CHAPTER XXXII.

DOCTRINAL CONTROVERSIES, AND ATTEMPTS TO BRING ABOUT A UNION.

We must here revert to a conflict commenced at a former period against Melanchthon by Cordatus. We did not conceal the fact that his formula that good works are the condition without which we cannot be saved, was a bold venture, which could easily be misinterpreted. When he used the form of expression in the Leipzig Interim, that good works are necessary to salvation, it was expressed indeed in a milder form, but still admitted a bad interpretation.

It so came to pass that the aged Amsdorf published a work in 1551, in which he accuses GEORGE MAIOR, Melanchthon's friend, in the most severe manner, because he had adulterated the doctrine of Justification, by his proposition that good works are necessary to salvation. Maior did not owe him an answer long; he confessed his adherence to the Evangelical doctrine of Justification, but at the same time adhered to his opinion that good works are necessary to salvation, because no one could obtain salvation by evil works, or without good works. But now Maior was attacked from every side, and found it impossible to retain his position as General Superintendent at Mansfeld any longer. His opinion was not opposed to the doctrine of justification, for he said that good works were necessary to salvation, because they must necessarily be produced by faith, and because all men were obliged to obey God. But the opposite side proved to him, that the formula made use of by him might easily lead to misinterpretation, and should not be used, even if it were only on account of the Catholics. Melanchthon, of whom we know that he did not approve of a form which might easily be misconstrued, advised Maior to desist from further disputes, for, he said, you are merely adding fire to the flames. Maior was called to a professorship in Wittenberg in the autumn of the year 1552. Instead of following Melanchthon's advice, and abstaining from his formula for the sake of peace, he continued to defend it. Melanchthon himself did not employ this formula any more, and at a later period expressed himself against it in a very decided manner; although he remarks in another place, that against the Antinomians we should always maintain that the beginning of new obedience is necessary, because it is a divine and unchangeable arrangement, that a rational being must obey God. However, the most extravagant opponents did not suffer themselves to be pacified by all these things. Amsdorf was so involved in these contradictions, that he published a work, during Melanchthon's lifetime, with this title: "That the Proposition, Good works are injurious to salvation, is a true, just, and Christian proposition, taught and preached by the saints Paul and Luther." If the champions had adhered to the word of God and the Confession of the Church, and had acted towards each other in a friendly spirit, intent upon the honor of God and the discovery of the truth, they would not have gone astray in this manner.

Such a spirit should also have been manifested in the so-called _Synergistic_ controversy, which caused Melanchthon great trouble. It is certain that he was most decidedly opposed to the doctrines of the ancient heretic PELAGIUS; for he adhered to the truth expressed in the word of God, that the powers of man are so much corrupted by original sin, that he must first be awakened by the Holy Ghost before he is able to make a beginning, and that he also needs the Holy Ghost as he progresses. He teaches that the powers of human nature are greatly affected, end unfitted to do good, and he represents the merits of Christ as the only foundation of salvation. At the close of his life, in reply to the Bavarian articles, he declares in the most positive manner: "Sin and death cannot be removed by the free will of man, and man's will cannot begin inward obedience without the Son of God, without the Gospel, and without the Holy Ghost." Therefore, it cannot be assured or proved that he was a _Synergist_, _i. e._, that he taught that in the work of repentance, the natural will of man performs one part, and grace the other. He was fully convinced that the grace of God alone accomplishes what is good in us, and that the will of man merely receives. The will of man could thus be active to a certain extent, but could not produce the new life. The actual Synergistic controversy did not arise until after the Leipzig Interim. In this, Melanchthon had said that in the work of repentance, man was not passive like a block or a statue. Flacius had repeatedly directed attention to this expression; but it was Amsdorf who agitated this controversy towards the close of Melanchthon's life. But we will not enter upon a consideration of this, because the controversies concerning the freedom of the human will did not develop themselves until after the death of our Reformer.

