Chapter II: Part 2

[49] Ac si voles semper Augustus saluteris in æternum. (Ibid. p. 251)

[Sidenote: LUTHER'S CONFIDENCE.]

All Luther's friends did not share his courage, for up to this hour none had been able to withstand the sophistry of Dr. Eck. But what alarmed them most was the subject of dispute--the primacy of the pope!... How does the poor monk of Wittemberg dare to encounter this giant who for ages has crushed all his enemies? The courtiers of the Elector begin to tremble. Spalatin the confidant of the prince, and intimate friend of the Reformer, is full of anxiety. Frederick, too, feels uneasy: even the sword of the Knight of the Holy Sepulchre, with which he had been armed at Jerusalem, would be unequal to this warfare. Luther alone feels no alarm. His thought is, "The Lord will deliver him into my hands." The faith with which he is animated enables him to strengthen his friends. "I beg of you, my dear Spalatin," said he, "not to give yourself up to fear; you know well that if Christ was not with me, all that I have done up to this hour must have been my ruin. Was it not lately written from Italy, to the chancellor of the Duke of Pomerania, that I had upset Rome, and that, not knowing how to appease the tumult, they were purposing to attack me not according to the forms of justice, but by Roman finesse, (the very words used,) that is, I presume, by poison, ambush, and assassination?"

"I restrain myself, and from love to the Elector, and the university, keep back many things which I would employ against Babylon, were I elsewhere. O! my poor Spalatin! it is impossible to speak of Scripture and of the Church without irritating the beast. Never, therefore, hope to see me at rest, at least, until I renounce theology. If this work is of God, it will not be terminated before all my friends have forsaken me, as Christ was forsaken by his disciples. Truth will endure single-handed, and triumph in virtue of its own prowess, not mine or yours, or any man's.[50] If I fall, the world will not perish with me. But, wretch that I am, I fear I am not worthy to die in such a cause." "Rome," he again wrote about this time, "Rome is burning with eagerness to destroy me, while I sit quiet and hold her in derision. I am informed that, in the field of Flora at Rome, one Martin Luther has been publicly burned in effigy, after being loaded with execrations. I abide their fury.[51] The whole world," continues he, "is in agitation, heaving to and fro. What will happen? God knows. For my part, I foresee wars and disasters. The Lord have mercy on us."[52]

[50] Et sola sit veritas, quæ salvet se dexterâ suâ, non meâ, non tuâ,
non ullius hominis.... (L. Ep. i, 261.) And let truth stand alone; she
will save herself by her own right hand--not by yours or mine, or that
of any man.... (L. Ep. i, 261.)

[51] Expecto furorem illorum. (Ibid. 280, 30th May, 1519.)

[52] Totus orbis nutat et movetur, tam corpore quam animâ. (Ibid.) The
whole world nods and is shaken both in body and soul.

[Sidenote: DUKE GEORGE. ADOLPHUS OF MERSEBURG.]

Luther wrote letter after letter to Duke George,[53] in whose states Leipsic is, entreating permission to repair thither and take part in the debate, but received no answer. The grandson of the Bohemian king, Podiebrad, alarmed at Luther's proposition concerning the pope, and afraid of seeing Saxony involved in the wars of which Bohemia had so long been the theatre, was unwilling to grant the doctor's request. Luther, therefore, determined to publish explanations of his thirteenth Thesis. But this treatise, far from persuading Duke George, on the contrary, confirmed him in his resolution. Positively refusing to give the Reformer authority to debate, he merely allowed him to be present as a spectator.[54] This was a great disappointment to Luther. Nevertheless, as he had only one wish, and that was to obey God--he resolved to attend as a spectator, and await the result.

[53] Ternis literis, a duce Georgio non potui certum obtinere
responsum. (Ibid., p. 282.) After three letters, I could not obtain a
decided answer from Duke George.

[54] Ita ut non disputator, sed spectator futurus Lipsiam ingrederer.
(L. Op. in Præf.)

The prince at the same time did every thing in his power to forward the discussion between Eck and Carlstadt. Duke George was devoted to the ancient doctrine; but he was upright and sincere, and friendly to free enquiry, and did not think that an opinion was to be charged with heresy, merely because it displeased the court of Rome. The Elector, moreover, urged his cousin to permit the discussion; and the duke, confirmed by Frederick's statements, ordered it to take place.[55]

[55] Principis nostri verbo firmatus. (L. Ep. i, 255.)

Bishop Adolphus of Merseburg, in whose diocese Leipsic is situated, was more alive than Miltitz and Cajetan, to the danger of trusting such important questions to the chances of single combat. Rome could not expose the fruit of the labours of so many ages to such hazard. All the theologians of Leipsic were equally alarmed, and implored their bishop to prevent the discussion. Adolphus accordingly presented most energetic remonstrances to Duke George, who replied with much good sense.[56] "I am surprised at seeing a bishop so terrified at the ancient and laudable custom of our fathers in examining doubtful questions as to matters of faith. If your theologians refuse to defend their doctrines, the money given to them would be far better employed in the maintenance of aged women and young children who would be able at least to spin and sing."

