1
10
1
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/670bc8cdbcbe5f18192a2a0786fc73d0.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=UoYIGvN%7E1ESmq0arX2DlGcAbjjxeVUHn7VggraorJdEwySWMxMRhsr3ev5hduM1sF4s5%7EX%7EPaee7Kz8HCcuZMTQ7U2MoVAGNNot6uclPhy1YZKuXJU-xSuEuxzqBy%7EewaZ9EYQ1olmeNvAb3Be%7EdvvknH4vRs42e0ai8kvs7PyJs5lAtYrZggcLuaFXfMBPjNjaRsh-QTcaiBQHFaz9jaw9W%7EqMyID15Hkk3h0vePlBHM-qh65wt3PqmilEtUaY8FIUraJ3NeJKCMFrGZe-ZVtTspKoJRTh%7EQNtWpuH6kCD3yOkqvlFu9bIJE7Y2sQyY7Vu6cdJfC1wFt2LyiXGl3Q__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
6cb57220cf05c4793e1f5d01afa83bf8
PDF Text
Text
%utber anb Get3el.
BY THE REV. SYDNEY F. SMITH, S.J.
TWO leading characters occupy the stage in the
opening scene of the great drama of the Refor
mation—Luther and Tetzel. The conflict in which
they became engaged, although it lasted only for a.
couple of years, or rather less, must always be of
interest. It cannot indeed be said any longer that,,
had there been no Tetzel with his scandalous preach
ing of the Indulgence, there would have been no
Luther to inaugurate the glorious Reformation. We
know now that Luther’s heterodox views had for
some years past been maturing in his mind, and that
sooner or later they must have involved him in a.
breach with the Church. Still, an encounter with an
Indulgence-preacher was just the kind of event to
attract the eyes of others towards him, and Luther
made the most of it, and certainly succeeded in
making out of it a veritable stepping-stone to fame,.
It became the event which gained for him a European
reputation.
Martin Luther was born at Eisleben, in Saxony,,
in 1483. His father, Hans Luther, was a miner, and
at the time of their eldest son’s birth, was in great
poverty, although he afterwards became sufficiently
prosperous to own several furnaces at Mansfeldt, a
�2
Luther and Tetzel.
town about fifteen leagues from Eisleben. When
Martin was about fourteen, he was sent to school
with the Franciscans at Magdeburg, and after a year
to another school at Eisenach. It was here, that
whilst, after the custom of poor scholars, singing for
alms before the windows of well-to-do people, he won
the regards of a certain lady named Ursula Cotta.
The result was that, with her husband’s approval, she
took him to reside in her house, and thus enabled
him to go on in due course to higher studies.
Accordingly, in 1501, being now eighteen, he was
sent to the University of Erfurt, another Saxon town
of the neighbourhood, and there we are told he made
great progress in his study of philosophy and classics.
“The whole University,” wrote Melanchthon, the
colleague of his after-days, “admired his genius.”
In one respect, however, he seems to have been
curiously neglectful of the opportunities which this
University offered him.
Since the invention of
printing, about 1450, the printing-presses of Germany
had multiplied editions of the Bible both in Latin
and English, and a widespread interest in the study
of the Sacred Text had naturally ensued. This was
particularly true of Erfurt. “Erfurt,” says Janssen,
“ was a place where Biblical study was in its bloom
at that time, much importance being attached to it,
and a distinct course of lectures being devoted to it.”
And yet, says d’Aubign6, repeating the tale which
used to be so dear to the Protestant mind : one
day “ he had then been two years at Erfurth and
was twenty years old—he opens every book in the
library (of the Augustinian monastery). One volume
. . . attracts his attention. He had never until this
�Luther and Tetzel.
'hour seen its like. He reads the title—it is a Bible 1
a rare book unknown in those times.”1
In 1505, he took his doctor’s degree, and shortly
afterwards entered the Augustinian convent in the
town, the convent in whose library he had discovered
the Bible. His mode of entering was strange and
sudden. He was travelling by night, and was caught
in a thunderstorm. The lightning flashed right over
his head, and kneeling down, he made a vow to
St. Anne that if he were preserved from death he
would enter a monastery. The storm blew over, and
he returned to Erfurt. That evening he bade adieu
to his friends, and at midnight knocked at the door
of the Augustinian convent in the town. They took
him in apparently without difficulty, not fearing, as
the Superiors of a modern religious house would most
-certainly fear, lest a vocation thus suddenly formed
■should be afterwards as suddenly abandoned. In
1508, he was transferred from the monastery at
Erfurt to the monastery of the same Order at Witten'burg. It was the residence and principal city of the
domain of the Elector John Frederick of Saxony, and
this Prince had just founded there a new University
in the welfare and progress of which he was keenly
interested. Luther, now a priest, was appointed
Professor of Philosophy in this new University.
That he showed talent in the discharge of his
professorial duties, as likewise of others which were
1 History of the Reformation, i. p. 156, English Translation.
D’Aubigne refers for this statement to Mathesius, one of Luther’s
•companions. Mathesius is not a very trustworthy writer, but even he
does not say as much as this. Nevertheless, the story has become a
•cherished Protestant tradition, and is embodied in a painting belonging
to the Bible Society, the book-plates from which are widely circulated.
�4
Luther and Tetzel.
assigned to him, is not to be denied. It must be
clear to any careful student of his history and
writings that he was endowed with talent of a high
order. His thought indeed was full of confusion, and
one marvels how a man of talent could pass through
a systematic course of theological study, and yet
show himself to have so completely missed and
confounded notions which by the general mass of
students were correctly imbibed. But if he wasunable to analyze an idea into its constituents, as is.
necessary for one who will apprehend it correctly, he
could take hold of an idea as a whole, if it happened,
to please him, with a firm grasp, and set it forth tohimself and others in a thoroughly popular way, by
the aid of vigorous speech and homely illustration..
