THE LEIPZIG DEBATE IN 15(9 W. H.T.DAU (50rneU Hmoerattg Slibrary Stljata, Jfem ^nrk rRLOLrwtiy of-Miii The date shows when tEis volume was taken. To renew this book coijy the call No. and give to the librarian. 2637 3 HOME USE RULES All books subject to recall - ^ ^ AU borrowers must regis- ••ni iy^^"^''^3^A^'^^^V'lilt{ *^^ ^" *^® library to borrow """^"^^ *-' i" books for home use. year for inspection and repairs. Limited bboks must be Students must return all books before leaving town. Officers should arrange for the return of books wanted during their absence from town. Volumes of periodicals and of pamphlets are held in the library as much as possible. For si>ecial pur- poses they are given out for a limited time. - Borrowers should not use their library privileges for the benefit of other persons. Books of special value and gift books, when the giver wishes it, are not allowed to circulate. Readers are asked to re- port all cases of books marked or mutilated. Do not deface books by marks and writing. Cornell University Library BR355.L5 D23 Leipzia debate in 1519 : leaves from the olin 1924 029 232 372 The original of tliis book is in tine Cornell University Library. There are no known copyright restrictions in the United States on the use of the text. http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924029232372 THE LEIPZIG DEBATE IN 1519. -*- LEAVES FROM THE STORY OF LUTHER'S LIFE. -*- By W. H. T. DAU. St. Louis, Mo. concordii publishing house. 1»19. PREFACE. ah, the preface ! With Seidemann {Reforma- tionszeit in Sachsen, p. I) one regrets that the preface was ever invented. In former times, he says, books were given an index at the end, just as gentlemen wore queues down their back, and you could pretty nearly tell the character of either by examining the final appendage. Nowadays the quintessence, or basic decoction, of a book must be deposited in the preface. That is the philosophy of the matter, whether it is useful or not. I may tell here what I meant this book to be. It is in the form of a tale, but it is all history, down to the minutiae of circumstance, and the evidence is given step for step, ily aim has been, not only to tell what happened, but let the reader see how it happened. Much local color- ing, and much personal portrayal, and much of what is human also in great men has been thrown into this review. To make the reader see through the reopened records an important event in the making, with all those paltry in- cidents that contribute towards its happening and in the end assume the force of causes, has been my aim. Since the old Latin and German records have been Englished for this review, either wholly, or in part, or in extensive summaries, the book may in a measure, I hope, prove itself valuable as a source book to those who would carry their studies of this important epoch in Luther's life fur- ther than has been done here. The Luther of the Leipzig Debate is less popular than the Luther with the hammer and the Theses in his hand, standing in front of the Castle Church at "Wittenberg on VI PBEFACE. October 31, 1517, or the Luther of Worms facing the' Emperor Charles V and the great lords from Eome in a solemn and gorgeous assembly. Both events lend them- selves easily to dramatization. Let us not reduce the importance of either event. The former certainly did start the movement which we call the Reformation; the latter was the culminating confessional act, which fitly closed the action begun in 1517. However, on the former occasion Luther was to a large extent a searcher after truth, and there was in him the timidity of the inquirer. Forty months later he knew what he wanted to know, and he also knew what he must do because he knew what he knew. . The internal or spiritual growth of Luther during those three years and a half is due to the Leipzig Debate and the preparation for it. It was on that' occasion that Luther began to clearly understand the issue before him, and took up the gauntlet which Rome had thrown down to him. Therefore July 4, 1519, and the following days must be reckoned not only as an important day in the personal story of Luther, but also as a truly great day in the history of the Church of Jesus Christ. As I have given my references throughout the book, there is no need here of a bibliography. The labors of all who have traveled these paths before me I have relig- iously employed for my own work, as far as they were available to' me. In the case of translations I have in most instances compared the originals. God bless the book and its readers ! W. H. T. Dau. St. Louis, Mo., November 19, 1918. CONTENTS. PAGE 1. A Proposal of Friendship 1 2. May Frost on a Budding Friendship 10 3. Stabbing a Friend in the Back 17 4. The Daggers and the Stars 24 5. Alas ! Another Friend ! 31 6. The Challenge to a Debate 38 7. Duke George Has His Way 46 8. Striking at Andrew and Aiming at Martin 58 9. The Hand of God 68 10. Obstacles 75 11. Final Preparations for the Debate 87 12. The Thirteenth Thesis 104 13. Leyptzigk 110 14. Carlstadt versus Eck 116 15. A Memorable Fourth of July. (Forenoon.) 129 16. A Memorable Fourth of July. (Afternoon.) 145 17. A Memorable Fourth of July. (Evening.) 157 18. The Remainder of the Debate on the Primacy 164 19. The Debate on Purgatory 174 20. The Debate on Indulgences 178 21. The Debate on Repentance 181 22. The Debate on Priestly Absolution and Satisfactions for Sin 184 23. The Conclusion of the Debate 188 24. Reports about the Debate 194 25. Exit Dr. Eck 204 26. Hail, Doctor Martinus ! 208 Appejjdix : — I. Theses against the Scholastic Theology 213 II. Theses for Luther's Debate at Heidelberg, April 26, 1518 ...218 III. Summary of Eck's Obelisks and Luther's Asterisks 221 Index 233 1. A Proposal of Friendship. In the early part of April, 1517, Luther received a letter from ]S"uernberg. It came from his former colleague at Wittenberg, Christophorus Scheurl, Doctor of Jurisprudence, who had left his honorable position at the young university on the Elbe to become City Counselor of ISTuernberg, "the jewel casket of the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation." Scheurl had written this letter to Luther in ful- filment of a promise which he had made to a guest whom he was at that time entertaining at his house. However, by writing this letter, Scheurl had also gratified a personal de- sire : from what he had to propose to Luther he believed that good would result to the Church, if Luther chose to act upon his suggestion. This same suggestion he had made to his guest months before. On January 14 he had written him : — Among the Wittenberg theologians there are eminent Martin Luther, an Augustinian, who is expounding the Pauline Epistles with wonderful geniality; Andreas Carlstadt, Nicolaus Amsdorf, Johannes Feldkirehen, and several others. If you wish to enter into familiar relations with these men, let me' tell you thafol can bring that about, if anybody can.l) Xow that he had this person at his home, he increased his efl^orts to bring about a friendly relationship between his guest and the young Doctor of Theology whom he had left at Wittenberg. When the guest had heard Scheurl extol the noble quali- ties of Luther, he had manifested a great desire to become personally acquainted with him, and, with that end in view, had at once dispatched a letter to Luther, which he accom- panied with a brochure that he had just published. Scheurl's letter was written for the purpose of securing a favorable consideration for his guest's offer of friendship. With the 1) Enders, Luthera Briefwechsel I, 93. DAO, LEIPZIG DEBATE. 2 1. A PKOrOSAL OF FRIENDSHIP. scholarly courtesy of the Humanist that he was, Scheurl wrote : — I have no doubt that you will answer him, and release me from my promise. For you consider it a disgrace to let any one exceed you in love or surpass you in kindness. I pray, however, that you will write him in a friendly manner, because I deem him worthy of your friendship.3) At the same time Scheurl wrote letters of the same im- port to Carlstadt, Luther's colleague at the university of Wittenberg, and to Spalatin, Luther's most trusted friend.^) Scheurl's solicitousness indicates that he attached consider- able importance to a possible union between his former asso- ciates and his present guest. Who was this guest? His name was Johann Maier, or Mayr, of Eck on the Guenz, in the district of Ottobeuren in Suabia, where he had been born November 13, 1486. At the time of which we are wr,iting he was thirty years old and Luther's junior by three years. Johann Maier of Eck had indeed had a remarkable career. Born of a respectable family, — his father, Michael Maier, was for many years the magistrate of the town, — he had at the age of nine (March, 1495) been received into the home of his uncle and name- sake, Johann Maier, the pastor of a congregation at Eotten- burg on the Neckar. Por three years his uncle superintended and supplemented the poor education which his nephew re- ceived at the school of the place. The boy, however, developed so rapidly ^) that his uncle decided to send him to Heidelberg, 2) St. Louis Ed. of Luther's Works, XXIa, 65. — This edition will be quoted throughout this treatise by giving merely volume and column. 3) Enders, I. c. 4) Eck, later in life, gave an account of liis education at Rotten- burg. At school he learned his Latin from Paul Niave's Idioma Lati- num and Cato, and finished Virgil's Bucolics, Theodul, and the sixth treatise of Isidore. Besides, he read Aesop's Fables, the Comedies of Aretin, the Elegies of Alda, Seneca's On the Virtues and the Epistle to Lucilius, the Letters af Gasparin, Gerson's Josephinus, an Intro- duction to the Bible, Boethius's On Discipline and On the Consolation of Philosophy, the entire Terence, the first six books of the Aeneid, and was drilled in Isidore's five chapters on Logic. In the afternoon his uncle read with him the Books of Moses, the Four Gospels, Acts, treatises on the I'our Last Things, on Souls, a part of Augustine's Orations to the Erenuites. the treatise of Augustine of Ancona on the 1. A PHOPOSAI. OF FKIENDSHIP. 3 where Johann Maier, iii April, 1498, entered the university at the tender age of twelve years. In accordance with a pre- vailing custom the young student Latinized his name, calling himself after his birthplace Eccius, or Eck (rarely after his uncl^, Johannes llajoris).^) This precocious freshman be- came the Dr. Eck who figures prominently in the story of the Lutheran Reformation. For reasons that have not been explained to us, Eck soon left Heidelberg, the oldest of the German universities, and in the spring of 1499 entered the University of Tuebingen. In six months he advanced to the degree of Bachelor of Arts (October, 1499), while fifteen months later (January, 1501) he became Master of Arts. He now took up the study of theology. His lading teacher was Johann Jacob Lemp. This is the learned doctor of whom Melanchthon, who studied at this university a few years later, has related that he would graphically demonstrate to his classes the doctrine of tran- substantiation by crayon drawings on the blackboard.