[56] Scheinder, Lips. Chr. iv, 168.

[Sidenote: MOSELLANUS. ERASMUS.]

This letter had little effect on the bishop and his theologians. There is in error a secret consciousness which makes it dread enquiry even when making loud professions of being favourable to it. After an imprudent advance it makes a cowardly retreat. Truth did not give the challenge, but firmly stood its ground. Error gave it, and ran off. Moreover, the prosperity of the university of Wittemberg, excited the jealousy of that of Leipsic. The monks and priests inveighed from the pulpits of that city, urging the people to shun the new heretics, slandering Luther, and painting him, as well as his friends, in the blackest colours, in order to stir up the fanaticism of the populace against the Reformers.[57] Tezel, who was still alive, awoke to cry from the depth of his retreat,--"It is the devil that is forcing on this contest."[58]

[57] Theologi interim me proscindunt ... populum Lipsiæ inclamant. (L.
Ep. i, 255.) The theologians, in the meantime, inveigh against me, ...
and declaim to the people of Leipsic.

[58] Das walt der Teufel (L. Ep. i, 255.)

All the professors of Leipsic, however, did not participate in these apprehensions. Some belonged to the indifferent class, consisting of persons who are always ready to laugh at the faults of both parties. Of this class was the Greek professor Peter Mosellanus, who cared very little for John Eck, Carlstadt, and Martin Luther, but anticipated great amusement from the strife. Writing to his friend Erasmus, he says, "John Eck, who is the most illustrious of pen gladiators and rhapsodists, and like the Socrates of Aristophanes, contemns even the gods, is to have a turn in debate with Andrew Carlstadt. The battle will end in uproar, and there will be laughter in it for ten Democratuses."[59]

[59] Seckend., p. 201.

The timid Erasmus, on the contrary, was frightened at the idea of a combat, and his prudence, ever ready to take alarm, would fain have prevented this discussion. In a letter to Melancthon, he says, "If you will be advised by Erasmus, you will be more anxious to promote the advancement of sound literature than to attack the enemies of it.[60] My belief is that, in this way, our progress will be greater. Above all, while engaged in this struggle, let us not forget that victory must be obtained, not only by eloquence, but also by moderation and meekness." Neither the alarms of priests, nor the prudence of pacificators, could now prevent the combat. The parties made ready their weapons.

[60] Malim te plus operæ sumere in asserendis bonis literis, quam in
sectandis harum hostibus. (Corpus Ref. ed. Bretschneider, i, 78, 22nd
April, 1519.)

CHAP. III.

Arrival of Eck and the Wittembergers--Amsdorf--The
Students--Carlstadt's accident--Placard--Eck and
Luther--Pleissenburg--Shall Judges be appointed?--Luther
objects.

[Sidenote: ECK'S ARRIVAL. AMSDORF. THE STUDENTS.]

At the time when the Electors met at Frankfort to give an emperor to Germany, (June, 1519,) theologians met at Leipsic for an act which, though unnoticed by the world, was destined to be not less important in its results.

Eck was the first who arrived at the place of rendezvous. On the 21st June he entered Leipsic in company with Poliander, a young man whom he had brought from Ingolstadt to report the debate. All kinds of honours were paid to the scholastic doctor, who, on the Fête Dieu, paraded the town in full canonicals, and at the head of a numerous procession. There was a general eagerness to see him. According to his own account, all the inhabitants were in his favour. "Nevertheless," adds he, "a rumour was current in the town that I was to be worsted in the encounter."

The day after the fête, viz., Friday, 24th June, (St. John's Day,) the Wittembergers arrived. Carlstadt, Eck's destined opponent, came first in a chariot by himself. Next, in an open carriage, came Duke Barnim of Pomerania, who was then studying at Wittemberg under the direction of a tutor, and had been elected rector of the University. On each side of him sat the two great theologians, the fathers of the Reformation, Melancthon and Luther. Melancthon had been unwilling to quit his friend. He had said to Spalatin, "Martin, the soldier of the Lord, has stirred up this fetid marsh.[61] I cannot think of the shameful conduct of the pope's theologians without indignation. Be firm, and adhere to us." Luther himself had expressed a desire that his Achates, as he has been called, should accompany him.

[61] Martinus, Domini miles, hanc camarinam movit. (Corp. Ref. i, p.
82.)

