« PreviousContinue »
WEAKNESS OF THE KING.
In Rome, where Hosius personally made a report,1 the defection of the Polish king was already feared. Cardinal Puteo, the vice-protector of Poland in the Curia, also addressed to him an urgent letter of exhortation.2 These fears, however, proved to be groundless. If the king, from weakness and for political reasons, did not earnestly protect the ancient church against the attacks of the religious innovators, he, at any rate, did not join them.3
WIERZBOWSKI, Uchanskiana, I.-V., Warsaw, 1885, and J. KORYTKOWSKI, Die Ersbischöfe von Gnesen, III., Posen, 1889 (in Polish).
1 Cf. EICHHORN I., 303 seq. According to an *Avviso di Roma of May 13, 1559, Paul IV. detained Hosius in Rome; it was thought that he would make him a Cardinal (Cod. Urb. 1039, P. 35. Vatican Library).
2 L. LATINIUS, Lucubrat., II., 138 seq.
Cf. DEMBINSKI, Konzil, 62 seq. and Ryzm, 199.
THE CONSUMMATION OF THE SCHISM IN GERMANY.
OF PAUL IV. WITH FERDINAND I.
WHILE the scales were still trembling in the balance in Poland, in Germany they were ever leaning more and more towards Protestantism. The decisive step was taken at the Diet of Augsburg. The Holy See was represented there by the nuncio, Delfino, as well as by the Cardinal-Legate, Morone, who, however, was summoned to Rome, together with Cardinal Truchsess, at the end of March, 1555, for the Papal election. Truchsess had, clearly in agreement with Morone, entered a protest on March 23rd, 1555, against the plan according to which the religious affairs of the Empire were to be arranged in favour of the Protestants. The importance of the influence exercised by these two men is shown by the fact that the resistance of the Catholics to the far-reaching demands of the Protestants now began to weaken.1 From the reports of Delfino Paul IV. learned that the heretics did not even hesitate to threaten that they would break down the resistance of the Catholics by force of arms.2 Paul IV. had, even as a Cardinal, watched the development of affairs in Germany very carefully,
1 See MAURENBRECHER, Karl V., 332. Concerning the protest of Truchsess see STEINBERGER, Die Jesuiten und die Friedensfrage, Freiburg, 1906, 10. I take this opportunity of drawing attention to a manuscript in the Seminary Library at Trêves, (II., 14), which has not yet been examined in detail: *Protocollum actorum in Comitiis Augustanis, incipiens a. d. 31 Dec., 1554 et finiens d. 25 Sept., 1555, scriptum a quodam qui interfuit comitiis et cardinali legato ibidem praesenti fuisse videtur amicus.
2 See Delfino's report of June 2, 1555 in MAURENBRECHER, 169*. Paul IV. made much in his *brief of thanks for the congratulations of Ferdinand I., dated June 19, 1555, of the hopes which he placed in the King of the Romans concerning the interests of religion (Brev. ad princ. Arm. 44, t. 4, n. 131. Secret Archives of the Vatican).
and with growing anxiety; he now resolved to do everything in his power to prevent the result of the Diet proving unfavourable to the Church. He therefore commissioned Luigi Lippomano, who was destined as nuncio to the Polish king, and who, in the last part of the life of Paul III., had been with Pighino for two years in Germany, and had a thorough knowledge of the conditions there, to go first to Augsburg; he then recalled Delfino to Rome, to give him an oral account of all that had taken place.3
It was pointed out to Lippomano in his instructions that he should work upon Ferdinand I. and the Catholic princes of Germany, so that the Diet might be dissolved without being brought to a formal conclusion, and without its having adopted any decisions unfavourable to the Catholics. The nuncio was specially instructed to draw the attention of the King of the Romans to the fact that if the aggressive Lutheran policy should be successful in overthrowing the Catholic bishoprics, the Protestants would before long proceed to the destruction of the Imperial house of Austria. Paul IV. wrote himself in this sense to Ferdinand I., on July 6th, 1555. At the same time the Pope, in special briefs, called upon the Catholic princes of Germany, Albert V. of Bavaria, Henry of Brunswick, and William of Cleves, as well as the whole of the episcopate, to rally to the protection of Catholic interests.5 Paul
1 Carafa had been in the Netherlands in 1515 (not, as Lossen says, in 1514; MASIUS, Briefe, 250).
2 Cf. Nuntiaturberichte, XI., xiii seq.
* See the *briefs of July 9, 1555, to Delfino and Lippomano and that of July 10 to Ferdinand I. (Brev. ad princ., loc. cit., n. 158, 159, 160. Secret Archives of the Vatican); cf. Pieper, 109; STEINHERZ, I., xxxiv.