^) An- other prominent teacher was Konrad Summenhardt, who taught Eck the rudiments of Hebrew, and incidentally in- stilled in him his peculiar views on social economy. The theology which Eck learned of these men is strongly reflected in his own writings at a later day. Paul Scriptoris, "the quiet reformer before the Reformation," ') seems to have had only .a passing influence on Eck. In the fall of 1501 the pest began to rage in Suabia, and yielding to the anxious concern of his tmcle, Eck in October Authority of the Church, an Introduction to Jurisprudence, and four books of the Decretals with the Glosses. He learned by heart the Law Rules of Panormitanus, in alphabetical order. His uncle's assistants expounded to him the Four Gospels, Cicero's treatise On Friendship, Basil's Introduction to Study, and Homer's account of the Trojan War. On his own initiative he read the entire History of Lomiard, the Shield of Faith, and many Latin and German books, "although these studies were not flourishing at that time in Germany." (Wiedemann, Dr. Joh. Eck, p. 4 f.) This modest account draws from Hausrath (Luthers Leien, I, 195) the remark that Eck's uncle must have been raising a prodigy (Wunderkind) in his quiet parsonage. 5) Hausrath (I. c.) suggests that in assuming his new name, Eck was imitating such noble personages as the Bavarian Chancellor, Leon- hard von Eck, and the Fiscal of Treves, .Tohann von der Ecken. 6) Corp. Ref. IV, 718. 7) PRE^ V, 138. 4 1. A PROPOSAL OF FKIENDSHIP. transferred himself to Cologne. Here he heard the Thomist Theodoric von Guenatern and Arnold von Tungern, vpho, a decade later, was one of the inquisitorial judges that con- demned Eeuchlin for defending the study of Hebrew with the aid of the Talmud. At Cologne, Eck's talent for oratory and his skill in debate were first noticed, and Eck was eager to cultivate these qualities by engaging in many a dialectic tilt with his fellow-students. But the pest again caused him to change his residence : in June, 1502, he went to Ereiburg in the Breisgau, where he continued his major studies, theology and jurisprudence, at the same time crowding his schedule with a variety of other studies. His principal teachers at this university were Georg ISTothofer, Ulrich Za- sius, the humanistic jurist, and Gregor Reysch, the encyclo- pedist. Another of the unexplained happenings in Eck's life oc- curred during his residence in Ereiburg: his uncle withdrew from him the yearly allowance by means of which Eck had supported himself at the universities, and Eck was forced to earn his livelihood by teaching. He taught with considerable success, especially after he had received (in 1505) the appoint- ment of rector of the Artistenhurse zum, Pfau, that is, after he had become principal of the hall for students of art. Students from other "Bursen" were attracted to his.^) Nor did he neglect his exercises in oratory and debate, but rather engaged with greater zest than ever in the regular and extraordinary disputations which formed part of the cur- riculum of students in those days. On various occasions, at church festivals, at academic functions, Eck came forward as a brilliant and accomplished speaker,^) but he also became known as an extremely abusive debater. Eck's theological curriculum was completed at Ereiburg, as follows: he became Bachelor of Theology in 1505, Sen- 8) "By the multitude of bis accomplisliments he sought even at this time to impress men ; for he often delivered six lectures in a day." (Hausrath, I. c.) 9) Wiedemann (p. 448 ff.) has facsimiles of the title pages of many of these early productions of Eck. 1. A PROPOSAL OF FBIENDSriIP. 5 tentiarius, that is, lecturer on the dogmatics of Peter Lom- bard, in 1506, Licentiate of Theology in 1509, and obtained the title of Doctor of Theology in 1510, at the age of twenty- four. Two years prior to this (December 13, 1508) he had been ordained priest at Strassburg, a special dispensation having been obtained for him from the Pope because he was below the canonical age. At Freiburg Eck published his first literary product, Ludicra Logices Exercitamenta, that is, Laughable Exer- cises in Logic. His unfairness, his ungenerous treatment of an opponent, and his abusive style of speaking in debate had caused very unpleasant relations to spring up between Eck and his col- leagues, and this circumstance induced him to apply for a vacant chair of theology at the University of Ingolstadt. Upon the urgent recommendation of Peutinger to the Dukes of Bavaria he was called to this position in November, 1510. Eck's ability was soon recognized at Ingolstadt; for in two years he rose, first, to the dignity of rector (1511), next, to that of pro-chancellor of the university (1512). He re- mained with this school to the end of his life, and his Catholic reviewers are undoubtedly right when they give as the reason why in the age of the Eeformation this great school of Germany was saved to the Catholic Church the complete domination which Eck had secured over it.l") A remarkable literary activity from now on to the end of his theological career of thirty-two years marks the prog- ress of Dr. Eck. He began to show his learning in the most diverse departments of learning. "He engaged in geograph- ical research and published a series of philosophical works, some of which were to serve as text-books in the faculty of arts at Ingolstadt. In these writings he attempts to com- bine in a rational synthesis the advantages of the older 10) "Schroedl, in Wetzer una Welte, says that Eck gave it that robust Catholic tendency by which it became a firm citadel of faith in Germany and a wholesome antidote against the Protestant acade- mies. ( ! )" (PEE 2 V, 138.) 6 1. A PEOPOSAL OF FRIENDSHIP. philosophy with those of the new." H) This means that Eck, while adhering in principle to the old scholastic views and methods of the intellectual leaders of the Church, sought to polish his writings with the new progressive views of the modernism of that age, the humanistic learning, at least whenever he could do so without incurring the suspicion that he had actually become a Humanist. He never went over completely to the camp of the Humanists. His principal theological work during this early period Eck inscribed Ohrysopassus. This title was borrowed from Eev. 21, 20, where the tenth of the precious stones in the foundation of the heavenly Jerusalem is called a "chryso- prasus." Eck certainly thought very highly of his virgin effort in theology. The treatise develops the doctrine of predestination from Semi-Pelagian premises. Eck's later Catholic reviewers think that the treatise prophetically fore- shadowed the author's part in the struggle that was soon to come upon the Church; for the dogmas of divine grace and human free will which Eck discussed in the' Ohrysopassus became the battle-ground between Luther and Rome.l2) Be- sides this treatise Eck wrote commentaries on the Summulae of Petrus Hispanus and the treatises of Aristotle On Heaven and On the Soul, by which he endeavored to create the im- pression that he was in harmony with the new learning of his time. A deplorable trait in Eck's character — doubly deplorable because it was seen in a theologian, and that, such a young theologian — cropped out when he ventured upon the terri- tory of social economy. It was Eck's avarice. We noted the impulse which Eck had received in this direction from 11) J. P. Kirsch, in Cath. Encycl. V, 272. Thig writer cites the fol- lowing monograplis on the non-theological activities of Eclj : Gueuther, Jon. Eck als Oeograph, In Forschungen z. Kultur- u. lAteratiirgesch. Bayerns (Munich, 1894), II, 140 — 162; Bauch, Die Anfaenge des Humanismus in Ingolstadt (Munich, 1901) ; Greving, JoTi. Eck als junger Oelehrter, in Reformationsgeschichtl. Studien u. Texte (Munich 1906), I. 12) The Ohrysopassus and other books of Eck were burned by the students of Wittenberg at the Bister Gate on December 10, 1520. (Grisar, Luther, II, 51.) 1. A PROPOSAL OF FRIENDSHIP. 7 Prof. Summenhardt at Tuebingen. By making extensive use of the treatise of his former teacher, Tractaius Bipartitus de Decimis (A Treatise in Two Parts on Tithes), Eck pre- pared a series of theses in which he defended the charging of five per cent, interest on loans. This seems a moderate rate, but we must bear in mind that in that age the canon law forbade all usury, that is, all taking of interest, for that was called usury; and for ages the civil law had enforced the ecclesiastical. Usury meant, "not the taking of excessive interest alone, but the taking of any interest.'' The age had begun to fight capitalism, which engaged in the "lending of money in business, with a prospect, almost a certainty, of profit. Usury had formerly been an exaction of that for which the borrower had received no real equivalent, from which at any rate he had derived no profit; it was now a sharing of profits between borrower and lender." 13) This was an entirely new conception, and for his attempt to de- fend it Eck was promptly charged with "Fuggerism'' ; for it was believed that he had yielded to golden inducements of the well-knovsm bankers of emperors and popes, the Fuggers of Augsburg, when he launched his defense of their usurious practises.. Eck published his theses on the five per cent, interest rate in October, 1514, and intended to discuss them publicly at his university. But the Bishop of Eichstaett, Gabriel von Eyb, who was the chancellor of the university, refused his consent, and Eck had to desist. However, in 1515 he went to Bologna, where he defended his theses, but found few men agreeing with him. His attempt to repeat his disputation at Vienna in 1517 was a complete failure. In spite of his incessant begging for permission he was not allowed to speak on his pet theme. Only a few minor theo- logical questions he was permitted to discuss. Estimate, now, the abnormal conceit of the man when you behold him coming back from Vienna, boasting that he had achieved "a victory." He set to work to publish his theses with the exposition he had given them, and with an account of the 13) Vedder, The Reformation in Qermany, p. XXXV. 8 1. A PBOPOSAL OF FEIENDSHIP. proceedings at Bologna and Vienna. It was this treatise that he sent to Luther with his request for Luther's friend- ship.!*) Pirckheimer, the wealthy and cultured protector of the Humanists in Germany, after receiving this treatise of Eck, wrote a satirical review of it which he entitled Eccius Dedolatus (Eck Planed Down). He cites Eck's own com- ment on his ''success'' at Vienna : I arrived at Vienna, in Pannonia, and there left a singular proof of my genius and learning; for I overcame all Ijy shouting, and showed that all the Viennese lacked literary training and erudition. 15) For this Eck included Pirckheimer in the bull of excom- munication which he published against Luther in 1520.1'^) Bernard Adelmann of Augsburg always referred to Eck as "the garrulous sophist." 