and Tetzel was in itself of no great importance, and might have been easily settled if Leo X. had possessed either the ability or the disposition to treat it prudently; for it was the private contest of two monks respecting the limits of the power of the Roman pontiffs in remitting the punishment of sins. Luther acknowledged that the pontiff could remit the human punishments for sin, or those appointed by the church or the pontiffs, but denied his power to absolve from the divine punishments either

1 The writers who give an account of Tetzel and of his base methods of deluding the multitude are enumerated by Fabricius, in his Centifolium Lutheranum, par. i. p. 47, and par. ii. p. 530. What is said of this vile man by Echard and Quetif, in their Scriptores Ordinis Prædicatorum, tom. ii. p. 40, betrays immoderate and disgraceful partiality. [See also Gerdes' Historia Reformationis, vol. i. p. 80, where a most characteristic print of this infamous monk is given.-R.

2 Mosheim says Luther posted his propositions, pridie Kalendarum Octobris, i.c. on the 30th of September, and Maclaine so translated the phrase; but Dr. Murdock renders it "the first of October." Mosheim -evidently intended to say Novembris for Octobris, because it is quite clear from other sources that the day in question was the eve of All Saints' Day or 1st of November, a high day in the Schloss Kirche of Wittemberg which was dedicated to all the saints, and it was on its doors that the paper was first posted to meet the eyes of the crowds of pilgrims who resorted thither from all parts on that festival. I have accordingly placed the right day in the text. I may add that this church is still standing and occupied, though the doors arc renewed; and it is in its central aisle that both Luther and Melancthon are buried.-R.

3 A copy of these propositions is given by Gerdes in his Hist. Reform. vol. i. App. p. 114-122. It differs slightly from the original copy, which was printed on one side of the paper for posting on the doors of the university and churches in Wittemberg, and for distribution among his friends. I fortunately possess one of these original broadsides, now very rare and peculiarly interesting as being Luther's first appearance in print!-R.

4 The pope offered as a pretext for this new spiritual tax the completion of the church of St. Peter, which had been commenced by Julius II. and he appointed for his first commissary in Germany Albert, archbishop of Mentz and Magdeburg and margrave of Brandenburg, who from the expensiveness of his court had not yet paid the fees for his pall, and was to pay them out of his share of the profits of these indulgences. The second commissary was Jo. Angelus Arcimbold. In Saxony John Tetzel, who had before been a successful preacher of papal indulgences, was appointed to this service. He was a profligate wretch, who had once fallen into the hands of the Inquisition in consequence of his adulteries, and whom the elector of Saxony rescued by his intercession. He now cried up his merchandise in a manner so offensive, so contrary to all Christian principles, and so acceptable to the inconsiderate, that all upright men were disgusted with him; yet they dared to sigh over this unclerical traffic only in private. He pursued it as far north as Zerbst and Jüterbock, and selected the annual fairs for its prosecution. He claimed to have power to absolve not only from all church censures, but likewise from all sins, transgressions, and enormities, however horrid they might be, and even from those of which the pope only can take cognizance. He released from all the punishments of purgatory, gave permission to come to the sacraments, and promised to those who purchased his indulgences that the gates of hell should be closed and the gates of paradise and bliss open to them. See

