Once resolved to lose everything, John, free, happy, and tranquil, assembled his theologians. These generous men desired to save their master. "Gracious lord," said Spalatin, "recollect that the Word of God, being the sword of the Spirit, must be upheld, not by the secular power, but by the hand of the Almighty."[680]—"Yes!" said all the doctors, "we do not wish that, to save us, you should risk your children, your subjects, your states, your crown......We will rather give ourselves into the hands of the enemy, and conjure him to be satisfied with our blood."[681] John, touched by this language, refused, however, their solicitations, and firmly repeated these words, which had become his device: "I also desire to confess my Saviour."
It was on the 20th July that he replied to the pressing arguments by which Charles had endeavoured to shake him. He proved to the Emperor that, being his brother's legitimate heir, he could not refuse him the investiture, which, besides, the Diet of Worms had secured to him. He added, that he did not blindly believe what his doctors said, but that, having recognised the Word of God to be the foundation of their teaching, he confessed anew, and without any hesitation, all the articles of the Apology. "I therefore entreat your majesty," continued he, "to permit me and mine to render an account to God alone of what concerns the salvation of our souls."[682] The Margrave of Brandenburg made the same reply. Thus failed this skilful manœuvre, by which the Romanists had hoped to break the strength of the Reformation.
THE REFUTATION.
Six weeks had elapsed since the Confession, and yet no reply. "The Papists, from the moment they heard the Apology," it was said, "suddenly lost their voice."[683] At length the Romish theologians handed their revised and corrected performance to the Emperor, and persuaded this prince to present it in his own name. The mantle of the state seemed to them admirably adapted to the movements of Rome. "These sycophants," said Melancthon, "have desired to clothe themselves with the lion's skin, to appear to us so much the more terrible."[684] All the states of the Empire were convoked for the next day but one.
On Wednesday, 3d August, at two o'clock in the afternoon, the Emperor, sitting on his throne in the chapel of the Palatinate Palace, surrounded by his brother, and the electors, princes, and deputies, the Elector of Saxony and his allies were introduced, and the Count-palatine, who was called "Charles's mouthpiece," said to them: "His majesty having handed your Confession to several doctors of different nations, illustrious by their knowledge, their morals, and their impartiality, has read their reply with the greatest care, and submits it to you as his own, ordaining that all the members and subjects of the Holy Empire should accept it with unanimous accord."[685]
Alexander Schweiss then took the papers and read the refutation. The Roman party approved some articles of the Confession, condemned others, and in certain less salient passages, it distinguished between what must be rejected and what accepted.
It gave way on an important point; the opus operatum. The Protestants having said in their 13th Article that faith was necessary in the Sacrament, the Romish party assented to it; thus abandoning an error which the Papacy had so earnestly defended against Luther in that very city of Augsburg, by the mouth of Cajetan.
Moreover, they recognised as truly Christian the Evangelical doctrine on the Trinity, on Christ, on baptism, on eternal punishment, and on the origin of evil.
But on all the other points, Charles, his princes, and his theologians, declared themselves immovable. They maintained that men are born with the fear of God, that good works are meritorious, and that they justify in union with faith. They upheld the Seven Sacraments, the Mass, transubstantiation, the withdrawal of the cup, the celibacy of priests, the invocation of saints, and they denied that the Church was an assembly of the saints.
This Refutation was skilful in some respects, and, above all, in what concerned the doctrine of works and of faith. But on other points, in particular on the withdrawal of the cup and the celibacy of priests, its arguments were lamentably weak, and contrary to the well known facts of history.