John Lange, vicar of the Augustins, some doctors in law, several masters of arts, two licentiates in theology, and other ecclesiastics, among whom Nicolas Amsdorf was conspicuous, closed the rear. Amsdorf, the member of a noble family in Saxony, disregarding the brilliant career which his birth might have opened to him, had devoted himself to theology. The theses on indulgences having brought him to the knowledge of the truth, he had forthwith made a bold profession of the faith.[62] Vigorous in intellect and vehement in temper, Amsdorf often pushed on Luther, by nature abundantly ardent, to acts which were perhaps imprudent. Born to high rank, he was not overawed by the great, and occasionally addressed them with a freedom bordering on rudeness. "The gospel of Jesus Christ," said he one day in an assembly of nobles, "belongs to the poor and afflicted, and not to you princes, lords, and courtiers, whose lives are passed in luxury and joy."[63]

[62] Nec cum carne et sanguine diu contulit, sed statim palam ad alios
fidei confessionem constanter edidit. (M. Adami. Vita Amsdorf.) Nor
did he confer with flesh and blood, but forthwith made a public and
firm profession of his faith.

[63] Weisman. Hist. Eccl. i, p. 1444.

[Sidenote: CARLSTADT'S ACCIDENT.]

But we have not yet mentioned the whole train from Wittemberg. A large body of students accompanied their teachers. Eck affirms that the number amounted to two hundred. Armed with pikes and halberds, they walked beside the carriages of the doctors ready to defend them, and proud of their cause.

Such was the order in which the body of Reformers entered Leipsic. Just as they passed the Grimma gate, which is in front of St. Paul's cemetery, one of the wheels of Carlstadt's carriage broke down. The archdeacon, who, with great self-complacency, was enjoying the solemn entry, tumbled into the mire. He was not hurt, but was obliged to proceed to his lodgings on foot. Luther's chariot, which was immediately behind Carlstadt's, moved rapidly forward, and delivered the Reformer safe and sound. The inhabitants of Leipsic, who had assembled to witness the entry of the Wittemberg champions, considered the accident as a bad omen for Carlstadt; and the inference was soon current over the town, viz., that he would be defeated in the combat, but that Luther would come off victorious.[64]

[64] Seb. Fröschel vom Priesterthum. Wittemb., 1585, in Præf.

Adolphus of Merseberg did not remain idle. As soon as he learned the approach of Luther and Carlstadt, and even before they had lighted from their carriages, he caused a notice to be posted up on all the church-doors forbidding the discussion under pain of excommunication. Duke George, astonished at his presumption, ordered the town council to tear down the bishop's placard, and imprison the individual which had been employed to put it up.[65] The Duke George, who had come in person to Leipsic, attended by all his court--among others by Jerôme Emser, with whom Luther spent the famous evening at Dresden, sent the disputants the usual presents.[66] "The duke," boasted Eck, "presented me with a fine stag, and gave Carlstadt only a roebuck."[67]

[65] L. Op. (L.) xvii, p. 243.

[66] First vol., p. 172.

[67] Seckend. p. 190.

Eck was no sooner informed of Luther's arrival than he called upon him--"What!" said he, "it is said that you refuse to debate with me."

_Luther._--"How can I when the duke forbids me?"

_Eck._--"If I cannot debate with you, I am not anxious to have any thing to do with Carlstadt. It was for you I came here." Then, after a short pause, he added--"If I obtain the dukes permission, will you take the field?"[68]

[68] Si tecum non licet disputare, neque cum Carlstatio volo: propter
te enim huc veni. (L. Op. in Præf.)

_Luther_ (_joyfully_).--"Obtain it, and we shall debate."

[Sidenote: PRELIMINARY ARRANGEMENTS.]

Eck forthwith repaired to the duke, and tried to dissipate his fears, representing to him that he was certain of victory, and that the authority of the pope, so far from suffering by the discussion, would come out of it more glorious. "We must strike at the head. If Luther stands erect, so do all his adherents--if he falls, they all fall." George granted permission.

The duke had caused a large hall to be prepared in his palace of Pleissenburg. Two desks had been erected opposite to each other, tables arranged for the notaries who were to take down the discussion in writing, and benches for the spectators. The desks and benches were covered with rich tapestry. At the doctor of Wittemberg's desk was suspended the portrait of St. Martin, after whom he was named; and at that of Dr. Eck, the portrait of the knight of St. George. "We shall see," said the arrogant Eck, with his eye on the emblem, "whether I do not, with my steed, trample down my enemies." Every thing bespoke the importance which was attached to the combat.

On 25th June, the parties met in the castle to arrange the order of proceeding. Eck, who had more confidence in his declamation and gesture than in his arguments, exclaimed, "We will debate freely, off hand, and the notaries will not take down our words in writing."

_Carlstadt._--"The agreement was, that the discussion should be written down, published, and submitted to the judgment of all men."

_Eck._--"To write down every thing is to wear out the spirit of the disputants, and protract the battle. In that case there can be no hope of the vivacity requisite in an animated debate. Do not lay an arrest on the flow of eloquence."[69]

[69] Melancth. Op. i, p. 139. (Kœthe ed.)

