CENT.

SECT. I.

ces preach

ed up by John Tet

zel in 1517.

III. The first opportunity that this great man XVI. had of unfolding to the view of a blinded and deluded age; the truth which had struck his astoIndulgen nished sight, was offered by a Dominican, whose name was John Tetzel [n]. This bold and enterprising monk had been chosen on account of his uncommon impudence, by Albert, archbishop of Mentz and Magdeburg, to preach and proclaim, in Germany, those famous indulgences of Leo X. which administered the remission of all sins, past, present, and to come, however enormous their nature, to those who were rich enough to purchase them. The frontless monk executed this iniquitous commission not only with matchless insolence, indecency [o] and fraud, but even carried his impiety so far as to derogate from the all-sufficient power and influence of the merits of Christ. At this, Luther, unable to smother his just indignation, raised his warning voice, and, in ninetyfive propositions, maintained publicly at Wittemberg, on the 30th of September, in the year 1517, censured the extravagant extortion of these questors, and plainly pointed out the Roman pontif as a partaker of their guilt, since he suffered the people to be seduced, by such delusions, from placing

Jo. Alb. Fabricius, in his Centifolium Lutheranum; the first part of which was published at Hamburg in the year 1728, and the second in 1730, in 8vo.

[n] The historians who have particularly mentioned Tetzel, and his odious method 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, in the Scriptores Ordin. Predicator. tom. ii. p. 49. discovers the blindest zeal and the meanest partiality.

[o] In describing the efficacy of these indulgences, 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."

XVI.
SECT. I.

placing their principal con fidence in CHRIST, the C E N T.
only proper object of their trust. This was the
commencement and foundation of that me-
morable rupture and revolution in the church,
which humbled the grandeur of the lordly pontifs,
and eclipsed so great a part of their glory [p].
IV. This

[] 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 in a true light; not that the cause of the reformation (which must stand by its own intrinsic dignity, and is in no ways 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 character 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 enemies of the reformation
and some of its dubious or ill-informed friends, have advan--
ced, with respect to the motives that engaged Luther to
oppose the doctrine of indulgences. This elegant and per--
suasive historian tells us, that the "Austin friars had usual-
ly 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 *;
that Martin Luther, an Austin friar, professor in the univer-
sity of Wittemberg, resenting the affront put upon his Order,
began to preach against the abuses that were committed
in the sale of indulgences, and, being provoked by opposi
tion, proceeded even to decry indulgences themselves +."
It were
to be wished, that Mr. Hume's candour had en-
gaged him to examine this accusation better, before he
had ventured to repeat it. For, in the first place, it is,
not true, that the Austin friars had been usually employed
in Saxony to preach indulgences. It is well known, that the
commission had been offered alternately, and sometimes jointly,
to all the Mendicants, whether Austin friars, Dominicans,
Franciscans, or Carmelites. Nay, from the year 1229, that
lucrative commission was principally entrusted with the Domi-
nicons ; and, in the records which relate to indulgences, we
Tarely

Hume's History of England, under the House of Tudor, vol. i. p. 119.
Id. ib. p. 120.

‡ See Weismanni, Memorabilia Historiæ Sacræ N. T. p. 19.1. 1115.

CENT. IV. This debate between LUTHER and TETZEL SECT. I was, at first, a matter of no great moment, and

XVI.

*The true state of the

ther and

Tetzel.

might debate be- rarely meet with the name of an Austin friar, and not one sintween Lu- gle act by which it appears, that the Roman pontif ever named the friars of that order to the othice under consideration. More particularly it is remarkable, that for half a century before Luther, (i. e. from 1450 to 1517), during which period indulgences were sold with the most scandalous marks of avaricious extortion and impudence, we scarcely meet with the name of an Austin Friar employed in that service; if we except a monk named Palzius, who was no more than an underling of the papal questor Raymond Peraldus; so far is it from being true, that the Augustin order were exclusively, or even usually employed in that service. Mr Hume has built his assertion upon the sole authority of a single expression of Paul Sarpi, which has been abundantly refuted by De Priero, Pallavicini, and Graweson, the mortal enemies of Luther.-But it may be alleged, that, even supposing it was not usual, to employ the Augustin friars alone in the propagation of indulgences, yet Luther might be offended at seeing such an important commission given to the Dominicans exclusively, and that, consequently, this was his motive in opposing the propagation of indulgences. To shew the injustice of this allegation, I observe,

Secondly, That in the time of Luther, the preaching of indulgences was become such an odious and unpopular matter, that it is far from being probable, that Luther would have been solicitous about obtaining such a commission, either for himself or for his order. The princes of Europe, with many bishops, and multitudes of learned and pious men, had opened their eyes upon the turpitude of this infamous traffic; and even the Franciscans and dominicans, towards the conclusion of the fifteenth century opposed it publicly, both in their discourses and in their writings. Nay more, 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. It is then to be imagned, that either Luther, or the other Austin 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

See Harpii Dissertat. de Nonnullis Indulgentiarum, Sæe. xiv. et xv. Quæstoribus. p. 384. 387.

See Walch. opp. Luther, tom. xv. p. 114. 283 312. 349.-Seckendorf, Hist. Lutheranismi, lib. i. sect. vi p. 13.

See Walch. loc. cit. p. 371.

XVI.

might have been terminated with the utmost faci-CEN T lity, had LEO X. been disposed to follow the heal-scr. I.

ing

the Dominicans in general; since it was given to TETZEL alone, an individual member of that order, who had been notorious for his profligacy, barbarity, and extortion.

But that neither resentment nor envy were the motives that led LUTHER to oppose the doctrine and publication of indulgences, will appear with the utmost evidence, if we consider, in the third place,-That he was never accused of any such motives, either in the edicts of the pontifs of his time, or amidst the other reproaches of the contemporary writers, who defended the cause of Rome, and who were far from being sparing 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 indulgences 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, Sleidan, De Thou, Guicciardini, and others, whose testimony might be perhaps suspected of partiality in his favour, but I speak of Cajetan, Hogstrat, De Prierio, 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 uch 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 the principles from which he acted, than those who lived in after times? Can it be,imagined, that motives to action, which escaped the prying eyes of Luther's contemporaries, 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 contriv ed and foolish story. Either there are no rules of moral evidence, or Mr Hume's assertion is entirely groundless.

I might add many other considerations to shew the unreasonableness of supposing that Luther exposed himself to the rage of the Roman pontif, to the persecutions of an exasper

Sleidan, De Statu Rel et Reip. in Dedic. Epist. ad August. Elector. VOL. IV.

D

rated'

ENT. ing method which common prudence must have XVI naturally pointed out on such an occasion. For, SLCT. I. after all, this was no more than a private dispute

between two monks, concerning the extent of the pope's power with respect to the remission of sin. LUTHER confessed that the Roman pontif was clothed with the power of remitting the Buman punishments inflicted upon transgressors, i. e. the punishments denounced 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 this 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, indeed, directly opposite to the sentiments of LuTHER; for this senseless or designing monk asserted, that all punishments, present and future, human and divine, were submitted to the authority of the Roman pontif, 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 gained imperceptibly new accessions of strength and vigour, and from small beginnings produced, at length, revolutions and events of the most

momentous nature.

V. The

rated clergy, to the severity of such a potent and despotic prince as CHARLES V. to death itself, and that from a principle of avarice and ambition. But I have said enough to satisfy every candid mind.