who receives the sacrament. The first two carry on their face their obvious meaning, namely, that the penitent must be heartily sorry for his sins, which sorrow implies a firm purpose of amendment; and that there must be a relation of one's sins to the priest, who is the human representative of Christ. Satisfaction, the third part of the sacrament, is the part most misunderstood. In the olden days, various penances were given to the faithful as punishment for their sins, and consisted of good works in some form or other. This was satisfaction so called. For instance, it might take the form of a pilgrimage to some place hallowed by Our Savior, or a crusade against the infidels, or prayers in some particular church, or before some particular shrine, or an offering for some religious purpose such as church building, bridge building, or road building. The Popes only could grant a plenary indulgence, or at least reserved that right to themselves; but under certain circumstances they often imparted lesser rights to archbishops and bishops, to be employed however, only in their own dioceses. As illustrations we may recall that Pope John XXII in 1319 granted an indulgence of forty days to those who should aid in any way to build a bridge across the Elbe at Dresden. In 1484 the papal legate of Saxony obtained from Sixtus IV the privilege of granting an indulgence of forty days to all who should contribute to the restoration of a church destroyed by fire at Freiburg, and one of a hundred days to those who should do the same. for another church in the same city. Innocent VIII in 1491 granted to the inhabitants of Saxony a dispensation from the quarterly fasts for a period of twenty years, on condition that each one would pay a twentieth part of a Roman florin annually towards building a bridge and chapel at Torgau, and the collegiate church at Freiburg. One fourth of the whole sum, however, was to go to Rome for the building of St. Peter's. Thus these substitutions of prayer, manual labor, fasting, or money, took the place of the former onerous methods of performing satisfaction. Not everyone could go to Jerusalem or Rome; not everyone could imitate the Emperor Theodosius bowing at the feet of St. Ambrose and begging the saint to put a period to his exclusion from the church; but it was in the power of every man or woman to make some little sacrifice of time, labor, or money, in order that thus satisfaction might be made. Of course the whole doctrine of indulgences rests upon the Catholic doctrine of Purgatory. The Church defines an indulgence as "a remission of the temporal punishment due to sin the guilt of which has been forgiven." Hence a plenary indulgence would be a remission of all the temporal punishment due to one's past sins, which would otherwise have to be satisfied in Purgatory; and an indulgence of a certain number of days would be the amount of purgatorial punishment to be undergone during such a period. Unless one really understands that the doctrine of Purgatory is based by the Church on the superabundant merits of Christ, he will never comprehend what the Catholic Church means by indulgences. They are not, and never were, permissions to commit sin; nor are they satisfaction for future sins. Both these charges have been made, and are still made by the uncandid; but a consultation with any educated Catholic, or a reference to any

Catholic book of doctrine, will show that such charges are entirely unfounded.

46

45

Now Tetzel had been entrusted with the mission of preaching an indulgence which Albert, the brilliant but worldly Archbishop of Mainz, had obtained from the Pope. Pastor, in his searching and impartial History of the Popes, says that this young Archbishop was heavily in debt, not, as both Protestant and Catholic historians relate, on account of having had to pay the Pope for his pallium, but because of a bribe which he paid to an agent in Rome whose name had not come down to us, for the purpose of buying off a rival, so that he [the Archbishop] might be able to enjoy a plurality of church offices." Thus the Archbishop has laid himself open in the eyes of posterity to the charge of being a simoniacal ecclesiastic, though the Protestant historian Kalkoff* very generously maintains such a charge to be untenable. The Pope, as a result of all this, granted an indemnity to the Archbishop in the form of an indulgence. The receipts were to be shared equally by the Pope and the Archbishop, in addition to a bonus of ten thousand gold ducats which was to accrue to the Pontiff, all of his share going to complete the new basilica of St. Peter's then under construction. We leave to theologians the morality of this transaction, and will adhere strictly to its historical aspect. The Archbishop sent Tetzel forth to preach the indulgence thus granted, and before long it attracted the attention of Luther, who was uncertain in his own mind of the dogma of indulgences as explained to the people by Tetzel. It was customary in those days in all university circles to send forth challenges to debate subjects which were properly within the limits of discussion; and, in accordance with this usage, Luther summoned each and all who cared to do so to meet him for the discussion pro and con of the matter of Tetzel's indulgence. This he did by drawing up a list of topics relating to the subject, which he was prepared to maintain against all disputants; and this list, which consisted of ninety-five theses, he nailed up in true university style on the doors of the Schlosskirche at Wittemberg. Since the doctrine of Purgatory, though constantly and consistently taught by the Church from the early centuries, had never been formally defined, and was not so defined until the Council of Trent, held after Luther's death, Luther was not actually heretical in bringing up this subject for discussion in connection with his attack on the indulgence. His theses were presented for the consideration of the learned only, were couched in his best Latin, and affirmed nothing, each thesis being put in the form of a query. No one seemed enough interested in the matter to debate with Luther, or else everyone considered that it was Tetzel's duty to take up the challenge, since it was especially against Tetzel's activity that Luther's opposition was directed. The day following the posting of the theses, Luther preached a sermon on indulgences in general, and this he had printed in German for the use of the common people. Then he set himself to state his own position on the subject more clearly, which he did in a