4 The instructions of July 3, 1555 in MAURENBRECHER, 169*. 5 The *brief to Ferdinand I. of July 6, 1555 in the Brev. ad princ., loc. cit., n. 148, that to Albert V. in RAYNALDUS, 1555, n. 44; the further *letters to the Archbishops of Mayence and Salzburg, to Henry of Brunswick and William of Cleves, as well as to different German bishops in the Brev. ad princ., loc. cit., n. 151-156 (Secret Archives of the Vatican).
IV. in particular set great hopes on Albert V., to whom he addressed a special letter of thanks and praise on July 26th, in which he acknowledged the growing importance of Bavaria in Catholic matters.1
The two representatives of the Holy See at Augsburg were not wanting in zeal, and if their indefatigable representations to King Ferdinand, to Albert V. and to the bishops were not more successful than was actually the case, this was in no way their fault. Ferdinand I. and Albert V. by no means realized the importance of the demands of the innovators. They found themselves forced into such a position that one may be glad that, chiefly owing to the exertions of the nuncio, the worst was averted, and that those demands of the Protestants which aimed at the handing over to the new religion of the remaining parts of Germany, which were still true to the Catholic Church, were refused. At the same time, those things which the Protestants succeeded in attaining were so pregnant of results, that the victory of the religious rupture in Germany was thereby assured.3
While Delfino, on August 14th, was hurrying to Rome to deliver his report, Lippomano remained at Augsburg until the first week in September. He handed in a resolute note setting forth that disputes in matters of faith could be decided by no other court than that of the Holy See. When the unfavourable outcome of the Diet could no longer be doubted, he left Augsburg, in order not to be a passive witness while regulations were being made which were, for the most part, highly disadvantageous to the Catholic religion.5
1 RAYNALDUS, 1555, n. 45; cf. Druffel, IV., 701, n. 1.
* See the reports of the nuncios in MAURENBRECHER, 177* seq. ; cf. WOLF, Deutsche Gesch., I., 728 seq.
3 Cf. PASTOR, Reunionsbestrebungen, 466 seq.; JANSSENPASTOR, III., 17-18, 794 seqq.
* See the reports of the nunciatures in Maurenbrecher, 178* seqq. The arrival of Delfino in Rome was delayed by illness; see the *letter of Delfino dated Venice, September 7, 1555 in the Cod. Barb. lat. XLI., 23 (Vatican Library).
5 See Delfino's Informazione infra p. 341, n. 2.
THE PEACE OF AUGSBURG.
The Pope had, at the last moment, endeavoured, by means of an urgent letter on September 6th, 1555, to induce the Emperor to influence his brother, but in vain. Charles V., who could not reconcile the concessions demanded by the Protestants with his conscience, nevertheless considered them inevitable, in view of the actual state of affairs, and allowed the full powers which he had conferred on Ferdinand I. to remain as they were. Exhausted by a struggle which would have worn out a will of iron and nerves of steel, he was, just at that time, making the final arrangements for withdrawing completely from the affairs of the world. The so-called religious peace of Augsburg was, therefore, arrived at on September 25th, 1555; by this, Ferdinand I., placed as he was in the greatest difficulties by the attitude of the Turks, the French, and the Protestant princes,2 gave his assent to the
1 The brief, with passages missing, according to a manuscript at Simancas, in MAURENBRECHER, 183* seq., is in full in the *Brev. ad princ., loc. cit., n. 232 (Secret Archives of the Vatican).
This strained position was already brought out by both nuncios in their report of July 31, 1555 (MAURENBRECHER, 177*) ; later on Delfino specially emphasized it in his Informazione. This interesting report, which defends Ferdinand wherever possible, is frequently found in Italian libraries; in Rome, in the Secret Archives of the Vatican, Cod. Urb. 851, P. 1, p. 14 seq., Vat. 5666, Polit. 10, p. 264 seq.; in the Altieri Library, Miscell. XI., P. 116 seq.; in the Barberini Library, LVIII., 40, p. 38 seq.; in the Corsini Library Cod. 677 (formerly 35— B. 6), p. 415 seq.; in the Library of St. Mark's, Venice (see VALENTINELLI in the Abhandl. der Bayr, Akad. Histor., Kl. IX., 763); in the Graziani Archives at Città di Castello, Istruz. I., 389 seq., and also in the National Library, Paris, St. Germain, 278 (see MarsaND, II., 80) and Ital. 1171 (see PIEPER, 206). The copy in DÖLLINGER (Beiträge, I., 228 seq.) which is defective and full of mistakes, is the one most frequently cited. This has already been pointed out by REIMANN (Forschungen, V., 323) PIEPER (loc. cit.) STEINHERZ (I., xxxvi.) and POSTINA (Zeitschr. fur Gesch. des Oberrheins, N.F., XV. , 366), but they have all overlooked the fact that long before Döllinger's edition (since 1844) there was a fairly good copy from a MS. in the Colonna Archives, in the publication Saggiatore,