Von der Hardt, Hist. Liter. Reformat. par. iv. sect. vi. xiv. &c. Some Wittembergers who had purchased his wares came to Luther as he was sitting in the confessional of his cloister, and acknowledged to him very gross sins. And when he laid upon them heavy ecclesiastical penances, they produced Tetzel's letters of indulgence and demanded absolution. But he declined giving them absolution unless they submitted to the penance, and thus gave some evidence of repentance and amendment; and he declared that he put no value upon their letters of indulgence. These sentiments he also published in a discourse from the pulpit; and he complained to the archbishop of Mentz and to some of the bishops of this shameful abuse of indulgences, and published his theses or propositions against Tetzel, in which he did not indeed discard all use of indulgences, but only maintained that they were merely a release by the pope from the canonical penances for sin as established by ecclesiastical law, and did not extend to the punishments which God inflicts; that forgiveness of sins was to be had only from God through real repentance and sorrow, and that God requires no penance or satisfaction for them. The enemies of the Reformation tell us that Luther was actuated by passion, and that envy between the Dominicans and the Augustinians was the moving cause of Luther's enterprise. They say the Augustinians had previously been employed to preach indulgences, but now the Dominicans were appointed to this lucrative office; and that Luther took up his pen against Tetzel by order of John von Staupitz [provincial of the order], who was dissatisfied because his order was neglected on this occasion. The author of this fable was John Cochlæus (in his Historia de Actis et Scriptis Mart. Lutheri, p. 3,4, Paris, 1665, 8vo), and from this raving enemy of Luther it has been copied by some French and English writers, and from them by a few German writers of this age. But the evidence of this hypothesis is still wanting. It is still unproved that the Augustinians ever had the exclusive right of preaching indulgences. (See Kraft, De Luthero contra Indulgentiarum Nundinatores haudquaquam per Invidiam Disputante, Gotting. 1749, 4to.) Luther was far too openhearted not to let something of this envy appear in his writings, if he really was urged on to action by it; and his enemies were far too sharpsighted, if they had even the slightest suspicion of it, not to have reproached him with it in his lifetime. Yet not one of them did this. For what Cochleus has said on this subject did not appear till after Luther's death. [See a long and well-written note on this subject in Maclaine's translation of Mosheim on this paragraph, and which Villiers has subjoined, as an Appendix to his Essay on the Reformation by Luther; Pallavicini, in his Historia Concilii Trident, par. i. lib. i. cap. iii. sec. vi. &c.; Graveson, Historia Eccles. sæcul. xvi. p. 26, and other Catholics, though enemies of the Reformation, expressly deny and confute this charge against Luther.

-Mur.] Others tell us with as little evidence of truth, that Luther was prompted to take this step by the court of Saxony, which had a design to draw into its own coffers the religious property situated in Saxony; an objection which the whole series of subsequent events will refute. Luther at first had no thought of overthrowing the papal hierarchy; and Frederick the Wise, who was opposed to all innovations in ecclesiastical or religious matters, would evidently be one of the last persons to form such a plan.-Schl.

5. Luther was applauded by the best part of Germany, who had long borne very impatiently the various artifices of the pontiffs for raising money, and the impudence and impositions of the pontifical tax-gatherers. But the sycophants of the pontiffs cried out, and none more loudly than the Dominicans, who in the manner of all monks considered their whole order as injured by Luther in the person of Tetzel. In the first place, Tetzel himself forthwith attacked Luther in two disputations at the university of Frankfort-on-the-Oder, upon occasion of his taking his degree of doctor in theology. The following year, A.D. 1518, two celebrated Dominicans, the one an Italian named Sylvester Prierias, the general of his order at Rome, and the other a German, James Hochstraten of Cologne, assailed him with great fury. They were followed by a third adversary, a great friend of the Dominicans, John Eck, a theologian of Ingolstadt. To these adversaries Luther replied with spirit, and at the same time he addressed very modest letters to the Roman pontiff himself and to some of the bishops, to whom he endeavoured to evince the justice of his cause, and promised to change his views and correct his opinions, if they could be shown to be erroneous.1

6. Leo X. at first disregarded this controversy; but being informed by the emperor Maximilian I. that it was an affair of no little consequence and that Germany was taking sides in regard to it, he summoned Luther to appear at Rome and take his

1 Luther attended the general convention of the Augustinians at Heidelberg in the year 1518; and in a discussion there he defended his Paradores (so he entitled his propositions) with such energy and applause that the seeds of evangelical truth took deep root in that part of the country. See Bucer's Relatio de Disputatione Heidelbergensi, in Gerdes, Append. ad tom. i. Hist. Reformationis, No. 18, p. 175, &c. After his return from Heidelberg he wrote to the pope in very submissive terms. See his works, ed. Halle, vol. xv. p. 496. He also wrote to Jerome Scultetus, bishop of Brandenburg, to whose diocese Wittemberg belonged, and likewise to Staupitz, using in both instances very modest language.-Schl

might be tried in Germany, according to the ecclesiastical laws of the country. The pontiff yielded to the wishes of Frederick, and ordered Luther to appear before his legate, cardinal Thomas Cajetan [Thomas de Vio of Gæta], then at the diet of Augsburg, and there defend his doctrines and conduct. The Romish court here exhibited an example of the greatest indiscretion which appeared in the whole transaction. For Cajetan being a Dominican, and of course the enemy of Luther and an associate of Tetzel, a more unfit person could not have been named to sit as judge and arbiter of the cause.

