The End of a Dream
An ominous indication of what lay ahead came from the reactions of Melanchthon and Eck to article 5. The former called it "laboriously patched together" and accused the Catholics of having tried to use subterfuge to deceive the Protestants.[207] . Eck, for his part, did not want to sign it until Granvelle urgently pressed him to do so.[208] Despite misgivings, however, the talks continued while answers to reports sent to Rome and Wittenberg were awaited.
The debate proceeded to article 6, on the church and its authority in interpreting the Scriptures. From Contarini's account it appears that the collocutors circled around the topic like the proverbial cats around the hot porridge. The issue before them was whether councils can err. "In order not to delay the rest [of the articles] or to exasperate their [the Protestants'] minds further at this point, [article 6] remained unresolved and its discussion was deferred until the other matters are concluded," Contarini wrote to Cardinal Farnese.[209] The colloquy
[207] Melanchthon's report to the Elector of Saxony, in Corpus Reformatorum 4:421.
[208] GC , 622. Morone reported on 3 May to Cardinal Farnese that Melanchthon and Eck were difficult; see Dittrich, "Nuntiaturberichte Morohe's," 453-54.
[209] Dispatch of 4 May 1541, in Pastor, "Correspondenz," 375.
touched on the next seven articles before beginning deliberations on the fourteenth, dealing with the sacrament of the Eucharist.
Soon serious disagreements surfaced. The very men whom Contarini had hoped to "induce to follow the right road" with divine help "and with reason and kindness"[210] now resolutely rejected his insistence that the word transubstantiation be added to any discussion of the sacrament of the altar. Nineteen Protestant theologians held a meeting on 8 May; Calvin, who was among them, summarized their conclusion: "It was the opinion of all that transubstantiation was a fictitious thing, that reservation [of the host] was superstitious and its adoration idolatrous, or at least dangerous, since it is done without the word of God."[211] Contarini drew a line between subjects that should and should not be discussed: "Our aim was to preserve truth and to agree in truth, which in this article was very clear, having been declared in the words of Christ and St. Paul, explained by all the ancient and modern doctors of the church, Greek as well as Latin, . . . and defined by a most famous council under Innocent III [the Fourth Lateran]."[212] There was nothing more to add as far as he was concerned; the doctrine of transubstantiation was there for all to see. "We shall stand firm in the truth and see what God wishes to do" is the resigned ending of his report.
But Contarini's second thoughts are shown in another letter of the same date. He confessed that on further reflection it appeared that
this whole issue of the authority of councils is closely connected with the question of papal power in which there are strong disagreements among Catholic doctors. The entire University of Paris holds that a council is above the pope, while others hold the opposite view, namely that the pope is above the council,
[210] Dispatch of 3 May 1541, in ibid., 373.
[211] Joachim Mehlhausen, "Die Abendmahlsformel des Regensburger Buches," Studien zur Geschichte und Theologie der Reformation: Festschrift für Ernst Bizer , ed. Luise Abramowski and J. F. Gerhard Goeters (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1969), 193. For the discussions among Protestant theologians, see pp. 192-95. See also Pierre Fraenkel, "Les Protestants et le problème de la transubstantiation au Colloque de Ratisbonne: documents et arguments du 5 au 10 mai 1541," Oecumenica 3 (1968): 70 -115.
[212] To Cardinal Farnese, 9 May 1541, in Pastor, "Correspondenz," 377. I agree with Jedin, "An welchen Gegensätzen," 54, in thinking that for Contarini the main issue was not the the definition of the Eucharist or the wording of the decree as promulgated by the Fourth Lateran Council, but the principle of the church's magisterium : "Es handelt sich für ihn also nicht in erster Linie um den materiellen Inhalt der Lehre, sondern um das Formalprinzip, das kirchliche Lehramt." For the definition of the Fourth Lateran Council, see H. Denzinger, Enchiridion symbolorum , 33d ed. (Freiburg i.B.: Herder, 1965), no. 802.
which opinion in my judgment is more in conformance with the text of the gospel; nevertheless there is great controversy here.[213]
Fearing that by an examination of these issues "we will enter into chaos from which only God knows how we can extricate ourselves," Contarini wanted the collocutors to proceed by confining themselves to general statements concerning this matter as well as that of papal authority. He offered "this good and true formula without any prejudice, which avoids all difficulty: . . . that Christ instituted the hierarchy of the church by putting bishops in their dioceses, [as wall as] archbishops, patriarchs, and primates, and above all of them, to preserve church unity, he constituted the Roman pontiff, giving him universal jurisdiction over the entire church, as can be clearly read in the gospel." The texts he adduced were Matthew 16:19, John 21:17, and Luke 22:32, without realizing how far apart Catholic and Protestant theologians were in their exegesis of these passages, which to him admitted of only one interpretation.
Contarini adopted the strategy of a practiced diplomat: he tried to postpone consideration of difficult topics by offering blandly formulated general statements on which both sides could agree for the time being. Clearly, he was hoping that agreement on a large enough number of articles might create a certain momentum that would enable the collocutors to tackle even the thorniest outstanding issues with goodwill toward each other. His chief contribution at this point lay not in some sort of fatuous optimism, but in the example he gave to the Catholic side by his willingness to see fellow Christians rather than enemies in the Lutherans.[214]
The strategy of postponement did not work. Ironically, it was Contarini himself who moved against it in the course of discussions with Gropper and Pflug on 13 May. Perturbed by the omission of the word transubstantiation in the revision of article 14 by the two Catholic theologians, Contarini insisted that it be included. Moreover, his attitude toward Protestants began to change in an almost startling fashion.
I read the writing of the Protestants [their draft of article 14] by which it is manifest that they want to adhere to their erroneous idea that the substance of the bread remains in the Eucharist after consecration. So I told [Gropper and Pflug] that I clearly realized that we differed from them [the Protestants] concerning the meaning [of the Eucharist] while difficulties are made about
[213] To Cardinal Farnese, in Pastor, "Correspondenz," 380.