1'') His nerves still tingling with the glowing feeling of his imaginary triumph, and greedy of greater honors, Eck im- mediately after his return from Vienna, in a spirit of pure combativeness, picked a quarrel with his former teacher at Freiburg, Ulrich Zasius. Not satisfied with this, he even bumped into the aclaiowledged literary king of the age, Eras- mus, who had just issued his Greek New Testament. Eck wrote Annotationes in Novum Testamentum (Notes on the New Testament), in which he assumed the role of champion of orthodoxy over and against Erasmus, because the latter had said that the Greek of the New Testament was not as good as that of Demosthenes.l^) This was the man whom Scheurl proposed to Luther for a friend. Scheurl thought that he saw in Eck a "gleich- ■ strebenden Geist," a person of kindred aspirations with Lu- ther.lS) He had not discovered the character of Eck; his 14) The title of the brochure which had been published at Augs- burg February 1 was : Disputatio Joan. Eckii Theologi Viennae Pan- noniae haWta. On fol. 15 S. he had added his disputation at Bologna. (Enders, I. c. ; Presei-ved Smith, Luther's Correspondence I, 57.) Wiede- mann, I. c, p. 447, has a photograph of the title page of this brochure. 15) PRE2 V, 139. 16) Grisar, II, .39. 17) Wiedemann, p. 35. 18) Preserved Smith, I. ,-., p. 58. 19) PRE», I. u. 1. A PKOPOSAL OF FBIENDSHIP. 9 intention was sincere, but his judgment was at fault. How- ever, it is also possible that Scheurl had not read the char- acter of Luther correctly; for Scheurl's friendship with Lu- ther was terminated in 1523, after which time Scheurl sides with Eck against Luther, and is eager to make his peace' with Eome.20) We are now looking back upon the completed drama of the Eeformation. We are apt to muse how much differently the story of the Reformation would have to be written to-day if Scheurl's wish had been realized. In that case it is likely that Albertine Saxony, with the University of Leipzig, would have joined the Reformation movement much sooner than it did, and Luther would have been spared the pain of having to issue a number of impleasant writings. It is likely that Protestant influence in Southern Germany, guided from the University of Ingolstadt, would have materially changed the course of events at Worms in 1521. It is likely that at Augs- burg in 1530, at Worms in 1540, at Ratisbon in 1541 the Lutheran cause would have had an able champion more in- stead of a sinister opponent. It is likely — well, let us dis- miss dreams. Man proposes ; God disposes. Even our friend- ships are subject to His revision. So be it.^i) 20) Preserved Smith, I.e., 51. 21) Wiedemann, Eck's Roman biographer (p. 83), curiously mis- understands a remark of Eck in a letter to tlie abbot Gallus, and claims that Eck was in correspondence with Luther before Scheurl suggested the establishment of a friendship between the two men. By misconnect- ing the phrase "ex commendatione," etc., with "vidisset" instead of "traxisse," Wiedemann translates : Before I had seen Luther on the recommendation of Scheurl, I had entered into friendly relations with him. It should read : I had not seen Luther before I entered into friendly relations with him on the recommendation of Scheurl. Eck wrote the letter to which we have referred in the beginning of this chapter from Scheurl's home. His conduct would certainly be queer if he had allowed Scheurl to secure for him a friendship that was already established. By the way, on the preceding page Wiedemann has quoted a remark of Eck which makes him say the very opposite of what Wiedemann has imagined in this place. 10 2. MAT FROST ON A BUDDING FEIENDSHIP. 2, May Frost on a Budding Friendship. The early corfespondenee of Luther that has come down to us is fragmentary. Among the letters that still remain unrecovered are the letter of Eck to Luther to which we have referred, and Luther's answer to the same.22) But we have evidence that Luther entered into the friendly scheme of Scheurl. The Nuernberg counselor had dated his letter to Luther April 1 ; Luther replies to him under date of May 6 : As regards your admonition to write our Eck in a friendly manner, I have done this with the greatest care possible. Whether the letter has reached its destination I do not know .23) At that time, then, Luther had received no reply from. Eck. But observe Luther's expedition: scarcely five weeks had elapsed between Scheurl's request and Luther's com- pliance.' Considering the postal facilities of those times, we should call that rapid correspondence. Luther was very willing to make a friend of Eck, if he could. In fact, Luther had by this time received Eck into his friendship merely on the recommendation of Scheurl, for he calls him "our Eck," and that meant, in the parlance of the day, "our friend Eck." We have a letter of Luther to Scheurl, dated Septem- ber 11, in which Luther refers to theses which he is sending to Scheurl, with this request : — Thesif theses you may submit to our friend Eck, the very learned and acecomplished man, in order that I may hear and see what he has to say about them.24) Erom this language and the nature of the suggestion we infer that a certain degree of intimacy must have sprung up between Luther and Eck during the four months which had passed since Eck made his overtures to Luther. In a letter dated September 30, Scheurl acknowledges the receipt of the theses, and promises to forward them to Eck.25) On Novem- ber 3 he informs Luther that the theses have been read with approval by the dean of Eichstaett, Erhard Truchsess, and by the Prior of Eebdorf, Kilian Klein.26) In sending the 22) Enders, 1. c, I, 98. 23) XXI a, 68. 24) XXIa, 74. 25) XXIa, 76. 26) XXIa, 77. 2. MAT FROST ON A BUDDING FRIENDSHIP. H theses to these places in the immediate neighborhood of Ingolstadt, and to Eck's immediate associates, Scheurl's in- tention was to obtain the joint opinion of all these men. In his letter to Eck he reiterated Luther's wish and joined his own with it : — With Luther I desire to be informed what you think of these theses.27) There is some anxiety manifested in these repeated and urgent requests for an opinion. The nature of the theses ex- plains this anxiety : the theses in question represent one of the earliest efforts of Luther to break down the tyranny of the scholastic theology, that is, of the pagan philosophy of Aristotle as applied to theology. The theses are a clear call to the theologians of the age to break with the untenable principles of a misguided past. What do we mean by scholasticism and scholastic the- ology? These terms are used to designate the form which the teaching of the Church had assumed after the great teachers of the earlier centuries had passed away and theo- logical learning was fostered chiefly by great schools, uni- versities. The prominent teachers of theology were usually attached to some school, and hence came to be called scho- lastics, or schoolmen. The dogmas that had received the sanction of the Church had crystallized in creedal statements, and were accepted and taught on the authority of the Church. The labor of the schoolmen consisted in organizing the dog- mas into some system and in harmonizing them. "The scho- lastic theologians were therefore not patres, generators of dogmas, but only doctores, teachers and defenders; and they were not doctores in general, but only doctores ecclesiae. They taught not merely in the Church, but for the Church and in defense of the Church. Their central task was to conciliate, or at least to cast a bridge over the gulf which lies between, faith and knowledge. The instrument which they used chiefly was formal logic — syllogistic argumenta- tion." Scholastic theology, in search after the primary source 27) Bnders, I. c, I, 110. 12 2. MAY FBOST ON A BUDDING FKIENDSHIP. of religious knowledge, thought it had found that source in the reason and the moral sense of man. The Church would have it so; that was the great pity and the shame of it. The age of scholastic theology opens with Anselm of Canterbury (f 1109). To him is ascribed the first distinct recognition and efficient application of the central principle of scholastic theology: "the unquestioned acceptance of the traditionally and officially sanctioned body of orthodox doc- trine, and the earnest defense of the same hy all the re- sources of logic, and r-eason." Anselm chafed under the charge that theology is a blind and irrational babbling of certain beliefs after some renowned teacher or the decision of some famous church council. He wanted to show that reason has very much to do in theology, provided only it does not become haughty and self-confident. He found it difficult, however, to confine this unruly and presumptuous reason within due bounds. Though striving against rationalism, Anselm himself uttered rationalistic principles and senti- ments, sometimes going so far "as to claim that "reason can of itself demonstrate the absolute necessity of each and every dogma of the whole faith of the Church." After Anselm two tendencies may be observed among the schoolmen: one bold and aggressive, striving to get away as much as possible from the authority of the Church and its dogmas, though still deferring ostensibly to that authority; the other, striving to hold on to the traditional faith, and at the same time coquetting with reason. The representative of the former tendency was Abelard (f 1142) ; of the latter, Ber- nard of Clairvaux (f 1153). The latter tendency triumphed, chiefly through the labors of the school of the St. Victors (Hugo St.Victor, tll40; his pupil, Kobert St.Victor, J-117S'), which injected a certain contemplative or mystic element into the search after the primary source of knowledge in theology. "According to Eobert St. Victor there are six kinds of con- templation. 'We know 1. by the imagination (the sensible impressions made by creation) ; 2. by reason (perception of law and order in creation) ; 3. in reason according to imagi- nation (symbolical knowledge of nature as a mirror of the 2. MAY FROST ON A BUDDING FRIENDSHIP. 