CHAPTER V

Hierarchy and Rationalism—Two Peasants’ Sons—Eck and Luther begin—The head of the Church—The primacy of Rome—Equality of Bishops—Peter the Foundation—Christ the Foundation—Eck insinuates that Luther is a Hussite—Luther on the doctrine of Huss—Agitation in the audience—Pleasantry of Dr. Eck—The Word alone—The Court Fool—Luther at Mass—Saying of the Duke—Purgatory—Close of the Discussion. On the 4th of July the debate between Eck and Luther commenced. Every thing announced that it would be keener, more decisive, and more interesting than that which had just been concluded, and during which the audience had gradually thinned away. The two antagonists descended into the arena, resolved not to lay down their arms till victory should declare in favour of one of them. All were in eager expectation, for the subject to be debated was the primacy of the pope. Christianity has two great adversaries: hierarchism and rationalism. Rationalism, as applied to the doctrine of man’s natural powers, had been attacked by the Reformation in the former branch of the Leipsic discussion. Hierarchism, viewed with reference to what is at once its apex, and its base, viz., the doctrine of the pope, was now to be considered. On the one side appeared Eck boasting of the debates in which he had been engaged, as a general boasts of his battles. On the other side stood Luther, to whom the contest seemed to promise only persecution and obloquy, but who came forward with a good conscience, a firm resolution to sacrifice everything for the cause of truth, and a confident expectation founded on faith in God and the deliverance which he affords. New convictions had sunk deep into his mind; as yet they were not arranged into a system, but in the heat of debate they flashed forth like lightning. Grave and intrepid, he manifested a decision which set all trammels at defiance. His features bore marks of the storms which had raged within his soul, and of the courage with which he was prepared to face new tempests. Two peasants’ sons, representatives of the two systems which still divide Christendom, were on the eve of a contest, the issue of which would go far to decide the future destiny of the State and the Church. At seven in the morning the two antagonists were in their desks, in the midst of a numerous and attentive assembly.

Luther rose and, in the exercise of a necessary precaution, modestly said:—

“In the name of the Lord! Amen. I declare, that the respect which I feel for the Sovereign Pontiff would have disposed me to avoid this discussion had the excellent Dr. Eck left me any alternative.”

Eck.—“In thy name, dear Jesus! before I descend into the arena I protest in your presence, mighty lords, that whatever I shall say is under correction of the first of all sees, and the master who occupies it.”

After a momentary pause, Eck continued—“There is in the church of God a primacy derived from Jesus Christ himself. The church militant is an image of the church triumphant. But the latter is a monarchical hierarchy, rising step by step up to the sole head, who is God, and, accordingly, Christ has established the same gradation upon earth. What kind of monster should the Church be if she were without a head!” …

Luther, (turning towards the audience).—“The doctor is correct in saying that the universal Church must have a head. If there is any one here who maintains the contrary, let him stand up? the remark does not at all apply to me.”

Eck.—“If the Church militant has never been without a monarch, I should like to know who that monarch is, if he is not the pontiff of Rome?”

Luther.—“The head of the Church militant is not a man, but Jesus Christ himself. This I believe on the testimony of God.” “Christ,” says the Scripture, “must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet.” We cannot therefore listen to those who would confine Christ to the Church triumphant in heaven. His reign is a reign of faith. We cannot see our Head, and yet we have him.”³

Eck, not admitting that he was beaten, had recourse to other arguments, and resumed, “According to St. Cyprian, sacerdotal unity is derived from Rome.”

Luther.—“Granted in regard to the Western Church. But is not the Church of Rome herself a descendant of the Church of Jerusalem, which is properly the mother and nurse of all the churches?”

Eck.—“St. Jerome declares, that unless an extraordinary power, superior to all other powers, is given to the pope, churches will have as many schisms as pontiffs.”

