Obrázky stránek
PDF
ePub

the Dominicans; and in the records, which relate to indulgences, we rarely meet with the name of an Austin friar, and not one fingle act by which it appears that the Roman pontif ever named the friars of that order to the office under confideration. More particularly it is remarkable, that, for half a century before Luther (i. e. from 1450 to 1517) during which periods indulgences were fold with the moft fcandalous marks of avaritious extortion and impudence, we fcarcely meet with the name of an Auftin friar employed in that fervice; if we except a monk, named Palzius, who was no more than an underling of the papal queftor Raymond Peraldus; fo far is it from being true, that the Augustine order were exclufively, or even ujually, employed in that fervice +. Mr. Hume has built his affertion upon the fole authority of a fingle expreffion of Paul Sarpi, which has been abundantly refuted by De Priero, Pallavicini, and Graveson, the mortal enemies of Luther.But it may be alledged, that, even fuppofing it was not ufual to employ the Auguftin friars alone in the propagation of indulgences, yet Luther might be offended at feeing fuch an important commiffion given to the Dominicans exclufively, and that, confequently, this was his motive in oppofing the propagation of indulgences. To fhew the injuftice of this allegation, I observe,

Secondly, That in the time of Luther, the preaching of indulgences was become fuch an odious and unpopular matter, that it is far from being probable, that Luther would have been follicitous about obtaining fuch a commiffion 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 Francifcans and Dominicans, towards the conclufion of the fifteenth century, oppofed it publicly, both in their difcourfes and in their writings. Nay more, the very commiffion which is fuppofed to have excited the envy of Luther, was offered by Leo to the general of the Francifcans, 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 Auftin friars afpired after a commiffion of which the Francifcans were ashamed? Befides, it is a miftake to affirm, that this office was given to the Dominicans in general;

• See Weismanni Memorabilia Hiftoriæ Sacræ N, T. p. 1051, 1115.

+ Happii Differtat. de Nonnullis Indulgentiarum, Sæc, xiv. et xv, Quæftoribus, p. 384. 387.

See Walch. Opp. Luther, tom. xv. p. 114. 283. 212. 349. Seckendorf. Hift. Lutheranifmi, lib. i. Sect. vi. p. 13.

Walch. loc. cit. p. 371,

finge

fince 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 refentment nor envy were the motives that led Luther to oppofe the doctrine and publication of indulgences will appear with the utmost evidence, if we confider in the third place, That he was never accused of any such motives either in the edicts of the pontifs of his time, or amidft the other reproaches of the contemporary writers, who defended the caufé of Rome, and who were far from being sparing of their invectives and calumnies. All the contemporary adverfaries of Luther are abfolutely filent on this head. From the year 1517 to 1546, when the difpute about indulgences was carried on with the greatest warmth and animofity, not one writer ever ventured to reproach Luther with thefe ignoble motives of oppofition now under confideration. I fpeak not of Erafmus, Sleidan, De Thou, Guiccardini, and others, whofe teftimony might be perhaps fufpected of partiality in his favour; but I speak of Cajetan, Hogftrat, De Prierio, Emfer, and even the infamous John Tetzel, whom Luther oppofed with fuch vehemence and bitternefs. Even the lying Cochlæus was filent 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 fuch was the fcandalous character of this man, who was notorious for fraud, calumny, lying, and their fifter-vices*, that Pallavicini, Boffuet, and other enemies of Luther were afhamed to make ufe either of his name or teftimony. Now, may it not be fairly prefumed, 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, fhould have discovered themselves to us who live at fuch a diftance of time from the fcene of action, to M. Boffuet, to M. Hume, and to other abettors of this ill-contrived and foolifh ftory? Either there are no rules of moral evidence, or Mr. Hume's affertion is entirely groundless.

. I might add many other confiderations to fhew the unreafonableness of fuppofing that Luther expofed himself to the rage of the Roman pontif, to the perfecutions of an exasperated clergy, to the feverity of fuch a potent and defpotic prince as Charles V, to death itself, and that from a principle of avarice and ambition. But I have faid enough to fatisfy every candid

mind.'

As Dr. Mofheim has not given fo circumftantial an account

Elector.'

Sleidan, De Statu Rel. et Reip. in Dedic, Epift. ad Auguft.

of

of the conferences between Miltitz and Luther as they deserve, Mr. Maclaine has made the following addition to his author's work, which the curious Reader will be pleased with.

It was fufficient, fays he, barely to mention the measures taken by Cajetan to draw Luther anew under the papal yoke ; because thefe measures were, indeed, nothing more than the wild fuggeftions of fuperftition and tyranny, maintained and avowed with the most frontless impudence. A man, who began by commanding the reformer to renounce his errors, to believe, and that upon the dictates of mere authority, that one drop of Chrift's blood, being fufficient to redeem the whole human race, the re→ maining quantity, that was fhed in the garden and upon the cross, was left as a legacy to the church, to be a treasure from whence indulgences were to be drawn and administered by the Roman pontifs [x]. Such a man was not to be reasoned with. But Miltitz, proceeded in quite another manner, and his conferences with the Saxon Re former are worthy of attention. He was ordered, indeed, to demand of the elector, that he would either oblige Luther to renounce the doctrines he had hitherto maintained, or, that he would withdraw from him his protection and favour. But perceiving, that he was received by the elector with a degree of coldness that bordered upon contempt, and that Luther's credit and cause were too far advanced to be destroyed by the efforts of mere authority, he had recourfe to gentler methods. He loaded Tetzel with the bittereft reproaches, on account of the irregular and fuperftitious means he had employed for promoting the fale of indulgences, and attributed to this miferable wretch all the abuses that Luther had complained of. Tetzel, on the other hand, burthened with the iniquities of Rome, tormented with a consciousness of his own injuftice and extortions, ftung with the opprobrious cenfures of the new legate, and seeing himself equally defpifed and abhorred by both parties, died of grief and defpair [y]. This incendiary, being facrificed as a victim to "cover the Roman pontif from reproach, Miltitz entered into a particular converfation with Luther, at Altenburg, and, without pretending to juftify the fcandalous traffic in queftion, required only, that he would acknowledge the four following things: ,"That the people had been feduced by falfe notions of in

[(x) Such, among others, ftill more abfurd, were the expreffions of Cajetan, which he borrowed from one of the Decretals of Clement VI, called (and that juftly for more than one reason) Extravagants.]

