sinner cooperates with the Holy Spirit, who moves his mind to repentance and to belief in the remission of sins for those who believe in Christ. The response is thus an act of the intellect and the will (the verb used is assentior ,^[172] to give one's assent), which leads to trusting faith that one will be forgiven. Through this faith the Christian receives the Holy Spirit, remission of sins, imputation of Christ's justice, and innumerable other gifts.

"The doctrine that the sinner is justified by living and efficacious

[166] Quoted in Augustijn, Godsdienstgesprekken , 78n.3.

[167] Contarini to Cardinal Farnese, 3 May 1541, in Pastor, "Correspondenz," 373.

[168] Pfeilschifter (ed.), Acta Reformationis Catholicae , 6:24-30.

[169] Vetter, Religionsverhandlungen , 92-93.

[170] Contarini sent the agreed-upon article to Cardinal Farnese on 3 May 1541; see Pastor, "Correspondenz," 372.

[171] "De iustificatione hominis," in Pfeilschifter (ed.), Acta Reformationis Catholicae , 6:52-54. The first two drafts are on pp. 30-52.

[172] Cf. the famous Ignatian formula "sentire cum ecclesia," by which is meant not only to accept the formulations but to appropriate them inwardly.

faith is true and sound, for through it we become pleasing to God and accepted because of Christ," the article continues. This initial, or indwelling justice ( iustitia inhaerens ) is communicated by Christ. The believing soul, however, does not rely on it, but only on Christ's justice given to us freely, "without which there absolutely is not and cannot be justification." We are justified by faith in Christ whose justice is imputed to us, making us righteous before God. The second or imputed righteousness is clearly the more important and higher, the immeasurable gift of God to man, which in no way depends on human efforts. As to the justified Christian's good works, God rewards them if they are the fruit of faith. Thus good works are accommodated and made meaningful within the framework of justification by faith alone.^[173]

Both style and content make it obvious that article 5 was the work of a committee. The modern reader will search in vain for logical consistency, since the essence of the agreed-upon text was a compromise between two basically incompatible positions. In the progress toward the first, or indwelling, righteousness, intellect and will have a role; the sinner can choose to cooperate with the Holy Spirit or to reject his promptings. In the second there is no choice. It is one of the benefits of Christ, and nothing whatsoever that sinners do can make a difference; it depends totally on Christ as the giver of a free gift. This is hardly the theory of a double justification if that term is taken to mean the existence of two equal entities. "Two-stage justification" or "preliminary and complete justification" would be a clumsy but somewhat more accurate description of the theory put forth in article 5. Iustitia inhaerens and iustitia imputata are not equal in importance, for salvation really hinges on the second. The first concept was crucial to the Catholic collocutors, who were anxious to preserve the teaching that man cooperates with grace in the process of justification.^[174] The second, by incorporating the assertion that "only by faith in Christ are we justified or reputed just, that is accepted, not because of our own dignity or works," reassured the Protestants.

The relative importance of the prevenient motion of the Holy Spirit and the response of the human intellect and will is left unclear. More to the point, the article leaves the connection between indwelling and imputed justice unexplained. Thus it is uncertain whether and how the

[173] Pfeilschifter (ed.), Acta Reformationis Catholicae , 54.

[174] Dittrich, GC , 656, translates portions of article 5 too freely, obscuring some of its illogicalities.

two are causally or chronologically related. It is not surprising that later theologians found the article to be either basically Lutheran, basically Catholic, or a more or less muddled third thing, and that there is no agreement concerning the extent of its dependence on the discussion of double justification in Gropper's Enchiridion .^[175] There is no doubt, however, that the text of the article not only was determined by theological considerations but has a historical dimension as well. The unusual concatenation of especially irenic collocutors on both sides, together with the political urgency of accord that they felt, must not be forgotten in any examination of the words of the text. Historical circumstances go a long way toward explaining what is only too easily dismissed as a "mere compromise."^[176] It must be stressed that despite all its problems, article 5 was a noble attempt by a handful of men not merely to stem but to reverse the breakup of the one Christian church into mutually hostile faiths.

