IV. This debate between Luther and Tet

would be equally rash and absurd to represent this great man as exempt from error, and freezel was, at first, a matter of no great moment, from infirmities and defects; yet, if we except and might have been determined with the utthe contagious effects of the age in which he most facility, had Leo been disposed to follow lived, and of the religion in which he had been brought up, we shall perhaps find few points of his character that render him liable to reproach.*

that the "Augustin friars had usually been employed in Saxony to preach indulgences, and from this trust had derived both profit and consideration; that Arcemboldi gave this occupation to the Dominicans; III. The first opportunity that this great that Martin Luther, an Augustin friar, professor in man had of unfolding, to the view of a blinded the university of Wittenberg, resenting the affront and deluded age, the truth which struck his that were committed in the sale of indulgences, and put upon his order, began to preach against the abuses astonished sight, was offered by a Dominican, being provoked by opposition, proceeded even to decry whose name was John Tetzel. This bold and indulgences themselves." It is to be wished, that Mr. Hume's candour had engaged him to examine this enterprising monk had been chosen on account accusation better, before he had ventured to repeat it. of his uncommon impudence, by Albert, archIn the first place, it is not true, that the Augustin bishop of Mentz and Magdeburg, to preach and friars had been usually employed in Saxony to preach proclaim, in Germany, those famous indulgen-indulgences. It is well known, that the commission ces of Leo X., which administered the remis- to all the Mendicants, whether Augustin friars, Do had been offered alternately, and sometimes jointly, sion of all sins, past, present, and to come, minicans, Franciscans, or Carmelites. From the year however enormous their nature, to those who 1229, that lucrative commission was principally enwere rich enough to purchase them. The trusted to the Dominicans; and in the records which relate to indulgences, we rarely meet with the name frontless monk executed this iniquitous com- of an Augustin friar, and not a single act by which mission not only with matchless insolence, in- it appears, that the Roman pontiff ever named the decency, and fraud, but even carried his im- friars of that order to the office under consideration. More particularly it is remarkable, that for half a piety so far as to derogate from the all-sufficentury before Luther, (i. e. from 1450 to 1517,) durcient power and influence of the merits of ing which period indulgences were sold with the Christ. At this, Luther, unable to repress his most scandalous marks of avaricious extortion and just indignation, raised his warning voice, and impudence, we scarcely find an Augustin friar mentioned as being employed in that service; if we exin ninety-five propositions, (maintained pub- cept a monk named Baluzius, who was no more licly at Wittenberg, on the 30th of September, than an undering of the papal quæstor Raymond 1517,) censured the extravagant extortion of Peraldus; so far is it from being true, that the Authese quæstors, and plainly pointed out the gustin monks were exclusively, or even usually, enpontiff as a partaker of their guilt, since he gaged in that service. Mr. Hume has built his assertion upon the sole authority of a single expressuffered the people to be seduced, by such de- sion of Paul Sarpi, which has been abundantly relusions, from placing their principal confidence futed by De Priero, Pallavicini, and Graweson, the mortal enemies of Luther.-But it may be alleged, in Christ, the only proper object of their trust. that, even supposing it was not usual to employ the This was the commencement and foundation Augustin friars alone in the propagation of indul of that memorable rupture and revolution in gences, yet Luther might be offended at seeing such the church, which humbled the grandeur of an important commission given to the Dominicans exclusively, and that, consequently, this was his mo the lordly pontiffs, and eclipsed so great a part tive in opposing the propagation of indulgences. To of their glory.§ show the injustice of this allegation, I observe, secondly, that, in the time of Luther, the preaching of indulgences had become very odious and unpopular; and it is therefore far from being probable, that Luther would have been solicitous about obtaining such a commission, either for himself or for his or der. The princes of Europe, with many bishops, and multitudes of learned and pious men, had opened their eyes upon the turpitude of this infamous traffick; and even the Franciscans and Dominicans, toward the conclusion of the fifteenth century, oppos ed it publicy, both in their discourses and in their writings. The very commission, which is supposed to have excited the envy of Luther, was offered by Leo to the general of the Franciscans, and was refused both by him and his order,§ who gave it over entirely to Albert, bishop of Mentz and Magdeburg. Is it then to be imagined, that either Luther, or the other Augustin friars, aspired after a commission of which the Franciscans were ashamed? Besides, it is a mistake to affirm, that this office was given to the Dominicans in general; for it was given to Tetzel alone, an individual member of that order, who had been notorious for his extortion, profligacy, and barbarity.