13 spiritual) ; 4. in reason and according to reason (the internal referred to the internal without a sensible image) ; 5. above and not against reason (rational knowledge carried to a higher stage by revelation); 6. above and (apparently) against rea- son (as, e.g., the mystery of the Trinity).'" Contemplation, however, seemed too much like labor to the race of churchmen that was now arising. These men were becoming pronouncedly materialistic and sensual. They preferred their theological diet in the canned and predigested form. Accordingly, for their convenience chiefly, however, also for the sake of displaying the logical acumen of their authors, collections of the dogmatic deliverances of the lead- ing teachers of the Church were made, which were called summae sententiarum. Summaries of Definitions. A modest author would occasionally call his collection summulae. Little Summaries. On these summaries the theological lecturers used to comment and were called sententiarii. "All intel- lectual acumen was concentrated upon the logical defense of the formal orthodoxy of the official Church." The leader among the theologians of this age (Magister sententiarum) became Peter Lombard (f 1164). His treatise Sententiarum Libri Quattuor became the indispensable text-book in all theological schools, and students took their second academic degree when they were admitted to the privilege of lecturing on the Sententiae of the Lombard. In 1204 occurred the fall of Constantinople. One of the effects of this, event was that the wrritings of Aristotle were made accessible to the West. The trained intellects in the Western Church fell with avidity upon the philosophy of this cultured pagan', in whom human reason has scored its greatest triumphs. All the fundamental questions which the schoolmen had for a hundred years debated without the aid of Aristotle were taken up with a new zest, and the authority of the great thinker of classical antiquity was invoked to prove the correctness or incorrectness of a position in the- ology. "The explanation of Aristotle's great influence on the medieval Church is not far to seek. It is accounted for by the fact that he was and is and always is to be the great 14 2. MAT FROST ON A BUDDINO FBIENDSHIP. expounder of the laws of thought. It has been more than two thousand years since he wrote,^^) and no essential point in this teaching has been impeached, and no really fruitful addition to his work has been made. Now it is one of the constantly recurring illusions of men that, if they only had the right method of reasoning and investigation, they might ascertain and demonstrate all truth. Aristotle was supposed to have furnished that method. By analysis and synthesis, by induction and deduction, by the magic power of the syl- logism, all things were to be revealed." 29) The commentators on the Sentences of the Lombard now enriched their disser- tations with copious references to a writer who had never heard of Christ, had not read a word of the Bible, and was altogether outside of the pale of the Christian Church. Chief among them were Alexander Hales (t 1274), Duns Scotus (t 1308), Occam (f 1347). The line of scholastic theologians is generally regarded as closed with the death of Gabriel Biel in 1495,3") -when Luther was getting ready to quit the parish school at Mansfeld and go to Magdeburg. Already by his theological studies at the cloister in Er- furt, and still more after his election to a professorship at the University of "Wittenbergj Luther had become thoroughly familiar with the scholastic theology and its profane master Aristotle. He knew every variety of this theology, and coiild with ease' cite the views of the principal scholastics. In pro- portion, however, as Luther became acquainted with the Scrip- tures, he became greatly disturbed in mind lOver the undis- puted authority which Aristotle was seen to exercise upon the teachers of the Church. His disquietude turned to indigna- tion when he noticed that Aristotle was practically venerated ds a god and his teachings were accepted blindly, while the teaching of God's Word was practically regarded as worthless. His Christian conscience felt this as an abomination, and it would not suffer him to remain silent long. "If the Gospel 28) Aristotle, the pupil of Plato and teacher of Alexander the Great, lived 384—322 B. C. 29) Vedder, I. c, p. 16. 30) McCUntoclc and Strong Cycl., passim. 2, MAY FKOST ON A BUDDING FRIENDSHIP. 15 was to achieve a thorough success, Aristotle must be over- thrown." (Walch.) As early as February 8, 151G, Luther had voiced his in- dignation with the force of a personal grievance in a letter to his friend Johann Lang at the University of Erfurt. He declared that he was "full of blasphemies and curses against Aristotle and Porphyry and the sententiaries" ; he calls Aris- totle "that actor who, in his Greek mask, has deceived the Church," and goes so far as to say: "If Aristotle had not been in the flesh, I would not hesitate to say that he was the devil." 31) Luther felt that to truly perform the functions of a theo- logian he must come to an understanding with the church- men of his age as regards fundamentals. By what standards must the theologian determine truth and. error? By the Sentences of the schoolmen? But what if these authorities contradict Scripture? Then it became the plain duty of the theologian to overthrow the authority of the accepted stand- ards in theology. Accordingly, a resolution was passed at Wittenberg on August 21, 1517, to arrange for a public dis- cussion of the philosophy of Aristotle. Luther drew up a series of theses for the occasion, and sent them to his friend Lang at Erfurt with the offer that he would come to Erfurt and maintain the theses in debate with the professors of the university. The Erfurt theologians had grown gray teaching scholastic theology; they were shocked at the bold- ness of Luther's theses. They declared Luther forward, reck- less, high-minded, and altogether too ready to condemn the opinions of other men. They refused to debate with Luther. But at "Wittenberg the theses were received with great satis- faction, and a public discussion of them took place on Sep- tember 4, when Pranz Guenther of Nordhausen came before the theological faculty to defend the theses for his degree of Bachelor of Theology. Luther presided at the discussion, aftd the young applicant for academic honors acquitted him- 31) De Wette, Luthers Brief e, I, 15 ; Tedder, I. v., p. 15 1. 16 2. MAY FROST ON A BUDDING FRIENDSHIP. self SO well that he was awarded his diploma uno consensu dominorum, with the unanimous approval of his teachers. The theses afford an insight into that theology which was to become dominant at Wittenberg. For this reason we have reproduced them entire in an appendix at the end of this book. Certain details in these theses are not easily intelligible to the modern reader who is not conversant with the medieval literature against which they are directed. But everybody understands readily that in these theses there is a vigorous insistence on such fundamental Christian truths as these: Man is by nature corrupt and incapable of fulfilling the Law of God; only the grace of God can help him out of his misery; this grace is mediated through Christ and offered in the Word of His grace. This grace it is that makes theo- logians, rather than reason, even when exercised with con- summate skill and aided by the greatest masters of logic. The polemical remarks at the end of the theses indicate against which particular representative of the prevalent teaching the thesis is aimed. The authors named were all acknowledged authorities of the Church. Above all, Aris- totle the pagan was the theological oracle of medieval scho- lasticism.32) On the^e theses Eck remained discreetly silent. We have no evidence that he ever expressed the opinion which had been so urgently solicited both by Luther and Scheurl. But his subsequent conduct showed that he was fundamentally op- posed to Luther's theses. Out of these theses there had descended upon the habitual beliefs of Eck, which had grown and thriven on Italian soil in southern sunshine, a cold northern blast. His Wittenberg friend was proposing to him that as theologians they should henceforth live in another than the accustomed atmosphere. The pure breath of truth chilled Eck's infant affection for Luther, and his budding friendship was nipped. He was not inclined to approve Lu- 32) Plltt (lAfe of Luther, p. 69) calls this disputation "a decisive blow struck at medieval doctrine." 3. STABBING A FBIEXD IN THE BACK. 17 tiler's position, and it did not seem prudent to disapprove it. His silence is very expressive. Silence! Oh, well are Death and Sleep and thou Three brothers named, the guardians, gloomy-winged. Of one abyss, where life and truth and joy Are swallowed up. Shelley. Hausrath has seen in Eck at this period the cunning dissembler. "The great Humanists Brant, Geiler, Peutinger, Eeuchlin, "Wimpheling, Zasius, are his patrons at this time, and he overwhelms them with letters breathing his venera- tion for them. However, he had at the same time maintained relations with the obscurantists in the Church, which proved very useful to him. This was revealed when in his twenty- fourth year he was called as professor to Ingolstadt, which still was under the influence of scholasticism. This did not prevent him, however, from keeping up a friendship with a Htmianist like Scheurl at Nuernberg, nor from offering, in 1517, his friendship to Luther, of whose opposition to Aristotle and the scholastics he must even then have known. Luther, however, had to blame himself because in his free- dom from suspicion he had accepted as genuine the assur- ances of friendship of this aspirant, who was casting his lines now to the right, now to the left." 33) 3. Stabbing a Friend in the Back. We have traced Eck's relation to Luther to a point within ■one month of an event which was destined to shake all Europe. On October 31 Luther published his theses against the traffic of indulgences. Luther attached only local im- portance to the Theses : they were to serve as a basis for a public discussion at Wittenberg, and he made no effort to spread them. His friend Scheurl had to upbraid him for not sending him the Theses.34) In the eyes of thoughtful men, however, the ISTinety-five Theses assumed a very great 3.3) I.e., I, 195. 34) XXIa, 90. DAU, LEIPZIG DEBATE. 18 3. STABBING A FEIEND IN THE BACK. importance tlie more they studied and pondered them. When the Theses were published in convenient prints at N'uem- berg, both in the original Latin and in a German translation by ]Sruetzel,35) every prominent person in Germany was dis- cussing the Theses with his neighbors and associates', and endeavoring not only to grasp their exact meaning, but, still more, to determine their bearing on the practical life of the Church and the autocratic rule that had been set up in the Church. Very many people saw at once what Luther had failed to foresee, viz., that the Theses were a challenge to the Papacy, and sooner or later must involve Luther in a conflict with the rulers of the Church. Men were taking sides for or against Luther. The majority of the influential men in Germany, in particular all who permitted their judgment to be swayed by their temporal interests, soon voiced their dis- sent from the views which Luther had published. Eck was among the first to become interested in Luther's Theses. It is quite likely that his friend Scheurl sent them to him. Moreover, Eck was observing the effect of the Theses on the public mind. "Luther's Ninety-five Theses against indulgences gave Eck, who had already attained notoriety as a vainglorious polemist, no rest. Immediately after re- ceiving them, he had declared that Tie would go ten miles to debate them with the author.' The distance to Wittenberg was indeed greater than ten miles." 