[214] Pfnür, "Einigung," 75, rightly calls attention to this important clement.
the words. I will never consent to what is an agreement only in appearance, or make the sense of the church ambiguous.[215]
Contarini reiterated these words to Granvelle, who begged him not to disrupt the colloquy by his insistence on the term transubstantiation . But the legate stood his ground, telling Granvelle: "Now that I saw that the difference between us concerned the meaning and not the words, I will never depart one iota from Catholic truth, or place it in doubt behind a screen of words." In no case should the word transubstantiation be omitted, because if that were to happen, "we would do great harm to the truth and to ourselves. His Lordship [Granvelle] tried very hard to calm me by telling me of his hard work and the danger [in which the colloquy was]. I answered him that I sympathized with him, because he truly was making an all-out effort, but one cannot injure the truth."[216]
As a result of Contarini's insistence, the word transubstantiation was added to the Catholic draft. Granvelle continued to mediate, and managed to get a statement from the Protestants that they were willing to postpone the discussion of transubstantiation until the end of the colloquy. But Contarini had come to see the futility of the strategy that he himself had recommended only a short time before. Postponing difficult issues could not mask the fact that the two sides had fundamentally different points of departure in their theology of the Eucharist. "I see the Protestants very obstinate and pertinacious, and have no hope, unless God performs a miracle, that concord among us will be achieved," he wrote to Cardinal Farnese. "I trust in God, and shall remain firm in the truth and proceed with God's help in such a way that the world will never be able to accuse the Apostolic See of disturbing concord and peace, [but will see it as] the preserver of Christian dogmas."[217]
Contarini's stance hardened further when, on 14 May, the theologians began to discuss the sacrament of penance. Here the Protestants did not agree with the Catholics about the necessity of confessing mortal sins, even though they declared that confession was useful. At this point Contarini did not wait for more specific information; he began to suspect the Protestants of actively seeking words that could be interpreted in ambiguous ways. Fearing that the emperor was not well
[215] To Cardinal Farnese, 13 May 1541, in Pastor, "Correspondenz," 385, corrected by ASVat, Arm. 62, vol. 36, fol. 89v.
[216] ASVat, Arm. 62, vol. 36, fol. 90r; Pastor, "Correspondenz," 385.
[217] ASVat, Arm. 62, vol. 36, fol. 90v; Pastor, "Corresondenz," 386.
informed and therefore might support "false concord," he requested an audience at which he arrived with a written memorial that underscored his oral presentation to Charles V. The report of this audience shows not only the profound and rapid changes in Contarini's view of the Protestants, but also the beginning of the emperor's changing attitude toward the papal legate.
Belief in three articles of faith was necessary for Christians, Contarini argued: the Trinity, the incarnation of the Divine Word, and the Eucharist. They were fundamental, and any agreement presupposed their acceptance by all parties. Contarini urged the emperor to use his authority over Protestant theologians and princes to make them declare their adherence to these fundamental articles. Here he thought like a Venetian and conceived of imperial power in Germany as similar to that of the government of Venice, which freely issued commands or prohibitions to its citizens. Charles V did not accept Contarini's advice, as the latter reports:
His Majesty heard me attentively, then answered that I did well to fulfill my duties because he himself was not a theologian. Therefore he had requested the pope to send someone here whom he could trust, as His Holiness then did. He added that Monsignor Granvelle had reported to him that the difference [between the theologians] lay in one word concerning the Eucharist, namely transubstantiation, and that the Protestants were willing to institute confession among their population because experience had shown them how useful and necessary it was for the maintenance of obedience and the prevention of many scandals. It seemed best to him to proceed and get from them the most that was possible, and then at the end to treat the articles where there were differences. The necessary provisions must be made, since breaking up the negotiations was easy and could always be done. And he went on at some length about such a break.[218]
Charles V was obviously annoyed by Contarini's insistence and probably agreed with Granvelle's view, as reported by Morone, that "transubstantiation was a difficult matter that pertained only to the learned and did not touch the people, for whom it was enough to believe that the body of Christ was in the sacrament and that it should be adored, remaining there until it was received."[219] But there was a veiled reproach in the emperor's words as well: he had trusted Contarini, and the legate was beginning to let him down. Yet for Contarini, there
[218] Contarini to Cardinal Farnese, 15 May 1541, ASVat, Arm. 62, vol. 36, fol. 92v; Pastor, "Correspondenz," 388-89.
[219] Morone to Cardinal Farnese, 29 May 1541, in Dittrich, "Nuntiaturberichte Morone's," 471.
could be no change in the doctrinal foundation on which the structure of the church rested. He insisted on the word transubstantiation because he considered the question about the nature of the Eucharist to have been settled centuries before by a council with the authority to do so. He literally could not imagine how the Protestants could slight tradition, or how they could justify picking and choosing among conciliar decrees.
Contarini's suspicions of the Protestants were reinforced by the intransigence of Melanchthon,[220] who was anxious to please both Luther and the elector of Saxony by not appearing to be "soft" on Catholicism. Even Granvelle became impatient with Melanchthon and the arguments he used to bolster the theological stance of the Protestants.[221] The meetings of the collocutors continued until 22 May, but it was obvious to both sides that they were not moving toward agreement on the articles considered following the discussion of the Eucharist. On 31 May the Regensburg Book and separate articles drawn up by the Protestants were presented to the emperor, and the colloquy was formally over.
Contarini remained in Regensburg in the awkward position of a lame-duck legate until the end of the diet and the departure of the emperor for Italy on 29 July. The colloquy had concluded before the replies to the agreed-upon articles arrived from Wittenberg and Rome. Interestingly, Luther did not reject article 5 as such, but worried that it created wrong impressions and left the door open to further confusion.[222] He thought that the necessary first step should have been a confession of guilt by the Catholics followed by the repudiation of the "abominations [Greuel]" concerning justification which their theologians had taught for centuries.[223] In brief, he mistrusted their motives and saw them as deceivers bent on interpreting justification in a sense contrary to the truth of the gospel; he ultimately rejected the whole Regensburg Book as merely a new patch on an old cloak. Elector Johann Friedrich of Saxony was just as blunt. He wrote to Melanchthon
[220] Augustijn, Godsdienstgesprekken , 93-95, with full bibliographical references.
[221] Contarini to Cardinal Farnese, 16 May 1541, ASVat, Arm. 62, vol. 36, fols. 93v-94r: "Mons di Granvela per quanto mi ha detto disse al Melantone: Io non sono theologo, male vostre ragioni et authorità mi pajono tanto frivole, che non mi movono un capello."
[222] Martin Luther, Werke, Briefwechsel , vol. 9 (Weimar: Hermann Bohlaus Nachfolger, 1941), 410 (no. 3617) and 436-45 (no. 3629).