*The writers who have given a circumstantial

account of Luther and his transactions, are accurately enumerated by Jo. Alb. Fabricius, in his Centifolium Lutheranum.

†The historians who have particularly mentioned Tetzel, and his odious methods of deluding the multitude, are enumerated in the work quoted in the preceding note, part i. p. 47; part ii. p. 530.-What is said of this vile deceiver by Echard and Quetif, (Scriptores Ordin. Prædicator. tom. ii.) discovers the blindest zeal and the meanest partiality.

In describing the efficacy of these indulgen

ces, Tetzel said, among other enormities, that "even had any one ravished the mother of God, he (Tetzel) had wherewithal to efface his guilt." He also boasted that he had saved more souls from hell by these indulgences, than St. Peter had converted to Christianity by his preaching."

Dr. Mosheim has taken no notice of the calumnies invented and propagated by some late authors, in order to make Luther's zealous opposition to the publication of indulgences appear to be the effect of selfish and ignoble motives. It may not, therefore, be improper to set that point in a true light; not that the cause of the reformation (which must stand by its own intrinsic dignity, and is in no way affected by the views or characters of its instruments) can derive any strength from this inquiry; but as it may tend to vindicate the personal charac ter of a man, who has done eminent service to the cause of religion.

Mr. Hume, in his history of the reign of Henry VIII., has thought proper to repeat what the ene mies of the reformation, and some of its dubious or ill-informed friends, have advanced, with respect to the motives that engaged Luther to oppose the doctrine of indulgences. This elegant historian affirms,

But that neither resentment nor envy were the motives that led Luther to oppose the doctrine and publication of indulgences, will appear with the ut most evidence, if we consider, in the third place, that he was never accused of any such motives,

* See Weismanni Memorabilia Historiæ Sacræ N. T. p. 1051, 1115.

† See Harpii Dissertat. de Nonnullis Indulgentiarum (Sæc. XIV. et XV.) Quæstoribus, p. 384, 387. See Walch. op. Lutheri, tom. xv. p. 114, 283, 312, 349.-Seckendorf. Hist. Lutheranismi, lib. i. sect. vi p. 13.

§ See Walch. loc. cit. p. 371.

the healing method which common prudence must have naturally pointed out on such an occasion; for, after all, this was no more than the private dispute of two monks, concerning the extent of the pope's power with respect to the remission of sin. Luther confessed that the Roman pontiff was invested with the power of remitting the human punishments denounc-dence, to fleece the rich, and to grind the ed against transgressors, i. e. the punishments ordained by the church, and its visible head, the bishop of Rome; but he strenuously denied that his power extended to the remission of the divine punishments allotted to offenders, either in the present or in a future state; affirming, on the contrary, that these punishments could only be removed by the merits of Christ, or by voluntary acts of mortification and penance, undertaken and performed by the transgressor. The doctrine of Tetzel was directly opposite to the sentiments of Luther; for that senseless and designing monk asserted, that all punishments, present and future, human and divine, were submitted to the authority of the pope, and came within the reach of his absolving power. This matter had often been debated before the present period; but the popes had always been prudent enough to leave it undecided. These debates, however, being sometimes treated with neglect, and at others carried on without wisdom, the seeds of discord imperceptibly gained new accessions of strength and vigour, and from small beginnings produced, at length, events of the

most momentous nature.