Luther.—“Granted, that is to say, this power might, by human authority, be attributed to the Roman pontiff, provided all the faithful consent to it. And, in like manner, I, for my part, deny not that if all the faithful throughout the world were to concur in acknowledging the bishop, either of Rome, or of Paris, or of Magdeburg, as prime and sovereign pontiff, it would be necessary to acknowledge him as such in deference to this universal consent of the Church. The thing, however, never has been, and never will be seen. Even in our own day does not the Greek Church refuse her assent to Rome?” At this period Luther was quite ready to acknowledge the pope as first magistrate of the Church, elected by her own free choice; but he denied that he was of divine institution. At a later period he denied that subjection was due to him in any respect, and this denial he owed to the discussion at Leipsic. Eck had come upon ground which he did not know so thoroughly as Luther. The latter, it is true, could not maintain his thesis, that the papacy had not been in existence for more than four centuries. Eck quoted authorities of an earlier date, and these Luther was unable to obviate, criticism not having yet attacked the spurious decretals. But the nearer the discussion was brought to primitive times, the more Luther’s strength increased. Eck appealed to the Fathers. Luther quoted the Fathers in reply, and all the hearers were struck with his superiority to his rival.

“That my exposition,” said he, “is that of St. Jerome, I prove by St. Jerome’s own Epistle to Evagrius, in which he says, “Every bishop, whether at Rome, or Eugubium, or Constantinople, or Rhegium, or Alexandria, or Tanis, has the same merit, and the same priesthood. The power of riches, and the humiliation of poverty, constitute the only precedence or inferiority among bishops.” From the writings of the Fathers, Luther passed to the decrees of Councils which regard the bishop of Rome as only a first among equals.

“We read,” says he, “in the decree of the Council of Africa,” “The bishop of the first see must not be called either prince of the the pontiffs, or sovereign pontiff, or any other similar name, but only bishop of the first see. Were the supremacy of the bishop of Rome of divine institution, would not these words be heretical?”

Eck replied by one of those subtile distinctions which were so familiar to him.

“The bishop of Rome, if you will so have it, is not universal bishop, but bishop of the universal church.”

Luther.—“I am quite willing to leave this reply unanswered: let our hearers judge for themselves.”

“Assuredly,” said he, afterwards, “the gloss is worthy of a theologian, and well fitted to satisfy a disputant thirsting for glory. My expensive sojourn in Leipsic has not been for nothing, since I have learned that the pope, though not indeed the universal bishop, is the bishop of the universal church.”

Eck.—“Very well, I come to the essential point. The venerable doctor calls upon me to prove that the primacy of the church of Rome is of divine institution—I prove it by these words of Christ: ‘Thou art Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church.’ St. Augustine, in one of his epistles, has thus expounded the passage, ‘Thou art Peter, and upon this rock, that is to say, on this Peter, I will build my Church.’ It is true, Augustine has elsewhere said that, by this rock must be understood Christ himself, but he never retracted his former exposition.”

Luther.—“If the reverend doctor would attack me, he should first reconcile these contrary statements of Augustine. It is undeniable that St. Augustine has again and again said that the rock was Christ, and he may perhaps have once said that it was Peter himself. But even should St. Augustine and all the Fathers say that the apostle is the rock of which Christ speaks, I would combat their view on the authority of an apostle, in other words, divine authority; for it is written, ‘No other foundation can any man lay than that is laid, namely, Jesus Christ.’ Peter himself calls Christ, ‘the chief and corner stone on which we are built up a spiritual house.’ ”

Eck.—“I am astonished at the humility and modesty with which the reverend doctor undertakes single-handed to combat so many distinguished Fathers, and to know better than sovereign pontiffs, councils, doctors, and universities.… It would, certainly, be astonishing that God should have concealed the truth from so many saints and martyrs … and not revealed it until the advent of the reverend father!”

Luther.—“The Fathers are not against me. The distinguished doctors, St. Augustine, and St. Ambrose, speak as I do. ‘Super isto articulo fidei, fundata est ecclesia,’ says St. Ambrose, when explaining what must be understood by the rock on which the church is built. Let my opponent then bridle his tongue. To express himself as he does is to stir up strife, not to discuss like a true doctor.”