36) To remain on Lu- ther's side — if he ever was on . Luther's side • — required a stronger friendship for Luther and, above all, a more dis- interested love of the truth than Eck possessed. Eck placed himself on the side of Luther's opponents. At the same time, however, he was careful not to betray his sentiments to Luther too soon; not a word of criticism or warning did he send to his friend. On business of his university Eck one day had to visit the bishop of Eichstaett. During the conversation with the bishop he alluded to Luther's Theses and voiced his dissent. The bishop did not agree with the arguments advanced by .35) Enders, I. c, I, 167. 36) Knaake, in Weimar Edition of Lutiier's Worlts, I, 278. 3. STABBIX6 A FRIEND IN THE BACK. 19 Eck, and the conversation became a lengthy discussion. Eck had marked the places in Luther's Theses which he con- sidered objectionable by little daggers, which scholars called ''obelisks." 37) After his visit to the bishop he wrote out his exceptions, and sent a copy of his Obelisks, that is, of Lu- ther's Theses with his annotations, to the bishop. He de- clared later that he had to do this because the bishop had asked him for his theological opinion on the Theses. This, however, was a subterfuge; there is no evidence that the bishop had asked Eck for a written opinion; on the con- trary, it is known that the bishop was displeased with the exaggerated accusations which Eck had raised against Lu- ther. By spreading this tale, Eck was simply feeding his vanity, and at the same time preparing a safe retreat for himself in ease he should be attacked for his OhelisJcs. Itching with a desire to become knovra. as a learned critic of a document which was rapidly gathering national fame, Eck let it be known that he had prepared a criticism of Luther's Theses, and manuscripts of his OhelisJcs began to be circulated among his friends and the savants of Germany. Eck had adroitly permitted them to pass out of his hands. His cousin Michel claims that Eck had not written his Ohelisks for publication, and Eck himself, when the matter became mooted, seemed greatly surprised that they should have become public.38) One of the manuscript copies of the Ohelishs reached Wittenberg via Augsburg and Nuernberg about the end of March, 1518. Eck must have dropped a copy at Augsburg, where he had obtained an appointment as preacher ; for from this place Canon Bernard Adelmann sent the Ohelisks to 37) Peter Mosellanus, in his Oratio d-e variorum Unguarum cog- nitione paranda, published at Basel in 1519, explains the origin of this custom as follows : "Origen, the Hebrew scholar, used to stab any deviation from the original text of the Scriptures with which he met in a commentary with an obelisk (f) or noted it with an asterisk (• ) ." (Bl. E., 2a.) 38) We may note here that the actual publication of the Obelisks did not occur until 1545, when they appeared together with Luther's reply in the first volume of Luther's Works, published at Wittenberg, Bl. CXLVb— CLVIIIb. 20 3. STABBING A FEIEND IN THE BACK. Wenceslaus Link at ISTuernberg, who, in turn, forwarded tHem to his friend Luther. Luther was pained when he received the Ohelislcs, and upon the urging of his friends prepared a reply which he called Asterishs, and a manuscript copy of which he sent to Link with the following letter : — It seemed good to me to go over one by one the Ohelisks which you sent me and which our friend Eck has manufactured against my Theses, and to add Asterisks to my Theses, which are indeed somewhat obscure. If you will communicate them to him, he will readily perceive by their light how rash it is to condemn the work of others, especially when one has not understood it, and how ex- tremely treacherous and abominable it is to cover with such bitter gall the views, nay, the mere inquiries, of a friend without giving him previous warning, and while the friend expects that every- thing will be taken for the best by his friend. But it is true what Scripture says: "All men are liars" (Rom. 3, 2). We are men and will remain men.39) This letter, which was written March 23, was followed the next day by another, addressed to the pastor of Zwickau, Joh. Sylvius Egranus. This letter reveals still more clearly the keen grief which Luther experienced on account of the faithless action of Eck. It also contains a reference to Leipzig that is almost prophetic. Luther comforts Egranus, who had been attacked by a Catholic theologian of Leipzig, with his own example and says : — I have seen the theses of Dr. Jerome Ochsenfart,40) which are apparently directed against you, although your name has not been mentioned. Be steadfast and brave, my dear Egranus; it has to come to this. If these things were of the world, the world would love its own. Whatever is in the world must necessarily perish in the world, that the spirit be glorified. If you are wise, congratulate me, as I do you. Recently a man of signal and clever learning and of a trained mind, and, what smarts the more, a man who was bound to me by a great and recently established friendship, has written Ohe- lisks against my Theses. I mean Johann Eck, Doctor of Theology, vice-chancellor of the university of Ingolstadt, canon of Eich- staett, and now, at length, preacher at Augsburg, a man already famous and widely known by his books. If I did not know the .30) XVIII, 536. 40) This is the Leipzig tlieologian ; he is named after his birth- place Ochsenfurt on the Main ; his real name was Jerome Dungersheim. 3. STABBING A FKIEND IN THE BACK. 21 purposes of Satan, I should be astonished at the fury with which the man breaks our friendship, which was of quite recent origin and very pleasant, without giving me the least warning, without writing me a word or bidding me farewell. He has written Oielisks, in which he calls me a fanatic Hus- site, heretical, seditious, insolent, and rash, not to mention lesser abuses, such as, that I am dreaming, clumsy, unlearned, and lastly, that I am a despiser of the Supreme PontiflF. In short, he has written nothing but the foulest abuse, and he aims at my Theses, so that there is in the Obelisks nothing but the malice and envy of a most infuriated mind. Still I wanted to swallow this sop fit for Cerberus in patience; but my friends compelled me to reply to him, however, in a private communication. Blessed be the Lord Jesus, yea, may He alone be glorified, and we confounded as we deserve. Rejoice, my brother, rejoice, and be not terrified at these whirling leaves so as to quit teaching as you have begun, but be like a palm-tree in Kadesh beneath the burden that weighs it down. The more they rage, the further I advance. I leave yester- day's doings and let them bark at them, and I pass on to new things, that they may bark at them also. Continue your success ; only pray the Lord that He may Himself work out His glory, and see that His will is done. I have written Dr. Jerome Ochsenfart that your assertions do not seem errors to me, but truths, while his theses for the most part seem erroneous to me; also that I am prepared and do not doubt in the least to see you defend both your and my errors. However, if they should come with quotations from the schoolmen, I would have him know that he will not accomplish anything with us by such tactics, and would only waste his words. I am almost ready to swear that there is not a scholastic theologian, especially not at Leipzig, who understands one chapter of the Gospel or of the Bible, yea, not even a chapter of the philosopher Aristotle, and I trust if ever I have an opportunity that I shall prove this with honor, unless to know the Gospel means to spell out its letters and syllables the best you can. Accordingly, he not afraid in the presence of ignorance. Let the rattling of such titles as doctors, universities, magisters, pass out of your mind ; for they are specters and faces, — do not tremble before men whose heart you see ! — nor are they the faces of men, but only of specters.41) Soon after writing his Asterisks and sending them to Link, Luther had to set out on a journey to Heidelberg, where he attended a meeting of the Augustinian chapter. 41) XV, 2461 £E. •22 3. STABBING A FRIEXD IX THE BACK. The journey took from April 11 to May 15. On April 26 Luther debated a series of theses at the Augustinian convent, which are reproduced in an appendix at the end of this book, "because they afford further insight into the quality of Lu- ther's theology at this time. Having returned to Wittenberg, Luther on May 19 wrote the following letter to Eck, address- ing him as "one of his special friends" : — Some Obelisks have come to me in which you have tried to demolish my Theses on indulgence. This is a proof of the faithful friendship which you have voluntarily offered me, yea, of that evangelical charity according to which we are bidden to admonish a, brother before accusing him! How could I, simpleton that I was, believe or suspect that you would come at me from behind while you were flattering your brother? You, too, have fuliilled the Scriptures which say: "Which speak peace to their neigh- bors, but mischief is in their hearts." (Ps. 28, 3.) I know that you would not want me to do this to you, but you have done it and have had the courage to do it; see now what your con- science is saying to you. I am quite astonished to see with what effrontery you presume to judge my opinions before you know and understand them. Surely, this rashness is a very faithful wit- ness that you think yourself the only theologian, so much so that you imagine that your opinion must take precedence of every ' other, yea, that all that you have condemned, even when you have not understood it, must stand condemned because it does not please Mr. Eck. Prithee, suffer God at least to live and reign. However, not to be at great length with you, since you are so utterly infuriated against me, I have sent you Asterisks against your Obelisks, that you may see and recognize your ignorance and rashness. I am indeed sparing your honor by not publishing them, but send them to you privately, so as not to render evil for the evil that you have done me. I have written them only for the person from whom I received your Obelisks, and desire that you should receive my Asterisks through him. Otherwise, had I wished to publish them, I should have written against you more carefully and pertinently, yet also with more firmness. Now if your confidence in your worthless stuff is still unshaken, go to work and write; I shall meet you with equal confidence. Perchance it will then happen that I shall not spare you either, although God knows that I would rather that you should come to your senses again, and, If you see anything in me that is dis- pleasing to you, you would first deal with me like a friend, as you know it behooves a theologian to do. For what harlot, when in a passion, could not have vomited forth the same abuses and 3. STABBIKG A FKIEKD IN THE BACK. 23 revilings which you have vomited forth against me? Yet you are