As such differences and disputes arose on every side in the Evangelical Church, to its own injury and the joy of the Catholics, several princes, especially Maurice and the Landgrave of Saxony, thought it necessary to bring about a meeting of the Theologians, in order that these controversies might be settled. The Osiandrian difficulties were to be disposed of first, as they shook the very foundation of the Evangelical Church. The meeting was to be held in Erfurt, June, 1553; but Melanchthon did not expect any good from this, and freely declared his opinion that such conferences produced no good effects, as Gregory of Nazianzen had declared, "that he had not seen any Synods in his own day which did not cause greater dissension than existed before." He also said that there was no Theologian now who was able to restrain the others, as Luther had done in former days. That they ought to adhere to the Confession, on account of the Diet which should soon assemble. If the Emperor should insist upon the Interim, they should explain to him why they could not accept it. The Landgrave also entertained the same views.

This plan, which had been projected by Maurice, was postponed by a terrible disaster which fell upon him. The Margrave Albert continued to disturb the public peace by predatory excursions, which were especially directed against the monasteries of Franconia. Maurice therefore united with King Ferdinand, and Duke Henry, of Brunswick, to suppress this disturber. But when Albert heard of this design, he endeavored to anticipate them, and fell upon Lower Saxony. On the 9th of July, 1553, a battle was fought at Sievershausen. Maurice was victorious, but paid dearly for it, for he received a gun-shot wound in the battle, which caused his death two days afterwards. His last words were, "God will come!" He was succeeded by his brother AUGUSTUS, who restored the Misnian Lands in Thuringia and Franconia to the aged John Frederick. He was a sincere man, devotedly attached to Evangelical truth, and enjoying the full confidence of his subjects. Already, in the month of August, he came to Wittenberg, and Melanchthon rejoiced to hear the most encouraging promises from his own lips.

He confirmed the foundations which had been assigned for the support of the University by his brother Maurice. He also earnestly wished that the Theologians, who were not affording a very edifying and commendable example by their continued disputes, might become reconciled among themselves. This wish was shared by the pious Duke CHRISTOPHER, of Wurtemberg; and he proposed a conference of the ministers at Weimar, in order that they might discuss these points of difference. It was agreed upon to hold a Synod at Naumburg. We have already heard that Melanchthon dreaded such a conference, because he believed it would only make matters worse. On the 17th of April, he wrote to a friend: "The Court orders us to go to Naumburg, whither, as they write to us, the Swabian and Hessian pastors will also come. Although they have been warned by so many examples, that synods and hypocritical unions are productive of great evils, yet they have ordered us to hold synods again." However, he also wrote to Maienburg, May 11th: "Although the Synod of Naumburg, which I always objected to, will meet, I must nevertheless attend it." He went, accompanied by Forster and Camerarius, and reached Naumburg May 20th, 1554. The Hessian delegates, and the well-known Sleidanus, of Strasburg, arrived on the following day, and Pacæus and Salmuth, of Leipzig, on the 23d of May.

Although Melanchthon at first entertained the greatest fears, because he expected those two violent champions, Gallus and Flacius, whom he called the two sons of Polyphemus, he now wrote to his son-in-law Peucer, as early as May 23d: "To-day we shall, with the help of God, deliberate in a friendly manner, and I hope that no disputes will arise among us. We shall not expect any other Theologians, if they do not arrive here within three days." The princes wished the Theologians to agree upon the answer to be given to the Emperor, at the next Diet. In a declaration, prepared by Melanchthon, the Theologians frankly say: "If his Imperial Majesty should wish us to adopt again the Papal doctrine, which we condemn, and the Interim also, we shall, by the grace of God, clearly and positively refuse to do so."