Eck had not expected that his opponent would possess so much knowledge of the subject, and be able to disentangle himself from the labyrinth in which he tried to bewilder him. “The reverend doctor,” said he, “has entered the lists after carefully studying his subject. Your highnesses will excuse me for not presenting them with such exact researches. I came to debate and not to make a book.” Eck was astonished, but not beaten. Having no more arguments to give, he had recourse to a mean and despicable artifice, which, if it did not vanquish his opponent, would at least subject him to great embarrassment. If the charge of being a Bohemian, a heretic, a Hussite fastens upon Luther, he is vanquished, for the Bohemians were detested in the Church. The scene of discussion was not far from the frontiers of Bohemia. Saxony, which, immediately after the condemnation of John Huss by the Council of Constance, had been subjected to all the horrors of a long and ruinous war, was proud of the resistance which she had then given to the Hussites. The university of Leipsic had been founded to oppose their tenets, and the discussion was in presence of nobles, princes, and citizens, whose fathers had fallen in that celebrated struggle. To make out that Luther was at one with Huss was almost like giving him the finishing blow, and this was the stratagem to which the doctor of Ingolstadt had recourse. “From primitive times downwards,” says he, “it was acknowledged by all good Christians, that the Church of Rome holds its primacy of Jesus Christ himself and not of man. I must confess, however, that the Bohemians, while obstinately defending their errors, attacked this doctrine. The venerable father must pardon me if I am an enemy of the Bohemians, because they are the enemies of the Church, and if the present discussion has reminded me of these heretics; for, … according to my weak judgment, … the conclusions to which the doctor has come are all in favour of their errors. It is even affirmed that the Hussites loudly boast of this.”

Eck had calculated well. All his partizans received the insinuation with acclamation, and an expression of applause was general throughout the audience. “These slanders,” said the Reformer at a later period. “tickled their fancy much more agreeably than the discussion itself.”

Luther.—“I love not a schism and I never shall. Since the Bohemians, of their own authority, separate from our unity, they do wrong even were divine authority decisive in favour of their doctrine; for at the head of all divine authority is charity and the unity of the Spirit.”

It was at the morning sitting, on the 5th July, that Luther thus expressed himself. Shortly after, the meeting adjourned for dinner. Luther felt uneasy. Had he not gone too far in thus condemning the Christians of Bohemia? Have they not maintained the doctrine which Luther is maintaining at this hour? He sees all the difficulty of the step before him. Will he declare against the Council which condemned John Huss, or will he abjure the grand idea of an universal Christian Church, an idea deeply imprinted on his mind? Resolute Luther hesitated not. “I must do my duty come what may.” Accordingly, when the assembly again met at two o’clock, he rose and said firmly:—

“Certain of the tenets of John Huss and the Bohemians are perfectly orthodox. This much is certain. For instance, ‘That there is only one universal church,’ and again, ‘That it is not necessary to salvation to believe the Roman Church superior to others.’ Whether Wickliffe or Huss has said so I care not.… It is the truth.” This declaration of Luther produced an immense sensation in the audience. The abhorred names of Huss and Wickliffe pronounced with eulogium by a monk in the heart of a Catholic assembly!… A general murmur was heard. Duke George himself felt as much alarmed, as if he had actually seen the standard of civil war, which had so long desolated the states of his maternal ancestors, unfurled in Saxony. Unable to conceal his emotion, he struck his thigh, shook his head, and exclaimed, loud enough to be heard by the whole assembly, “The man is mad!” The whole audience was extremely excited. They rose to their feet, and every one kept talking to his neighbour. Those who had fallen asleep, awoke. Luther’s opponents expressed their exultation, while his friends were greatly embarrassed. Several persons, who till then had listened to him with pleasure, began to doubt his orthodoxy. The impression produced upon the mind of the duke by this declaration was never effaced; from this moment he looked upon the Reformer with an unfavourable eye, and became his enemy.

Luther was not intimidated by this explosion of disapprobation One of his leading arguments was, that the Greeks had never recognised the pope, and yet had never been declared heretics; that the Greek Church had subsisted, was subsisting, and would subsist without the pope, and was a Church of Christ as much as the Church of Rome. Eck, on the contrary, boldly affirmed that the Christian Church and the Roman Church were one and the same; that the Greeks and Orientals, by abandoning the Church, had also abandoned Christian faith, and unquestionably were heretics. “What!” exclaimed Luther, “Are not Gregory of Nanzianzen, Basil the Great, Epiphanius, Chrysostom, and an immense number of other Greek bishops in bliss? and yet they did not believe that the Church of Rome was superior to other churches!… It is not in the power of the pontiff of Rome to make new articles of faith. The Christian believer has no other authority than the Holy Scriptures—they alone constitute divine law. I pray the illustrious doctor to admit that the pontiffs of Rome were men, and have the goodness not to make gods of them.”

Eck had recourse to one of those witticisms which at small cost give a little air of triumph to the person employing them.

“The reverend father,” says he, “not being well versed in the culinary art, makes an odd mixture of Greek saints and heretics, so that the perfume of holiness in the one disguises the poison in the other.

