CHA P. which sufficiently discovered itself in their future conduct. Hoffman, the principal of the univer XIX. 1519. Et. 44. sity f This famous dispute commenced on the 27th day of June, 1519. The principal question agitated between Carlostadt and 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 cooperated 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 human, 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 Catholick doctrine of free-will, in opposition to the Lutheran and Calvinistick opinion of the total inefficacy of the human mind to all good purposes. "Freely they stood, who stood, and fell, who fell : "Of 1519. sity of Leipsick, who sat as umpire on this occa- CHAP. sion, was too discreet to determine between the XIX. contending parties. Each, therefore, claimed the victory; but the final decision upon the various Et. 44. 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 Leipsick. 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. prevailed up. On the return of Luther to Wittemberg, Miltitz renewed his endeavours to prevail upon him Luther is to desist from further opposition, and to submit on to write himself to the authority of the holy see. For the accomplishment of this object he laboured unceasingly, with such commendations of the virtues to the pope. and "Of true allegiance, constant faith or love? "Not what they would, what praise could they receive?" Par. Lost. Book iii. v. 102. CHA P. and talents of Luther, and such acknowledgments XIX. of the misconduct and corruptions of the Roman 1519. court, as he thought were likely to gain his confiEt. 44. dence 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 authentick. 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, 1520. Pallav. Conc. di Trento lib. i. cap. xviii. p. 114. XIX. 1520. singular, and in its consequences as one of the CHA P. most important, that ever the pen of an individual produced. Under the pretext of obedience, respect, and even affection for the pontiff, he has Et. 45. conveyed the most determined opposition, the most bitter satire, and the most marked contempt; insomuch, that it is scarcely possible to conceive a composition more replete with insult and offence, than that which Luther affected to allow himself to be prevailed on to write, by the representations of his own fraternity. "Amongst the monsters of "the age," says Luther, "with whom I have now waged nearly a three years war, I am compelled at times to turn my regards towards you, "O most holy father Leo; or rather I may say, "that as you are esteemed to be the sole cause "of the contest, you are never absent from my 66 thoughts. For although I have been compelled by your impious flatterers, who have attacked Ime without any cause, to appeal to a general "council, regardless of the empty decrees of your predecessors, Pius and Julius, which by a kind "of stupid tyranny, were intended to prevent such a measure, yet I have never allowed my mind to "be so far alienated from your holiness, as not to "be most earnestly solicitous for the happiness "both of yourself and your see, which I have always endeavoured, as far as in my power, to "obtain from God by continual and ardent supplications. It is true, I have almost learnt to "despise and to exult over the threats of those "who Sarcastick letter from Luther to the pope. 1520. CHAP. "who have endeavoured to terrify me by the maXIX. "jesty of your name and authority; but there is "one circumstance which I cannot contemn, and Et. 45. "which has compelled me again to address your "holiness. I understand I have been highly "blamed, as having had the temerity to carry my "opposition so far as even to attack your personal "character. "I must, however, most explicitly assure you, "that whenever I have had occasion to mention "you, I have never done it but in the best and most magnificent terms. Had I done other"wise I should have belied my own judgment, "and should not only concur in the opinion of my "adversaries, but most willingly acknowledge my "rashness and impiety. I have given you the ap pellation of a Daniel in Babylon, and have even "endeavoured to defend you against your great "calumniator Silvester (Prierio) with a sincerity "which any reader will abundantly perceive in my works. The unsullied reputation of your "life is indeed so august, and so celebrated in every part of the world by the applauses of "learned men, as to set at defiance any aspersions "which can be thrown upon it. I am not so "absurd as to attack him whom every one com"mends, when it has always been my rule to spare even those whom publick report con"demns. I delight not in blazoning the crimes "of others, being conscious of the mote which is "in |