They continued to say, that Protestants should abide by the Confession delivered in Augsburg in 1530, because it contains "the only eternal agreement of the divine Scriptures, and the true catholic Church of Christ." Also, that the confession of Brentius, and that of Saxony, fully coincided with this. The Theologians also expressed themselves against the errors of SCHWENKFELD and OSIANDER. Schwenkfeld, like all fanatics of ancient and modern days, disregarded the written word of God, and thought that God revealed himself to man without this. He also showed his perversion by other objections, which he raised against the Evangelical Church. They therefore say: "Therefore we unanimously reject the before-mentioned errors, and all the lies of Schwenkfeld." One of the greatest errors of Osiander is his declaration, "that man is not just on account of the obedience of Christ, but on account of the Deity if it dwells in man." They maintain the Evangelical doctrine against these Osiandrian heresies, in a very conclusive manner. In speaking of _Ceremonies_, they insist upon unity in doctrine and in the sacraments. They reject the mass without communicants. They allow private confession, "but no one is to be burdened by an enumeration of his sins." They wish holidays to be observed, and require uniformity in this. They oppose the reintroduction of Latin hymns, of the garments used in the mass, of vestments, and other ceremonies, "because it would give rise to new dissensions and ruptures." The authorities, and sensible Pastors, would know how to make a distinction between essentials and non-essentials, and how to avoid all offence. Attention should be paid to studies, ordination, consistories, and visitations, all which matters had formerly been disregarded by the Bishops. As the Bishops are persecutors of the pure doctrine, ordination cannot possibly be given into their hands. The authorities are bound to see to it, that the pure doctrine is preached in the churches, and that the consistories would discharge their duties, in punishing vice and maintaining discipline and harmony. Melanchthon was highly pleased with the harmony among the Theologians at Naumburg; yet he did not conceal the fact from himself, that his opponents would also raise a great outcry against the resolutions of Naumburg. The Theologians of Wurtemberg had only proceeded as far as Erfurt, for they had been expected for several days in Naumburg, but in vain. On the 28th of May, Melanchthon wrote to STRIGEL: "If the Swabians do not arrive to-day, as I believe they will not, we shall adjourn to-morrow, God willing." He returned to Wittenberg, as he had stated. Duke Christopher, however, was highly pleased with the resolutions of Naumburg.

During Melanchthon's stay in Dresden, February, 1555, where he was giving his opinion in regard to a visitation of the churches, the diet of Augsburg had been opened on the 5th of February. The Emperor had become completely disgusted with German affairs, particularly since the revolt of Maurice, and he now left the direction of this diet, promised in the treaty of Passau, to his brother Ferdinand. This diet witnessed many disputes, especially urged by the Pope's nuncio. But fortunately Pope Julius III. died about this time, and the nuncio was obliged to return to Rome. Now one principal difficulty was removed, and they at last, in the month of September, 1555, agreed upon the _Religious peace of Augsburg_, which was highly advantageous to the Protestants. For they not only obtained liberty of conscience in religion, but full civil equality with the Catholics, and remained in the possession of the ecclesiastical property which had been confiscated. But one unjust resolution was also carried, that if a Catholic sovereign should wish to become a Protestant at any future time, he should not indeed be personally molested on this account, but should forfeit his office and rank. Although the Protestants yielded very reluctantly, the decrees of the diet were of the utmost value to them, for they secured a lasting peace, and they no longer needed to care for the condemnations of a General Council. Melanchthon wrote: "I look upon the peaceful conclusion of the Diet of Augsburg as one of the favors of God, and we must beseech the Son of God to continue to guide us in future."

While the Evangelical Church was thus celebrating outward triumphs, and securing a firm position for herself, enemies were raging in her own bosom, who undoubtedly retarded her development. They were contending about a doctrine which is as plainly founded in the word of God, as it is of great comfort to the heart. It is the doctrine that not only the earthly elements of bread and wine, but also the true body and blood of Christ are distributed in the holy sacrament of the Lord's Supper. As a middle path between the doctrine of Transubstantiation on the one hand, and the one-sided doctrine of the Reformed, that we receive nothing but bread and wine in memory of the Lord, on the other, it was objectionable to the Catholics and the Reformed. Luther has triumphantly vindicated this consoling doctrine in his writings.