On the day after accord was reached, Contarini wrote a report to Cardinal Farnese that reflected his joy: "Yesterday, praised be God, the Catholic and Protestant theologians came to a conclusion and concurred in the article on justification, faith, and works, in the concord and agreement which your Reverence will find enclosed. This [agreement] has been found to be Catholic and holy in my judgment and in that of Morone, Badia, Eck, Gropper, and Pflug."^[177] Contarini sent copies of the text to several of his friends in Italy, including Pole and Cardinal Ercole Gonzaga, asking for their opinion. When the latter's theological advisor expressed reservations about the article, Contarini composed an apologia for it in the Epistola de iustificatione of 25 May 1541, which is an elaboration of his own views that helps greatly in elucidating his mind.

Contarini's main concern in this apologia was to show that article 5 was not only consonant with Catholic teaching, but actually

[175] Walther von Loewenich, Duplex iustitia: Luthers Stellung zu einer Unionsformel des 16. Jahrhunderts (Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner, 1972), 37-38.

[176] Prodi tightly insists that most discussions of the colloquy of Regensburg do not give adequate consideration to the political context in which it was held; see "I colloqui di Ratisbona," 208.

[177] Letter of 3 May 1541, in Pastor, "Correspondenz," 372; and of May 1541 (ibid.): "Hieri, dio laudato, questi theologi et Cattolici et Protestanti si risolsero et convennero nell'articolo de iustificatione, fide et operibus nella concordia et conventione che V. Sig. Rev vedra qui inclusa, la quale da me e dal Sig. Nuntio [Morone] e dal Padre Maestro [ Badia] e dall'Ecchio, Groppero et Fluch è stata veduta come cattolica et santa per quel giuditio che noi havemo."

"cattolichissimo."^[178] He may also have intended to defend the Catholic theology of salvation against Protestant charges of Pelagianism.^[179] Contarini expresses here some of the most characteristic ideas of the spirituali , in the fervent hope that the church will recognize them as her own doctrine and thus open the way for a reconciliation with the Protestants.

The Epistola proposes the same solution to the problem of justification as article 5 by arguing that the sinner becomes just through his own inherent justice and the imputed justice of Christ, freely granted by God to man. Unlike article 5, however, Contarini's tract uses the term duplex iustitia several times. Thus, "we attain double justice, the first which inheres in us, through which we begin to be just and become partakers of divine nature, and have charity poured into our hearts. The second, not inherent but given to us with Christ, I call the justice of Christ together with all his merits."^[180]

Although in the next sentence Contarini decides that "both are given us at the same time and we reach both through faith," they are clearly not equal. The efficient cause of the first is the Holy Spirit, who illuminates the intellect and moves the will to turn away from sin and toward God. Man therefore is free to cooperate with God. In his explanation of this process Contarini closely follows St. Thomas;^[181] however, when his own experience of sin and forgiveness enters, he writes in another key which is far less systematic.

There is more than a touch of impatience in Contarini's sidestepping of technical theological discussion on the priority of one form of justice over the other: "Which of the two by its nature is first [is a question] that belongs to scholastic disputations rather than to the realm of faith about which we are here concerned."^[182] He thinks that

[178] To Cardinal Farnese, 9 June 1541, in ibid., 478. See also Mackensen, "Contarini's Theological Role," 49.

[179] Jedin, Trient 1:309.

[180] CT 12:318, lines 34-37. I use this edition of the tract in preference to that in Hünermann's edition of the Gegenreformatorische Schriften because it is based on additional manuscript versions, especially one belonging to Aleandro (CT 12:314). But see Simoncelli, Evangelismo italiano , 187n.241, for an argument affirming the existence of the original.

[181] Ruckert, Theologische Entwicklung , 82; and Loewenich, Duplex iustitia , 42.

