Miltitz, Kahi, vox, a Koman ecclesiastic, celebrated as the papal chamberlain and legate to the Peformers, was the son of a Saxon nobleman, and was born about 1490. He flourished first as canon at Mayence, Treves, and Mlssonia. Iu 1515 he removed to Kome and be- came pa])al notary. In 1518, when cardinal Cajetan had so signally failed in bringing "little brother Martin" to submission, Leo X became aware of the greatness of the schism likely to occur in the (Jerinan Church. The strife against the Latin system had assumed gigantic proportions. Around Luther were now gathered the great, and the strong, and the learned of the ^'utonic race. Frederick, the electoral prince of Saxony, was Luther's staunch friend and protector, and Leo X, know- ing the influence and power of this prince, felt loth to incur his ill-will by harsh measures against Luther. Miltitz was therefore despatched to the electoral court with a valuable present — the consecrated golden rose. This was to give the electoral prince assurance of the good intentions of pope Leo towards Saxony, and of Ins special friendship for Frederick; at the same time he was instructed to conciliate Luther, and, if possible, to make an end of the wliolc Lutheran controversy. In December, 1518, Miltitz arrived in Saxony, but, being careful to find out first how matters stood, he did not take the consecrated rose with him on his first call. This was a mistake on INIiltitz's part, for, when the rose after- wards arrived, the prince acted very coolly, and, instead of accepting the present in person, commissioned three of his noblemen to receive the jwpe's gift, and Luther aptly remarked that " its odor had been lost on the long journey" (see Luther's Briefe, edited by De Wette, i, 108, 109). Miltitz's special instructions were to conciliate Luther, and we must acknowledge that lie acted with much policy and skill. He carefully abstained from visiting cardinal Cajetan, who, by his imperious and ar- rogant treatment of Luther, had lost all influence with the electoral prince. When among friends, or even while staying in jiublic houses, he did not hesitate to denounce the indulgence traffic, and assured his hearers that the shameful trade was carried on without the pope's consent. It was therefore perfectly natural that the electoral prince and Luther should have put confi- dence ill Jliltitz, and that his mission of conciliation seemed in a fair way to succeed (conip. however. Fisher, Ref. p. 97, note 2). " On Jan. 3, 1519, Jliltitz had a con- ference with Luther at Altenburg. The papal legate re- ceived the Reformer kindly, embraced and kissed him, and then addressed him as follows : " Dear brother Jlartin, how much I have been mistaken ! I always imagined you an old doctor, sitting behind the stove, and full of whims and chimerical notions. But now I see that you are in the very height of manly strength. Xot with five thousand armed men would I dare to take you to Kome. All my investigations have shown me that, wherever one iierson is for the ])ope, three are against him and for you." He then in the kindest manner re- monstrated against Luther's violence, showing him how mucli harm the Church hail to suffer in consequence. He failed, however, to procure any recantation, and suc- ceeded simply in obtaining from Luther an expression of submissiveness. Silence was imposed on him, as well as on his opponents, and it was agreed to tran.-fer the whole matter to the judgment of the arcliiii.-ho[) of Treves.. In conscfiucnceof this agreement. Luther wrote to the |iope a letter full of courtesy and humility, and went even so far as to declare imbliely " that separation from a Ciiurcli for whieli St. Paul and St. Peter, and one I hundred thousand martyrs, had shed their blood, was
MILTON
281
MILTON
not permissible, and that on no account must ^\■c resist her teachings and commands" (see Walch, xv, 812). This attitude of the great Keformer has often been stig- matized by the Romanists as an act of hypocrisy and simulation (see Wetzer u. Welte, Kirchen-Lex. vii, 148 ; Pallavicini, Gesch. d. Cone. v. Trient) ; but Luther's de- sign, it must be borne in mind, was not to array him- self against the Chnrch, but to vindicate her against what he believed to be an abuse of her sacred name. Luther's movements were so completely churchly that even archbishop Manning {Unity of the Church, p. 328 sq.) is obliged to acknowledge it. At this critical mo- ment (February, 1519) Dr. l-]ck, one of Luther's most prominent opponents, who in 1518 had challenged Carl- stadt to a public disputation, published an outline of his Theses, which clearly proved to Luther that the main object of his attack was not Carlstadt, but himself. Luther considered this a breach of the agreement which he had concluded with Miltitz, and, as his ad- versaries did not hold themselves bound thereby, he, of course, felt relieved from his promise, and he so de- clared to the elector Frederick on the 13 th of March. Luther's position at these disputations widened the breach with Rome [see Luther] ; and the reformatory writings. To the Christian Nobles of the German Nation, of the Bettering of the Christian State (August, 1520), and Of the Bah/lonish Captivity of the Church (October, 1520), tended to fix the fact that reconciliation with the Church of Rome was no longer possible. Yet ]Miltitz would not despair of it. October 12, 1520, he had another confer- ence with Luther at Lichtenberg, and then and there Luther expressed himself willing once more to test the question. It was too late, however, for in September, 1520, Eck had appeared in Germany with the papal bull, condemning as heresies forty-one propositions ex- tracted from Luther's writings, and summoning him, on pain of excommunication, to retract his errors within sixty days. This ended Miltitz's mission as far as Lu- ther was concerned. But as Miltitz's instructions ex- tended not only against Luther, but also against Tet- zel, whose behavior in the traffic in indulgences had been marked with peculiar impudence and indecency, he now repaired to Leipsic (December, 1519), sent for Tetzel, and subjected him to a most searching examination, which is given in a letter written by Miltitz to PfetHn- ger (see Loscher, Eeformationsacten, iii, 20 [Leipsic, 1729]): "I know enough of Tetzel's scandalous and ly- ing life and actions. I convicted him of his crimes by well-attested testimony. I showed him the receipts of F\igger's commissioners, which proved beyond doubt that he received one hundred and thirty florins per month for his trouble, besides all expenses paid; a carriage with three horses, and ten florins per month extra for his servant. Thus did Tetzel, who, moreover, has two illegitimate children in the employ of the Church. No one can estimate how much he may have stolen. I shall report all these things to Rome, and expect a pa- pal judgment." Tetzel, in consequence of his fear and anxiety, was taken dangerously sick, and died soon after. All efforts of reconciliation having failed, Miltitz re- , turned to Rome, but, after a short stay, he returned to Germany, and died there in 1529 — some say while on his homeward journey. See Seidemann, Carl v. Miltitz (Dresden, 1844, 8vo)-, id. Die Leipziger Disputation im Jahre 1519 (Dresden, 1843, 8vo) ; Luther's Briefe (edited by De Wette), i, 108, 109, and 115; Ranke, Hist, of the Reformation, i, 386 sq. ; Hagenbach, Kirchengesc'h. iii, 83 sq. ; Krauth, Conservat. Reformation ; Fisher, Hist, of the Reformation, p. 97 ; Waddington, Hist, of the Reformation, vol. i, ch. iii ; Gieseler, Eccles. Hist. vol. iv; Herzog, Real-Encyklojmdie, viii, 326, 577; iii, 629; xv, 579.