See Pastor, History of the Popes, Vol. VII, p. 330. 1908. 45 See his article in Archiv für Reform. Geschichte, Vol. I, p. 381. "See Kaiveran, Stud. und Kritik, Vol. I, pp. 93, 140.

pamphlet entitled Proofs or Solutions of the Theses. He sent a copy of this pamphlet in manuscript to the Archbishop of Mainz, of whom we have just spoken as being most interested in the success of Tetzel's mission, and received a reply from the prelate desiring and entreating him to put off the publishing of this or any similar pamphlets on the same subject. For the present Luther obeyed. Tetzel, however, who, though undoubtedly a good man and a learned, was injudicious in his methods, was highly indignant when he learned what Luther had said and done. against the work in which Tetzel was engaged. He assailed the Wittemberg monk from the pulpit with no mincing of words; and in his position of Inquisitor very unwisely had recourse to threats. There also entered into the matter some jealousy, for it was now the quarrel of an Augustinian against a Dominican; and this foolishly complicated the vexed affair. Tetzel wrote at once to the General of his Order at Rome, who appointed Sylvester Prierias, a monk of the same Order, who was then chief censor of books and held other important positions at the Roman court, to reply to Luther. This he did in a pamphlet entitled A Dialogue on the Presumptuous Conclusions of Martin Luther. There were bound to be exaggerations on both sides, and Prierias probably exalted the power of the Popes just as much as Luther sought to depreciate it. It was on an occasion when this pamphlet was under discussion among a party of Italian scholars that the alleged remark of Pope Leo was made which has been so often quoted since. Jortin, quoting from Bandello's Tragical Histories, gives us the original Italian, which we here put in English:

At the beginning of the time when the Lutheran sect was commencing to sprout there was gathered together at midday in the home of our virtuous lord L. Scipio Attelano a party of gentlemen; and during a discussion of various matters, there were a few who blamed Pope Leo X not a little who in the beginning had not applied the remedy when Brother Sylvester Prierias, master of the Sacred Palace, showed him some heretical passages which Brother Martin Luther had scattered through the work which he had entitled Indulgences, because he [the Pope] had imprudently replied that Brother Martin had a very fine genius, and that these were monkish jealousies.

47

That too much importance has been given to this alleged utterance of Leo is evident from another saying attributed to him, which, being less flattering to Luther, is rarely quoted: "A drunken German must have written these theses; as soon as he is sober, he will change his mind."

47

* See Jortin, op. cit. Vol. I, p. 117. rispose, che Fra Martino haveva un bellissimo ingegno, e che coteste erano invidie Fratesche." Jortin's translation of this passage is distinctly Jortinesque: "Brother Martin is a fine genius, and his enemies are little envious monks." Could that impeccable scholar have hastily concluded that coteste, by specious resemblance to the English contest and contestant, meant "enemies"? and have further made invidie adjective and Fratesche noun? Or was he only, as so often, translating to order? Leo meant, of course, that the matter was the usual squabble between two Orders, which remark, though injudicious before Prierias, was shrewd enough.

Meanwhile Tetzel himself was not idle, and, as he had been invited to the University of Frankfurt-on-the-Oder to receive the degree of D.D., he grasped this occasion to present his one hundred and six theses in answer to the ninety-five of Luther. This was a dignified procedure, much more so than was his burning of Luther's theses publicly later on, which only served to make the Wittemberg students retaliate on eight hundred copies of his own pamphlet which fell into their hands.