Dr. Eck's friends supported his proposal, but Carlstadt persisted in his objection, and Eck was obliged to yield.

_Eck._--"Be it so, let there be writing; but, at all events, the debate, when taken down by the notaries, is not to be published before it has been submitted to the decision of judges."

_Luther._--"The truth of Dr. Eck and the Eckians fears the light."

_Eck._--"There must be judges."

_Luther._--"And what judges?"

_Eck._--"After the debate is over we will agree upon them."

The object of the partisans of Rome was evident. If the theologians of Wittemberg accepted judges, their cause was lost. It was obvious beforehand who the persons were whom their opponents would suggest; and yet the Reformers, if they refused them, would be covered with obloquy, as it would be circulated every where that they were afraid of submitting to impartial judges.

[Sidenote: LUTHER OBJECTS.]

The judges whom the Reformers desired were not individuals whose opinion was already declared, but the whole of Christendom. Their appeal was made to the general voice. It mattered little who condemned them, if, in pleading their cause in presence of the Christian world, they succeeded in bringing some individuals to the light. "Luther," says a Roman historian, "demanded all the faithful for judges--in other words, demanded a tribunal so numerous that there could be no urn large enough to hold its votes."[70]

[70] "Aiebat, ad universos mortales pertinebat judicium, hoc est ad
tribunal cujus colligendis calculis nulla urna satis capax."
(Pallavicini, T. i, p. 55.)

The meeting broke up. "See their stratagem," said Luther and his friends to each other. "They would to a certainty ask to have the pope or the universities for judges."

In fact, the theologians of Rome, next morning, sent one of their party to Luther, with a proposal that the judge should be ... the pope!... "The pope!" said Luther, "how could I accept him?"

"Beware," exclaimed all his friends, "of accepting conditions so unjust." Eck and his friends having consulted anew, gave up the pope, and proposed certain universities. "Don't take from us the liberty which you have already granted us," replied Luther. "We cannot yield this point," resumed Eck. "Then," exclaimed Luther, "I don't debate."[71]

[71] I. Op. (L. xvii, p. 245.)

They again parted, and what had just passed was talked of over the whole town. The Romans kept crying every where, "Luther won't debate--he refuses to accept of any judge!" Commenting on, and torturing his words, they endeavoured to represent them in the most unfavourable light. "What! truly? he will not debate?" say the best friends of the Reformer, and hasten to him to express their alarm. "You decline the contest," exclaim they. "Your refusal will bring eternal disgrace on your university and your cause." This was to attack Luther in his most tender point. "Very well," replied he, his heart filled with indignation, "I accept the terms which are imposed on me; but I reserve a right of appeal, and I decline the Court of Rome."[72]

[72] Ibid., p. 246.

[Sidenote: THE PROCESSION. MASS.]

CHAP. IV.

The Procession--Mass--Mosellanus--Veni, Sancte
Spiritus!--Portraits of Luther and Carlstadt--Doctor
Eck--Carlstadt's Books--Merit of Congruity--Natural
Powers--Scholastic distinction--Point where Rome and the
Reformation separate--Grace gives man freedom--Carlstadt's
Note-Book--Commotion in the auditory--Melancthon during the
debate--Manœuvres of Eck--Luther Preaches--The Citizens
of Leipsic--Quarrels of Students and quarrels of Teachers.

The 27th of June was the day fixed for the commencement of the discussion. In the morning the parties met in the hall of the university, and thereafter walked in procession to the Church of St. Thomas, where high mass was celebrated by the order and at the expence of the duke. After service, those present proceeded to the ducal castle. At their head walked Duke George, and the Duke of Pomerania; next came counts, abbots, knights, and other persons of distinction; and, lastly, the doctors of the two parties. A guard composed of seventy-six citizens, carrying halberds, accompanied the procession, with colours flying, and drums beating, and halted at the castle gate.

On the arrival at the palace, each took his place in the hall where the debate was to take place--Duke George, the hereditary Prince John, Prince George of Anhalt, a boy of twelve, and the Duke of Pomerania, occupying the seats allotted to them.

Mosellanus, by order of the duke, mounted a pulpit, to remind the theologians of the manner in which the discussion was to be carried on. "If you begin to quarrel," said the orator to them, "what difference will there be between a theological disputant and a swaggering duellist? What is victory here but just to recall a brother from his error?... Each, it would seem, should be more desirous to be conquered than to conquer."[73]

[73] Seckend., p. 209.

[Sidenote: PORTRAITS OF LUTHER, CARLSTADT, ECK.]

At the conclusion of the address, sacred music echoed along the aisles of the Pleissenberg, the whole assembly knelt down, and the ancient hymn of invocation to the Holy Spirit, "Veni, Sancte Spiritus," was sung. Solemn hour in the annals of the Reformation! The invocation was thrice repeated; and, while the solemn chant was pealing, the defenders of the ancient, and the champions of the new doctrines, the men of the Church of the middle ages, and those desirous of re-establishing the Church of the apostles, mingling together without distinction, in lowly attitude bent their faces to the ground. The ancient tie of one single communion still united all these different minds, and the same prayer still proceeded from all these lips as if a single heart had dictated it.