[223] Pfnur, "Einigung," 67. For a summary of Luther's reaction to the colloquy, see pp. 64-68.
that "those who want accord, should seek accord with God and his word. . .. Let those who want to deal with patchwork be damned."[224] Calvin, however, though little more than an observer in Regensburg, considered that the article contained the "essence of true doctrine."[225]
On 29 May, two crucial documents were written. The first was Contarini's most personal letter yet to Cardinal Farnese; the other was Farnese's reply to the legate's report of 3 May concerning the agreement on article 5. Contarini's letter with suggestions about the course of action the papacy should take in Germany is the most revealing of all his dispatches. Here he spoke not ex officio, but as an anguished Christian. Farnese's letter was official and peremptory. When read successively, these two letters reveal the gulf that separated Contarini, the advocate of church reform, from Farnese and his curial advisors, practical bureaucrats whose priorities were the preservation of papal supremacy and victory over the Protestants.
Contarini expressed his deeply felt convictions in a passionate plea as the pope's good servant whose duty it is to give counsel. The Lutheran heresy, he warned, has taken root in the minds not only of Protestants, but of all the German people. Even if concord were to be achieved in this diet, only the foundations would have been laid of a structure that had yet to be built, namely a real reformation in Germany: "Just as it is impossible to live in a house which consists only of its foundation, so nothing will have been achieved if a serious reformation is not erected [on this foundation]."[226] Because Protestantism was something new, and because people avidly hanker after novelty, the new confession was spreading rapidly, especially because it had removed a series of obligations such as confession, fasting, attendance at mass, or abstinence from meat. In order to counteract Protestantism in Germany, three things were necessary. First, no territory that was presently Catholic should be allowed to join the Protestant League of Schmalkalden. Rather, the Catholic League must be strengthened. Second, the German bishops must be exemplary in their own lives and, like the Protestants, must instruct their people by using good preachers
[224] Quoted in Augustijn, Godsdienstgesprekken , 115.
[225] Ioannis Calvini opera quae supersunt omnia , vol. 11 (Braunschweig, 1872), 215 (no. 308). See also Wilhelm H. Neuser, "Calvins Beitrag zu den Religionsgesprächen yon Hagenau, Worms und Regensburg (1540/41)," in Abramowski and Goeters (eds.), Studien zur Geschichte und Theologie der Reformation , 235.
[226] ASVat, Arm. 62, vol. 36, fols. 102v-103r. The first part of this letter is printed in Reg ., 333-334 (Inedita, no. 71), from an incorrect copy, while the second and longer, with many inaccuracies, is in Pastor, "Correspondenz," 474-76.
and teachers.[227] "If only, God willing, certain Italians whom I know were familiar with the German language, I believe that they could bear much fruit!" he added.[228]
Contarini suddenly reached back in memory to his student years in Padua, echoing his teacher Pomponazzi: "Today we are alive, and tomorrow dead. The life of man, let alone of the Christian, consists in doing one's duty . . .as if we did not expect any reward or punishment in the next life. Speaking like philosophers, we must perform our task and not fail to do our duty, as natural reason tells us and as every philosopher would say, basing this idea on principles of natural reason."[229] How much more Christians should do! Like an Old Testament prophet, Contarini castigated the shortcomings of the Catholic prelates by citing Deuteronomy on the subject of the ungrateful, fattened, and bloated people that had forgotten God.[230] The letter ends with his third recommendation: the pope should grant Germans the right to receive communion under both species. This would be a most useful concession bearing on a rite to which the German people attributed great importance, and for which there were precedents not only among the Greeks but in western Europe as well.
The letter from Rome arrived in Regensburg on 8 June. It was drafted by Cervini and signed by Cardinal Farnese.[231] Despite its
[227] Contarini already reported that the archbishop of Mainz had praised the excellent Protestant schools in Germany: "Imperoche non essendo scuole appresso Cattolici, et all'incontro essendone buone et copiose appresso Protestanti, tutta la gioventù di Germania s'instituisce nelle scuole loro, et cosi dalli primi anni bevono il veleno" (to Cardinal Farnese, 4 June 1541, in Pastor, "Correspondenz," 336).
[228] ASVat, Arm. 62, vol. 36, fol. 103r. Cardauns (NB 7:xxiv) thinks that Contarini has the Jesuits in mind here, while Pastor ("Correspondenz," 475n.2) opts for members of the Oratory of Divine Love. The first hypothesis is unlikely; the second is based on the erroneous idea that Contarini was a member of the Oratory. Contarini was most likely thinking of outstanding preachers like Ochino whom he knew: On the ignorance of German among Italian prelates, see Barbara M. Hallman, "Practical Aspects of Roman Diplomacy in Germany, 1517-1541," Journal of Medieval and Renaissance Studies 10 (1980): 193-206.
[229] ASVat, Arm. 62, vol. 36, fol. 102v.
[230] As he frequently does, Contarini cites from memory. Here he refers to the Song of Moses, specifically Deut. 32:15, 18.
[231] William V. Hudon, "Papal, Episcopal, and Secular Authority in the Work of Marcello Cervini," Cristianesimo nella storia 9 (1988): 498n.15, calls this document "a long reproof/instruction drafted by Cervini on behalf of Alessandro Farnese" and mentions that it "was actually signed by Niccolo Ardinghello on Farnese's behalf." Matheson, Contarini at Regensburg , 151, cites it as "Ardinghelli/Contarini." Both use the text in Ep. Poli 3:ccxxxi-ccxl (not ccxxx, as erroneously printed), which is headed "Niccolo Ardinghello a nome del Cardinal Farnese al Card. Contarini Legato in Germania." From this it might appear that the task of answering Contarini was left to a mere secretary. Actually, the original in ASVat, Arm. 64, vol. 20, fols. 83r-90v, makes no mention of Ardinghelli, Farnese's secretary, but is written in the first person and signed by Farnese like all the other letters.
convcntional epistolary style and polite phrases, it contained a stinging rebuke of the legate's ideas and actions.[232] Contarini was told that the article on justification was not read in consistory, since the pope wanted only a few persons to see it. The legate was accused of failing to exercise proper care to keep proceedings at the colloquy secret. Paul III neither approved nor rejected article 5, as if it did not warrant further discussion. "I am notifying you," Farnese continued, "that all those who saw it are of the opinion that even supposing that its sense were Catholic, the words could have been clearer. Therefore [they think] that in this important article ambiguity and mere semblance of concord were not avoided, which Your Reverence so prudently rejected and abhorred in the two succeeding articles on the Eucharist and confession."[233] Contarini was enjoined not to approve any article whatsoever, and warned against allowing himself to be carried away in the hope of achieving concord. Everything had to be expressed so clearly in the Catholic sense that even the malice of the adversaries would not be able to misinterpret it. Like a schoolboy, Contarini was instructed not to use ambiguous or novel words that could put clear matters in doubt, and above all not to concede anything to the Protestants.