so far from feeling sorry for this that you even boast of it, and think you have done right. You have your choice : 1 shall keep up ^ur friendship if you wish it ; or I shall cheerfully meet your attack, for I see that you know nothing in theology except the husks of scholastic opinions. You will find out what you can accomplish against me when you begin to prefer war to peace and fury to love. But may the Lord give to you and to' me good sense, and bid us be of good cheer. Behold, though you have hurt me, I lay down my arms, not because I fear you, but God. After this it will not be my fault if I am forced to defend myself publicly. However, let us speak pleasantly .42) Meanwhile affairs were assuming an ominous aspect for Eck through the entering in of a new element of which we shall speak in another chapter. This caused Eck to dispatch a letter to Luther's colleague Carlstadt on May 28, in which he says : — Most famous Carlstadt, I hear that you and your Witten- bergers are greatly incensed at me because I wrote a few things privately for my bishop against the teaching of our mutual friend Martin Luther, thinking that these trifles- would never be sub- mitted to the learned for their judgment. Now, as to how these writings got out of the hands of my bishop into yours, I have my suspicions indeed, but no certain knowledge. Had I foreseen this, I should not have composed them without previous prepara- tion or without consulting any books 'just as the thoughts came into my head, nor should I have dumped them into my manu- script in such a hurry. For as you know, we all use greater free- dom when writing private letters than when publishing some- thing. Accordingly, I am much surprised that you are so angry at your most devoted Eck. I am told that you accuse me of fawning. Ask all who know me, and they will confess that Eck is not a man to be put off with empty words. And were I even capable of it, I would not do it, least of all to a bishop with whom indulgences for some accidental reason, I suppose, have little weight. By the way, people say that you are getting ready for a learned contest with me, which I can hardly believe. If that is your intention, it seems strange to me that you do not rather make for your neighbors at Frankfort and for the in- quisitor who is appointed for discovering the malice of heretics ,- for in their printed and published writings they claim that Martin has erred a hundred times, and that sometimes he is mad, raving, and insane. But if you will accord me the privilege of our re- 42) XXI a, 98 f. 24 4. THE DAGGEBS AND THE STARS. cently established friendship, I shall regard your acts as done in love, and shall ask you not to carry out what you are meditating against the innocent Eck. It was not my intention at all to hurt Martin, but if you make light of my friendship and believe that I have gone beyond bounds, I shall not restrain you. However, it would have been your duty if you wished to publish anything against me to inform me beforehand. If I am convinced that I have erred, I shall gladly confess my error, and not be ashamed to do so. But if I see that you write against me in a heated and cutting manner, I shall, as far as truth demands, defend myself with the aid of faithful teachers and friends at the more cele- brated universities in Christendom. However, I should rather be spared this trouble. You will have to make up your mind what is to be done, and when you have considered everything well, you will have to start the skirmish. Greetings to you, whose welfare I cordially desire and wish.43) A few months later the Ohelishs had come into the hands ■of Erasmus, who wrote to Lang at Erfurt on October 17 : — I hear that Eleutherius [Luther] is approved by all good men, but it is said that his writings are unequal. I think his Theses will please all, except a few about purgatory, which they don't want taken from them, seeing that they make their living from it. . . . I wonder what has come over Eck to begin a battle against Eleutherius. But, "cursed love of fame, what wilt thou not force mortal breasts to do?" (Aeneid II, 56 f.)44) 4. The Daggers and the Stars. It is necessary now to take a little closer look at this innocent lamb Eck and his little pleasantries, the Ohelishs. These Ohelishs are the iirst reply that Luther received to the challenge which he had issued by publishing his Ninety-five Theses. With all their inanity and silliness they are a fair sample of the arguments of Eoman theologians with which Luther had to contend all his life. Moreover, practical church-life in the Catholic Church of Luther's day is faith- fully mirrored in them. We indicated before that the Olelisles were not published until a year before Luther's death. If Eck had not yielded, 43) XV, 804. 44) Pres. Smith, I. c, I, 122. 4. THE DAGQEKS A>'D THE STABS. 25 ther would have published them with his reply. However, en Eck showed a disposition to drop the matter, Luther t him more than half way. He even tried to suppress his teHshs. Bernard Adelmann of Augsburg writes in a letter ted January 10, 1519, and addressed to Pirckheimer of lernberg : — You know how anxious our good Martin was that his Asterisks mid not be published.45) When Luther, a year before his death, consented to the blication of the OielisJcs and the Asterisks, he undoubtedly 3hed to leave to posterity a faithful record to show for Lat issues he had to contend at the very opening of his "ormatory career, and what malevolence had been mani- ;ted against him from the start. We have in an appendix, at the end of this book, given exhaustive summary of the Ohelishs and Asterisks, and all content ourselves here with recording a few opinions lich others have expressed on them. Grisar makes very much of Eck as ^n antagonist of ither. He says of the Obelisks. ■• "This tract is chiefly con- med in a calm discussion of the matter in dispute, though does not refrain from occasionally describing this or that inion of Luther's as 'rash, corrupt, impudent assertion,' an insipid, unblushing error, a ridiculous mistake, etc. le severest remark, however, and that which incensed Lu- er beyond all the rest was, that certain passages in the dulgence Theses, owing to a confusion of ideas, made ad- issions 'containing Bohemian poison,' i. e., savoring of the rors of Hus." Grisar's enumeration of the epithets which ;k applies to Luther will hardly convince the reader that e Ohelisks were a "calm discussion." ISTor has he, as he ould have done, specified wherein the "confusion of ideas" nsisted which led to Luther's fatal admission. Of the derisks, Grisar says: In them Luther "speaks of the be- 45) Enders, I.e., I, 210. — ^ Grisar (IV, 377) states in opposition to- historians and to the editor of the Weimar edition of Luther's Worlia it Luther did publish the Obelisks together with the Aatensks in [gust, 1518 ; but he does not state where he has seen this print. 26 4. THE DAGGEKS AND THE STARS. havior of Eck, his quondam 'friend,' as most insidious and iniquitous, aud mocks at his 'grand, not to say high-flown,' preface. He says: 'Hardly was I able to refrain from laughter'; Eck must have written his Obelisks during the carnival; wearing the mask of genius, he had produced a chaos. His writing adduced nothing concerning the Bible, the Fathers, and the Canons, but was all arch-scholastic; had lie, Luther, wished to peripateticize, he could with one pufi have blown away all these musty cobwebs," etc.*'') As a resume of the two treatises, Grisar's account is worthless, as the reader can see by a perusal of the summary at the end of this book. Grisar's forte is the study of Luther's passions and indiscretions, and he has been true to his metier also in this instance. Vedder says of the Ohelishs: "As they were written early in the controversy, about the beginning of the year 1518, they treated principally the doctrine of repentance and the char- acter of the sufferings in purgatory; they touched lightly, hardly at all, on the question of the Pope's power. They were brief criticisms of selected propositions froin the Theses, free, incisive, outspoken, but there was little in them that went beyond the .bounds of legitimate controversy. There were several things, however, that" made them particularly worrying to Luther and his friends, chief of which was the fact that Eck had but recently become acquainted with the "Wittenberg professors, and had shown a marked disposition to cultivate their friendship. His attack on Luther was of the nature of a surprise. Besides, Luther complained that Eck treated' him ungenerously, called him violent, a Bo- hemian, a heretic, seditious, rash, impudent; said he was inept, unlearned, a contemner of the Pope, and other things little less unpleasant. Eck was probably too harshly judged, and Luther was oversensitive.'' "Legitimate controversy" is good; but will not some genius come forward at last to fix for us the "bounds" of such controversy? Vedder evidently does not take Luther's complaint of Eck's treatment seri- 46) Grisar, IV, 377 f. 4. THE DAGGERS AND THE STARS. 27 ously. If Luther's complaint rests on fact, — and every his- torian can examine the records, — it is not easy to discern the fairness in Vedder's judgment. Of the Asterisks he says : "In his Astei'isks, as is not unusual in controversy, Luther attributed to Eck offensive epithets that the latter had not used, while he used others toward Eck even more offensive than those of which he complained. The controversy, of ■Ao great importance in itself, had an important influence in determining the course of events : it called out Carlstadt, Luther's first active associate in his work against indul- gences, and it produced a permanent estrangement between Eck and his opponents. Both parties had just enough of controversy to make them wish feu* more; each had a score to settle. Eck, in particular, was restless, enterprising, un- forgetting, unforgiving, and wished and watched for an op- portunity to meet Luther and Carlstadt on another field. Thus the OhelisJcs, a slight thing, of which he thought little, and from which he , expected nothing, was Ecys first step toward becoming a prominent actor in a great drama." **') Luther's reply to Eck is indeed sharp and unsparing: it lays bare the equivocations, sophisms, and self-contradictiona of Eck; it exposes him to ridicule; it contains irony and bitter scorn; it is a polemic such as Luther would write. But a close examination of the document will convince any reader that Eck had applied to Luther all the ofiensive attri- butes which Vedder has enumerated, and more besides. He had called him' "violent" and "rash" in the 6th, Yth, 8th, 13th, and 19th Obelisk, "a Bohemian" and "a heretic" in the 18th and 22d Obelisk, "inept" and "unlearned" in the 3d, 17th, 23d, and 24th Obelisk, "seditious" in the 13th, 26th, 29th, and 31st Obelisk, and "a contemner of the Pope" in the 22d and 28th Obelisk. Besides, we find such epithets applied to Lu- ther's Theses as "frivolous" (3d, 5th, 11th Obelisk), "impu- dent" (23d Obelisk), "poisonous" (13th, 26th Obelisk), "rav/^ and "insipid" (22d Obelisk), and in the 25th Obelisk Eck calls Luther sneeringly "a new prophet." 