3

7. Luther repaired to Augsburg in the month of October A.D. 1518, and had three interviews with Cajetan the pontifical legate. But if Luther had been disposed to yield, this Dominican was not the person to bring a high-spirited man to accomplish such a purpose. For he treated him imperiously, and peremptorily required him humbly to confess his errors without being convinced of them by argument, and to submit his judgment to that of the pontiff.*

2 Here is undoubtedly a slip of the memory. Before Maximilian's letter arrived at Rome, Leo had cited his trial before Jerome bishop of Ascoli and his enemy Luther to appear within sixty days at Rome, and take Sylvester Prierias, as his judges. See Seckendorf's Hist. Lutheranismi, p. 41, and Luther's Works, vol. xv. p. 527, &c. Maximilian was himself friendly to Luther, but was now pushed on by some of his courtiers.Schl 3 Of Cajetan a full account is given by Quetif and Echard, in their Scriptores Ordin. Prædicator, tom. ii. p. 14, &c. [He was born A.D. 1469 at Gæta, in Latin of Naples; at the age of twenty-nine he wrote a book Cajeta (whence his surname Cajetanus), in the territory to prove that a general council could not be called with the bishopric of Gæta, and then with the archwithout the authority of a pope; and was rewarded bishopric of Pisa, and in 1515 with a cardinal's hat. In 1522 he was papal legate to Hungary, and died A.D.

1534, aged 65. Cajetan was fond of study and wrote much on the Aristotelian philosophy, scholastic theology, and in the latter years of his life extensive commentaries on the Scriptures.-Mur.

4 Cajetan's proceedings with Luther were unsatisfactory even to the court of Rome. See Paul Sarpi's apologizes for Cajetan in his Scriptores Ordin. PradiHistoria Concilii Trident. lib. i. p. 22. Yet Echard cator. tom. ii. p. 15, but I think not very wisely or solidly. The court of Rome however erred in this

matter as much as Cajetan. For it might have been easily foreseen that a Dominican would not have treated Luther with moderation. [Cajetan was one of the most learned men of his church; but he was a scholastic divine, and undertook to confute Luther by the canon law and the authority of Lombard. The electoral court of Saxony proceeded very circumspectly in this affair. Luther was not only furnished with a safe conduct, but was attended by two counsellors who supported him with their legal assistance. The cardinal required Luther to revoke in particular two errors in his theses, namely, that there was not any treasury of the merits of saints at Rome, from which the pope could dispense portions to those who obtained indulgences from him; and that without faith no forgiveness of sin could be obtained from God. Luther would admit of none but

And as Luther could not bring himself to do this, the result of the discussion was that Luther previously to his departure from Augsburg, in perfect consistency with the dignity of the pontiff, appealed from the pontiff ill-informed to the same when better informed. Soon after on the 9th of November, Leo X. published a special edict requiring all his subjects to believe that he had power to forgive sins. On learning this, Luther perceiving that he had nothing to expect from Rome appealed at Wittem berg November 28, from the pontiff to a future council of the whole church.

8. The Romish court seemed now to be sensible of its error in appointing Cajetan. It therefore about the same time appointed another legate, who was not a party in the case and who possessed more knowledge of human nature, to attempt to reconcile Luther to the pontiff. This was Charles von Miltitz, a Saxon knight who belonged to the court of Leo X. a discreet and sagacious man. The pontiff sent him into Saxony to present to the electoral prince Frederick the consecrated golden rose, which the pontiffs sometimes gave to distinguished men whom they were disposed to honour; and also to negotiate with Luther for terminating his contest with Tetzel or rather with the pontiff himself. And he managed the business not without some success. For immediately in his first interview with Luther at Altenburg in the month of January, 1519, he prevailed on him to write a very submissive letter to Leo X. dated March 3d, in which he promised to be silent provided his enemies would also be silent. Miltitz had other discussions with Luther in October of this year in the castle of Liebenwerda; and in the following year 1520, October 12th, at Lichtenberg.2 Nor was the prospect utterly hopeless that these threatening commotions might be stilled.