Luther—(hastily interrupting Eck.)—“The worthy doctor is impertinent. I do not hold that there is any communion between Christ and Belial.”

Luther had taken a large step in advance. In 1516, and 1517, he had only attacked the discourses of the venders of indulgences, and had respected the decrees of the popes. At a later period he had rejected these decrees, but had appealed from them to a council. Now he had discarded this last authority also, declaring that no council can establish a new article of faith, or claim to be infallible. Thus all human authorities had successively fallen before him. The sand brought along by the rain and the floods had disappeared; and now, for building up the ruins of the Lord’s house, there remained only the eternal rock of the Word of God. “Venerable father!” said Eck to him, “if you believe that a council, lawfully assembled, can err, you are to me only a heathen man and a publican.”

Such were the discussions between the two doctors. The audience were attentive but occasionally began to flag, and hence were pleased with any incident which enlivened the scene and gave them a momentary relaxation. The gravest matters have their comic interludes; and so it was at Leipsic.

Duke George, according to the custom of the time, had a court fool, to whom some wags said, “Luther maintains that a court fool may marry. Eck maintains the contrary.” On this the fool took a great dislike to Eck, and, every time he came into the hall with the servants of Duke George, eyed the theologian with a menacing air. The chancellor of Ingolstadt, not disdaining to descend to pleasantly, one day shut one eye, (the fool was blind of one,) and with the other began to squint at the poor creature, who, in a perfect rage, let fly a volley of abuse. “The whole assembly,” says Peiffer, “burst into laughter.” This amusing incident somewhat relieved their minds from the stretch on which they had been kept. At the same time, both in the town and in the churches scenes occurred which showed how much the partisans of Rome were horrified at Luther’s bold assertions. An outcry was raised against him, especially in the convents attached to the pope.

Luther had one day walked into the church of the Dominicans, before high mass. The only persons present were some monks, saying low mass at the side altars. No sooner was it told in the cloister that the heretic Luther was in the church than the monks came down in all haste, laid hold of the ostensorium, and carrying it into the tabernacle shut it up, carefully watching it, lest the holy sacrament should be profaned by the heretical eye of the Augustin of Wittemberg. At the same time, those who were saying mass hastily gathered up their articles, quitted the altar, ran across the church, and took refuge in the sacristy, “just,” says a historian, “as if the devil had been at their heels.” The discussion became the general subject of conversation. In the inns, at the university, and the court, every one gave his opinion. Duke George, whatever his irritation may have been, did not obstinately shut his ears against conviction. One day, when Eck and Luther were dining with him, he interrupted their conversation, saying, “Let the pope be pope, whether by divine or human law; at all events he is pope.” Luther was much pleased with the expression. “The prince,” says he, “never would have uttered it, if my arguments had not made some impression on him.” The discussion on the primacy of the pope had lasted during five days. On the 8th of July, the doctrine of purgatory was discussed, and occupied two days. Luther was still a believer in the existence of purgatory; but he denied that the doctrine, as held by the schoolmen and his opponent, was taught either in the Scriptures or by the Fathers. “Our Doctor Eck,” said he, referring to the superficial knowledge of his opponent, “has to-day run over the Holy Scriptures almost without touching them, just as an insect skims the water.” On the 11th July indulgences were discussed. “It was mere sport and burlesque,” says Luther. “Indulgences gave way at once, and Eck was almost entirely of my opinion.” Eck himself said, “Had I not disputed with Doctor Martin on the primacy of the pope, I could almost agree with him.”³ The discussion afterwards turned on repentance, absolution by the priest, and satisfactions. Eck, as usual, quoted the schoolmen, the dominicans, and the canons of the pope. Luther closed the discussion with these words:—

“The reverend doctor flees before the Holy Scriptures, as the devil does before the cross. For my part, with all due deference to the Fathers, I prefer the authority of Scripture, and recommend it to our judges.” This closed the debate between Eck and Luther, but Carlstadt and the doctor of Ingolstadt continued for two days longer to discuss the subject of human merit and good works. On the 16th July, the whole proceeding, after having lasted twenty days, was closed by a discourse from the rector of Leipsic. The moment the discourse was finished, thrilling music burst forth, and the whole concluded with the Te Deum.

But, during this solemn chant, the feelings of the audience no longer were what they had been during the Veni Spiritus. The presentiments which several persons had expressed seemed to be actually realised. The blows struck by the champions of the two systems had made a large wound in the papacy.