History of the Reformation in the Sixteenth Century
Chapter 52 : [94] Loscher, iii, 278.Duke George, though very decidedly in favour of Eck, did not bet

[94] Loscher, iii, 278.

Duke George, though very decidedly in favour of Eck, did not betray so much pa.s.sion as his subjects. He invited Eck, Luther, and Carlstadt to dine together with him. He even asked Luther to pay him a visit in private, but soon showed how strongly he was prejudiced against him.

"By your book on the Lord's Prayer," said the duke to him, with bitterness, "you have led many consciences astray. There are persons who complain of not having been able to say one _pater_ for more than four days."

CHAP. 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 Ma.s.s--Saying of the Duke--Purgatory--Close of the Discussion.

[Sidenote: HIERARCHISM AND RATIONALISM. TWO PEASANTS' SONS.]

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.[95] 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 G.o.d 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.

[95] Faciebat hoc Eccius quia certam sibi gloriam propositam cernebat, propter propositionem meam, in qua negabam Papam esse jure divino caput Ecclesiae; hic patuit ei campus magnus. (L. Op. in Praef.) Eccius did so because he antic.i.p.ated certain victory, in consequence of my proposition, in which I denied that the pope was jure divino head of the church; here he had a wide field in which to expatiate.

[Sidenote: THE HEAD OF THE CHURCH.]

At seven in the morning the two antagonists were in their desks, in the midst of a numerous and attentive a.s.sembly.

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 G.o.d 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 G.o.d, and, accordingly, Christ has established the same gradation upon earth.

What kind of monster should the Church be if she were without a head!"[96]...

[96] "Nam quod monstrum esset, Ecclesiam esse acephalam!" (L. Op. Lat.

i, p. 243.)

_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 G.o.d." "_Christ_,"

says the Scripture, "_must reign until he has put_ ALL HIS ENEMIES _under his feet_."[97] "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."[98]

[97] I Cor. xv, 25.

[98] "Prorsus audiendi non sunt qui Christum extra Ecclesiam militantem tendunt in triumphantem, c.u.m sit regnum fidei. Caput nostrum non videmus; tamen habemus." (L. Op. Lat. i, p. 243.)

Eck, not admitting that he was beaten, had recourse to other arguments, and resumed, "According to St. Cyprian, sacerdotal unity is derived from Rome."[99]

[99] "Unde sacerdotalis unitas exorta est." (Ibid.)

_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?"[100]

[100] Haec est matrix proprie omnium ecclesiarum. (Ibid. 244.)

[Sidenote: THE PRIMACY OF ROME. EQUALITY OF BISHOPS.]

_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."[101]

[101] Cui si non exors quaedam et ab omnibus eminens detur potestas.

(Ibid. 243.)

_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.[102] 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 a.s.sent to Rome?"

[102] _Detur_, inquit, hoc est jure humano, posset fieri, consentientibus, caeteris omnibus fidelibus. (L. Op. Lat. i, p. 244.)

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 inst.i.tution. 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.'[103]

The power of riches, and the humiliation of poverty, const.i.tute the only precedence or inferiority among bishops."

[103] "Ejusdem meriti et ejusdem sacerdotii est." (L. Op. Lat. i, p.

244.)

From the writings of the Fathers, Luther pa.s.sed to the decrees of Councils which regard the bishop of Rome as only a first among equals.[104]

[104] Primus inter pares.

[Sidenote: PRIMACY OF ST. PETER.]

"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 inst.i.tution, 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."[105]

[105] Non episcopus universalis, sed universalis Ecclesiae episcopus.

(Ibid. 246.)

_Luther._--"I am quite willing to leave this reply unanswered: let our hearers judge for themselves."

"a.s.suredly," 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."[106].

[106] Ego glorior me tot expensis non frustra.... (L. Ep. i, 299.)

_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 inst.i.tution--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 pa.s.sage, '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."