These were the last moments of external lifeless unity for which a new spiritual living unity was about to be substituted. The Holy Spirit was invoked in behalf of the Church, and the Holy Spirit was about to answer by a revival of Christendom.

When the hymn and prayer were finished, the assembly rose up. The discussion should have now commenced; but, as the hour of noon had arrived, there was an adjournment of two hours.

The leading personages who proposed to attend the debate, having dined with the duke, returned with him after dinner to the castle hall, which was filled with spectators. Meetings of this description were the public assemblies in which the representatives of the age discussed questions of general and engrossing interest. The orators were soon at their post. That a better idea may be formed of them, we will give their portraits as drawn by one of the most impartial witnesses of the debate.

"Martin Luther is of middle size; and so emaciated by hard study that one might almost count his bones. He is in the vigour of life, and his voice is clear and sonorous. His learning and knowledge of the Holy Scriptures are beyond compare: he has the whole word of God at command.[74] In addition to this he has great store of arguments and ideas. It were perhaps to be wished that he had a little more judgment in arranging his materials. In conversation he is candid and courteous; there is nothing stoical or haughty about him; he has the art of accommodating himself to every individual. His address is pleasing, and replete with good humour. He displays firmness, and is never discomposed by the menaces of his adversaries, be they what they may. One is, in a manner, compelled to believe that, in the great things which he has done, God must have assisted him. He is blamed, however, for being more sarcastic in his rejoinders than becomes a theologian, especially when he announces new religious ideas.

[74] Seine Gelehrsamkeit aber und Verstand in heiliger Schrift ist
unvergleichlich, so dass er fast alles im Griff hat. (Mosellanus in
Seckend., 206.)

"Carlstadt is of smaller stature; his complexion is dark and sallow, his voice disagreeable, his memory less retentive, and his temper more easily ruffled than Luther's. Still however he possesses, though in an inferior degree, the same qualities which distinguish his friend.

[Sidenote: CARLSTADT'S BOOKS. NATURAL POWERS.]

"Eck is tall and broad shouldered. He has a strong and truly German voice, and such excellent lungs that he would be well heard on the stage, or would make an admirable town-crier. His accent is rather coarse than elegant, and he has none of the gracefulness so much lauded by Cicero and Quintilian. His mouth, his eyes, and his whole features, suggest the idea of a soldier or a butcher, rather than a theologian.[75] His memory is excellent, and were his intellect equal to it he would be faultless. But he is slow of comprehension, and wants judgment, without which all other gifts are useless. Hence, when he debates, he piles up, without selection or discernment, passages from the Bible, quotations from the Fathers, and arguments of all descriptions. His assurance, moreover, is unbounded. When he finds himself in a difficulty he darts off from the matter in hand, and pounces upon another; sometimes, even, he adopts the view of his antagonist, and changing the form of expression, most dexterously charges him with the very absurdity which he himself was defending."

[75] Das Maul, Augen, und ganze Gesicht, presentirt ehe einen
Fleischer oder Soldaten, als einen Theologum. (Mosellanus in Seckend.,
206.)

Such, according to Mosellanus, were the men who drew the eyes of the crowds who were then thronging into the great hall of Pleissenburg.

The discussion was opened by Eck and Carlstadt.

Eck, for some moments, fixed his eyes on the books which lay on the little table in front of his opponent's desk, and seemed to give him uneasiness: they were the Bible and the Fathers. "I decline the discussion," exclaimed he suddenly, "if you are allowed to bring books with you." A theologian have recourse to his books in discussion! The astonishment of Dr. Eck was still more astonishing. "It is merely a fig leaf which this Adam is employing to hide his shame," said Luther. "Did Augustine consult no books in combating the Manichees?"[76] No matter! Eck's partisans made a great noise. Carlstadt remonstrated. "The man is altogether devoid of memory," said Eck. At last it was decided, agreeably to the desire of the chancellor of Ingolstadt, that each disputant should have the use only of his memory and his tongue. "Thus then," said several, "the object in this debate will not be to discover truth, but to show off the eloquence and memory of the disputants."

[76] Prætexit tamen et hic Adam ille folium fici pulcherrimum. (L.
Epp. i, p. 294.) "Here, however, this Adam too weaved for himself a
most beautiful fig-leaf."

The discussion lasted seventeen days; but as it is impossible to give the whole of it, we must, as a historian says, imitate painters who, in representing a battle, place the most distinguished exploits in front, and leave the others in the back ground.[77]

[77] Pallavicini, i, 65.

[Sidenote: MERIT OF CONGRUITY. SCHOLASTIC DISTINCTION.]