[182] CT 12:318, lines 38-39. Cardinal Seripando in his defense of the doctrine of double justification during the first session of the Council of Trent used a similar argument: "The doctrine of justification should be open, clear, and easy . . .so that those for whom Christ died might not be repelled from it by any difficulties. This teaching is not to be sought from the schools, in which thorny and quite difficult questions are treated, which are indeed useful for exercising talents and acquiring the wisdom of this world but are not so well-suited to knowing the wisdom hidden in mystery and instructing the people of Christ into justice." The translation is by James F. McCue, "Double Justification at the Council of Trent: Piety and Theology in Sixteenth-Century Roman Catholicism," in Piety, Politics, and Ethics: Reformation Studies in Honor of George Wolfgang Forell , ed. Carter Lindberg (Kirksville, Mo.: Sixteenth Century Journal Publishers, 1984), 41.

everything depends on faith, not on the construction of a logically rigorous and intellectually satisfying theory. By holding that faith is an act of the will, Contarini differs from later Tridentine doctrine, which defined faith as an act of the intellect consisting in the belief that God's revelation and promises are true.^[183] Like Luther, Contarini conceives of the essence of faith as trust and hope in God's mercy.^[184] In fact, he uses the Lutheran terms fiducia and assensus in describing that faith.

Christ's imputed justice is crucial for sinners. "I, for my part, consider it a pious and Christian opinion that we are to depend—depend, I mean, as on a sure foundation that will certainly sustain us—upon the justice that Christ has conferred on us, and not on any holiness and grace that inheres in us."^[185] This imputed justice is true and perfect, unlike our own imperfect inherent justice. In a short explanatory note to article 5 that he sent on 3 May to Cardinal Gonzaga and probably also to other friends in Italy,^[186] Contarini discusses the text of article 5: "The first section is that which says that we should not rely on the justice which is inherent in us, through which we are made just and do what is good, but that we must rely on the justice of Christ which is imputed to us because of Christ and the merits of Christ. By this latter we are justified before God, that is considered and reputed just. I think that this conclusion is most true, Catholic, and conducive to piety."^[187]

Good works play no part in our justification, which is due to faith alone.^[188] But unless the Christian progresses in holiness, he can lose both kinds of justice. Good works constitute evidence of such because true faith is active in love, not because the Christian expects them to be meritorious in the sight of God. They necessarily follow the sinner's

[183] H. J. Schroeder, O.P., trans. "Decree on Justification," chap. 6 in Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent (St. Louis: Herder, 1941 ), 32-33, 311; and Angelus Walz, O.P., "La giustificazione tridentina," Angelicurn 28 (1951 ): 129.

[184] Contarini, Gegenreformatorische Schriften , 26.

[185] CT 12:319, lines 29-31.

[186] Theodor Brieger, "Contarini's Begleitschreiben zu der Formula Concordiae de iustificatione," Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte 5 ( 1882): 592.

[187] "Gasparis Contareni scheda minor de iustificatione," in CT 12:313, lines 26-30.

[188] Ibid., 27.

justification, but are in no way its cause. In that specific sense they are proof that man is justified. Contarini concludes his tract by asserting, "Those who say that we are justified through works are right; and those who say that we are not justified through works but through faith are also right."^[189]

It is easy to see why there is no agreement among interpreters of Contarini's ideas in the Epistola de iustificatione , who fall into three groups: those who think it basically Catholic; those who consider it an expression of Lutheran teaching about justification; and those who see it as a compromise between Catholic and Protestant theology.^[190] Most modern scholars belong to the last group maintaining that Contarini's Epistola was a theological hybrid,^[191] the roots of which are variously sought in Gropper's Enchiridion of 1536,^[192] the works of Pighius,^[193] or late medieval Pauline and Augustinian currents in Italian religious thought.^[194] In recent literature a sort of consensus has emerged to the effect that Contarini undoubtedly had goodwill and sympathy for Lutheran theology, but that he was too unsystematic, thus unable to give his opinions cogency and clarity or to organize them into a coherent theological argument.^[195]

If his theology is measured against the standard set by the works of St. Thomas or Luther, that charge is true, for Contarini was not a trained theologian. Jedin was the first rightly to emphasize the link between Contarini's early religious experience and the expression of his ideas on justification at Regensburg.^[196] To Contarini, thought and experience were inseparable, forming one whole that he sometimes

[189] Ibid., 322, lines 14-15.