V. The sentiments of Luther were received with applause by the greatest part of Germany, which had long groaned under the avarice of the pontiffs, and the extortions of their taxgatherers, and had murmured grievously against the various stratagems that were daily put in practice, with the most shameless impufaces of the poor. But the votaries of Rome were filled with horror, when they were informed of the opinions propagated by the Saxon reformer; more especially the Dominicans, who looked upon their order as insulted and attacked in the person of Tetzel. The alarm of controversy was therefore sounded, and Tetzel himself appeared immediately in the field against Luther, whose sentiments he pretended to refute in two academical discourses, which he pronounced on occasion of his promotion to the degree of doctor in divinity. In the year following (1511) two famous Dominicans, Sylvester de Priero and Hoogstrat, the former a native of Italy, and the latter a German, rose up also against the adventurous reformer, and attacked him at Cologne with the utmost vehemence and ardour. Their example was soon followed by another formidable champion, named Eckius, a celebrated professor of divinity at Ingolstadt, and one of the most zealous supporters of the Dominican order. Luther stood firm against these united adversaries, and was neither vanquished by their arguments, nor daunted by their talents and reputation; but answered their objections, and refuted their reasonings with the greatest strength of evidence, and a becoming spirit of resolution and perseverance. At the same time, he addressed letters, in the most submissive and respectful terms, to the pope, and to several of the bishops, showing them the uprightness of his intentions, as well as the justice of his cause, and declaring his readiness to change his sentiments, as soon as

either in the edicts of the pontiffs of his time, or amidst the other reproaches of the contemporary writers, who defended the cause of Rome, and who were generally very prodigal of their invectives and calumnies. All the contemporary adversaries of Luther are absolutely silent on this head. From the year 1517 to 1546, when the dispute about indulgen: ces was carried on with the greatest warmth and animosity, not one writer ever ventured to reproach Luther with these ignoble motives of opposition now under consideration. I speak not of Erasmus, Sleihe should see them fairly proved to be erroneous. dan, De Thou, Guicciardini, and others, whose testimony might be perhaps suspected of partiality in his favour; but I speak of Caietan, Hoogstrat, De Priero, Emser, and even the infamous John Tetzel, whom Luther opposed with such vehemence and bitterness. Even Cochlæus was silent on this head during the life of Luther, though, after the death of that great reformer, he broached the calumny I am here refuting. But such was the scandalous character of this man, who was notorious for fraud, calumny, lying, and their sister vices,* that Pallavicini, Bossuet, and other enemies of Luther, were ashamed to make use either of his name or testimony. Now may it not be fairly presumed, that the contemporaries of Luther were better judges of his character, and of the principles from which he acted, than those who lived in after-times? Can it be imagined, that motives to action, which escaped their prying eyes, should have discovered themselves to us who live at such a distance of time from the scene of action, to M. Bossuet, to Mr. Hume, and to other abettors of this ill-contrived and foolish story. Either there are no rules of moral evidence, or Mr. Hume's assertion is entirely groundless.

VI. At first, Leo beheld this controversy with indifference and contempt; but, being informed by the emperor Maximilian not only of its importance, but also of the fatal divisions it was likely to produce in Germany, he summoned Luther to appear before him at Rome, and there to plead the cause which he had undertaken to maintain. This papal citation was superseded by Frederic the Wise, elector of Saxony, who pretended, that the cause of Luther belonged to the jurisdiction of a German tribunal, and that it was to be decided by the ecclesiastical laws of the empire. The pontiff yielded to the remonstrances of this prudent and magnanimous prince, and ordered Luther to justify his intentions and doctrines before cardinal Caietan, who was at this time legate at the diet of Augsburg. In this first I might add many other considerations to show step the court of Rome gave a specimen of that the unreasonableness of supposing that Luther ex- temerity and imprudence with which all its posed himself to the rage of the pontiff, to the perse-negotiations, in this weighty affair, were aftercutions of an exasperated clergy, to the severity of such a potent and despotic prince as Charles V., and to the risk of death itself, from a principle of avarice and ambition. But I have said enough to satisfy every candid mind.

wards conducted; for, instead of reconciling, nothing could tend more to inflame the dis pute than the choice of Caietan, a Dominican, and, consequently, the declared enemy of Luther and friend of Tetzel, as judge and arbitrator in this nice and perilous controversy.

