posed to him in philosophy bore against him. Wesel was summoned before a tribunal composed of theolo- gians from the universities of Cologne and Heidelberg, who were, with a single exception, realists. The Do- minicans M.Gerhard Elten, M.. Jacob Sprenger, and a third iniknown person were inquisitors at the trial. The preliminary proceeiiings began on the Eriday after Can- dlemas, (jtobably Eebruary 4, 1479, at Mayence. Elten, a fanatic, presided. The accused was required to ex- ])lain certain suspicious facts in his personal history, such as his intercourse with the Bohemians, and espe- ciallj' with a certain Nicholas of Bohemia. He was examined with regard to any possible adherents he might have gained, and respecting a communion ser- vice he had held. Bayle (Dictionnaire, s. v. " Wesalia") and Erhardt {Gesch. des Wiederaiifbliihens, etc., i, 291) state that he was also questioned with regard to his relations with the Jews ; but as Argentre does not mention this point, a confounding of Wesel with Wessel would seem to have been made by those authorities. A second part of his trial w^as concerned with doctrinal errors alleged against Wesel, e. g. that he denied the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son, which he admitted, but defended his view by an appeal to the Scriptures; that he rejected the authority of tradition, with respect to which he was obliged to acknowledge his opinion that the holy fathers and doctors were not guided in their interpretations of Scripture by the same infallible Spirit by which it was originally revealed, and that the immediate direction of the Holy Spirit coidd not be certaiidy assumed of every council which might be convened by the proper authority. Other er- rors charged against him had reference to indulgences, the sacraments, sin in general, and original sin in par- ticular. Under the dogma oi' the Ciiurch, he stated his belief in one holy Church ; but was charged with omit- ting the attribute of universality. He conceded the rule of the Holy Ghost over (he Church, and also her freedom from error. He also conceded the necessity of a papacy to the Church of Rome, though not without equivocation. It is evident that he did not hold the views respecting the authority of the Church which were current in his time. He denied any distinction between bishop and presbyter, and endeavored to over- turn tlie right of civil jurisdiction and legislation as claimed bj' the Cliurch. He did not consider celibacy, monasticism, and fasting as of binding obligation, and was able to reply in a satisfactory manner to the charges against him npon these points, only because they were conceived and expressed in a form in which he had actually never held the views to which they referred. It appears that Wesel endeavored to give way to his persecutors as far as he could without doing too great violence to his conscience, and that he sought to take advantage of every ambiguity in the charges against him, or which he could weave into his own explana- tions. He even went so far as to repeatedly ask for mercy. He needed all the encouragement he could get. He was old and broken down, threatened with death by fire, and obliged to midergo usage which he declared would have turned Christ himself into a here- tic. He finally consented to retract, with the proviso that the retraction should be charged npon the con- science of his judges. Tiie formula adopted was of a general nature, and set forth that erroneous matter might be found in his writings, which he now recalled; that he submitted to the authority of the Church and the teachings of her doctors; that he was ready to per- form whatever penance might be imposed ; and that he asked for forgiveness. Tliis retraction took place be- fore the assembled tribunal, and was followed by a simi- lar act in the cathedral. His writings were burned, and he was himself condemned to life-long imprison- ment in the Augustinian convent, where he died in 1481.
Wesel stated the doctrine of the sufficiency of Script- ure, the formal principle of Protestantism, with greater
WESI-HIISI
907
WESLEY
clearness than was possible to the Reformers in the beginning of their work. He joined its perspicuity with its sufficiency as a necessary consequence. lie also laid down the foundations of the doctrine of the witness of the Spirit, though he did not develop it. With reference to the material principles of the Refor- mation Wesel was less clear. He assailed indulgences, as not autliorized by Scripture, and denied that God could confer jurisdiction in divine things upon the Church. His argument, however, was altogether that of a clear-headed, well-meaning theologian, wlio saw in the doctrine of indulgences a scientihc error involving practical consequences, but it was not at all the retort of a conscience whose most sacred convictions are out- raged. Indulgences were in his view an ecclesiastical abuse, but not a peril which threatened the soul. His idea of sin is that it is a debt and a deficiency. He does not appreciate its power over the inner man. Grace is exalted by him, but ratlier as demonstrating the cau- sality of God than as benefiting the soul of man ; and he accordingly gives a foremost place to the doctrine of election. He regarded the Church as being above all a communion, and held that the true Church is the holy Church, within the universal Ciuirch. He denied em- ■ phatically that the apostles had received power from Christ to enact canons and laws, and refused to recog- nise the pope as the vicar of Christ in anj' sense which would involve the concession of legislative functions. He was even disposed to question the authority of sec- ular princes to enact laws; but as he was compelled to see the necessity of order in the world, he found him- self involved in uncertainty, which led him to concede much on his trial which he had previously denied. Ministers were conceived of b}' him as ambassadors for Christ, and both pope and priests as deriving their au- thorization from him. Every Christian possessed the right in his view of refusing obedience to an ecclesias- tical commandment which antagonizes the Word of God, and the humblest Christian has authority to re- buke an erring pope. He required obedience to the clergy, however, in things indifferent.