But now there arose another man with a doctrine somewhat different, which was adopted by many. This was the sagacious, learned, and pious JOHN CALVIN, who was born in the year 1509. The Lutherans had hitherto regarded him as belonging to their own party, especially since he had been teaching with Bucer and Capito in Strasburg. When he had returned to Geneva in 1541, from which city he had been banished before, and had there built up the Evangelical Church with great zeal, he wrote a Confession in regard to the Lord's Supper, in the year 1549. The Zurichers had formerly suspected him of being a Lutheran, but now all their doubts vanished, and they could call him their own, and harmony was completely restored between German and French Switzerland. But that which produced harmony in Switzerland caused dissensions in Germany, although not immediately. Here they had enough to dispute in regard to the so-called indifferent things, (Adiaphora,) and the heresies of Osiander.

In the year 1552, a pastor in Hamburg, named JOACHIM WESTPHAL, published a work in which he proved that the Reformed had given no less than eight-and-twenty explanations of the words of institution in the Lord's Supper, from the time of Zwingli to that of Calvin. In the following year he published a work against Calvin, entitled: "The true faith in regard to the Lord's Supper." This publication began to arouse the zeal of the Lutherans against Calvin and his friends, which was still more inflamed by one JOHN VON LASCO, who, together with a band of French and Dutch Protestants, had been banished from England by that severe Romanist, Queen MARY. He had confessed himself a follower of Calvin, and therefore could not find a resting-place for himself and his friends, either in Denmark or Germany. They were denounced from the pulpits in every quarter. Calvin now published a work defending them and his doctrine. He declared that, according to his doctrine, the Lord's Supper was no empty ceremony, even though he did not believe in a participation of the body and blood of Christ, in and under the bread and wine. Westphal and JOHN TIMANN, pastor in Bremen, arrayed themselves against Calvin; who, assisted by Bullinger of Zurich, and Lasco, soon published a refutation. Most of the cities of Lower Saxony sided with Westphal. The fire spread on every side, and Schnepf of Jena, Alber in Mecklenburg, and Eitzen in Hamburg, attacked Calvin in the most violent manner, who finally maintained an utter silence.

Calvin represented his own doctrine as a mediation between the Lutherans and the Reformed. It did not teach an imaginary, but a real participation of the body and blood of Christ, yet not with the mouth, and it also opposes the view of an Omnipresence of Christ according to his human nature. The fulness of the Godhead has entered into the body of Christ, and from this body the Lord fills his people spiritually, with a secret and mysterious power of life, whenever they receive the bread and wine. This participation only refers to believers, although it is also offered to unbelievers. So Calvin regarded the matter; but what did Melanchthon say to all this? He did not express himself positively in regard to either side, doubtless because he did not wish to pour fresh oil into the fire. Yet he was provoked and driven to a decided declaration of his sentiments by both sides. Gallus and Westphal published a collection of declarations taken from his former writings, by which they proved him to be on their side, and that he had at least not thought as the Sacramentarians did, as long as Luther was alive. Calvin also endeavored to lead him to declare himself, by stating that he understood the Augsburg Confession precisely as it was understood by its author, and that in this matter he could as little be separated from Philippus as from his own heart. We may admit, without hesitation, that Melanchthon agreed more with Calvin than with the stricter teachers of the Lutheran Church; but he did not wish to begin a conflict while he was the subject of a government which strictly adhered to Luther's doctrine. He wrote to HARDENBERG in the beginning of 1556, that if his life should be spared he would reply in a place where the courts could not hinder him; and to his friend MORDEISEN at the Saxon court, who reproached him on account of his bashfulness, he wrote: "I am certain that your court will not suffer a defence of the truth in this article." He therefore continued to adhere to the method of teaching he had pursued hitherto. He always spoke of a presence of Christ in the Lord's Supper, but never of a bodily presence of his body and blood.