Still sharper criticism followed. Contarini was taken to task for his dispatch of 9 May in which he had expressed his views of councils and stated that the hierarchy of the church had been instituted directly by Christ. He was reprimanded for both, and told that neither Paul III nor anyone else agreed with him; only the pope had the authority to convoke councils,[234] and he alone as successor of St. Peter was given full power by God.[235] The legate was informed that at the French court he was considered too obsequious to the emperor, and too cold in defense of the truth. Next, he was admonished to supervise his own household more closely, for its members were leaking information to Rome even before his official dispatches could be read in consistory.[236] Contarini, the experienced diplomat and cardinal, was criticized and treated to elementary instructions regarding diplomatic practice.
[232] Vetter, Religionsverhandlungen , 164, rightly writes of the "beleidigende Verächtlichkeit" of this letter.
[233] ASVat, Arm. 64, vol. 20, fol. 83v. The text printed in Ep. Poli diverges markedly from the manuscript, which I cite. NB 7:20 offers only a very few corrections of the printed text.
[234] ASVat, Arm. 64, vol. 20, fol. 85v.
[235] Ibid., fol. 86v.
[236] Ibid., fol. 89r-v.
What had happened? If we examine the reactions of Luther and Cardinal Farnese closely, we notice some remarkable similarities. In both Wittenberg and Rome the main issue was not the accord itself, which had been reached regarding justification, but fear that the other side would misuse the words of article 5, interpreting them in the "wrong" sense. The image of the naive Contarini who could not deal with theological complexity simply is not borne out by the documents. He, along with the collocutors, had believed that the two sides could actually agree on one of the central Christian doctrines. Neither he nor the other theologians merely deceived themselves because of their supposed Erasmian bent into minimizing differences between Catholics and Lutherans, as has been argued,[237] nor were they misled by fuzzy thinking and ill-founded optimism. Something tragic had occurred before the colloquy even opened that would have profound repercussions for the history of Christianity: polemics between the two confessions had reached a point where their leaders were no longer capable of giving the other side the benefit of the doubt.[238] Passions and emotions shaped Catholic attitudes toward "heretics" as much as Protestant ones toward "servants of the Antichrist." After over twenty years of political and ideological conflict, Protestants and Catholics saw each other as enemies, not fellow Christians, and treated each other accordingly. Even apart from theological differences, a psychological wall had been erected between the two confessions. By 1541 it could no longer be breached or removed by six theologians, no matter how learned and full of goodwill, much less by one single papal legate. Neither side could envision making a fresh start at this point. Besides, the aims of the two sides had diverged completely. While Rome now wanted a council convoked by the pope as the best defensive measure against the onslaught of Protestant criticism, the Protestants were still hoping for a reform throughout all of Germany that would build a single Protestant church. The Protestants had succeeded in seizing the initiative, and Rome was deeply concerned.
[237] Stupperich, Humanismus und Wiedervereinigung , passim.
[238] Pfnür, "Einigung," esp. 68 and 75, stresses the importance that the "Verfeindung" of the other side had for both Catholics and Protestants. Augustijn, Godsdienstgesprekken , 102, points to the mutual mistrust of the two sides as an important clement in the religious colloquies. Peter Vogelsänger, "Ökumenismus im 16. Jahrhundert: zur Geschichte des Religionsgesprächs yon Regensburg 1541," in Unterwegs zur Einheit: Festschrift für Heinrich Stirnimann , ed. Johannes Brantschen and Pietro Selvatico (Freiburg, Switz., and Freiburg i.B.: Herder, 1980), 647, also discusses the deep-seated mistrust each side had for the other in 1541, and rejects the idea that the theologians hoping for union were naive.
On 8 June, when Cardinal Farnese's letter of 29 May arrived, Contarini was no longer thinking as he had been on 3 May, when he wrote his report about the agreement on article 5. The intervening month had forced him to make important choices and to formulate the reasons for his decisions. The debate about transubstantiation had pushed him into espousing a quite rigid definition of tradition, which he subsequently defended against all comers. But it would be a mistake to consider him as "retreating into curialism" and crumpling before the arrogance of Cardinal Farnese's letters. Rather, he evolved a coherent personal stance the elements of which formed a pattern that would become impossible after Trent.
In his crisp answer to Farnese's strictures, entirely different in tone from his emotional dispatch of 29 May, Contarini first of all reaffirmed a position he would hold and defend until the end of his life: that the agreed-upon article on justification correctly expressed Catholic teaching. Even if the article seemed somewhat obscure, Contarini insisted that its sense was "cattolichissimo" and that not a word in it was ambiguous.[239] Though willing to change words that in Rome might be interpreted in any but a strictly Catholic sense, he unhesitatingly stood by article 5. The accusation against members of his household he dismissed in a sentence or two, proceeding to the more important matter of papal supremacy. Morone and he had not insisted on its discussion once the discord among the collocutors became obvious; however, Contarini intended to follow instructions and try to include a statement about it in the final document.[240] Farnese's reproaches did not have "an almost traumatic effect" on Contarini, nor did he be-
[239] To Cardinal Farnese, June 9, ASVat, Arm. 62, vol. 36, fol. 111r: "Quanto all'articulo de iustificatione, fide et operibus, portia essere che a qualch'uno havesse parso un poco oscuro, mail senso è cattolichissimo, ne vi è clausola overo parola ambigua, cioè che si possa tirare in senso erroneo."