The subject of discussion between Eck and Carlstadt was important. "Before conversion," said Carlstadt, "the will of man is incapable of doing good; every good work comes entirely and exclusively from God, who gives first the will to do, and afterwards the ability to perform." This truth is proclaimed by the Scriptures, which say, "_It is God which worketh in you, both to will and to do of his good pleasure_,"[78] and by Augustine, who, in disputing with the Pelagians, delivers it in almost the very same terms. Every work in which there is neither love to God nor obedience to his will, is, in his sight, devoid of the only quality which could render it truly good, even should it be in other respects dictated by the most honourable human motives. Now there is in man a natural enmity to God--an enmity which he is utterly unable to suppress. He has not the power to do so--he even wants the will. If ever, therefore, it is to be suppressed, it must be by the power of God.

[78] Philippians, ii, 13.

This is the doctrine of free will, so much declaimed against in the world, and yet so simple. It had been the doctrine of the church. But the schoolmen had explained it in a manner which caused it to be misunderstood. "No doubt," said they, "the natural will of man cannot do any thing which is truly pleasing to God; but it can do much to render man more capable and more worthy of receiving divine grace." These preparatives they termed merit of congruity;[79] "because," as St. Thomas expressed it, "it is congruous for God to bestow peculiar favour on those who make a good use of their will." In regard, again, to the conversion which man must undergo, it is no doubt true that, according to the schoolmen, the grace of God behoved to accomplish it, but still without excluding his natural powers. "These powers," said they, "have not been annihilated by sin; sin only puts an obstacle in the way of their development; but as soon as this obstacle is removed (and this, according to them, was what the grace of God had to do,) these powers begin again to act." To use one of their favourite comparisons--"the bird whose legs are tied does not thereby lose either its powers, or forget the art of flying, though it must be loosed by some other hand before it can be able again to use its wings." "The same," said they, "is the case with man."[80]

[79] Meritum congruum.

[80] Planck, i, p. 176.

[Sidenote: FREE WILL. ITS TRUE NATURE.]

Such was the question discussed between Eck and Carlstadt. At first Eck seemed to deny Carlstadt's propositions out and out, but feeling the difficulty of maintaining his ground, said, "I grant that the will has not power to do a good work, but receives it from God." "Confess then," rejoined Carlstadt, overjoyed at obtaining such a concession, "that every good work comes entirely from God." "Every good work comes indeed from God," replied the schoolman subtlely, "but not entirely." "There," exclaimed Melancthon, "goes a discovery well worthy of theological science." "An apple," added Eck, "is all produced by the sun, but not altogether, and without the co-operation of the tree."[81] Assuredly no man ever thought of maintaining that an apple is all produced by the sun.

[81] Quanquam totum opus Dei sit, non tamen _totaliter_ a Deo esse,
quemadmodum totum pomum efficitur a sole, sed non a sole _totaliter_
et sine plantæ efficentiâ. (Pallavicini, Tom. i, p. 58.) Although the
_whole_ work is of God, it is not _wholly_ of God--just as the _whole_
apple is produced by the sun, but not _wholly_ by the sun, and without
the co-operation of the plant.

"Very well," said his opponents, going still deeper into this delicate question, so important in philosophy and in religion, "let us consider how God acts on man, and how man conducts himself when so acted on." "I acknowledge," said Eck, "that in conversion the first impulse comes from God, and that the human will is entirely passive."[82] So far the disputants were agreed. "I acknowledge," said Carlstadt, on his part, "that after this first action on the part of God, something must come from man, something which St. Paul calls _the will_, and which the fathers designate by _consent_." Here again both parties were agreed--but at this point the separation began. "This consent of man," said Eck, "comes partly from our natural will, and partly from the grace of God."[83] "No," said Carlstadt, "this will in man is entirely created by God."[84] Hereupon Eck began to express astonishment and indignation at words so well fitted to impress man with a sense of his utter nothingness. "Your doctrine," exclaims he, "makes man a stone or a block, incapable of any counter action...." "What," replied the Reformers, "does not the faculty of receiving the powers which God produces in him (a faculty which we admit that he possesses) sufficiently distinguish him from a stone and a block?" "But," resumed their antagonist, "by denying man all natural power, you contradict experience." "We deny not," was the reply, "that man possesses certain powers, and has in him a faculty of reflecting, meditating, and choosing. We only consider these powers and faculties as mere instruments, incapable of doing any thing that is good until the hand of God sets them in motion. They are like the saw in the hands of the sawyer."[85]

[82] "Motionem seu inspirationem prevenientem esse a solo Deo; et ibi
liberum arbitrium habet se passive." Preventing motion, or
inspiration, is from God, and therein free-will is passive.

[83] Partim a Deo, partim a libero arbitrio.

[84] "Consentit homo, se consensus est donum Dei. Consentire non est
agere." Man consents; but consent is the gift of God. Consent is not
action.