Some of the princes now again, as on former occasions, thought of bringing about a reconciliation between the contending parties. As we have already heard, Duke CHRISTOPHER of Wurtemberg was the most prominent among them, for he made repeated attempts to induce the princes and Theologians to hold a meeting, where the points of difference might be discussed, and harmony restored. But his advances met no response, if we except the aged Elector of the Palatinate, FREDERICK. "I also wish," Melanchthon writes, "that learned and well-meaning men might negotiate in peace concerning certain contested points."

It appeared that the Theologians of Weimar were particularly opposed to any union or compromise. These held a separate meeting in Weimar, January, 1556, in which they declared that they would not unite with those of Wittenberg, until they would pledge themselves unequivocally to the Augsburg Confession, and would drop all Zwinglianism and Synergism. They would faithfully abide by Luther's doctrine concerning the Lord's Supper and free will.

Amsdorf, Schnepf, Strigel, Stolz, Aurifaber, and delegates from the Palatinate and Wurtemberg, attended this meeting. Melanchthon called this Synod the _Flacian Synod_, because he well knew that Flacius exerted a great influence upon it. He expresses his regrets in regard to this, in a letter to Camerarius, February 7th: "This sad dissension troubles me so much, that I wish to leave this world; and I see that I am not far distant from my journey's end."

But something occurred in the summer of the year 1556, which he perhaps expected least of all. Flacius endeavored to bring about a reconciliation with his former teacher. He was at that time residing in Magdeburg, and had prepared a few "mild propositions to bring about a godly, needful, and peaceful reconciliation between the Theologians of Wittenberg and Leipzig, and others who have written against them," which he had sent to Paul Eber, that he might deliver them to Melanchthon. In the eleventh article he said, "If any persons shall teach and spread errors which are injurious to religion and conscience, either publicly or secretly, we will avoid such as a curse, and will not acknowledge them as brethren, or receive them into fellowship, until they have condemned and publicly renounced their errors. For such wounds in the church cannot be healed or endured silently." It was principally owing to this article that Eber did not present these propositions.