[190] Hünermann lists the leading older scholars in each group in Contarini, Gegenreformatorische Schriften , xxi-xxii.

[191] Ricca, in Prodi, "I colloqui di Ratisbona," 227-29.

[192] Rückert, Theologische Entwicklung , 96-106, tries to account for both the similarities and differences in the theory of justification of the two men. Walter Lipgens, Kardinal Johannes Gropper (1503-1559) und die Anfänge der katholischen Reform in Deutschland (Münster i.W.: Aschendorff, 1951), 194, believes that Contarini's ideas are derived from Gropper.

[193] GC , 661-69.

[194] Ricca, in "I colloqui di Ratisbona," 229-31.

[195] Rückert, Theologische Entwicklung , 108, asserts that Contarini lacked ülan and the power of thinking systematically: "Was ihm fehlte, war Schwung und war systematische Kraft." This judgment is echoed in attenuated form by von Loewenich, Duplex iustitia , 47: "Als systematischer Theologe mag Contarini enttäuschen; als Mensch und Christ bleibt er uns ehrwürdig. Das religiöse Element war in ihm stärker als die theologische Gestaltungskraft."

[196] . Jedin, "Ein Turmerlebnis,"' 129-30. Mackensen, "Contarini's Theological Role," follows Jedin.

struggled to express in the technical language of theology, he had learned as a student. Yet beyond words was his absolute conviction that we are justified by faith in Christ, about which he had written eloquently in 1523^[197] and to which he clung unwaveringly thereafter. His experience, together with his knowledge of at least some of the writings by the northern reformers, made it impossible for him to remain content with a purely Thomistic explanation of the process of justification. He tried to break through the restrictive terminology of Scholasticism without having a new language in which to express himself. Thus his tract is at once traditional and objective in form and personal and subjective in content. He uses the familiar terms weighed down with accretions of meaning developed over the centuries. Nevertheless, he sometimes is able to invest those terms with his own spirituality and the living, ardent piety that he poured into the proverbial old wineskins where they could not be contained.

When subjected to analysis Contarini's treatise is bound to strike the reader as unclear.^[198] One reason is his inability to reconcile Thomistic and Lutheran theology.^[199] But another reason surfaces as well: Contarini's tendency to escape from verbal controversy into a religious feeling that to him is stronger than scholastic logic because based on the authenticity of his emotions.^[200] Already in his famous letter to Giustiniani of 24 April 1511 he had written in fervent tones about Christ as the head of those who want to unite themselves with him as his members.^[201] Later, the Pauline language of "putting on Christ," "dying with Christ," and "rising with Christ" becomes Contarini's. Especially clear expressions of his emotional bent are found in a letter to Pighius that repeatedly mentions our being "grafted into Christ," and that ends with this affirmation: "I flee all contentions more than

[197] To Giustiniani, in Jedin, "Contarini und Camaldoli," 67 (letter 30).

[198] Loewenich, Duplex iustitia , 46.

[199] Zur Mühlen, "Einigung," 350, discusses the tension between them which Contarini does not solve. Rückert, Theologische Entwicklung , 105, thinks that Contarini unsuccessfully tried to "give expression to ideas that were at home in Lutheranism and that were among its most important strengths, within [the structure of] Catholic dogma, which was shaped starting with entirely different foundations." Otto Hermann Pesch, Die Theologie der Rechtfertigung bei Martin Luther und Thomas von Aquin (Mainz: Matthias-Grünewald Verlag, 1967), argues for a basic agreement between the two positions. But reflecting on these issues four centuries later, in an atmosphere of ecumensim, is an entirely different matter from having to deal with them in the thick of things, as Contarini did.