[85] Ut serra in manu hominis trahentis.

[Sidenote: CARLSTADT'S NOTE BOOK. PORTRAIT OF MELANCTHON.]

The great question of liberty was here debated, and it was easy to demonstrate that the doctrine of the Reformers did not divest man of the liberty of a moral agent or make him a passive machine. The liberty of a moral agent consists in the power of acting conformably to his choice. Every action done without external constraint, and in consequence of the determination of the mind itself, is a free action. The mind is determined by motives, but we constantly see that the same motives act differently on different minds. Many do not act conformably to the motives which their judgment approves. This inefficiency of motives is attributable to the obstacles which they meet with in the corruption of the understanding and the heart. Now, God, by giving a new heart and a new spirit, removes those obstacles, and thereby so far from depriving man of freedom, on the contrary, removes what prevented him from acting freely, and in obedience to the dictates of his conscience. In the language of the gospel it renders him "free indeed." (John, viii, 36.)

A slight incident for a short time interrupted the debate. Carlstadt (this is Eck's account[86]) had prepared different heads of argument; and, as is done by many of the orators of our day, read what he had written. Eck saw in this only a school boy's tactics, and objected. Carlstadt embarrassed, and fearing he might be taken at a disadvantage if deprived of his note-book, insisted on retaining it. "Ah!" said the scholastic doctor, quite proud of the advantage which he thought he had over him, "his memory is shorter than mine." The point having been submitted to arbiters, it was decided that quotations from the Fathers might be read, but that in other respects the discussion should be extempore.

[86] Seckendorf, p. 192.

This first part of the discussion often met with interruption from the audience. They ruffed and screamed. Any proposition offensive to the ears of the majority instantly aroused their clamour, and then, as in our day, it was necessary to call to order. The disputants also occasionally allowed themselves to be carried away in the heat of discussion.

[Sidenote: MELANCTHON'S OPINION. ECK'S MANŒVRES.]

Melancthon sat near Luther, and attracted almost equal attention. He was of short stature, and would scarcely have been thought more than eighteen. Luther, who was a whole head taller, seemed to be united to him by the closest friendship; they came in, went out, and walked together. "To look at Melancthon," says a Swiss theologian,[87] who studied at Wittemberg, "one would think him a mere boy, but in judgment, learning, and talent he is a giant. It is difficult to comprehend how so much wisdom and genius can be contained within so puny a body." Between the sittings, Melancthon conferred with Carlstadt and Luther. He assisted them in preparing for the debate, and suggested arguments drawn from the stores of his vast erudition; but during the discussion he remained quietly seated among the spectators, giving close attention to every thing that was said by the theologians.[88] Occasionally, however, he came to the aid of Carlstadt.[89] When the latter was on the point of giving way under the powerful declamation of the chancellor of Ingolstadt, the young professor whispered a word in his ear, or slipt a paper to him on which he had noted down the answer. Eck on one occasion perceived this, and indignant that this grammarian, as he called him, should presume to intermeddle with the discussion, turned towards him, and haughtily said, "Be silent, Philip, keep to your own studies, and give me no disturbance." Perhaps Eck had already a presentiment of the formidable adversary he was afterwards to encounter in this young man. Luther was offended at the rude insult given to his friend; "The judgment of Philip," said he, "weighs more with me than that of a thousand doctor Ecks."

[87] John Kessler, afterwards reformer of St. Gall.

[88] Lipsicæ pugnæ otiosus spectator in reliquo volgo sedi. (Corpus
Reformatorum, i, 112.) At Leipsic I sat among the crowd as an idle
spectator.

[89] Tace tu, Philippe, ac tua studia cura, ne me perturba. (Ibid., i,
149.)

The calm Melancthon easily discerned the weak points of this discussion. "We can only be surprised," says he with the wisdom and grace conspicuous in all his words, "when we think of the violence which was brought to the discussion of such subjects. How could any advantage be derived from it? The Spirit of God loves retreat and silence: there dwell those whose hearts he penetrates. The bride of Christ does not stand in streets and public places, but conducts the Bridegroom into her mother's house."[90]

[90] Melancth. Op., p. 134.

[Sidenote: LUTHER'S SERMON. THE BURGHERS OF LEIPSIC.]

Both parties claimed the victory. Eck employed all his address to make it appear that he had gained it. As the points of divergence almost met, he often exclaimed that he had brought over his opponent to his opinion, or like a new Proteus, as Luther calls him, turning suddenly round, he stated Carlstadt's own opinion in different words, and then asked, with an air of triumph, if he did not feel constrained to yield. The unskilful, who were unable to detect the sophist's manœuvre, applauded and triumphed with him.... In several respects the match was unequal. Carlstadt was slow, and sometimes left his opponent's objections unanswered till next day. Eck, on the contrary, was master of his subject, and could lay his hand at once on whatever he required. He came forward with a haughty air, mounted his desk with a firm step, and when there, stamped with his foot, moved backwards and forwards, made the ceiling ring with his powerful voice, gave some sort of reply to every argument, and astonished the audience with his memory and adroitness. Still Eck, without perceiving it, conceded much more in the discussion than he had intended. His partizans shouted and laughed at each of his turns, "but," says Luther, "I strongly suspect they only made a show of laughing, and were exceedingly vexed at heart when they saw their chief, who had commenced with so much bravado, quit his standard, abandon his army, and become a shameless deserter."[91]

[91] Relictis signis, desertorem exercitus et transfugam factum. (L.
Ep. i, 295.)