Then, too, he had an imperious will, which over
mastered the mass of those brought into contact with
him. In short, he was a born leader of men, and
belonged to the first rank of popular writers and.
orators.
His spiritual experiences during the ten years of
monastic life which preceded his breach with the:
Catholic Church were at all events interesting;
According to his own account, he was “ a Religiousof the strictest observance.” “ I was a pious monk,”
he says, “ and so strictly followed the Rule of my
Order, that I dare to say if ever any man could
have been saved by monkery, I was that monk.”
“ I was a monk in earnest, and followed the Rules,
of my Order more strictly than I can express. If
ever monk could obtain Heaven by his monkish
works, I should certainly have been entitled to it.
Of all this the friars who have known me can testify.
�Luther and Tetzel.
5
If it had continued much longer, I should have carried
my mortifications even to death, by means of watch
ings, prayers, readings, and other labours.” How far
this may have been true it is difficult to say. What
ever his fellow-monks may have been able to testify,
there is no extant record of their confirmatory testi
mony on this point. One thing at least is clear
from Luther’s own words. His spiritual endeavours,
whether earnest or not, were singularly ill-regulated.
In his zeal for reading, we are told he sometimes
omitted his Office for three or four weeks together,
after which in a fit of remorse he would set to work
to repair the omission by continuous recitation of all
that had been left unsaid. This is hardly what one
would have expected in one claiming that his obser
vance was punctiliously exact. However, it seems
that he was much agitated during this period by the
sense of sin. Apparently he had strong passions
which frequently asserted themselves, and which he
sought to subdue by prayer and fastings, but in sub
duing which the conception of God which he placed
before him was very much that of a God of avenging
justice and very little that of a God of mercy.
His companions were distressed by his singularity,
and naturally doubted whether he was not mad,
and when one day the reading in the refectory was
of the Gospel of the man possessed by a blind and
dumb devil whom our Lord cured, Luther suddenly
flung himself upon the ground and cried out aloud :
“ It is not I ! It is not I! ” He was in fact in a
thoroughly morbid state of soul, and was besides the
victim of intense scrupulosity. His superior, Staupitz,
gave him occasionally some good and sensible advice,
�6
Luther and Tetzel.
as when he said to him: “ Enough, my son; youspeak of sin, but know not what sin is ; if you desire
the assistance of God, do not act like a child any
longer.” The advice was certainly required, but it
does not seem to have left any abiding impression on
his mind. What eventually brought on the crisis in
his life was, if we are to believe what is recorded, a.
vision of an old monk who met him one day when
out walking. “I know,” said the old monk, what
will cure you of the evils which torment you.” “ What
is it ? ” said Luther. “ Faith,” responded the monk.
“ Have you not read the words of St. Bernard, in hissermon on the Annunciation : Believe that through
o
the merits of Jesus thy sins will be forgiven ; it isthe evidence which the Holy Spirit infuses into the
heart of man ; for he says, Believe, and thy sins shall
be forgiven.”
St. Bernard’s doctrine is sound enough. Faith, the
faith which relies on God’s word, is the underlying
virtue among those by which man prepares his heart
for the Divine forgiveness. But Luther put his own
sense on the word “ faith ” and on the corresponding
word “justification;” taking the one to mean an
assurance of personal salvation (“ Believe firmly that
you undoubtedly are justified, and then you are justi
fied ”) ; and the other to mean, not an infusion of
justice into the heart of the person justified, but a
mere external imputation of it. For such a doctrine
there is no warrant in Scripture, but, having managed
to connect in his own mind, and afterwards in the
minds of others, the word “ faith ” with this unnatural
meaning, he could appeal to all the passages in
St. Paul’s Epistles which assert that justification is by
�Luther and Tetzcl.
7
faith, and claim them as so many proofs of his newlydiscovered doctrine. It is this doctrine which he
afterwards called the Articulus stantis vel cadentis
Ecclesice; and, if we cannot quite accept this description
of it, at least we can recognize that it is the corner
stone of the Lutheran and Calvinistic systems. It
strikes at the very roots of the Catholic system of
sacraments and grace, of penance and satisfaction,
especially as Luther managed to graft on to it a
doctrine of the non-freedom of the human will, and of
the total depravity of fallen nature. This crisis must
have taken place two or more years before his breach
with the Church, and during the interval he does
not appear to have been conscious, although others
noticed it, of the growing opposition of his views to
those of the Catholic Church.
We have now before us, as fully as is possible
within the limits of a short essay, a picture of this
champion of Protestantism.
I will pass on then
to the occasion which led to his encounter with
Tetzel.
Julius II., who, according to Pastor, had the truer
claim to give his name to the age usually called the
age of Leo X., had it brought under his notice that
the ancient Basilica of St. Peter, which had been
given to the Church by the Emperor Constantine,
was now falling into decay. He determined to use
the opportunity, and to employ all the architectural
talent of that brilliant period, in order to erect a new
Basilica in its place which by its magnificence should
be worthy of its position as the memorial of the
Apostles and the central church of the Catholic
world. Did it lie within our subject-matter, we might
�8
Lzither and Tetzel.
take occasion to lament that a work so excellent in
itself should have been accompanied by the destruc
tion of the older Basilica. But I have too much
matter to deal with to permit of such digression.
Julius II. commenced the work, and devoted large
funds to its accomplishment. These, however, were
far from sufficient, and it became evident that the
cost of a building of such magnitude could be
defrayed only by a successful appeal to the piety of
the Christian world. Accordingly, Leo X., the successor
of Julius, proclaimed an Indulgence: that is to say,
he granted an Indulgence of a most ample kind to
all, wherever they might be, who would contribute
according to their means towards the expenses of the
rising Basilica.
This is not the place for a detailed exposition of
the Catholic doctrine of Indulgences, but it is neces
sary that the reader should bear in mind its leading
features. An Indulgence, as may be seen from any
Catholic exposition of doctrine, from the Catechism
of the Council of Trent downwards, does not profess
to pardon the guilt of past sin and reconcile the soul
to God ; still less does it pretend to give leave for
future sins. What it offers is a remission of the
temporal punishment remaining over when the guilt
and eternal punishment of the sin has been forgiven.
It thus presupposes, and usually enjoins explicitly, as
indispensable for gaining its fruits, that the person
should first seek the pardon of guilt in the Sacrament
of Penance; and it enjoins, as the condition of
gaining it, some work of piety or charity, such as
prayer or almsgiving. Now what we have to consider
is whether it be true that the system of Indulgences,
�Luther and Tetzel.
9
into contact with which Luther was brought, differed
in any essential particulars from our modern system.
This is necessary, because the charge brought against
the Catholic Church as justifying Luther’s revolt
from her obedience was, in its original and ancient
form, that Indulgences were permissions to commit
sin, or at least pretended remissions of the guilt of
sin, sold in the most barefaced way over the counter,,
so to speak, for sums of money, amidst degrading
accompaniments. We have partially succeeded in
convincing modern and more enlightened students
that this is by no means a true account of our
teaching, and have caused them to remodel the
charge, which, as it now-a-days mostly runs, is that
we have altered our system from what it was in the
days of Luther ; that then it certainly pretended to
be a sale of forgiveness for money, but that now, in
deference to the outcry made against such an enor
mity, we have revised it, and cast it into a more
subtle form.
We have to notice then that at all events in
offering an Indulgence in return for alms to a good
work, Leo X. was acting not differently from our
modern Church. Almsgiving, especially when it is
for some sacred object, is a recognized form of good
work, such as may be stimulated and rewarded by
an Indulgence. Thus it is one of the required con
ditions for one or two of the eight great Indulgences.
In this latter case the Pope leaves it free to us toapply our alms to such religious objects as our con
science suggests. But there is no reason why he
should not himself present to us a particular object..
He might, for instance, grant an Indulgence to those
*
�IO
Luther and Tetzel.
who would give alms for the new Westminster
Cathedral, in which case he would only be doing
what was done by his predecessors to assist the
building of most of the great Cathedrals which are
England’s glory. Or he might prescribe that the alms
should be applied to some still more universal object.
He might, for instance, attach an Indulgence, either
partial or plenary, to the alms which he asks of us on
the Epiphany for Indian Seminaries, or on Good
Friday for the Holy Places at Jerusalem. This lastmentioned object closely resembles that of the Indul
gence of Leo X. Regard the building of St. Peter’s
merely as the erection of a fine architectural
monument, and the sacred character of the work is
easily forgotten. But regard it as the erection of a
house of God far more truly such than the Temple of
Solomon, and its sacred character at once returns
into prominence. So far, then, we have discovered no
impropriety in the Pope’s action.
In our own days, if such an Indulgence were
proclaimed, the Pope would write to the Bishops,
directing them to make the announcement to the
residents in their dioceses, and to make arrangements
for the placing of alms-boxes in the several churches,
for the time and manner most appropriate for giving
in the alms, and likewise for some official method of
forwarding to Rome what had been collected.
Probably if the Indulgence offered were of the public
kind to be mentioned presently, the Bishops would
also be exhorted to see that special sermons were
preached and devotions held, so that the Indulgence
time might be a time of grace. We know that such
is the modern custom at the time of what is called a
�Luther and Tetzel.
11
Jubilee Indulgence—an Indulgence which comprises
not merely the Indulgence strictly so-called, or the
remission, plenary or partial, of temporal punishment,
but also the bestowal on many confessors of special
faculties to absolve from cases otherwise reserved to
Bishops or to the Holy See. In the days of Luther
the method followed was in principle the same, but
in its actual details somewhat different.
For the preaching of this Indulgence in Germany
that country was divided into three parts, with only
one of which we need to concern ourselves. Albrecht
of Brandenburg, Archbishop of Mainz, Bishop of
Magdeburg, and Administrator of the see of Halber
stadt, was appointed commissioner for the district
comprising the whole of Saxony and Brandenburg.
That is to say, it was his office to see that the In
dulgence was effectually made known in these parts,
and to collect the money given. With him was
associated the Guardian of the Franciscans at Mainz,
but the latter seems to have renounced his charge,
and hardly figures in the history. This Albrecht—
who, it may be incidentally remarked, was a young
man of high family, only twenty-four at the time of
his appointment—was under the usual obligation of
paying the fee for his Pallium. That there should
have been such fees is quite intelligible, for the Holy
See with its vast staff of officials for the conduct of
a world-wide business must be supported, and it is
right that those for whose benefit they are established
should support them. Still, it was a grave scandal,
and must be acknowledged as such, that the fees
exacted should have been so enormous. In Albrecht’s
case they amounted to no less than thirty thousand
�12
Luther and Tetzel.
gold guldens. What made matters worse, was that
this was the third vacancy in the see within a short
interval. Thus the burden on the revenues of the
see was crushing.
Albrecht undertook to provide the sum out of his
own private resources, and this is how he did it. By
representing to the Pope the greatness of the diffi
culty, he obtained the commissionership of the
Indulgence, with leave to retain a certain portion of
the proceeds for himself, on the understanding that he
paid up his Pallium money at once. This arranged,
on the security of the Indulgence he proceeded to
borrow the necessary sum from the famous bank of
the Fuggers at Augsburg, a consequence of which
arrangement was that the Fuggers sent a clerk toaccompany the Indulgence-preachers, who kept one
of the three keys to the alms-chests. This transaction
of Albrecht’s is another disedifying thing to which
we must frankly acknowledge, but it probably illus
trates the mode in which, beginning from the most
harmless intentions, a man may gradually and un
consciously entangle himself in a grave scandal.
Albrecht’s next duty was to choose a sub
commissioner to whom he might entrust the actual
preaching of the Indulgence, and he chose John.
Tetzel. Tetzel was a Dominican friar, who seems
to have been endowed with a gift of popular eloquence,
which enabled him to draw large congregations and
to move them to contribute handsomely to the objects
advocated. He had had much experience and an
uninterruptedly successful career as an Indulgence
preacher during the two previous decades, for it must
not be supposed that the Indulgence for St. Peter’s
�Luther and Tetzel.
13
'Church was a novelty at the time. It was a novelty
perhaps in its importance and amplitude, but was
but one among many Indulgences which were being
constantly issued in aid of one good work or another.
We have now reached Tetzel, but before informing
-ourselves of the manner in which he fulfilled his
commission, we must notice briefly the character of
the instructions given to him. Our concern is much
more with the system than with the man who had to
work it, and even as regards him, in the great dearth
of direct evidence, we have a better chance of judging
him fairly in proportion as we can understand better
the nature of his charge. Archbishop Albrecht issued
an Instructio Summaria ad Sitbcommissarios Pceniteniiarum et Confessores. It is a long document, and in
it he first prescribes to the preachers and their assistant
the mode in which they were to conduct themselves,
and explains very lucidly the character and provisions
of the Indulgence. The directions for the preacher are,
no one can deny it, both wise and edifying. All are
to begin by taking an oath of fidelity to observe
these directions, and are threatened with censures
•and deprivation of office in the case of neglect. They
are to keep always in mind the glory of God, the
reverence due to the Apostolic See, and the further
ance of the object for which the alms are solicited.
They are to conduct themselves everywhere in a
becoming manner, and to avoid taverns and doubtful
houses, and likewise excessive and useless expenses,
“ lest their conduct should be despised, and with it
the religious exercises over which they are to preside.”
They are to know that in hearing confessions they
are constituted Apostolic penitentiaries, as repre
�i4
Luther and Tetzel.
senting the Pope, and are endowed accordingly with
ample faculties, and they are to be careful that their
behaviour is worthy of so exceptional an office.
Hence they are to see that they set up their con
fessionals—over which they are to place the Papal
arms, and their own names in large letters—only in
places sufficiently open and public, nor must they
hear confessions during the sermons or Stations of
the Cross, lest they should seem to be drawing away
the people from the fruit of the Divine Word. Nor
again are they to hear any confessions outside the
church where the Indulgence Cross is erected, save
those of persons legitimately hindered from coming
by sickness or old age, and those of great nobles.
When they reach a town in their course they are to
erect an Indulgence Cross, and daily after Vespers
and Compline, or after the Salve Regina, or at some
other ‘suitable time, they are to gather round the
Cross and solemnly venerate it. They are to give at
least three sermons each week as long as the Station
in any place lasts, whilst in Advent or Lent, they
must give one every day, and on feast-days two.
And during these sermons there is to be no
preaching elsewhere, that the people may be free to
attend.
During the first week they are to explain clearly
the nature and immense value of the Indulgence
offered, and likewise of the Papal power to grant iff
In explaining too, they are to keep to the text of the
Bull, and show how it empowers them to absolve and
dispense, commute or compound, nor must they run
off into strange and irrelevant subtleties, a thing the
less tolerable since the Bull itself provides them with
�Luther and Tetzel.
15
abundant material for their discourse, all drawn from
the heart of theology and canon law.
This brings us to the other point in the Bull, the
nature of the graces, i.e., the benefits offered. There
are, says Albrecht’s summary, “four principal graces
which it grants. Of these the first is a ‘Plenary
Indulgence,’ or plenary remission of all sins by which
the pains of Purgatory are fully forgiven and blotted
out.” The term “plenary remission of sins” should be
remarked, as it is on such a phrase that those fix who
strive to make out that an Indulgence is a forgiveness
of the guilt of sin. But the phrase is usual in grants
of Indulgence even to this day, and means, as the
expository clause just given distinctly declares, a
remission of the sin as regards all its temporal punish
ment. In such a remission a sacramental absolution
is presupposed as having taken away the guilt and
eternal punishment, and it is because, by supervening
on this, the Indulgence takes away likewise all the
temporal punishment, that it is called a “plenary
remission of sins.”
The Instruction goes on to assign the conditions
for gaining this Plenary Indulgence. “ Although (it
says) nothing can be given in exchange which will
be a worthy equivalent for so great a grace, the gift
and grace of God being priceless, still that the faithful
may be the more readily invited to receive it, let
them, after having first made a contrite confession, or
at least having the intention of so doing at the proper
time, visit at least seven churches assigned for this
purpose, and in each say devoutly five Our Fathers
and Hail Marys in honour of the Five Wounds of
Jesus Christ, by which our redemption was wrought;
�16
Luther and Tetzel.
or else one Miserere, to obtain pardon for sins.” The
italicized clause is to be specially noticed, as proving
■conclusively that there was no thought of granting
absolution of guilt otherwise than through the Sacra
ment of Penance.
The visit to seven assigned
-churches, for which in smaller places visits to seven
altars were substituted, marks the intention of assimi
lating this Indulgence to the Indulgence of the Seven
Stations practised in the City of Rome.
A second condition for the Indulgence was the con
tribution towards the building expenses of St. Peter’s,
and Archbishop Albrecht proceeds to prescribe the
necessary amount according to the rank and means
of the contributors. Kings and royal persons, Arch
bishops and Bishops, must contribute at least twentyfive Rhenish gold florins ; abbots, counts, and barons,
ten florins ; others down to those whose annual income
is about five hundred florins, must contribute six;
those with an income of two hundred must give six
florins; others half a florin. If there should be any
difficulty about these amounts the parties are to
consult their confessors, and with their advice to give
what seems a becoming proportion of their means,
and the confessors are to remember that the object
for which the Indulgence is granted is not less the
salvation of. the faithful than the needs of the
building ; and accordingly are not to send any one
away without his Indulgence for want of means to
contribute. Of the poor it is added specially that
“ those who_ have no money must supply by their
prayers and fasts, since the Kingdom of Heaven
should be made open to the poor as much as to the
rich.” This scale of assessments disproves the buying
�Luther and Tetzel.
*7
.-and selling theory. If it were true that Indulgences
were offered as goods in the market, to be bought
■ and sold, the prices should have been uniform for all.
The code of prices disappears, and that of contribu
tions comes in, when such a scale of assignments as
this is borne in mind. Besides, as we have seen, the
■notion of price is expressly repudiated in the In
structions.
So much as to the first principal grace offered,
'which was the Plenary Indulgence itself. The second
principal grace was the grant of what was called a
Confessionale. This was permission to choose a suit
able confessor from the ranks either of the secular or
regular clergy, who, being chosen, would in virtue of
the grant have power to absolve the recipient of the
Confessionale once in his life (i) from any censures he
might have incurred, (2) from all sins otherwise
reserved to the Apostolic See or by the Bishops; and
(3), as often as desired, from sins not reserved ; (4) to
communicate to him a Plenary Indulgence once in
life and in time of danger of death ; and likewise to
dispense him from certain vows and to minister to
him the Holy Eucharist. Such a Confessionale, like
the Indulgence, which has been called the first prin
cipal grace, was granted in view of alms contributed
to the building fund, though the alms in this instance
was much less—a mere nothing in fact—for it was
only a quarter of a florin ; and besides it was given to
the poor gratuitously. These permissions to choose a
confessor, and grants to the person chosen of the
ample faculties mentioned, were attested by written
documents. Such a document was obviously necessary
that it might be known at any time afterwards that
�18
Luther and Tetzel.
the holder had really received the permission which
it recorded. But it must not be supposed that the
Confessionale (for this name is usually applied to the
document) was itself any forgiveness of sins. The
absolution could only be given in the confessional
when the holder approached his chosen confessor in
the Sacrament of Penance and sought absolution in
the usual way. This is another important point, for
those who undertake to show that Indulgences were
bought and sold are wont to appeal to these Confessionalia and say : “ Here is the Indulgence itself with,
the price named upon it.” Such persons must be told
that they are under a complete misapprehension ;
that, to begin with, the Confessionalia, as seen in this
one crucial case, had nothing to do with a Plenary
Indulgence to be gained then and there; and secondly,
that they gave no Indulgence themselves, still less
forgiveness of sins, but only attested the leave given
to choose a confessor and the grant to him of special
power to be used in the Sacrament of Penance.
Of the third and fourth principal graces I need’
say nothing, as they have no bearing on the Indul
gence controversy.
We can see now that this historical Indulgence, at
all events in the form in which it was conceived by
Leo X. and by his Commissioner, Albrecht of Bran
denburg, did not differ in kind, and hardly in its
circumstances, from those to which we are accustomed.
We can see, too, that the intention was to make the
preaching of the Indulgence into a sort of “mission,”
as we should now term it, the people being stirred
up by special prayer and devotions during the period
of one or two weeks, to take seriously to heart the
�Luther and Tetzel.
19
affair of their souls, and to make a good Confession
and Communion. Evidently the aim was to associate
the erection of a church which was to be the head
of all Churches with a grand religious awakening
throughout the world. The Pope therefore and his
commissioners must be acquitted of the blame which
the attacks of Luther have heaped upon them, and
this is the point of principal importance which we
have desired to prove.
But what about Tetzel, and the actual execution
of the project? Was he faithful to the injunctions
given him, or did he disregard them utterly, and
pervert the good purpose of the Indulgence into a
downright scandal ?
According to the accounts that have come down
to us from Protestant sources he went about with
much parade. When he entered a town he came
seated in a magnificent car, with the Bull resting on
a velvet cushion, and a red cross carried in front of
him. On his approach the bells were rung, and all
flocked out to meet him. When he reached the
principal church of the place, the red cross was
erected, the Bull placed in front of it, and likewise a
large money-chest. Then Tetzel ascended the pulpit
and began to extol the value of his wares.
“ Indulgences,” he said, “ are the most precious of
God’s gifts. . . . Come, and I will give you letters by
which even the sins you intend to commit may be
pardoned. I would not change my privileges for
those of St. Peter in Heaven, for I have saved more
souls by Indulgences than the Apostle by his
sermons.” Then he appealed to them to buy.
“ Bring—bring—bring,” he said, pointing to his strong
�20
Luther and Tetzel.
■box, and, according to Luther, he used to shout these
words with such a bellowing that you might have
thought him a mad bull.1
If such were Tetzel’s methods, no wonder that
good men were scandalized. And we are told that
the scandal was brought forcibly under Luther’s notice
in the following manner. Tetzel had come to Jutabock, a place not far from Wittenberg. IntoWittenberg
itself he was not permitted to enter, but the inhabi
tants went off to hear him, and Luther’s penitents
came back refusing to give up their sins. When he
exhorted and rebuked them, they showed him the
Indulgences they had received from Tetzel, and told
him they had bought permission to continue in their
sins, whilst nevertheless assured of immunity from
guilt and punishment. This is the traditional story,
but a very decisive argument entitles us to dismiss
it at once. Luther, as we are about to see, presently
framed his indictment against Tetzel, and it does not
contain a word of suggestion that the latter under
took to forgive future sins. Presumably therefore
what happened was much more simple. Those who
were wont to attend Luther’s confessional at Witten
berg, on this occasion went to the neighbouring town
to gain the Indulgence. If Luther was already set
against the doctrine of Indulgences, the natural effect
of such an incident would be to stir the bile of so
excitable a person, and that this was in reality his
-doctrinal position at the time, is clear from a sermon
which he forthwith delivered at the Castle church.
For in it he denounced not only Tetzel, but the very
-doctrine of Indulgences which the Catholic Church
1 D’Aubigne, Ibid. pp. 241—243.
�Luther and Tetzel.
i
r
holds still as she ever has held. It cannot be proved
from Scripture (he says) that Divine justice demands
of the sinner any other penance or satisfaction save
reformation of heart. “ Do nothing in favour of Indul
gences. Have you means : Give to him who ishungry; that will be more profitable than to give it
for heaping up stones and much better than to buy
Indulgences.”
A short time afterwards he drew up his famous
Theses against Tetzel’s preaching, ninety-five in
number, and on the eve of All Saints, 1517, nailed
them to the door of the same Castle church. It was
a challenge to all opposers to meet-him in the arena
of theological disputation, when he would be prepared
to defend the doctrines contained in the Theses. It
is a mistake to suppose that any exceptional courage
was required to make the challenge, which was in
accordance with the custom among scholars of those
days. But Luther was availing himself of the custom
to play a crafty game. He had, as has been said,,
already come to hold a doctrinal system, in all
essential particulars identical with that which is now
called by his name, and in such a system Indul
gences can have no place. At the same time he
was anxious to continue as long as possible in good
favour with the Pope, and hence in his Theses he
attempts to draw a distinction between Tetzel’s
doctrine of Indulgences and that of Pope Leo. The
former he vilifies; the latter he stamps with his
approval. But what he attributes to the Pope is
merely his own personal doctrine ; what he condemns
in Tetzel, being the acknowledged doctrine of the
Church, was doubtless also that of the Pope. Still
�22
Luther and Tetzel.
by this contrivance Luther was able to indulge in pro
fessions of submissiveness, as he does for instance in
his letter to Leo X. of the following spring, in which
he says: “ Wherefore, Most Blessed Father, I offer
myself prostrate at the feet of your Blessedness with
all that I have and am, cause me to live or die, call
me or recall me, approve me or condemn me, just as
you please, I will recognize your voice as the voice
of Christ, who presides and speaks in you.” But
while he wrote thus to the Pope, in private he ex
pressed himself in other language. To his friend,
Spalatinus, he had written on February 15, 1518, that
is three months later than the publication of his
Theses, but two months before his profession of sub
mission to the Pope’s decision: “To you, Spalatinus,
alone and to our friends I declare that Indulgences
seem to me to be nothing else than an illusion
offered to souls, and useful only to those who are
lazy and snore over the way of Christ.”1 For holding
this, he added that “he had stirred up against him,
six hundred Minotaurs, Radamanthotaurs, and Cacotaurs.” It will be noticed that in this letter he
draws no distinction between Tetzel’s doctrine of
Indulgences and that of the Pope’s. He condemns
Indulgences sans phrase.
I should have wished to give some specimens of
the Ninety-five Theses. This, however, is obviously
impossible in a short tract, and I must be content
to repeat that their substance, and indeed almost the
■entirety of their contents, is directed against the very
same doctrine which we now hold. Of course Luther
misrepresents this doctrine in every particular, but his
1 De Wette, i. 92.
�Luther and Tetzel.
23
misrepresentations are such as to show that what he
is misrepresenting is our orthodox doctrine and none
other. We may therefore draw the valuable con
clusion which writers like Bishop Creighton have
challenged1—that our present doctrine is no new
doctrine devised after these sad experiences of the
sixteenth century to take the place of one that had
become hopelessly discredited, but is in itself the
ancient doctrine which has come down to us from
time immemorial.
There are no doubt one or two phrases in the
Theses which, indirectly rather than directly, suggest
that the preachers have made unsound or disedifying
statements, and they must be allowed their due
weight in our estimate of Tetzel’s personal manage
ment of his mission. We shall have to mention them
presently, for we must now turn to Tetzel, and the
way in which he responded to Luther’s attacks upon
him.
When he saw Luther’s Ninety-five Theses, and
marked the enthusiasm with which they had been
taken up by many influential persons around him, he
withdrew from Saxony and retired to Frankfort-onOder. Here there was a University in which Conrad
Wimpina, a friar of Tetzel’s own Order of St.
Dominic, was a distinguished professor. He was a
friend and former professor to Tetzel himself, and it
was natural that the latter should take counsel with
him on so critical an occasion. Presently there
appeared a set, or rather two sets of theses—Anti
theses they were called—in reply to Luther’s Ninetyfive ; one set of One Hundred and Six Theses being
1 In his History of the Papacy.
�24
Luther and Tetzel.
a counter-statement of the doctrine of Indulgences^
the other of Fifty Theses, on the Papal power to
grant them.
The description of Tetzel, given higher upon thefaith of Lutheran authorities, prepares us to find in
these Antitheses the brutal, reckless, and ignorant
utterances of a buffoon. What we do find is a calm
and scientific theological statement, quite remarkable
for its force and lucidity. Indeed, I do not know
where a theologian could go for a more satisfying
defence of Indulgences against current Protestant
difficulties. Bishop Creighton remarks that Tetzel
“does not so much argue as contradict.” Of course
he does not. Theses are propositions which a theo
logian is prepared to defend by argument against
those who will discuss with him. Arguments, there
fore, do not appear in the Theses themselves, except
in so far as simple statement of the truth is often
times itself the best refutation of error ; and in this
sense, Tetzel’s Theses are a luminous refutation of
Luther’s. They prove at least this, that Tetzel
thoroughly grasped both the nature and the com
plexity of his duties. Thus Luther asserts that “those
who believe themselves to be secure of their salva
tion because' of these letters of Indulgences, will be
damned together with their teachers.” Of course he
means to suggest that the contrary was Tetzel’s
teaching. The latter replies in calmer language:
“ It is erroneous to say that no one can have such
conjectural knowledge as human nature is capable
of,” that he has gained the Indulgence if he has
done what the Jubilee requires. Also that “it is
erroneous to say that one who has gained the Papal
�Luther and Tetzel.
25
Indulgence duly in every way, that is, after true con
trition and confession, is not reconciled to God.”
These two propositions completely dispel Luther’s
fallacy. For we are absolutely certain that if we
fulfil all the conditions we gain the fruits of
the Indulgence, and as regards the “ if,” we
■can have moral, or conjectural certainty, as he
calls it, that we have had true sorrow, made
■a good confession, and done what the Indulgence
prescribes.
Again, Luther asserts that it is very hard even
for learned men to extol all the amplitude of
Indulgences, without depreciating the necessity of
true contrition. And he explains that there is this
■contradiction between the two, that whereas true
■contrition makes us anxious to embrace penances,
Indulgences take them away and cause us to hate
them when they come. To this Tetzcl replies that
■even a moderately learned man can extol the two
things without difficulty. For Indulgences do not
touch remedial penances, whereas this is what true
-contrition loves to continue throughout life. Again,
.according to Luther, those preach the doctrine of
men who preach that when the coin chinks in the
chest, the soul at once flies to Heaven, the sug
gestion being that this had been Tetzel’s preaching.
Tetzel by his reply shows us what had been his real
teaching which had given a handle to this misrepre
sentation—“ He errs who denies that a soul can fly
as quickly up to Heaven as a coin can chink against
the bottom of the chest.” He does not, that is, offer
.an assurance that at once on the giving of the money
the effect will follow, but that when the effect does
�26
Luther and Tetzel.
follow it will be sudden and complete in its accom
plishment. These are a few specimens to which
others could be added in order to prove that Tetzel’s
Theses are not only theologically correct but compiled
with real skill.
There are, however, other qualities about them
which cannot fail to impress those who are striving
to read the character of the author through the lines
of his utterance. It is almost impossible to think of
him as a buffoon, such a love of sobriety and mode
ration pervades every line of his propositions, and not
only of the Theses, but likewise of his two sermons
or rather notes for sermons, which are still extant.
Nor is the pervading tone merely one of sobriety.
It is also one of dignified self-repression. He has
been made the victim of many outrageous charges,
but there is no trace of irritation in his lang-uag-e.
He takes up the doctrinal points one after another,
but disregards the personal suggestions until he draws
near the end. Then he refers to them in a few
becoming sentences. “ For one who has never heard
them (he says) to declare in public Theses that the
Indulgence-preachers employ scandalous language
(yerborum libidineiri) before the people, and take up
more time in explaining Indulgences than in expound
ing the Gospel, is to scatter lies picked up from others,
to spread fictions in place of truths, and to show
oneself light-minded and credulous ; and is to fall
into mischievous error.” Here I think we have a
true account of what had happened. There wereplenty of mischief-makers to concoct scandalous
stories if they were likely to be welcomed, and Luther
had shown a readiness to welcome this kind of slander
�Litdher and Tctzcl.
27
if not to add to it from his own imagination, and poor
Tetzel was the sufferer.
There is another proposition among Tetzel’sTheses which shows how keenly he suffered under the
injuries done him, and which sets him before us as
the very opposite of a buffoon, as a man of delicate
feeling, at least of delicate religious feeling. This,,
however, is a point which I find some difficulty in
setting forth, so foul and unbearable are the words
which Luther did not hesitate to ascribe to his
opponent. Suffice it to say, that he accused him of
having not only taught that Indulgences could forgive
every sin, but also of having named as gross a sin as
a filthy imagination ever conceived, and claimed that
even that could be forgiven by the Indulgence then
offered. Tetzel replies very quietly and meekly, but
evidently with repressed indignation, that of course,
as God is prepared to pardon all our sins, even that
particular sin, were it possible, comes within the
range of Divine forgiveness. Then he adds, “that
to ascribe (such words to another) in downright con
tradiction to the truth of facts, was to be moved by
hatred, and to thirst for a brother’s blood.” It was
this charge, however, that ultimately killed him. He
got testimonials from the authorities of two towns
where some forms of the story had localized the
alleged offence, and he sent the manuscript of the
sermon supposed to have contained it to the Pope.
But after a two years’ interval, a Papal envoy, named
Miltitz, came into the neighbourhood. He had picked
up the stories about Tetzel as he went along, and
being hopeful of gaining over Luther by some
displays of kindness, he was prone to interpret things
�28
Luther and Tetzel.
as favourably for the latter as possible. In spite of
Tetzel’s remonstrances, when Miltitz found him out
in his convent at Leipzig, he expressed his belief that
the obnoxious words had been really used. Of
course this is a piece of evidence against Tetzel
which needs to be taken into account. Still it is
clear that Miltitz was in other respects over-credulous,
and Luther had no difficulty in leading him by the
nose when the meeting between them took place.
I am inclined, therefore, to lay small stress upon
Miltitz’s opinion on this point in regard to Tetzel.
It was an opinion, however, which fell with terrible
weight on the over-wrought Dominican. He took
to his bed, and fell into a burning fever, which before
long carried him off. If he was innocent, as for my
part I firmly believe him to have been, of a blasphemy
against the honour of our Blessed Lady, it was
peculiarly appropriate that he should have expired
just as his brethren in the choir were singing, “ Sub
tuzim presidium confugimus, Sancta Dei GenitrixP
I have now covered the ground I had marked out
for this article. We have seen what I trust will be
thought sufficient evidence that the Catholic doctrine
of Indulgences was the same in those days as in these,
and that the celebrated Indulgence which Luther
made use of to lift himself into fame, was projected
by no mere greed for gain, but for a high and holy
purpose which the arrangements made for its granting
might well have seemed calculated to promote. I
have also submitted some reasons tending to show
that the balance of probability is much more in
Tetzel’s favour than against him. We must be careful,
however, not to press these conclusions too far. It is
�Lvdher and Tetzel.
quite impossible to deny that there were grave abuses
connected with the Indulgence-preaching at that time.
Indeed, had there not been, it is not easy to see how
Luther could have been so successful in prejudicing
large multitudes against the system. Moreover, not
to mention other Catholic expressions of opinion, we
have to remember that at the Council of Trent, when
the proposal was brought forward that these travelling
Indulgence-preachers should be abolished altogether,
all previous legislation having failed to protect the
system against abuse, there was unanimity among the
Bishops in favour of the change, the German Bishops
being especially zealous for it. The point on which
I wish to insist is, in short, not that there were no
abuses, but that the abuses lay in practices unworthy
of the accepted system, not in the doctrinal system
itself. There seems no reason to suppose that these
faulty Indulgence-preachers ever went so far as to
teach that an Indulgence could be gained by one
who had not first, by confession and contrition,
obtained forgiveness of all grievous sin, and recovered,
if he had ever lost it, the grace of God for his soul.
Still less is there evidence that they told theii' hearers,
or that their hearers would have believed them if they
had, that an Indulgence was a permission to sin in
the future. Catholic doctrine in the past was always
too clear, and Catholic missioners too well instructed.
Where the preachers misconducted themselves will
doubtless have been in their dealing with the mone
tary aspects of the Indulgence. To recommend the
charity for which alms was demanded was perfectly
lawful, but we can imagine how they converted such
recommendations into a sort of hawking of wares in
�.3°
Luther and Tetzel.
their possession, and we can imagine also how a
certain amount of avarice may have mingled with the
work. It was good then that the change was made,
for, thank God, all such abuses are things of the past.
There is nothing now to disguise from us, when we
give alms at times of Jubilee, or otherwise, that we
are giving to God, and that it is God, who can see
into our hearts, who will know and judge if we are
giving from a humble and contrite heart for His
honour and glory, and for the promotion of a good
work.
And the result is that under present conditions
the system of Indulgences is a system of unmixed
spiritual good. Of the Jubilee Indulgence of 1825, as
it was held in Rome, Cardinal Wiseman was witness,
and has left us an account in his Four Last Popes :
It is a year in which the Holy See does all it can to
make Rome spiritually attractive, and spiritually only. The
theatres are closed, public amusements suspended; even
private recreation pressed within the bounds of Lenten
regulations. But all that can help the sinner to amendment,
or assist the devout to feed his faith and nourish his piety,
is freely and lavishly ministered. The pulpit is occupied by
the most eloquent preachers, awakening the consciences or
instructing ignorance; the confessionals are held in constant
possession by priests who speak every language; pious
associations or confraternities receive, entertain, and conduct
from sanctuary to sanctuary the successive trains of pilgrims;
the altars are crowded by fervent communicants; while,
above all, the spiritual remission of temporal punishment
for sins known familiarly to Catholics under the name of
Indulgence, is more copiously imparted, on conditions by
no means over easy. Rome, during that year, becomes the
attracting centre of Catholic devotion, the magnet which
draws it from every side. But it does not exhaust it, or
.absorb it; for multitudes go back full of gratitude to
�Luther and Tetzel.
31
Heaven and the Holy See for the blessings which they feel
they have received, and the edifying scenes in which they
have been allowed to partake.
The Cardinal speaks only of Rome itself, but the
same scenes are repeated throughout the world, if on
a smaller, in many places a very much smaller, scale.
Shortly we shall all have another opportunity of
witnessing them, and taking part in them, and shall
then know from our experience what a powerful
means of grace for the regeneration of souls is a
Jubilee Indulgence.
��
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
English
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Luther and Tetzel
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 31 p. ; 19 cm.
Notes: Includes bibliographical references. Date of publication from KVK ((OCLC WorldCat).
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Smith, Sydney F. (Sydney Fenn), 1843-1922
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[190-]
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Catholic Truth Society
Subject
The topic of the resource
Catholic Church
Reformation
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /><br /><span>This work (Luther and Tetzel), identified by </span><span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk">Humanist Library and Archives</a></span><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
RA1545
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Catholic Church
Johann Tetzel
Martin Luther
Reformation