VII. Luther, however, repaired to Augsburg || prudence, penetration, and dexterity, and every in October, 1518, and conferred, at three meet-way qualified for the execution of such a nice ings, with Caietan himself,* concerning the and critical commission as this was. Leo sent points in debate. But had he even been dis- him into Saxony to present to Frederic the posed to yield to the court of Rome, this im- golden consecrated rose, (which the pontiffs perious legate was, of all others, the most un- are accustomed to bestow, as a peculiar mark fit person to be employed in procuring from of distinction, on those princes for whom they him any act or mark of submission. The high have, or think proper to profess, an uncommon spirit of Luther was not to be tamed by the friendship and esteem,) and to treat with Luarrogant dictates of mere authority; such, how-ther, not only about finishing his controversy ever, were the only methods of persuasion adopted by the haughty cardinal. He, in an overbearing tone, desired Luther to renounce his opinions, without even attempting to prove them erroneous, and insisted, with importunity, on his confessing humbly his fault, and submitting respectfully to the judgment of the Roman pontiff. The Saxon reformer could not think of yielding to terms so unreasonable in themselves, and so despotically proposed; so that the conferences were absolutely without effect. Luther, finding his adversary and judge inaccessible to reason and argument, suddenly left Augsburg, after having appealed from the pope's present decision to that which he should pronounce when better informed; and, in this step, he seemed yet to respect the dignity and authority of the bishop of Rome.‡ Leo, on the other hand, let loose the reins to ambition and despotism, and carried things to extremities; for he published an edict, commanding his spiritual subjects to acknowledge his power of delivering from all the punishments due to sin and transgression. As soon as Luther received information of this inconsiderate and violent measure, he perceived, plainly, that it would be impossible for him to bring the court of Rome to any reasonable terms; he therefore repaired to. Wittenberg, and appealed from the pontiff to a general council.

with Tetzel, but also with regard to the methods of bringing about a reconciliation between him and the court of Rome. Nor, indeed, were the negotiations of this prudent minister entirely unsuccessful; for, in his first || conference with Luther, at Altenburg, in 1519, he carried matters so far as to persuade him to write a submissive letter to Leo, promising to observe a profound silence upon the points in debate, provided that the same obligation should be imposed upon his adversaries. This same year, in the month of October, Miltitz had a second conference with Luther in the castle of Liebenwerd, and a third, the year following, at Lichtenberg.* These meetings, which were reciprocally conducted with moderation and decency, gave great hopes of an approaching reconciliation; nor were these hopes altogether ill-founded. But the violent proceedings of the enemies of Luther, and the arrogant spirit, as well as unaccountable imprudence, of the court of Rome, blasted these fair expectations, and rekindled the flames of discord.

IX. It is sufficient barely to mention the measures taken by Caietan to draw Luther anew under the papal yoke, because these were, indeed, nothing more than the wild sug gestions of superstition and tyranny, maintained and avowed with the most shameless impuVIII. In the mean time the pope became dence. A man who began by commanding sensible of his imprudence in entrusting Caie- the reformer to renounce his errors, and to betan with such a commission, and therefore re-lieve, upon the dictates of mere authority, that solved to employ a man of more candour and impartiality, and better acquainted with business, in order to suppress the rebellion of Luther, and to engage that reformer to submission and obedience. This new legate was Charles Miltitz, a Saxon knight, who belonged to the court of Leo, and whose laic character exposed him less to the prejudices which arise from a spirit of party, than if he had been clothed with the splendid purple, or the monastic frock. He was also a person of great