Scripture proofs; and as the cardinal, who was no biblical scholar, could not produce such proofs, Luther held fast his opinions; and when the cardinal began to be restless and to threaten ecclesiastical censures, Luther appealed "a Pontifice male informato ad melius informandum," a legal step which was nowise harsh, and one which is resorted to at the present day by persons who do not question the infallibility of the pope. By this appeal he recognised the jurisdiction of the pope, and at the same time secured this advantage, that the cardinal as a delegated judge had no longer jurisdiction of the case.- Schl.

1 See Boerner's Diss. de Colloquio Lutheri cum Cajetano, Lips. 1722, 4to; also among his Dissertations collected in one volume; Loescher's Acta et Documenta Reformat. tom. iii. cap. xi. p. 435, &c.; and Walch's Nachricht von Luther, in the Halle edition of Luther's works, vol. xxiv. p. 409, &c.

2 The documents relating to the embassy of Miltitz were first published by Cyprian, in his Additiones ad Tenzelii Historiam Reform. tom. i. et ii. They are also contained in Loscher's Acta Reformal. tom. ii. cap. xvi. and tom. iii. cap. ii. &c.

3 Leo X. himself wrote a very kind letter to Luther

But the insolence of Luther's foes and the haughty indiscretion of the court of Rome, soon afterwards dissipated all these prospects of peace.

9. The incident which caused the failure of Miltitz's embassy was a conference or disputation at Leipsic in the year 1519, from the 27th of June to the 15th of July. John Eck, the celebrated papal theologian, disagreed with Andrew Carlstadt a friend and colleague of Luther, in regard to free will. He therefore challenged Carlstadt, according to the custom of the age, to a personal dispute to be held at Leipsic; and also invited Luther against whom he had before wielded the pen of controversy. For the martial spirit of our ancestors had made its way into the schools and among the learned; and heated dissentients on points of religion or literature were accustomed to challenge one another to such single_combats like knights and warriors. These literary combats were usually held in some distinguished university, and the rector of the university with the masters were the arbiters of the contest and adjudged the victory. Carlstadt consented to the proposed contest, and on the day appointed he appeared on the arena attended by Luther. After Carlstadt had disputed warmly for many days with Eck before a large and splendid assembly in the castle of Pleissenburg, on the powers of free will, Luther engaged with the same antagonist in a contest respecting the supremacy and authority of the Roman pontiff. But the dis

in the year 1519, which memorable document was published by Loescher in his Unschuldige Nachrichten, 1742, p. 133. It appears clearly from this epistle, that no doubt of a final reconciliation was entertained at

Rome.

4 Eck or Eckius was a great talker, and one of the

most ready disputants of his times. In one of his theses was by divine right universal bishop of the whole church, and that he was in possession of his spiritual

proposed for discussion, he had asserted that the pope

power before the times of Constantine the Great. In this disputation Luther maintained the contrary from passages of Scripture, from the testimony of the fathers and from church history, and even from the decrees of the council of Nice. And when from the subject of the pope they came to that of indulgences, Luther denied their absolute necessity; and so of purgatory, he acknowledged indeed that he believed in it, but said he could find no authority for it in the Scriptures or in the fathers. In fact, it was in the year 1530 that Luther first pronounced purgatory to be a fable. The dispute with Carlstadt related to freedom in the theological sense or to the natural power of man to do the will of God. Carlstadt maintained that since the fall the natural freedom of man is not strong enough to move him to that which is morally good. Eck on the contrary asserted that the free will of man, and not merely the grace of God, produces good works; or that our natural freedom co-operates with divine grace in the production of good works, and that it depends on man's free power whether he will give place to the operations of grace or will resist them. It thus appears that Carlstadt defended the doctrine of Augustine in regard to divine grace. Eck claimed the victory and gave a very unjust account of this dispute, which occasioned many controversial pamphlets to be published. The