48

Then Johann Eck, Vice-Chancellor of the University of Ingolstadt, became involved in the discussion. No one questions the ability of this man, who had acquired an enviable reputation for unusual theological attainments, rare skill in argumentation, and a remarkable memory, qualities that even Luther cheerfully admitted. It appears that the Bishop of Eichstätt had requested the opinion of Eck on Luther's theses, and that Eck had given them a close investigation, finding therein eighteen which, in his estimation, had in them latent heresy, or violated Christian charity, or counseled resistance to ecclesiastical authority, or were frankly seditious. These eighteen theses, which he marked with obelisks were sent to the Bishop in manuscript; but, by the act either of that prelate or of the friends of Eck, a copy of the manuscript reached Luther's hands and roused him to wrath. Eck hastened to explain that the publication of the thing was not brought about by any effort of his and very urgently, though very courteously, besought Luther not to cause scandal by resorting to any public disputation of these, some of which proper reflection would make him realize were unsound. This only angered Luther the more, and he immediately issued a pamphlet in opposition to that of Eck, and entitled it Asterisks. But Carlstadt had anticipated him; for, while Luther was attending a conference of his Order at Wittemberg, Carlstadt had obtained a copy of Eck's manuscript, and had answered it before Luther's return. So ardent was the desire for controversy that Eck did not hesitate to bind himself to meet both Carlstadt and Luther in the same controversial arena at Leipzig, where he was to assail the points in the writings of each of these adversaries to which he objected. This meeting took place on June 27, 1519. On June 27th and 28th, and on the 1st and 3rd of July, he disputed with Carlstadt on divine grace and good works, and from July 4th he disputed for ten successive days with Luther on the absolute supremacy of the Pope, and on Penance and Purgatory. His contemporaries seem to have adjudged the victory in the debate to Eck, and he was hailed as the "Achilles of the Church."

48 The printers' mark: †

49

"See Reformationis acta, Vol. II, pp. 164, 165. Leipzig, 1723. Also De Wette, op. cit., Vol. I, p. 125.

CHAPTER VII

ERASMUS AND LUTHER

Now let us see what Erasmus was doing during these exciting times. Two things especially displeased him in the current of events: the tumult that was aroused by the quarrel between Tetzel and Luther, which was distasteful to him as a man of peace; and the resultant fact that public attention was being withdrawn from him and centred on others. His own quarrel with Faber Stapulensis was bringing him no fame but much anxiety. Altogether it was a most uncomfortable time, and he feared that the taste for learning might suffer as a result, even if he could bring himself to shut his eyes to the effect on him personally which these widespread religious disturbances might excite. Although he was in accord with Luther in his attack on the indulgences, he feared to be quoted to that effect, and only imparted this opinion to his most intimate friends, and then in the strictest confidence. To be quoted was the last thing that Erasmus desired; for with his natural lack of moral courage he feared the difficulties that such utterances, if quoted widely, might create for him. He knew that his name was now being coupled with Luther's, and that he was being credited with forging the weapons that Luther was using. At heart he was with Luther, but cared too much for his own personal interests to say so openly. Although himself deficient in moral courage, he could not help admiring it in the younger man; and at times he would even shake off his own selfish fears long enough to say a good word for Luther; then, immediately, as if dreading the results of his own imprudence, he would wrap himself up in a cloak of impenetrable silence. This was particularly exasperating to Luther and his friends, who sought the support and influence of Erasmus' name in the impending dangers. So he played fast and loose with them for several years, as we shall see, until at last Luther definitely classed him where he rightly belonged, namely, amongst his opponents. Until that occurred, Erasmus would say a good word when the occasion seemed propitious. Writing, in May, 1519, to Cardinal Wolsey, who, he feared, had been prejudiced against him by someone, he says:

Luther is as unknown to me as the veriest stranger; nor have I yet had time to read more than one or two pages of the man's works. Not that I dislike them, but that my literary occupations have allowed me no leisure. And yet some people think that I have helped him in them. If he has written well, no praise is due me; if he has written badly, I ought not be blamed. . .

And even if I had the time to read him, I could not arrogate to myself the right to pass judgment on the writings of so great a man,