* There is an ample account of this cardinal given by Quetif and Echard, Scriptor. Ordin. Praedicator. tom. ii.

f The imperious and imprudent manner in which Caietan behaved toward Luther was highly disapproved, even at the court of Rome, as appears, among other testimonies, from Paolo Sarpi's History of the Council of Trent, book i. p. 22. The conduct of Caietan is defended by Echard, but with little prudence and less argument. The truth is, that the court of Rome, and its unthinking sovereign, were not less culpable than Caietan in the whole of this transaction, since they might easily foresee, that a Dominican legate was of all others the most unlikely to treat Luther with moderation and impartiality, and consequently the most improper to reconcile

matters.

† See B. Ch. Fr. Borner. Diss. de Coll. Luth. cum Caietano, Leips. 1722. Val. Ern. Losch. Act. et Doc. Ref. t. ii. c. xi. p. 435, op Luth. t. xxiv. p. 409.

"one drop of Christ's blood being sufficient to redeem the whole human race, the remaining quantity, which was shed in the garden and on the cross, was left as a legacy to the church, to be a treasure whence indulgences were to be drawn and administered by the Roman pontiffs;"§ such a man was not to be reasoned with. But Miltitz proceeded in quite another manner, and his conferences with the Saxon reformer are worthy of attention. He was ordered, indeed, to demand of the elector, that

* See Borneri Dissert. The records relating to the embassy of Miltitz, were first published by Cyprianus, in Addit. ad Tenzelii Histor. Reformat. tom. i. ii.,-as also by Loscherus, in his Acta Reformat. tom. ii. c. xvi. and tom. iii. cap. ii.

† In 1519, Leo wrote to Luther in the softest and most pacific terms. From this remarkable letter, (which was published in 1742, by Loscherus, in a German work entitled Unschuld Nachricht, it ap pears that at the court of Rome, they looked upon a reconciliation between Luther and the pontiff as certain and near at hand.

{ } This whole ninth section is added to Dr. Mosheim's work by the translator, who thought that this part of Luther's history deserved to be related in a more circumstantial manner, than it is in the original.

Such, among others still more absurd, were the expressions of Caietan, which he borrowed from one of the Decretals of Clement VI. called (and that justly for more than one reason) Extravagants.

beheld the contest, and proclaimed the victory. [ Eckius, therefore, in compliance with the spirit of this fighting age, challenged Carlos tadt, and even Luther himself, against whom he had already drawn his pen, to try the force of his theological arms. The challenge was accepted, the day appointed, and the three champions, appeared in the field. The first conflict was between Carlostadt and Eckius, respecting the powers and freedom of the human will; it was carried on in the castle of Pleissenburg, before a numerous and splendid auditory, and was followed by a dispute between Luther and Eckius concerning the authority and supremacy of the Roman pontiff. This latter controversy, which the present situation of affairs rendered singularly nice and critical, was left undecided. Huffman, at that time rector of the university of Leipsic, and who had been also appointed judge of the arguments alleged on both sides, refused to declare to whom the victory belonged, so that the decision of the case was referred to the universities of Paris and Erfurt. In the mean time, one of the immediate effects of this dispute was a visible increase of the bitterness and enmity which Eckius had conceived against Luther; for from this very period he breathed nothing but fury against the reformer, whom he marked out as a victim to his vengeance, without considering, that the measures he took for the destruction of Luther, must have a most pernicious influence upon the cause of the pontiff, by fomenting the present divisions, and thus contributing to the progress of the reformation, as was really the case.§

This controversy turned upon liberty, considered not in a philosophical, but in a theological sense. It was rather a dispute concerning power than concerning liberty. Carlostadt maintained, that, since the fall of man, our natural liberty is not strong enough to conduct us to what is good, with out the intervention of divine grace. Eckius asserted, on the contrary, that our natural liberty co-operates with divine grace, and that it is in the power of man to consent to the divine impulse, or to resist it. The former attributed all to God; the latter divided the merit of virtue between God and the

creature. The modern Lutherans have almost universally abandoned the sentiments of Carlostadt.

