CHAP. XIX. A. D. 1519. A. Et. 44. A. Pont. VII. tween Luther and Miltitz. without the formality of a public interview;(a) and to the remonstrances of Miltitz respecting Luther, he coldly answered, that he would not act as a judge, to oppress a man whom he hitherto considered as innocent. These discouraging appearances tended still further to Conferences be- convince Miltitz that the mediation of the elector would be hopeless, except he could first prevail upon Luther to listen to pacific measures. He therefore requested an interview with him, which was with some difficulty obtained. On this occasion, Miltitz cautiously avoided all theological questions, and endeavoured, by the most earnest persuasions, to induce him to lay aside the hostility which he had manifested to the holy see. He acknowledged the abuses to which the promulgation of indulgences had given rise, and highly censured the misconduct and the violence of Tetzel, whom he called before him, and reprehended with such severity, as being the cause and promoter of these dissensions, that the unfortunate monk, terrified by the threats of the legate, and by the letters which were afterwards addressed to him, fell a sacrifice to his vexation and his grief. Sacratissimam (a) This rose the pontiff describes in his letter to the elector as 66 auream Rosam, quarta dominica Sanctæ Quadragesimæ a nobis chrismate sancto deli"batam, odoriferoque musco inspersam, cum benedictione Apostolica, ut vetus est consue“tudo, aliis adhibitis sacris ceremoniis consecratam ; munus quippe dignissimum et magni "mysterii, a Romano pontifice non nisi alicui ex primoribus christianorum orbis Regi 66 aut Principi de Sancta Apostolica sede bene merito quotannis dicari et mitti solitam." Leon. x. Ep. ad Fred. Ducem. ap. Seckend. p. 65. Luther, however, asserts, that the elector treated the present of the pope with contempt, "Nam et Rosam quam vocant 66 auream, eodem anno ei a Leone X. missam, nullo honore dignatus est, imo, pro ridi"culo habuit, ita desperare coacti sunt Romanistæ à studiis fallendi tanti principis." Luth. in præf. et v. Pallavicini, Concil. di Trent. lib. i. p. 96. CHAP. XIX. A. Et. 44. A. Pont. VII. grief. (a) By these and similar measures, Luther was at length prevailed upon to relax in his opposition, and to A. D. 1519. address a letter to the pontiff, in which he laments, with apparent sincerity, the part which he had acted, and to which, as he asserts, he had been impelled by the misconduct, avarice, and violence of his enemies; and declares, in the sight of God and the world, that he had never wished to impeach the authority of the Roman see and of the pontiff, which was held by him as supreme over all in heaven and in earth, except our Lord Jesus Christ. He also professes his readiness to refrain from the further discussion of the question concerning indulgences, provided his adversaries would do the like.(b) From the pacific and obedient tenor of this letter, there is indeed reason to infer that Luther was not at this time averse to a reconciliation; nor did Leo hesitate to reply to it in the softest and most pacific terms, insomuch, that the friends of peace began to flatter themselves that these disturbances would soon be amicably terminated.(c) But other circumstances arose, which revived the fermentation of theological disputes, and gave new life to those animosities, which appear to be their natural and invariable result. Andrew Bodenstein, better known by the name of Carlostadt, or Carlostadius, assumed by him from the place of his (a) When Luther was informed of his sickness, he addressed a letter to him, intreating him" to keep up his spirits, and to fear nothing from his resentment," &c. Luth. op. in præf. whether this was really intended as a consolation, the reader will judge. (b) v. App. No. CLXXXI. (c) v. Mosheim. Ecclesiast. Hist. v. ii. p. 21. note (u). CHAP. XIX. A. Et. 44. Public disputa sic, his birth, was at this time archdeacon of the cathedral at A. D. 1519. Wittemberg, and having embraced the opinions of Luther, had published a thesis in their defence. This again called forth the papal champion Eccius, and after much altercation at Leip- tion, it was at length determined, that the dispute should be decided by single combat, substituting only the weapons of argument to those of force. Of this contest, which was carried on in the city of Leipsic, in the presence of George, duke of Saxony, the uncle of the elector Frederick, and a large concourse of other eminent persons, both ecclesiastical and secular, the partizans of the Roman church, and the adherents to the reformation, have each left a full account. (a) After the parties had tried their skill for several successive days, Luther himself, who had accompanied his friend Carlostadt, entered the lists with Eccius. The battle was renewed with great violence, and if the disputants did not succeed in enlightening the understanding, they at least inflamed the passions of each other to a degree of animosity, which sufficiently discovered itself in their future conduct.