[240] Ibid., fol. 112r: "Al Sig. Nuntio [Morone] pareva che non dovendossi fare accordo, minor contraditione che si havesse in quest'articolo de primatu fusse meglio et io sarei stato dell'istesso parere, quando non fussi stato altrimenti avertito, ma a me basta l'obedire." This sentence must be read in conjunction with the preceding folio, 111v, where Contarini clearly states that he did not have specific instructions concerning the discussion of papal supremacy that he could have given to the Catholic collocutors before the Regensburg Book was presented to Charles V. He tried to add a passage to the margin of the text, but Granvelle rejected this because it would seem like a falsification. Nevertheless, Contarini was to include an affirmation of papal supremacy in his presentation to the emperor and in the revision of the text on which several Catholic theologians were working. Hence I translate the quoted sentence as follows: "To the nuncio it seemed that, since there was to be no accord, the less disagreement there was on the article about papal primacy the better. I would have been of the same opinion if I had not been admonished otherwise, but for me it suffices to obey."
come merely "the submissive tool of papal diplomacy," as Matheson thinks.[241]
This can best be seen in his acerbic reply to the French accusation relayed by Farnese that he was cold in defense of the truth. Treating the matter quite deliberately as an afterthought, as if it did not merit more than a passing reference, Contarini expressed his wish that he were indeed cold enough to stop the great conflagration that reached from northern Europe all the way to Italy: "Believe me, Your Reverence, there is no need to add heat, but to bring such cooling as can be brought!"[242] In a clear dig at fanatical Catholics, whether in Rome or Germany, Contarini assured Farnese that those who opposed the Lutherans but were themselves ignorant about the articles on grace, free will, original sin, and faith and justification actually fortified the reputation of the Lutherans and thereby caused their errors to spread further.[243] It is characteristic of Contarini that he continued to voice his personal opinions while acknowledging and accepting the duty of obedience he owed as papal legate.
In this attitude we see the second element of Contarini's stance: his acceptance of the church's authority, whether papal, episcopal, conciliar, or sacerdotal.[244] He agreed with the Thomist conception of the church as the mystical body of Christ, but he also defended the necessity of Roman legal, constitutional, and administrative structures. With all its faults as an organization, the church for him was the means Christ had established to safeguard his message through the magisterium and to dispense grace to the Christian people through the sacraments. The tie that bound the individual member of the church to its hierarchy was obedience. For Contarini, the church was the visible, institutional ecclesia sacramentorum , not the ecclesia abscondira known only to God.
Contarini's ecclesiology was traditional. Nowhere in his writings is there evidence of disaffection from late medieval conceptions of the nature of the church.[245] He had interiorized the respect for institutions
[241] Matheson, Contarini at Regensburg , 153. Vetter, Religionsverhandlungen , 201, thinks that Contarini gradually became "a tool of others, without a will of his own" ( ein willenloses Werkzeug anderer ).
[242] ASVat, Arm. 62, vol. 36, fol. 112v. He wrote on 12 June to the nuncio in France on the same subject in milder terms; see Monumenti Beccadelli 1 (2): 178.
[243] ASVat, Arm. 62, vol. 36, fol. 111v.
[244] Klaus Ganzer, "Zum Kirchenverständnis Gasparo Contarinis," Würzburger Diözesangeschichtsblätter 35-36 (1974): esp. 249-57.
[245] The considerable differences among late medieval conceptions of the church are shown by Friedrich Merzbacher, "Wandlungen des Kirchenbegriffs im Spätmittelalter," Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte 39 (1953): 274-361. See also Jedin, "Die Entwicklung des Kirchenbegriffs im 16. Jahrhundert," in Kirche des Glaubens 2:7-16.
that his upbringing as a Venetian gentleman had instilled in him, and he firmly believed that institutions made human life civilized in the secular sphere while giving it direction and guidance in the religious. His commitment to upholding order in both spheres, together with his understanding of the role of a papal legate as quite literally that of an intermediary, led to Contarini's sometimes misunderstood phrase "to me it suffices to obey," meaning that he was willing to subordinate his own views to the decisions of the pope, once they were made. But while these decisions were being debated, the legate felt quite free to inform Paul III through Cardinal Farnose of his own opinions. For this reason his vivid letters still make good reading after almost half a millennium, and remain more accessible evidence of his thought than his formal and for the most part dry treatises.
That Contarini was not regarded as unconditionally submissive to Rome can be seen in Cardinal Farnese's dispatch of 14 June. On its surface, this is a straightforward set of instructions accompanying a letter of credit for fifty thousand scudi to be used for the Catholic League in Germany. But extraordinary care went into its composition, as shown by two drafts annotated by Cardinal Cervini that preceded the final version sent to the legate.[246] Contarini is given detailed orders on how to explain the pope's mind to Charles V. The emperor and the German Catholic princes must be convinced that Paul III was willing to spend as much money as the league and the defense of true religion required, and even to lay down his own life if necessary. While he did not want to be either the initiator or a counselor of armed conflict, he went on record as fully supporting the actions of Charles V that benefited Catholicism.[247]
[246] Two drafts (not three, as stated in Reg ., 199n.1) and the fair copy are in ASF, Carte Cerviniane, filza 3, nos. 25-27, fols. 48r-65v. Theodor Brieger, "Nic. Ardinghelli im Namen des Papsres an Contarini, Rom, 15. Juni 1541: die beiden ersten Entwürfe dieser Depesche, vom 10. Juni," Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte 5 (1882): 595-604, compared the first and second drafts. The fair copy agrees with the version printed in Ep. Poli 3:ccxl (misnumbered ccxxx)-ccxlix, except for minor details and two matters of substance: the absence of the last three paragraphs, and the dating, which is "xiiii" in the manuscript but "XV" in the published text. This text is corrected in NB 7:20-22 on the basis of yet another draft found in Archivio di Stato, Naples, Carte Farnesiane, 700C. The copy actually sent to Contarini on 15 June and dated the previous day (ASVat, Arm. 64, vol. 20, fols. 96r-105r) is a copy of the fair copy now in Florence, mentioned above. An excerpt from the Vatican copy is printed in CT 4:194-96 (no. 150). I cite according to the printed version in Ep. Poli , as corrected from the Vatican copy.
[247] Ep. Poli 3:ccxliii.
There is no hint that Cardinal Farnese and his advisors even for a moment seriously discussed the merits of "the damned opinions" of the Protestants. Contarini was warned that there could be no toleration of the articles not agreed upon in the colloquy, because faith is indivisible and cannot be accepted piecemeal. Because concord was not achieved, toleration was not allowed, and war was difficult and dangerous, only one course of action remained: the convocation of a general council.[248] Paul III instructed his legate to counteract demands for a German council in German lands that would deal with the issues Luther had raised. A valid council could only be universal and summoned by the pope. From this point on, Contarini had no more room to maneuver or negotiate. His orders were unequivocal, and as a practiced organization man he understood that fact clearly.
When compared with the drama of the colloquy and its culmination in the agreement on article 5, the two following months seem anticlimactic, especially the weeks after 21 June, when this last instruction arrived and effectively tied Contarini's hands. Even so, his letters from this period remain lively and important. The most interesting aspects of his correspondence during June and July 1541 are his steadfastness in defending his ideas about justification and his changing view of the religious and political situation in Germany.
Ludwig Cardauns, editor of the Nuntiaturberichte covering the period of the Diet of Regensburg, thinks that after the end of the colloquy Contarini had a complete change of heart of the sort that "disappointments cause in people of such disposition,"[249] such that he not only despaired of Germany but also threw in the towel by drawing closer to the most outspoken enemies of religious concord, the dukes of Bavaria. In this interpretation, Contarini's personality explains the change from the irenic legate to the stern spokesman for papal political aims. For Matheson, Contarini abandoned the idea of reunion in the sense of a "return of the Protestants to the true Faith. Now . . . the keyword is consolidation, reform seen as a weapon against the Protestants." Because of his curialism, he went over to the Counter-Reformation, speaking the "language of Aleandro and Carafa in Rome, of Loyola's new movement, of St. Theresa in Spain."[250]
In actuality, Contarini fully understood that his conciliatory approach
[248] Ibid., ccxlv.
[249] NB 7:XXII: "Der Ausgang hat in Contarini einen Gesinnungswechsel erzeugt, wie ihn Enttäuschungen bei Menschen von solcher Veranlagung hervorzurufen pflegen."
[250] Matheson, Contarini at Regensburg , 164.
to Protestants had not worked. Neither his personality nor his "curialism" explain the new tone in his letters, but the realism of a practiced diplomat does. After it became clear that concord could not be achieved, his first objective was to defend the papacy from accusations of having sabotaged the colloquy. The second was to encourage a defensive Catholic League. Since the dukes of Bavaria were its leaders, he obviously had to discuss the matter with them. Finally, he hoped to influence the emperor so as to prevent the acceptance of Granvelle's project of toleration. The latter proposed that the sixteen articles discussed by the collocutors should be accepted by both sides, and the others tolerated for the time being.[251] Charles V was sufficiently annoyed by the lack of any solution to the German religious situation to seriously consider granting the Protestants provisional freedom to practice their religion,[252] something the legate was instructed to prevent by insisting on the necessity of convoking a general council that would examine the issues raised by the Protestant reformers.
The pursuit of these three objectives was the major theme of his correspondence. The minor, but recurring and insistent, theme was something else: his continued defense of the formula on justification. If his tone concerning the Protestants became sharp, and if at times he even condemned their views, he never wavered in his certainty that the agreement on justification was in accordance with Catholic teaching.
Gradually his friends' reactions to the formula he had championed began to reach him. One of the first to write was Pole. While expressing his joy that concord had been achieved, he used rather noncommittal language that veiled his own views: "What I think about this you already know, and it is not necessary to say more about it."[253] When read attentively, Pole's letter reveals his discomfort with the Regensburg formula, despite fulsome but very general praise. The reason for this ambiguous stance was twofold: Pole thought the formula not incontrovertibly scriptural and worried about being too closely associated with it.[254] Contarini had counted on him and was let down when
[251] Augustijn, Godsdienstgesprekken , 113-14.
[252] Contarini to Cardinal Farnese, Regensburg, 15 June 1541, ASVat, Arm. 64, vol. 36, fol. 115v, which corrects Pastor, "Corresondenz," 483.
[253] Capranica, 17 May 1541, Ep. Poli 3:25. A month later Pole continued his cautious tone and expressed the wish that Contarini had faced a more aggressive adversary so that he would have been constrained to develop his ideas more fully, silencing those who opposed him. Pole in a tactful way in effect said that he, too, was not convinced of the scriptural basis of Contarini's arguments (ibid., 27).
[254] Fenlon, Heresy and Obedience , 56, 61.
Pole remained in Capranica, his summer residence, as the college of cardinals was about to discuss the agreement on justification.[255] Pole had used poor health as a face-saving excuse for his absence. Instead of going himself, Pole sent his friend Alvise Priuli to Rome to sound out curial opinion about the concord reached in Regensburg.
Priuli contacted the most influential papal advisors, about whose judgment Pole was naturally anxious. The first was Carafa, who objected to the term inherent justice that had been used, considering it novel and likely to be deliberately misused by the heretics. The absence of the term merit troubled him as well. Priuli tried to the best of his ability to explain what he took to be Contarini's meaning, but the most he achieved was Carafa's admission that "good and Catholic sense" could be given to everything that had been agreed upon. Carafa warned, however, that the Protestants were certain to interpret the article on justification in a manner contrary to that of the Catholics.[256] Cervini thought the same. Aleandro was radically skeptical about the whole matter, believing that even if accord were reached on all points, Germany would not be pacified merely because theologians had reached an agreement.[257] Sadoleto, who was generally in sympathy with Contarini's ideas, eventually wrote from his residence in Carpentras to reject article 5 as too Lutheran and a distortion of Catholic doctrine.[258] Only two prelates at the papal court took the legate's part: Bembo, who came to the aid of his countryman with more goodwill than theological acumen,[259] and Fregoso, who defended Contarini strongly in consistory.[260] But his voice was not decisive; he soon left
[255] To Bembo, Regensburg, 28 June 1541, Reg ., 341 (Inedita, no.78): "Desidereria che il R.mo Polo fusse in Roma a questi tempi et a questi manegi, in vero non poteva essere absente a tempo piu incomodo. Io lo haveria excitato a ritornare, si non havessi habuto rispecto al periculo della sanita sua."
[256] Priuli to Beccadelli, Rome, 20 May 1541, in Carlo Dionisotti, "Monumenti Beccadelli," in Miscellanea Pio Paschini , ed. A. Casamassa (Rome: Facultas Theologica Pontificii Athenaei Lateranensis, 1949), 2:266.
[257] Ibid., 268.
[258] Douglas, Sadoleto , 158-60; and Simoncelli, Evangelismo italiano , 109-11.
[259] Paolo Simoncelli, "Pietro Bembo e l'evangelismo italiano," Critica storica 15 (1978): 19-25; and idem, Evangelismo italiano , 112-13. Gigliola Fragnito, "Evangelismo e intransigenti nei difficili equilibri del pontificato farnesiano," Rivista di storia e letteratura religiosa 25 (1989): 46, argues that Bembo believed in justification by faith alone and was in full sympathy with Contarini.