Three or four days after the discussion had commenced, it was interrupted by the feast of St. Peter and St. Paul.

The Duke of Pomerania requested Luther to preach before him, on the occasion, in his chapel. Luther gladly complied. The chapel was soon filled, and crowds still arriving, it became necessary to remove to the great hall of the castle, where the discussion was held. Luther preached from the text of the day, on the grace of God, and the power of Peter, and gave a popular exposition of the views which he was wont to maintain before a learned audience. Christianity causes the light of truth to penetrate alike into the highest and the humblest intellects, and is in this way distinguished from all other religions, and from all philosophical systems. The theologians of Leipsic, who had been present at the sermon, hastened to acquaint Eck with the expressions which had offended them. "These subtile errors," exclaimed they, "must be answered, must be publicly refuted." This was just what Eck wished. All the churches were open to him, and on four successive occasions he mounted the pulpit to declaim against Luther and his sermon. Luther's friends were indignant, and demanded that the theologian of Wittemberg should be heard in his turn. But they demanded in vain. The pulpits were open to the enemies of evangelical truth, but shut against those who proclaimed it. "I kept silence," says Luther, "and was obliged to submit to attacks, insults, and calumnies, without being able to exculpate and defend myself."[92]

[92] Mich verklagen, schelten und schmæhen.... (L. Op. (L.) xvii, p.
247.)

[Sidenote: QUARRELS OF DOCTORS.]

The ecclesiastics were not the only persons who displayed hostility to the evangelical doctrine: the citizens of Leipsic were in this respect of one mind with their clergy, and yielded themselves up with blind fanaticism to the falsehoods and animosities which were industriously propagated. The principal inhabitants did not visit either Luther or Carlstadt. They left them unnoticed when they met them in the street, and tried to prejudice the duke against them. On the other hand they visited and gave daily entertainments to the doctor of Ingolstadt, who enjoyed their good cheer, and learnedly discussed the comparative merits of Saxony and Bavarian beer. His manners, somewhat free, did not indicate a very strict morality.[93] The only thing offered to Luther was the customary present of wine to the disputants. Moreover, even those who wished him well were anxious that others should not know it; several Nicodemites visited him by night or in secret. There were only two who did themselves honour by publicly declaring their friendship. These were Dr. Auerback, whom we have already met at Augsburg, and Dr. Pistor, junior.

[93] Eck to Haven and Bourkard, 1st July, 1519. (Walch, xv, p. 1456.)

The greatest excitement prevailed in the town. The two parties formed, as it were, two hostile camps, and sometimes came to blows. In taverns, frequent quarrels took place between the students of Leipsic and Wittemberg. It was openly averred, even at meetings of the clergy, that Luther carried about with him a devil, confined in a little box. "Whether the devil is in a box, or only under his frock," said Eck, maliciously, "I know not; but most assuredly he is in one or other of them."

During the discussion several doctors of both parties lodged with the printer Herbipolis; and the dispute ran so high that the host was obliged to station a town-officer at the top of the table with a halbert to keep the peace, and prevent the guests from coming to blows. One day Baumgartner, a vender of indulgences, had a scuffle with a gentleman, a friend of Luther, and fell into such a rage that he dropt down dead. Fröschel, who gives the account, says, "I was one of those who carried him to the grave."[94] The general agitation which prevailed was thus manifested. Then, as now, the discourses of the desk were re-echoed in the drawing-room and in the streets.

[94] Löscher, iii, 278.

Duke George, though very decidedly in favour of Eck, did not betray so much passion 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 Mass--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 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.

[95] Faciebat hoc Eccius quia certam sibi gloriam propositam cernebat,
propter propositionem meam, in qua negabam Papam esse jure divino
caput Ecclesiæ; hic patuit ei campus magnus. (L. Op. in Præf.) Eccius
did so because he anticipated 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 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!"[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 God." "_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, cum 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] Hæc 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 quædam 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 assent to Rome?"

[102] _Detur_, inquit, hoc est jure humano, posset fieri,
consentientibus, cæteris 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 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.'[103] The power of riches, and the humiliation of poverty, constitute 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 passed 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 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."[105]

[105] Non episcopus universalis, sed universalis Ecclesiæ episcopus.
(Ibid. 246.)

_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."[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 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."