(b) Hoffman, the principal (a) Melchior. Adam, in vita Carlostadii, p. 38. (b) This famous dispute commenced on the 27th day of June, 1519. The principal question agitated between Carlostadt aud Eccius was, whether the human will had any operation in the performance of good works, or was merely passive to the power of divine grace? The debate continued six days; Eccius maintaining that the will co-operated with the divine favour, and Carlostadt asserting its total inefficacy for any meritorious purpose. The debate between Luther and Eccius occupied ten days, in the course of which Luther delivered his opinion respecting purgatory, the existence of which he asserted could not be proved by scripture; of indulgences, which he contended were useless; of the remission of punishment, which he considered as inseparable from the remission of sin; of repentance, which he asserted must arise from charity and love, and was useless if induced by fear; of the primacy of the pope, which he boldly contended was supported by hu man cipal of the university of Leipsic, who sat as umpire on this occasion, was too discreet to determine between the contending parties. Each, therefore, claimed the victory; but the final decision upon the various questions which had been agitated, was referred to the universities of Paris and of Erfurt. This debate was again renewed in writing, when not only Carlostadt, Eccius, and Luther, but Melancthon, Erasmus, and several other eminent scholars took an important part in asserting or opposing the various opinions which had been advanced at Leipsic. By the publication of these works, the spirit of discussion and inquiry was still further extended; and whether the truth was with the one, or the other, or with neither of the parties, the prolongation of the contest proved almost as injurious to the court of Rome, as if its cause had experienced a total defeat. On the return of Luther to Wittemberg, Miltitz renewed his endeavours to prevail upon him to desist from further opposition, and to submit himself to the authority VOL. IV. B of man, and not by divine authority. This last point was contested by both parties with great earnestness and ability. Luther, however, acknowledges, that he and his friends were overcome, at least by clamour and by gestures; "Ita, me Deus amet, fateri cogor "victos nos esse, clamore et gestu." Excerpta Lutheri, de suis et Carolostadii thesibus, ap. Seckend. p. 73. It is remarkable that Milton appears as an advocate for the Catholic doctrine of freewill, in opposition to the Lutheran and Calvinistic opinion of the total inefficacy of the human mind to all good purposes. "Freely they stood, who stood, and fell, who fell, Par. lost. Book iii. v. 102. CHAP. XIX. A. D. 1519. A. Et. 44. A. Pont. VII. of the holy see. For the accomplishment of this object he laboured unceasingly, with such commendations of the virtues and talents of Luther, and such acknowledgments of the misconduct and corruptions of the Roman court, as he thought were likely to gain his confidence and disarm his resentment; a conduct which has been considered, by the papal historians, as highly derogatory to the Roman pontiff, of whom he was the legate, and injurious to the cause which he was employed to defend. They have also accused this envoy of indulging himself too freely in convivial entertainments, and the use of wine; on which occasions he amused his friends with many exaggerated anecdotes, to the discredit and disgrace of the Roman court; which being founded on the authority of the pope's nuncio, were received and repeated as authentic. (a) Finding, however, that all his efforts to subdue the pertinacity of Luther were ineffectual, he had recourse to the assistance of the society of Augustine monks, then met in a general chapter, whom he prevailed upon to send a deputation to their erring brother, to recall him to a sense of his duty. Luther appeared to be well pleased with this mark of respect, and promised that he would again write to the pontiff, with a further explanation of his conduct. Availing himself therefore of this opportunity, he addressed another letter to Leo X. which in its purport may be considered as one of the most singular, and in its consequences as one of the most important, that ever the pen of an individual produced. Under the pretext of obedience, respect, and even affection for the pontiff, he has conveyed the most determined opposition, the most bitter satire, and the most marked contempt; insomuch, |