1828.) 
ters of doctrine, or the peculiar sentiments 
of individuals on particular topics—in mat- 
ters that, if they come not more within his 
province, were at least of more congenial 
pursuit, they not unfrequently occur. To 
take an instance or two. There exists in- 
disputable evidence to shew that the city of 
Strasburg co-operated zealously and cordial- 
ly with the Smalcaldic members—for when 
the Emperor, insidiously separating their 
cause from that of the princes of the Smal- 
caldic League, represented these princes as 
conspirators against the liberties of Ger- 
many, and called upon the city to join him 
against the traitors as common enemies ; 
the senate boldly defended the loyal cha- 
racter of these princes, and, in the most 
earnest language of entreaty, implored him 
to pause before he involved in the horrors 
of war, &c. Yet Strasburg is represented, 
by Dr. Robertson, as yielding a prompt and 
weak submission—though the contrary fact 
be indisputable, and findable even in Slei- 
dan, one of his own quoted authorities. 
Again, with respect to Maurice of Saxony, 
Dr. Robertson represents him as not hesi- 
tating one moment about establishing in 
his dominions the form of doctrine and 
worship commanded by Charles’s Interim ; 
and assembling the states of Saxony at 
Leipsic, expressly to lay before them rea- 
sons which made conformity necessary, and 
to make their obedience a voluntary deed 
of their own. Now the fact appears to be, 
that Maurice, notwithstanding his: general 
subserviency to Charles, never gave an un- 
conditional assent to the Interim, and cer- 
tainly never established it in Saxony—on 
the contrary, he stated expressly to the 
Emperor that he could not enforce it con- 
sistently with his engagements to his sub- 
jects, and, moreover, pleaded the Emperor’s 
own promises relative to the matter; and 
though, undoubtedly, in the assembly of the 
States, a formulary was agreed upon, drawn 
up in an accommodating spirit, it was very 
far indeed from going the full length of the 
Interim. 
_In the same paragraph, Dr. Robertson 
makes Melancthon concur with this Leip- 
sic formulary ; though indeed with a de- 
gree of pertinacity, quite unusual with 
that gentle, but not unfirm, reformer, he 
refused to keep any terms at all with the 
Interim. Neither Sleidan, nor Mosheim, 
to both of whom Dr. R. refers as authori- 
ties, bear him out in his statement. From 
the first, Melancthon denounced the formu- 
as an “infatuated project,’? which 
would multiply rather than heal divisions ; 
and such, and so vehement, was his opposi- 
tion, that the Emperor commanded him to 
be seized, and delivered up as an enemy of 
the public peace; and he escaped only by 
the connivance of Maurice. 
_ Poor Melancthon has been equally un- 
fairly dealt with by Mosheim and his tran- 
slator. Both of them, taking up with a 
Domestic and Foreign. 79 
notion that Melancthon was of a feeble and 
yielding spirit, and knowing that certain 
matters were conceded by him as indifferent, 
have carelessly represented him as giv- 
ing up, as such, the great doctrine of Lu. 
’ ther, and, indeed, of Protestantism—justi- 
fication by faith alone—the necessity of 
good works to eternal salvation—the num- 
ber of sacraments, &c.;-—when the fact is 
just the contrary, from Melancthon’s own 
repeated declarations, not only before Lu- 
ther’s death, but often to the latest period 
of his own life. Nor is there any ground 
for the hasty statement, that no sooner was 
the restraint of Luther’s presence removed, 
than Melancthon expressed a decided dis- 
agreement with his master. Both Mosheim 
and Maclaine, again, in spite of the plainest 
facts, represent him as the prime counsellor 
and agent in every thing relating to the 
Interim. 
We have before alluded to Strasburg. 
The city was compelled to submit to the 
Emperor’s authority, a month before the 
decisive battle of Mahlburg, which broke 
up the Smalcaldic Confederacy; but they 
still resisted, and not wholly without suc- 
cess, the imposition of the Interim—en- 
treating the Emperor, in language worth 
remembering, ‘not to compel them to say 
with their mouths what their hearts did not 
think.” “ How infatuated,” remarks Mr. 
Scott upon the occasion—“ how infatuated 
the mind which can pursue so worthless an 
object at such an immense expense; and 
how detestably cruel and diabolical to exact 
this of our fellow men, in despite of all the 
arguments and entreaties they can use, when, 
to their own apprehension at least, their 
everlasting welfare depends upon their re- 
fusal, and when no rational being, however 
strong his own persuasion on the other side, 
can ever imagine it possible that their sal- 
vation should be promoted by, ach a con- 
strained and merely external compliance as 
he can exact.” 
We must find room for Mr. Scott’s de- 
fence of Melancthon—concurring as, upon 
some acquaintance with the subject, we do 
very heartily. 
My impression is, that the fault of Melancthon’s 
character was not, as it is commonly supposed to 
have been, timidity—at least in the sense of a 
hesitation to avow his sentiments, or a dread of 
personal danger—for many facts demonstrate his 
bold disregard eyen of life itself in the cause 
which he had undertaken; but rather a morbid 
fear of deciding amiss—a fastidiousness which 
could never satisfy itself—together with such an 
excessive and, considering in whose hands the 
direction of the affairs of the church is really 
placed, such a superfluous anxiety for its peace 
and unity, as sometimes endangered his making 
undue sacrifices for this all but invaluable object. 
Yet, ifany imagine that it was at alla part o¢ 
his plan to compromise disputed points by the 
use of ambiguous terms, which each party might 
construe in its own fayour, [ can only observe, 