[260] Bembo to Contarini, Rome, 27 May 1541, in Monumenti Beccadelli 1(2):169; and 13 July 1541, ibid., 183. Nino Sernini to Cardinal Ercole Gonzaga, Rome, I July 1541: "esso [ Fregoso] nel concistorio ha sempre favorite le cose fatte dal Contarino in la dieta di Ratisbona" (ASM, Carteggio Gonzaga, Esteri 1541). Possibly Fregoso had a low opinion of his fellow cardinals. Ochino, admittedly not a reliable source, years later reported Fregoso's statement that on the day before the matter was discussed in consistory, at least thirty of the fifty cardinals did not know what justification was, and the majority of the remaining twenty would regard anyone who defended the Regensburg formula as a heretic; see Reg ., 187 (no. 730).
Rome for his diocese of Gubbio, where he died on 22 July. As a result, Bembo remained the lone champion of Contarini's views on justification at the papal court.
By mid-July, though, these views really no longer mattered except as expressions of his individual belief. Although justification had not proved to be the basic issue at the colloquy after all, for Contarini personally it remained crucial, as can be seen by his repeated defense of article 5 even after Farnese's insulting letter of 29 May had reached him on 8 June. Although he participated in a new committee that the emperor appointed to go over the Regensburg Book once more and examine it from the Catholic perspective,[261] Contarini had no second thoughts about the formula on justification. The most he admitted was that there was room for clarification and amplification of some passages of the Regensburg Book. In an unusual display of irritation with "learned men" in Rome who objected to the absence of the term merit in article 5, he attempted to explain to Cardinal Farnese the reasons for its omission. His theologically rather amateurish explanation hinges on the idea that if the word merit were introduced, the greatness of God's free gift of eternal life would be diminished. "Our sense and their [the Protestants'] sense is the same, but it did not seem to us necessary to force on them the term merit, so we left it out,"[262] he wrote in the vain hope of silencing his critics.
In fact, he knew that they were becoming more insistent. Already on 27 May Bembo had informed him that his views on justification had been the cause of some disagreement among the cardinals, but that he should not worry about that. "You know the character of the senate [the college of cardinals] and the way people are: there are as many opinions as there are individuals. The one among them who was most in your debt was least willing to pay."[263] Bembo did not want to
[261] Contarini to Cardinal Farnese, Regensburg, 14 June 1541, ASVat, Arm. 62, vol. 36, fols. 113r-114r; and in part in Pastor, "Correspondenz," 481-82.
[262] Contarini to Cardinal Farnese, Regensburg, 22 June 1541, in NB 7 : 13. This letter is missing from ASVat, Arm. 64, vol. 36.
[263] Monumenti Beccadelli 1(2):169: "Nosti enim vel morem Senatus, vel naturam hominum: Quot enim capita, tot sententiae. Qui omnium tibi plus debebat, ille minus tribuit."
make an issue of the fact that an important cardinal on whose help Contarini had relied (in all likelihood either Aleandro, Cervini, or Carafa) had turned against him. A week later he mentioned in passing that malicious comments were being made in Rome about Contarini but tried to downplay their importance.[264] Shortly afterward Bembo comforted the legate by writing from Rome that he personally agreed with the article on justification but that "the matter has not been understood well by some people here."[265]
Some curialists whom Contarini does not mention by name wrote to him and to members of his household that he and Badia were being blamed for exalting faith over works. Others wrote that even though true, the agreed-upon article 5 was nevertheless scandalous: if people did not consider good works meritorious, they would not perform them. "I was most amazed at this and cannot believe that there is any learned and serious man at the papal court who holds such views, but think it certain that they belong to persons who are not as well informed as they should be. If I thought otherwise, I would humbly and charitably show it in writing, so that it could be well considered what a great error this is"[266] was Contarini's exasperated reply.
He defended his ideas not only against those who should have known better, but also against his most conspicuous critics such as Cardinals Laurerio and Aleandro. The first had tangled in consistory with Fregoso, to Contarini's obvious annoyance, who wondered whether the article on justification deserved all the attention Laurerio was lavishing on it. Contarini repeated the accusations that he and Badia, along with the emperor, had been too accommodating to the Protestants. The new tone in his letters shows that he was deeply wounded: "Now I am beginning to be a good Christian suffering in the troubles and dangers in which I have placed myself for the sake of religion, and I am certain that this foolish calumny will [ultimately] result in my good, so that I am cheerful about it," he wrote to Laurerio.[267]
[264] Bembo to Contarini, June 4 1541, in ibid., 172: "Nostro Signor Dio che può il tutto, doni felice sucesso a V.S. R di quelle cose, che ella così prudentemente tratta anchora che quì non le manchino delle invidie."
[265] Letter of 11 June 1541, in ibid., 177.
[266] To Cardinal Farnese, 10 July 1541, ASVat, Arm. 64, vol. 36, fol. 132r-v; correcting Pastor, "Correspondenz," 494.
[267] Regensburg, 22 July 1541, in Monumenti Beccadelli 1(2):185; and Reg ., 218 (no. 820). Dittrich wrongly identifies the recipient as Cervini.
A fuller defense of Contarini's actions is found in a carefully worded letter to an unnamed but clearly influential cardinal whom he suspected of originating the rumor in Rome that he, together with Badia and the emperor, had signed Lutheran articles. He reproached the cardinal in question for having discussed the term merit in consistory "as if it were an essential article of faith, like that on the Trinity, or something similar."[268] Like the fighter on the front lines, he now speaks to those carping at him from the safety of Rome. Resigning himself to being misunderstood by people without direct experience of discussions with Lutherans, he explains that it was impossible to force them to use the terminology of scholastic philosophy. All the Catholic theologians had rightly agreed to omit the word merit in the interest of reaching agreement.
Then follows one of the most crucial passages in Contarini's correspondence of these last two months in Regensburg. Here he reveals that, far from retreating into intransigent curialism, as Matheson would have it, he still holds the same convictions he held at the beginning of his mission.
For myself . . . I am renouncing any reason I might have for thinking that God owes me anything, and the good things that he gives me I wish to acknowledge as coming from his loving kindness, mercy, and generosity rather than from anything he owes me or any obligation he has toward me. Moreover, what happens to love of neighbor at this important point." Let me assure Your Reverence that I am not interested in entering into a meaningless battle of words. Through such battles the Christian church is being radically damaged, and there is no one who feels compassion for her. Instead, the highest praise goes to him who knows how to invent some new cause of strife. God grant that we don't all too soon have cause to regret this; for my own eyes see clearly what those people there do not see. I may have said more than I ought to have, but the love of Christ forces me to do it, and Your Reverence will pardon me for it.[269]
[268] To Cardinal N. N., 22 July 1541, in Monumenti Beccadelli 1(2):186. Morandi thinks that the cardinal is Aleandro, but this is not clear.
[269] Ibid., 188: "Io per me . . . rinuncio a quanta ragione potessi havere, che Dio mi fosse debitore, et tutto quello che mi darà di bene, voglio riconoscerlo dalla sua benignità, misericordia, et liberalità, et non da debito suo, et obbligo suo alcuno. In oltre dov'è la carità del prossimo in così importante occasione? V.S. R.ma si assicuri, che languemus circa inutilem pugnam verborum, et in questo mezzo per le nostre contentioni si ruina funditus la Cristianità, nè vi è chi gli abbia compassione, anzi quello è più laudato, il quale sa meglio ritrovare qualche modo, et qualche nuova causa di dissidio. Dio voglia, che non ce ne pentiamo presto; ben il veggio io coi miei occhi quello, che lì non si vede. Son trascorso più di quello che doveva, la carità di Cristo mi costringe, però V.S. R.ma mi perdoni."
A similarly critical tone is found in Contarini's letter to his brother-in-law Matteo Dandolo, Venetian ambassador to the French court. Considering himself no longer bound to keep matters secret, Contarini summarized his view of the colloquy and emphasized that he personally found nothing heretical in the Regensburg Book despite Eck's objections to it. Still, he did not want to approve it, because the Protestants accepted the book only in part and might interpret the rest in a sense contrary to truth. "Now concord is entirely out of the question . . . I now see clearly that the greatest good fortune which I had in the course of this legation was that no concord was achieved, because I would certainly have been stoned by various groups, and some would even have become heretics in order to make me appear to be one," was his exasperated conclusion. But far from feeling downcast, Contarini ended on a defiant note: "Be of good cheer, [for] more are with us than with them."[270]
The dispatches from Cardinal Farnese that followed his letter of 15 June gave Contarini no guidance in religious questions and avoided discussion of the main issues for the ostensible reason that it would be far easier to deal with religious matters orally after the legate's return to Italy. But Farnese clearly stonewalled by not responding to Contarini's reports about the debates on justification: "it seems to His Holiness, because of the way things are going, the less said and written about [justification], the better."[271] Instead, the legate's final instruction was to work toward Habsburg support for the convocation of a general council, and against the emperor's granting of any form of toleration to the Protestants.
As a result of this charge, the relations of legate and emperor grew cool. Granvelle had made no bones about his disappointment with the pope, Morone, and Contarini, accusing them of having done nothing to reform the Catholic clergy and bishops of Germany. The secretary was extremely distressed and bluntly declared that the Holy See was
[270] Regensburg, July 1541, in ibid., 203: "Hora la concordia è in tutto disperata . . . Ben veggo che oramai la maggiore ventura, che io habbia avuto in questa Legatione, è stata, che non si sia fatta la concordia, perchè certamente io sarìa stato da diverse bande lapidato, et qualch'uno si haverìa fatto eretico per farmi parere eretico. . .. State di buona voglia, plures sunt nobiscum quam cum illis. "
[271] Cardinal Farnese to Contarini, Rome, 7 July 1541, ASVat, Arm. 64, vol. 20, fols. 118r-120r; and NB 7:22-24.
tolerating appalling scandals.[272] At the insistence of Granvelle, speaking for the emperor, on 7 July Contarini addressed the German bishops present in Regensburg concerning the necessity of reform.[273] He admonished them to be true shepherds of their flock and to set examples of modesty, sobriety, and avoidance of ostentation in their households. They were told to counteract Protestant doctrines by choosing learned and honest preachers capable of instructing the people by word as well as example. However, these preachers do not bear much resemblance to the later Counter-Reformation militant defenders of Catholicism. Despite his recent experiences, Contarini repeated one of his favorite ideas by urging that they be neither contentious nor animated by hatred toward their adversaries, but capable of loving them and desiring their salvation. He stressed the importance of instructing youth, an area in which he thought Catholics lagged behind Protestants, and enjoined Catholics to found schools, especially for nobles, in order to counteract the successes of the Protestants. Here Contarini echoed what the archbishop of Mainz had told him a month earlier—that Protestant schools were good and numerous, whereas Catholics had none.[274]
As with so much else he did in Regensburg, Contarini has been both praised and blamed for this last act. Jedin considered his address to the German bishops "replete with the ideas of Catholic reform," while in Augustijn's opinion Contarini's allocution was "nothing more than a funeral speech."[275] Contarini's address was in fact so perfunctory that one must agree with Augustijn. The legate knew full well that he could make no difference at this point, but he did his duty in accordance with the emperor's wishes.
The Diet of Regensburg closed on 29 July amid disagreement over the wording of Charles V's final declaration.[276] Contarini's last letters from this legation were written by a man who knew that he had lost a
[272] Morone to Cardinal Farnese, 21 June 1541, in Dittrich, "Nuntiaturberichte Morone's," 622.
[273] Pfeilschifter (ed.), Acta Reformationis Catholicae 4(2):5-7.
[274] Contarini to Cardinal Farnese, 4 June 1541, in Reg ., 336 (Inedita, no. 73), corrected by ASVat, Arm. 62, vol. 36, fol. 108v.
[275] Jedin, Trient 1:313; Cornelis Augustijn, "The Quest of Reformation: The Diet of Regensburg as a Turning-Point," paper presented at the the conference "The Reformation in Germany and Europe: Interpretations and Issues," Washington, D.C., 25 September 1990. I would like to thank Professor Augustijn for giving me a copy of his paper.
[276] GC , 767-70.
battle yet had not despaired. He continued to defend the article on justification and to condemn Protestant rejection of defined doctrines. There was, moreover, no bitterness in his reflections about the failure of the colloquy. Rather, such bitterness as he expressed was directed at people in the court of Rome who not only knew all too little about the German situation and about Lutheran as well as Catholic theology, but also lacked charity. His dream of religious concord was utterly shattered. Now he had to defend himself for having been its champion.