[200] Rückert, Theologische Entwicklung , 88-90, first noticed Contarini's "Ansätze einer Christusmystik," citing some very brief passages in support.

[201] Jedin, "Contarini und Camaldoli," 14 (letter 2).

hell, especially those with friends."^[202] Contarini did not have the habits of mind or the ready language of the controversialist. He was at his best when discussing his ideas and feelings with like-minded men who did not require philosophical and theological precision in order to be persuaded. When pitted against the likes of Eck or Melanchthon in debate, he simply could not hold his own.

The Epistola de iustificatione should not, however, be read as if it proved Contarini's shortcomings as a systematic theologian. He shared the ideas of eminent Catholic theologians like Pighius and Gropper, who sought answers to the question of justification not so much in scholastic formulations but in the thought of St. Augustine. Gropper's Enchiridion , published in 1538, was enthusiastically received in Italy by men with considerable theological training, including Pole, Giberti, and Cortese.^[203] The general of the Augustinians, Cardinal Seripando, defended double justification at the Council of Trent, and had the support of several theologians.^[204] It would be a mistake to think that only the theologically inexpert were proponents of double justification.

Contarini's treatise should be read primarily as an important document in the history of pre-Tridentine Catholicism.^[205] With his concept of inherent justice Contarini argued for man's freedom of consent to divine grace, while his explanation of imputed justice affirmed the centrality of Christ's sacrifice for the believing Christian. He sensed the unresolved tension between the formality of theological discourse and the reality of Christian experience, and opened Catholic theology to the possibility of a less technical as well as more personal understanding of the teaching about justification.^[206] That teaching would be accessible to

[202] Reg ., 350 (Inedita, no. 88).

[203] Jedin, Trient 1:298. Also Cortese's letter to Contarini, San Benedetto, 4 July 1540, in Cortese, Gregorii Cortesii omnia 1:132.

[204] Besides McCue, "Double Justification," see also Stephan Ehses, "Johannes Groppers Rechtfertigungslehre auf dem Konzil von Trient," Römische Quartalschrift 20 (1906): 187; and P. Paz, "La doctrine de ta double justice au Concile de Trente," Ephemerides theologicae Lovanienses 30 (1954): 5- 53.

[205] In my judgment, McCue, "Double Justification," 39, offers the most sensible interpretation of this doctrine: "The doctrine of double justification is not so much an alternative theological proposal as it is a complaint about the way that theology as it had been practiced within the Latin church for four centuries was unable in principle to express some of the most obvious truths about the Christian life and experience."

[206] Calvin, who was at Regensburg together with the Strassburg delegation, and who was hostile to the colloquy from the beginning, wrote to Farel after the agreement on article 5: "You will marvel when you read the copy [of the article on justification] . . . that our adversaries have conceded so much. For they have committed themselves to the essentials of what is our true teaching. Nothing is to be found in it which does not stand in our writings. I know that you would prefer a more explicit exposition and in this you are at one with myself. But if you consider with what sort of men we have to deal, you will acknowledge that a great deal has been achieved" (in Matheson, Contarini at Regensburg , 109).

laymen, and only incidentally also very close to Protestant ideas simply because it was valid for all believers. Agreement on this doctrine he considered a major step toward the restoration of the seamless tunic of Christ, the unity of all Christians.

The day of 3 May 1541 was the highpoint of the Regensburg colloquy, a moment in which better relations between Catholics and Protestants seemed for a short while not merely conceivable but genuinely possible. A generation earlier, Luther's ninety-five theses had opened the ever-widening rift between the confessions. Now Contarini had high hopes that the colloquy would succeed in building a bridge between the two Christian camps, which for the first time since 1517 were drawing closer together rather than farther apart.