[(y) Luther was fo affected by the agonies of defpair under which Tetzel laboured, that he wrote him a pathetic letter of confolation, which, however, produced no effect. His infamy was perpetuated by a picture, placed in the church of Pirma, in which he is reprefented fitting on an afs, and felling indulgences.]

dulgences:

1

dulgences 2dly, That he (Luther) had been the cause of that feduction, by reprefenting indulgences as much more heinous than they really were: 3dly, That the odious conduct of Tetzel alone, had given occafion to these representations: and 4thly, That, though the avarice of Albert, archbishop of Metz, had fet on Tetzel, yet, that this rapacious tax-gatherer had exceeded by far the bounds of his commiffion." These proposals were accompanied with many foothing words, with pompous encomiums on Luther's character, capacity, and talents, and with the fofteft and most pathetic expoftulations in favour of union and concord in an afflicted and divided church; all which Miltitz joined together with the greatest dexterity and addrefs in order to touch and difarm the Saxon Reformer. Nor were his mild and infinuating methods of negociating without effect; and it was upon this occafion that Luther made fubmiffion: which shewed that his views were not, as yet, very extenfive, his former prejudices entirely difpelled, or his reforming principles fteddily fixed. For he not only offered to obferve a profound filence for the future with refpect to indulgences, provided the fame condition were imposed on his adverfaries; he went much farther; he propofed writing an humble and fubmiffive letter to the pope, acknowledging that he had carried his zeal and animofity too far; and fuch a letter he wrote fome time after the conference at Altenburg [z]. He even confented to publish a circular letter, exhorting all his difciples and followers to reverence and obey the dictates of the holy Roman church. He declared, that his only intention in the writings he had compofed, was to brand with infamy thofe emiflaries, who abused its authority, and employed its protection as a mask to cover their abominable and impious frauds. It is true, indeed, that amidst thofe weak fubmifions which the impartial demands of historical truth obligeth us to relate, there was, properly speaking, no retractation of his former tenets, nor the fmalleft degree of refpect fhewn to the infamous traffic of indulgences. Nevertheless, the pretended majefty of the Roman church, and the authority of the Roman pontif, were treated by Luther in this tranfaction and in his letter to Leo, in a manner that could not naturally have been expected from a man who had already appealed from the pope to a general council.

Had the court of Rome been prudent enough to have accepted of the fubmiffion made by Luther, they would have almoft nipped, in the bud, the cause of the reformation, or would, at leaft, have confiderably retarded its growth and progrefs. Having gained over the head, the members would, with great fa

[(z) This letter was dated the 13th of March, 1519, about twə months after the conference of Altenburg]

cility,

cility, have been reduced to obedience. But the flaming and exceffive zeal of fome inconfiderate bigots renewed, happily for the truth, the divifions, which were fo near being healed, and by animating both Luther and his followers to look deeper into the enormities that prevailed in the papal hierarchy, promoted the principles and augmented the fpirit, which produced, at length, the bleffed [a] reformation.'

In the account which Dr. Mofheim gives of the disputes at Leipfic, in the year 1519, between Eckius and Carlostadt, we have the following character of the amiable Melancthon :

Among the fpectators of this ecclefiaftical combat was Philip Melancthon, at that time, profeffor of Greek at Wittemberg, who had not, as yet, been involved in thefe divifions (as indeed the mildness of his temper and his elegant taste for polite literature rendered him averfe from difputes of this nature) though he was the intimate friend of Luther, and approved his defign of delivering the pure and primitive fcience of theology from the darkness and subtilty of fcholaftic jargon [f]. As this eminent man was of those, whom this difpute with Eckius convinced of the excellence of Luther's caufe; as he was, moreover, one of the illuftrious and refpectable inftruments of the reformation; it may not be improper to give some account here of the talents and virtues that have rendered his name immortal. His greatest enemies have born teftimony 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 confider the extent of his knowledge in things human and divine, the fertility and elegance of his genius, the facility and quickness of his comprehenfion, or the uninterrupted induftry that attended his learned and theological labours. He rendered to philofophy

[(a) See, for an ample account of Luther's conferences with Miltitz, the incomparable work of Seckendorf, intituled, Commentar. Hiftor. Apologet. de Lutheranifmo, five de Reformatione Religionis, &c. in which the facts relating to Luther and the reformation are deduced from the most precious and authentic manufcripts and records, contained in the library of Saxe Gotha, and in other learned and princely collections, and in which, the frauds and falfehoods of Maimbourg's Hiftory of Lutheranifm are fully detected and refuted.-As to Miltitz, his fate was unhappy. His moderation (which nothing but the blind zeal of fome furious monks could have hindered from being eminently serviceable to the cause of Rome) was reprefented by Eckius, as fomething worse than indifference about the fuccefs of his commiffion; and after feveral marks of neglect received from the pontif, he had the misfortune to lose his life in paffing the Rhine at Mentz.]'

[f] See Melanthon's Letter concerning the conference at Leipfic, in Lofcher's Acta et Documenta Reformationis, tom. ii. cap. viii. P. 215.

and

« PředchozíPokračovat »