47) I. c, p. 56 f. 28 4. THE DAGGERS AND THE STAKS. However, in fairness to Luther two things should be borne in mind. In the first place, Eck had been giving himself the airs of a Humanist; he had created the impression that he favored an improvement of the ruling theology of the age, and a removal of the abuses that were practised in the Church. His new friends in Wittenberg had frankly opened their hearts to him. When they read his Ohelishs, they naturally felt themselves deceived; for in that document Eck swore by the old scholastic oracles, and fought them with authorities which they believed he had renounced. He showed himself an obscurantist as much as the men of Er- furt, Leipzig, Cologne, and other places that had been char- acterized in the Epistolde^Virorum Oiscurorum. He must now be treated accordingly, and placed where he truly be- longed. In the second place, there is a selfish and mercenary vein running through the Ohelishs. Eck manifests a great concern for the old superstitions and church customs of the time, in the preservation of which the parish priests and bishops were deeply interested, for they made part of their living by them, as Erasmus shrewdly observed. Eck, more- over, goes out of his way to point out that the supremacy of the Pope has been endangered by Luther's Theses. By such arguments motives were imputed to Luther which were alto- gether foreign to him, and the odium which was thus en- gendered against him must render all public discussion of the issues which Luther had broached unfruitful, yea, dangerous. Eck hinted that the laymen would henceforth meet the priests not only with objections, but with arms. He deplored that the attention of laymen had been invited to these matters. His Ohelishs were an undisguised plea for the perpetuation of the old ecclesiastical autocracy and aris- tocracy. Such an opponent could not be treated with def- erence, all the more because he was regarded as a learned man and a genius. And yet we shall see how readily Luther yielded to overtures of peace with Eck afterwards. The account of McGiffert is much more in keeping with the facts in the case. "Eor a time," he says, "Eck was gen- erally reckoned a member of the growing humanistic party. 4. THE DAGGEKS A^D THE STARS. 29 and was on terms of intimacy with many of its leaders. Luther spoke of him with marked respect in some of his earlier letters, and frequently sent him greetings through common friends. But the appearance of the Ninety-five Theses led to a permanent break and the alinement of Eck upon the side of reaction. He criticized them severely in a paper intended for private circulation called Ohelishs. Out- raged that a man he supposed his friend should attack him without giving him any warning, Luther replied with con- siderable asperity in a similar paper entitled Asterisks. Thenceforth, although the forms of friendship were observed for a while, there was growing enmity between the two men." -i^) Kolde sees in the exchange of polemics between Luther and Eck the first impact caused by the collision of a theology that is oriented by the Bible, and another which is reared upon the tenets of scholasticism. Eck's Ohelishs, Kolde, too, thinks, served to foment enmity against Luther.'**') Hausrath summarizes the Ohelishs as follows: "The ob- jections raised by Eck came with a bad grace from a Hu- manist; for throughout they paid deference to the logic of 'our Magisters.' In Eck's opinion the. words of Christ : 'Re- pent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand,' signify the in- stitution of the sacrament of penance as it existed in the Church of that day, for the simple reason that the kingdom of heaven is the Church. He says that he would consider Luther's Theses merely clumsy, if they did not contain a poisonous sting. Luther's claim that it depends entirely upon the good pleasure of God whether the intercessory prayers of the Church are heard or not, would lead to an abolition of all memorial masses, masses for the dead, and even of the canon of the mass, because the latter embraces the dead in its intercessions and salutary effects. A similar damage Eck sees arising from Luther's claim that the merits of the saints are available directly, without letters of indul- gence; for in that case all fraternities and sodalities for the 48) Martin LutUer, p. 134. 49) Martin Luther, I, 159. 151. 30 4. THE DAGGERS AND THE STABS. veneration of saints would be useless. That means, thinks Eck, nothing else than the scattering of Bohemian poison. Yea, of Luther's Theses in general (most of which he regards as rude and foolish) Eck can only say that 'they smack of Bohemia.' " Of the Asterishs, Hausrath says : "Luther sees in the perfidy of Eck, who secretly denounces him to his bishop as a Hussite and at the same time privately writes him friendly letters, a sad confirmation of the words of Scrip- ture, 'All men are liars.' . . . Mockingly Luther remarks, one can see that Eck wrote his book during the carnival season, while he was wearing a mask over his face. In these transactions two points emerge prominently, which were des- tined to play a more important part later. While scholas- ticism tried to fihd the grace which operates in a Sacrament in what the Church and the priest do, Luther finds it in the faith of the recipient. 'The Sacraments,' says Luther, 'do not effect the grace which they signify, but prior to any Sacrament faith is required.' Eaith, however, is a grace. Hence faith always precedes the Sacrament, according to the accepted axiom : 'Not the Sacrament, but faith in the Sacra- ment, justifies'; 'not because it is done, but because it is be- lieved,' to speak with Augustine. — Another i cardinal point is touched upon in what Eck called 'the frivolous Theses.' Luther has to admit that an Extravagant of Clement VI speaks of a treasure of the merits of Christ, which is dis- pensed through indulgences, while he had claimed that the merits of Christ are communicated to the penitent by the Office of the Keys, not by the purchase of an indulgence. He thinks not all indeed that a Pope does is a decision of the Church, but he admits that on this point the Bull Unigenitus is not on his side. This concession Eck never permitted to be wrested from him. The last and fundamental reason why Luther would not allow faith and the merits of Christ to be depreciated Eck did not understand, no matter how many schoolmen he cited, and how much learning he displayed. Luther mocks at him: 'He is the very tower of David on which hang a thousand shields of testimony, but he has not yet learned that the peace of Christians consists in this, that 5. alas! another friend! 31 they glory in having a good conscience, which no indulgence can bestow, but only the remission of guilt by grace.' " 50) It may not be amiss to call attention to the fact that both in the Ninety-five Theses and in the Asterisks we have before us Luther in his formative period. His views on such points as the intercession of the saints, prayer to the saints, purga- tory, the mass, and others, are not clarified, not as definitely formed as they appear a few years later. Besides, the Theses were not a statement of Luther's faith, — a popular error ! — but a draft for a debate. They do not settle the matters to which they refer, but call for a settlement. Luther purposely inserted things in these Theses for no other purpose than to bring on a discussion, and in the Asterisks Luther tells this to Eck. 5. Alas! Another Friend! Eck's letter of May 28, written in explanation of his Ohelishs, was addressed not to Luther, but to Oarlstadt. Who was this Carlstadt, and what caused Eck to write to him? The real name of Carlstadt was Andreas Bodenstein. Like Eck, he had been nairied after his birthplace Carlstadt, or Carolostadt, in Franconia. He was Luther's senior by three years. After studying theology and the canon law at Erfurt, 1499—1503, and at Cologne, 1503— '04, he had come to Wittenberg in 1504. Here he became Magister of Phi- losophy in 1505, and took his degree as Doctor of Divinity in 1510. He had become one of the earlier celebrities of Wittenberg because of his scholastic learning, and in 1513 was made professor at the university. Soon after his appoint- ment to a theological chair he made a journey to Rome, from which he returned in 1515. He was startled at finding Lu- ther express views about theology that were at variance with the accepted teaching. He vigorously opposed them as sub- versive of the entire scholastic- system, which indeed they were and were intended to be. Luther, however, had main- 50) I. c, I, 196 f. 32 5. alas! another friend! tained his ground with such force that Carlstadt began to doubt his own position. He was forced into a more direct and earnest study of the Scriptures than he had heretofore engaged in. The result was that he was completely won over to Luther's side. Carlstadt's was an impulsive nature : what- ever he took hold of he pushed to the extreme. Melanchthon has estimated him correctly when he says that Carlstadt lacked both sound learning and real genius. His piety, too, was questioned. Superficial and shallow, he seems to have been able to impress men mostly by tjie mighty fervor with which he threw himself into any issue. A man of this sort usually becomes a violent and unreasoning partisan in any cause he espouses. Accordingly, Carlstadt no sooner felt himself freed from the spell of scholasticism than he began to attack Aristotle and the scholastic theology with pas- sionate zeal. While Luther was still quietly testing the soundness of his convictions regarding this theology by in- creased application to the Scriptures and by anxious cor- respondence with his friends, Carlstadt, in September, 1516, leaped into the arena of public discussion with 151 theses against the scholastic theology. He was prepared to meet any one who still wished to defend the old system. Pre- served Smith thinks that Carlstadt was "by nature a revo- lutionary, and longed to out-Luther Luther." 51) His theses against scholasticism are the first evidence of this tendency. The second evidence was furnished soon after. Carlstadt seems to have possessed little judgment of the inconsistency of his actions. He failed to see that his position on scho- lasticism must affect his entire theology. After his im- petuous onslaught on the theology of the schoolmen he could not avoid api)earing as a man who had completely broken with his theological past, as a progressive man far ahead of most men in his time as regards enlightenment. That is most likely the impression which he wished to create. We are therefore justly surprised to see him defend relic worship and indulgences in 1517. On April 26 of that year the Elector 51) Life and Letters of Martin Luiher, p. 58. 5. alas! another friend! 33 had his collection of relics exhibited at the Stiftshirche in Wittenberg. On this occasion generous indulgences were pro- claimed for allf who would make confession at an appointed place. Carlstadt published theses in which he defended and lauded this custom. Luther opposed him, and declared that the regulation concerning the place of confession stated merely a privilege, but not a command; for the forgiveness of sins cannot be restricted to any locality. Carlstadt re- plied angrily: "Luther, if I believed that you seriously hold this view, I should prefer charges of heresy against you with the Pope." S2) This Carlstadt now becomes a defender of Luther's Theses against indulgences when he hears that these have been at- tacked by Eck. It was chiefly upon Carlstadt's urging that Luther wrote his Asterisks and sent them in manuscript to his friends who had received Eck's Ohelishs. That had ended the matter with Luther. But the ambitious and headstrong Carlstadt was not satisfied. Eck had dared to besmirch an eminent member of the university; for this he must be humiliated. Aside from his personal assurance that he was well qualified for this task, Carlstadt decided that as dean of the faculty he was the proper person to humiliate Eck, re- store the tarnished glory of the University of Wittenberg, and lead men to a better estimate of Luther and — of Lu- ther's doughty champion Carlstadt. Behold the wonderful gyrations of genius: the former opponent of Luther on the question of indulgences is become his protecting patron and defender ! Luther had started for Heidelberg on April 11. Burning with zeal, his restless colleague could not abide Luther's re- turn, but must take speedy action against the naughty Eck. On May 9 Carlstadt issued theses which were to be debated seriatim in public by applicants for degrees during the semester. All the subjects contained in these theses related to points of difference between Luther and Eck, but those of the second and following series were a direct attack upon 52) Enders, I. c, I, 98. DAU, LEIPZIG DEBiTE. 34 5- alas! another fkiend! Eck. Carlstadt could never do anything on a small scale: he ran his list of debatable subjects up to 370, and in July increased it even to 405.53) Xhe theses were printed, and the first sheets came ofF the press the day before Luther's return, May 14. Carlstadt hastened to send these sheets to Spalatin, who, in the interest of the Elector, watched all that .was going on at the university with the closest interest. In the letter accompanying the theses, Carlstadt says : — Herewith I am sending your Eminence a part of my theses; for all have not yet come off the press. With the help of God you shall see how little Eck will be able to say in rebuttal, and then you will believe that I am not at all afraid of him, and of others, whom I shall refute one by one. . . The entire theses I shall send with the next post.54) It was upon receiving the information that theses hostile to him were to be debated at Wittenberg that Eck vn-ote the letter to Carlstadt which we introduced in a previous chapter. Eck's plea of innocence in that letter is amusing, if not disingenuous, but the letter shows that he would prefer to have the matter dropped. The letter of May 19 which he had received from Luther had suggested such a termination of the affair. Being written four days after his return from Heidelberg, that letter also shows what Luther thought of the effort of Carlstadt, of which he certainly had learned in the mean time. But Carlstadt would not permit himself to be 53) As regards the doctrinal contents, little fault can be found with these theses, except with Nos. 326 — 3,43, which lacl£ perspicuity. There is a genuine Biblical ring in all of them ; their greatest fault is prolixity which has made some of the theses redundant. Carlstadt's efEort was simply overdone. Loescher {Yollst. Ref. Acta II, 62 £E.), who follows the old numeration of the theses, divides their contents as follows : Nos. 1 — 101, on Biblical theology ; 102 — 140, against the pre- amble in the Obelisks; 141 — 192, against the notion that repentance means the Roman sacrament of penance ; 141 — 211, against the teach- ing that the Pope remits penalties, except such as he himself has im- posed ; 214 — 263, on free will ; 264 — 288, on the damnation of un- baptized infants, on hell and purgatory ; 289 — 325, on predestination and tree will ; 326 — 343, on indulgences and purgatory ; 344 — 380, on the charge that the Wittenbergers are heretics ; 381 — 406, on free will. The last twenty-three theses are directed against Tetzel. The theses were published in four sections, beginning May 14 and concluding June 7. The first respondent was Nicaslus Clajus of Herzberg, who made his Bachelor's degree by the discussion. In the St. Louis edition the theses are found in XVIII, 590— 633. 54) XV, 803. 5. alas! another friend! 35 balked in his g-rand. design to humiliate Eck. In order not to be behind Eck in scholarly courtesy and a conciliatory spirit, he decided, first of all, to answer Eck's letter. On June 11 he writes him : — Most learned Eck, your elegant letter has duly come to hand. To answer briefly, I cannot withold from your Eminence that I am greatly displeased with your unjust treatment of that pro- foundly learned man Martin Luther. You have indeed accused him of great and grievous crimes, viz., that he has offended the Majesty by disseminating heretical teachings and causing a schism in the Church. You have described him as a rebellious Bohemian and have published these accusations. In the opinion of your own Scotus, does- not anything that is written in its very nature make things public and generally known? You have done this, and thereby have furnished others not only the occasion to reply, but even forced them to do so. For this reason I have published a challenge, or rejoinder, to some of your conclusions. It has been printed here at Wittenberg and is for sale at several places. Because of your humanity I am truly sorry for having been com- pelled to attack you. If things done could be undone, I would rather that I had borne your injustice with patience than to settle the matter with polemics and disputations. The reason why I chose you particularly for an adversary instead of the illiterate inquisitor or some one like him was not onvy, anger, or passion, but your elegant style, industry, acumen, and, above all, your own salvation and that of the common people. I hope indeed that you will come over to our way of thinking, and out of a Saul be made into a Paul. I did not want to engage in a conflict with a, stupid ass, but with a renowned lion and an eloquent Mark, and I thought it would not harm me to train myself a little more in eloquence by your example. If I have in- sulted you, I ask you to forgive me. But if you continue offend- ing me, whom you have already offended, do so if you are able, and if you do not mind being regarded as a person who mali- ciously maltreats another, or even wants to overthrow the Holy Scriptures. I am resolved to suffer war and tyrannical attacks rather than keep a peace that is altogether wrong, because it is to the damage and disparagement of the divine Word. I do not care what becomes of me. I would not like to lose your friendship if you grant me the privilege. I love you heartily. May I perish if I desire your death or slightest misfortune! I am striving with all might to have the Word of God, which, alas ! has been cast aside in our sad times, become brighter and more cheering to men, yea, as bright as the sun. Long live our Martin, who has furnished the opportunity for proclaiming the 36 5- alas! another friend! Law of the Lord in its power! Yea, long live Eck, our friend! If, however, he is our enemy, he shall beconoie a lover of tlie truth. This is what I wished to disclose to you hurriedly, and at the same time send you my best wishes. . . . My dear Eck, forgive me because I have wanted to forgive you. Pardon me if you think that I have offered you vile talk. For my part, however, I wish that you would not yield the least to falsehood, but rather have it exterminated, banished, and crushed.55) Two features in particular are striking in this letter: the penitent mood that has seized Carlstadt. He speaks of patience as the preferable method of dealing with offenses. That sounds very much like Luther. Had Carlstadt had a conference with his colleague? We doubt not. The other feature is the undisguised vanity of the man, which renders him contemptible and unfit to be a spokesman of the Church in her troubles. However, Carlstadt decided upon another matter. After writing Eck such an amiable letter, the trouble might have been considered at an end. Like in a French duel, each com- batant, with a cruel effort, had' perforated a ribbon on his opponent, and had made a courteous bow, and offered elo- quent apologies. However, despite the reassuring sentiments which he had voiced in his letter to Eck, Carlstadt ordered the disputations at the univer_sity to proceed. The first took place on July 14. Eck was disposed to pay no attention to this disputation because it did not refer to him directly. But when Luther's pupil Bartholomew Bernhardi assumed the afiirmative in the second disputation, which was entirely directed against Eck, the latter did not deem it proper to re- main silent any longer. On August 14 he published a treatise which he entitled "Defense of John Eck against the Bitter Invectives of Dr. Andreas Bodenstein of Carlstadt." In this Defensio Eck makes an interesting statement: — The Reverend M. Luther, he says, in whose behalf Dr. Boden- stein has undertaken this duel, frankly acknowledges, in the very kind letter which I received last from him, that he does not see ' how I can decently remain silent and not defend my honor at all, although he asks me with wise foresight to answer Dr. Boden- 55) XV, 805 f. 5. alas! another friend! 37 stein in a very gentle manner. To this request I am not at all reluctant to accede, chiefly because it is he [Luther] that has urged me to do so.Sfl) This letter of Luther is lost, but there is no reason to question the truth of Eck's statement; for Luther himself refers to just such a letter as Eek has described in a letter to Scheurl dated June 15. Scheurl, it appears, had inter- ceded with Luther in behalf of Eek, and Luther in h,is reply assures him as follows : — My dearest Christopher, what you ask in behalf of our friend Eek would have been altogether unnecessary for such a friend as you to ask if the situation had not become complicated and he had written before you. But my suspicion that Eck's mind has been alienated from me has been greatly increased since after calling me such dreadful names, even though it was done in a private writing, he wrote me no letter and sent me no message. However, now that the theses of our Carlstadt have been pub- lished, though without my consent or even my knowledge, I am not quite decided what each of us ought to do. I know that we love the man's genius and admire his learning. