CENT. SECT. I. The true state of the ther and Tetzel. IV. This debate between Luther and Tetzel was, at first, a matter of no great moment, and might debate be- not one single act by which it appears, that the Roman pontween Lu- tiff ever named the friars of that order to the office under con sideration. 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 indul gences 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. Is it then to be imagined, 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, Sæc. xiv. et xv Quæstoribus, 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. 871, might have been determined with the utmost faci- CENT. lity, had Leo X. been disposed to follow the heal 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 pontiffs 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 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 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 abbetors of this ill-contrived 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 pontiff, to the persecutions of an exaspe rated * Sleidan. De Statu Rel. et Reip. in Dedic. Epist. ad August. Elector. XVI. SECT. I. SECT. I. CENT. ing method which common prudence must have XVI. naturally pointed out on such an occasion. For, after all, and 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 pontiff was clothed with the power of remitting the human punishments inflicted upon transgressors, i 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 and designing monk asserted, that all punishments, present and future, human and divine, were submitted to the authority of the Roman pontiff, and came within the reach of his absolving power. This matter had often been debated before the present period; but the 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. XVI. Luther and V. The sentiments of Luther were received CENT. with applause by the greatest part of Germany; SECT. I. which had long groaned under the avarice of the pontiffs, and the extortions of their tax-gatherers, The adverand had murmured grievously against the various saries of stratagems that were daily put in practice, with the patrons the most frontless impudence, to fleece the rich, of Tetzel. and to grind the faces 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 pro, nounced on occasion of his promotion to the degree of doctor in divinity. In the year follow. ing (1518) two famous Dominicans, Sylvester de Prierio and Hogstrat, the former a native of Italy, and the latter a German, rose up also against the adventurous reformer, and attacked him at Cologn 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, however, he addressed himself by letters, written in the most submissive and respectful terms, to the Roman pontiff, and to several of the bishops, shewing them the uprightness of his intentions, as CENT. well as the justice of his cause, and declaring his XVI. readiness to change his sentiments, as soon as he SECT. I. should see them fairly proved to be erroneous. A confer between VI. At first, Leo X. beheld this controversy ence is held with indifference and contempt; but, being in Luther and formed by the emperor Maximilian I. not only Cajetan at of its importance, but also of the fatal divisions it Augsburg. 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 summons was superseded by Frederick 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 Cajetan, who was at this time legate at the diet of Augsburg. In this first step the court of Rome, gave a specimen of that temerity and imprudence with which all its negociations, in this weighty affair, were afterwards conducted. For, instead of reconciling, nothing could tend more to inflame matters than the choice of Cajetan, a Dominican, and, consequently, the declared enemy of Luther, and friend of Tetzel, as judge and arbitrator in this nice and perilous controversy. The issue ference.. VII. Luther, however, repaired to Augsburg, of this con- in the month of October 1518, and conferred, at three different meetings, with, Cajetan himself [9], concerning the points in debate. But had he even been disposed to yield to the court of Rome, this imperious legate was, of all others, the most improper to encourage him in the exe cution [7] There is a large account of this cardinal given by Quetif and Echard, Scriptor. Ordin. Prædicator. tom. ii. p. 14. |