About this time the French scholar, HUBERT LANGUENTIUS, who had long been one of Melanchthon's most intimate friends, arrived in Magdeburg. They were anxious to employ him as mediator. An interview with Melanchthon should take place in the little town of Coswig, and Flacius promised to employ mild and peaceful expressions. Although Melanchthon at first intended to accept the offer, he was afterwards induced to change his opinion, and, on the 15th of July, wrote to his friend Languentius: "I have for a long time been anxious for a conference with pious and learned men, for the glory of God and the general good; but what would be the use of an interview with such unlearned, raging, and malicious persons as Stolz, Gallus, and Aurifaber." "A sweet friendship and intimacy subsisted between Flacius and myself in former days, and I should like to discuss the whole system of doctrine with him. But he has circulated matters about me which I never uttered, and which never entered into my thoughts. Therefore, I fear treacherous intentions in all this. Oh! that he would act towards me with the same sincerity with which I should wish to approach him! But not one of my friends is willing to be present at such an interview, and they do not consider it advisable for me to meet him alone. I am not concerned if others are pleased to seek power and influence. The Son of God will judge the life and sentiments of every one, and he knows that I am only anxious to glorify the truth, to add to God's honor, and to promote the good of the Church." On the 21st of July, Flacius expressed his regrets concerning this reply in a letter to Languentius, and even wrote to Melanchthon, justifying himself, and assuring him that he had no reason to complain of him. Melanchthon replied on the 4th of September: "You recapitulate your kindnesses towards me, and state that you did not publish a letter written to Taupolus. I never wrote a syllable to him. In Augsburg, I paid a visit to this Venetian ambassador, at the request of the Elector, and spoke with him of the cause of the Reformation. I do not recollect all the words of that conversation. For I did not think then that I would be called to an account after the expiration of twenty-six years." Others had concocted a letter from this, with which Rörer had already reproached him, and which had been sent by the Margrave John. "You have also published the Leipzig Interim in a mutilated manner, and with notes. What induced you to attack an old friend, who loved you sincerely, with such weapons? I ought not to be reproached with what I never did; I am willing to confess all I have done. When the Augsburg Interim appeared, and reached our country, I at first advised that the churches should not be disturbed by any alterations whatever." He goes on to say, that he had many disputes with the courtiers, until the Elector declared that he did not wish a change of doctrine, but only uniformity in outward ceremonies on festival days, in lections, and dress. "This the people afterwards called Adiaphora. I knew that the smallest changes would displease the people. But as doctrine was untouched, I wished our friends rather to be willing to endure this servitude, than to relinquish the service of the Gospel, and I confess that I also gave this counsel to the Franconians. This I have done, but I never changed the doctrine of the Confession. After this, you began to enter your protest, but I yielded, and did not dispute. You are perfectly welcome to bear off the victory, for I yield, and do not contend about these ceremonies: and wish, with all my heart, that a pleasant harmony might prevail throughout the Churches. I also acknowledge that I erred in this matter, and pray God to forgive me that I did not fly far away from those treacherous deliberations. I shall refute all with which you and Gallus unjustly reproach me." In regard to Maior's proposition, that good works are necessary to salvation, he had exhorted him to explain his meaning, and to drop this form of expression. That he himself did not use this expression, and merely opposed the Antinomians by declaring: "New obedience is necessary, because it is a necessary law that the creature should obey the Creator. I do not believe that we really oppose each other in this question." In regard to the propositions for peace, he believed it would be best if they should be prepared by impartial judges. There must be _one_ confession in doctrine, "and as we do not contend about ceremonies, but rather confess that we yield in these, do not any longer accuse us, and do not heap false charges upon us. Let us unite, with mutual good will, and by one confession, against the fearful fury of the enemies of the Son of God, who is not only blasphemed by the Papists, but also by many others." But Flacius was not satisfied with this answer, and believed that it was necessary to have the matter decided by umpires.

On the 17th of January, 1557, the Superintendents Curtius of Lübeck, Paul von Eitzen of Hamburg, Mörlin of Brunswick, and Hennig of Lüneburg, met in Magdeburg, and pledged themselves to adhere to a confession which had been published in the year 1550, against the Interim, and which bore the title: "Confession, Instruction, and Admonition of the pastors and preachers of the Christian congregations of Magdeburg." Flacius, and his friends Wigand, Judex, and Baumgärtner, remained in the little town of Coswig, which was not far off, and exhorted the Superintendents, who had proceeded to Wittenberg with terms of agreement, that they should take a determined stand. On the morning of the 21st of January, the negotiations were begun in Melanchthon's residence. He addressed them in the most cordial manner, and assured them that he was desirous of peace, and had therefore remained silent. "I take a box on the ears, and still remain silent, while Flacius and Gallus do not stop their abuses." He agreed to accept the umpires, and Mörlin presented eight articles to him, which had been prepared at Brunswick, with this condition, that either side shall have the privilege to add to or take away from them what they pleased. The eight articles were as follows: 1. Unity of doctrine is to be restored, in accordance with the Augsburg Confession and the Smalkald articles. 2. All opposing errors of the Papists, Interimists, Anabaptists, and Sacramentarians, were to be rejected. 3. All corruptions, and especially that concerning the necessity of good works to salvation, in the article on Justification, which oppose true apostolical doctrine and the Augsburg Confession, were to be put away and condemned. 4. The Saxon Churches are not able to depart from the Confession which they published during the last persecution. 5. No agreement in ceremonies should be entered into with the Papists until they agree with us in doctrine, and cease to persecute the true doctrine. 6. In the time of persecution a sincere Confession should be made, and no servitude opposed to Christian liberty should be permitted. 7. We also, in a most Christian manner, beseech our teacher to testify, by a public writing, that his views in regard to indifferent matters, and the necessity of good works to salvation, agree with the Confessions of our Churches; and 8. If one of the parties should be suspected of secretly adhering to some errors, an explanation should be required."

