TETZEL
540
TETZEL
by Tetzel's "Vorlegung", issued in April, 1518 (Lea,
in "A History of Auricular Confession and Indul-
gences", III, 395, erroneously makes it Vorksung), in
which the scholastically-trained theologian, though
not profound, scents nevertheless with keen penetra-
tion, not a mere academic tournament, but a far-
reaching and momentous battle of principles, involv-
ing the very fundamentals of the Christian religion
and the authority of the Church. He lays bare with
extraordinary precision the unfortunate consequences
that would arise. At the close of his "Vorlegung",
Tetzel announces that he would presently publish "a
few other principles and positions". These are the
second series of theses, fifty in number, with Tetzel
as author, and published in May, 1518. In these, in-
dulgences are but lightly touched upon, the burden of
the argumentation being shifted to the authority of
the Church. Tetzel as yet was only a bachelor of
theology. In the course of 1518 he was promoted 1o
the doctorate, whether by the master-general or the
University of Frankfort is not known. Luther's agi-
tation having frustrated further efforts to popularize
the granted indulgence of eight years, Tetzel, deserted
by the public, broken in spirit, wrecked in health, re-
tired to his mona.stery at Leipzig in 1518. Here in
the middle of January, 1519, he had to face the bitter
reproaches and unjust incriminations of Carl von Mel-
titz. It was at this time that Luther magnanimously
penned a letter in which he tries to console him by de-
claring "that the agitation was not that of his [Tet-
zel's] creation, but that the child had an entirely dif-
ferent father". Tetzel died soon after, received an
honourable burial, and was interred before the high
altar of the Dominican church at Leipzig.
History presents few characters that have suffered more senseless misrepresentation, even bald carica- ture, than Tetzel. "Even while he lived stories which contained an element of legend gathered around his name, until at last, in the minds of the uncritical Prot- estant historians, he became tyjiical indulgence-mon- ger, upon whom any well-worn anecdote might be fathered" (Beard, "Martin Luther", London, 1889, 210). For a critical scholarly study which shows him in a proper perspecl i\c, lie had to await the researches of our own time, mainly at the hands of Dr. Nicholas Paulus, who is closely followed in this article. In the first place, his teaching regarding the indulgences for the living was correct. The charge that the forgive- ness of sins was sold for money regardless of contrition or that absolution for sins to be committed in the fu- ture could be purchased is baseless. An indulgence, he writes, can be applied only "to the pains of sin which are confessed and for which there is contrition". "No one", he furthermore adds, "secures an indul- gence unless he have true contrition". The con- fessional letters {confcssiotwlia) could of course be obtained for a mere pecuniary consideration without demanding contrif ion. But such document did not se- cure an indulgence. It was simply a permit to select a proper confessor, who only after a contrite confession would absolve from sin and reserved cases, and who possessed at the same time facilities to impart the plenary indulgence (Paulus, "Joliann Tetzel", 103).
As iiiui-li cijinDt be said about his teaching regard- ing indulgcni'cs for the dead. The coujilel attributed to him —
As soon as the gold in the casket rings
The rescued soul to heaven springs, like that attributed to Luther,
Who loves not wine and wife and song
Remains a fool his life long; though verbally spurious, can in both instances be in substance unfailingly traced to the writings of their re- spect ivo aulliors. By Tetzel they are substantially acknowledged in his Frankfort theses. Here he accepted the mere school opinion of a few obscure
writers, which overstepped the contents of papal in-
dulgence Bulls. This opinion found no recognition but
actual condemnation at the hands of authoritative
writers, and was rejected in explicit terms by Cardinal
Cajetan as late as 1517-19. By the teaching he laid
himself open to just censure and reproach. To condi-
tion a plenary indulgence for the dead on the mere gift
of money, without contrition on the part of the giver,
was as repugnant to the teaching of the Church, as it
violated every principle of elementarj- justice.
"Preachers act in the name of the Church", writes
Cardinal Cajetan, "so long as they teach the doctrines
of Christ and the Church; but if they teach, guided by
their own minds and arbitrariness of will, things of
which they are ignorant, they cannot pass as repre-
sentatives of the Church; it need not be wondered at
that they go astray" (Paulus, "Johann Tetzel", 165).
It was this deviation from the correct teaching of the
Church and the obtrusive and disgraceful injection of
the treasury chest, that led to abuses and scandals
reprobated by such contemporaries as Cochlsus, Em-
ser, and Diike George (Paulus, op. cit., 117-18).
"Grave abuses arose; the attitude of the preachers,
the manner of offering and publishing the indulgences
aroused many scandals: above all, Tetzel is in no way
to be exonerated" (Janssen-Pastor, "Geschichte des
deutsch. Volkes", 18th ed., Freiburg, II, 84).
If Tetzel was guilty of unwarranted theological views, if his advocacy of indulgences was culpably im- prudent, his moral character, the butt of everj' sense- less burlesque and foul libel, has been vindicated to the extent of leaving it untainted by any grave moral dereliction. These would hardly be worth alluding to, did not some of them have Miltitz as the source. But Miltitz has been so discredited that he no longer carries historical weight. "All efforts", writes Oscar Mic^hael, a Protestant, "to produce Miltitz as a reli- able witness will prove futile" (Miinch. AUg. Zeit., 18 April, 1901). "Thecirculatedreportsof Miltitz about Tetzel deserve in themselves no credence", writes another Protestant author (ibid., 14 March, 1910).
The Ratisbon adultery charge, with its penalty of drowning, detailed by Luther, ^lathesius, Sleidan and almost every Protestant Reformation historian, has been proved so preposterous, that Brieger (Theodor)
claims "it is high time that it vanish from
all history " (Theol. Literaturzeit., 1900, 84) . Dibelius of Dresden says: "Among the faults and shortcomings ascribed to Tetzel by his enemies, that of immorality cannot stand" (Lecture on "Tetzel's Lebenu. Lehre" in "Drcsdner Journal", 20 March, 1903). "Paulus", in the words of Berger (A.), "has so effectually re- futed the notorious adultery anecdote, that no one will ever revive it" (Histor. Vicrtelsjahrschr. f. Gesch., 1902, p. 256). The charge made by Luther in his seventy-fifth thesis, that Tetzel had preached impi- ously concerning the Blessed Virgin, and repeated in Luther's letter to Archbishop Albrecht (Enders, I, 115) and in most exphcit terms in his pamphlet "Wider Hans Worst", was not onlj' promptly and in- dignantly denied by Tetzel (13 Dec, 1518), declared false by an official resolution of the entire city magis- tracy of Halle (12 Dec, 1517), where it was claimed the utterance was made, but has now been successfully proved a clumsy fabrication (Paulus, op. cit., 56-61).
The charge of embezzling the indulgence fimds is also lcgendar>-. The ))recaulinns adupted to safe- guard the alms were of a character that precluded all chance of misajipropriation. The cliest to receive the nioncy always had two or three locks, the keys of which were in the custody of different persons, includ- ing a represent alive of the banking-house of Fugger. It could never be opened save in the presence of a no- tary. The ecclesi;us1 leal injunction was that the faith- fulhad todepdsit theircimt ributions inperson. Togive it t()th<'conl'ess(iror ind\dgcnce subconimissarj' invali- dated the indulgence U'aulus, op. cit., 76-77). ThcTet-