There is an ample account of this dispute at Leipsic, given by Loscherus, in his Acta et Documenta Reformationis.

This was one proof that the issue of the controversy was not in his favour. The victor, in any combat, is generally too full of satisfaction and self-complacency, to feel the emotions of fury and vengeance, which seldom arise but from disappoint ment and defeat. There is even an insolent kind of clemency that arises from an eminent and palpable superiority. This indeed Eckius had no opportunity of exercising.-Luther demonstrated, in this conference, that the church of Rome, in the earlier ages, had never been acknowledged as superior to other churches; and he combated the pretensions of that church and its bishop, from the testimony of Scrip

ture, the authority of the fathers, and the best ecclesiastical historians, and even from the decrees of the council of Nice; while all the arguments of Eckius were derived from the spurious and insipid Decretals, which were scarcely of 400 years' standing. See

Seckendorff's History of Lutheranism.

It may be observed here, that, before Luther's attack upon the store-house of indulgences, Eckius was his intimate friend. The latter must certainly have been uncommonly unworthy, since even the mild and gentle Melancthon represents him as an inhuman persecutor, a sophist, and a knave, who maintained doctrines contrary to his belief, and against his conscience. See the learned Dr.

XI. Among the spectators of this ecclesiastical combat, was Philip Melancthon, at that time professor of Greek at Wittenberg, who had not yet been involved in these divisions, (for the mildness of his temper, and his elegant taste for polite literature, rendered him averse from disputes of this nature,) though he was the intimate friend of Luther, and approved his design of delivering the pure and primitive science of theology from the darkness and subtlety of scholastic jargon. As this eminent man was one of those whom the dispute with Eckius convinced of the excellence of Luther's cause; as he was, moreover, one of the illustrious and respectable instruments of the Reformation; it may not be improper to give some account of the talents and virtues that rendered his name immortal. His greatest enemies have borne testimony to his merit. They have been forced to acknowledge, that the annals of antiquity exhibit very few worthies that may be compared with him, whether we consider the extent of his knowledge in things human and divine, the fertility and elegance of his genius, the facility and quickness of his comprehension, or the uninterrupted industry that attended his learned and theological labours. He rendered to philosophy and the liberal arts the same eminent service that Luther had done to religion, by purging them from the dross with which they had been corrupted, and by recommending them, in a powerful and persuasive manner, to the study of the Germans. He had the rare talent of discerning truth in its most intricate connexions and combinations, of comprehending at once the most abstract notions, and expressing them with the this happy talent in religious disquisitions with utmost ease and perspicuity. And he applied such unparalleled success, that it may safely be affirmed, that the cause of true Christianity derived from the learning and genius of Melancthon more signal advantages, and a more effectual support, than it received from any of the other doctors of the age. His love of peace and concord, which partly arose from the sweetness of his natural temper, made him desire with ardour that a reformation might be effected without producing a schism in the church, and that the external communion of the contending parties might be preserved uninterrupted and entire. This spirit of mildness and charity, carried perhaps too far, led him sometimes to make concessions that were neither consistent with prudence, nor advantageous to the cause in which he was engaged. It is however certain, that he gave no quarter to those more dangerous and momentous errors that reigned in the church of Rome, but maintained on the contrary that their extirpation was essentially necessary, in order to the restoration of true religion. In the natural complexion of this great man there was something soft, timid, and yielding. Hence originated a certain diffidence of himself, that not only made him examine things with the greatJortin's Life of Erasmus, vol. ii. p. 713; also Vitus' account of the death of Eckius in Seckendorff, lib. iii. p. 468.

*See Melancthon's letter concerning the conference at Leipsic, in Loscherus' Acta et Documenta Reforinationis, tom. iii.