Melanchthon was at first highly displeased with these articles, but on the following day he replied as follows: "For thirty years I have labored not a little in these churches, in teaching, developing truths, in daily judgments, conferences, and in treacherous conflicts. And it would have been very becoming in you to spare and pity me. But now, that which the worthy Jacob Sturm prophesied to me has come to pass; for when he, together with some other friends, accompanied me a part of the way when I left Ratisbon, and I said to him, that we would not see each other again in this world, he replied: 'We shall still come to you some day to crucify you.' Articles are laid before me, in which I am not only required to strangle myself, but very many of my friends. You spare Flacius. You know yourselves what intimate friendship subsisted between some of you and myself. And on this account, I am so much the more surprised to see you treat me so harshly. If I do not agree to your articles, you will excite your party against me; but if I do agree, many in our churches will complain of me that I have given them cause for offence. There is, consequently, danger on both sides, and it would have been better to negotiate with many concerning this." He agreed to the first two articles; but to the third he wished to add, that, although new obedience is needful according to the law of God, and Christ did not suffer in order that we should abide in sin and death, yet the expression, good works are necessary to salvation, should not be employed. His writings were opened to the eyes of the whole world. "I accept the fourth, fifth, and sixth articles, although they accuse us very much, as I would rather receive a blow than oppose harmony. As far as the seventh article is concerned, there is no necessity for a new publication, for every one is able to learn from my writings what I think of indifferent things." He concluded by entreating them not to oppose him at once, and that they should follow their own judgment rather than Flacius. Flacius was not satisfied with this reply, which was brought to Coswig by the mediators, and they returned to Wittenberg with several additions to the articles.

Melanchthon thanked them for their trouble, and said that he hoped they had now learned to know him as a man inclined to peace. "I shall, with God's help, abide by the general Confession of these churches, and shall not sow discord. I have always honored you as pious teachers of the Church, and I love you with all my heart. I replied to the articles you laid before me, so that I might not appear anxious to fly from the light, and unwilling to bring about harmony. And this shall be my last answer. If you are not satisfied with it, I appeal to the judgment of the Church." He adhered to his previous declaration, merely in other words. The mediators departed, without having effected their object; but Flacius would not yield. This conflict between Melanchthon and Flacius had also attracted the attention of Duke JOHN ALBERT, of Mecklenburg; and he felt himself called upon to attempt to bring about a reconciliation. He therefore sent VENETUS, of Rostock, and his counsellor, MYLIUS, to Wittenberg, with proposals of peace. These proposals were composed in the spirit of those of Magdeburg. When the envoys arrived in Wittenberg, about February 20th, they did not meet Philip, who was then on a journey to Dessau and Leipzig. When he had returned, heard their wishes, and saw the proposals, he replied very briefly, that Flacius entertained many errors; that the prince was ungracious; they sought to ruin him (Melanchthon); and that he would not condemn any of those who had been present at the debates concerning indifferent things, who are now dead. He expressed himself to this effect, and promised to present his reply on the following day. He retained the propositions, and examined them carefully.

On the following day he came, accompanied by his son-in-law Peucer. His answer was a very short one; and when the envoys requested him to prepare better propositions, he refused to do so, in a passionate manner, and said: "If you wish to crush me, do so; for this is the general lot of peace-makers. I commend myself to God." And Peucer also added: "You shall not in future trouble my father-in-law any more with such disputes." And with this they were dismissed. The envoys returned to Magdeburg, without having gained their purpose, in order to consult with Flacius and Wigand. Flacius was called to Jena in April, 1557, where the Gymnasium had been raised into an University.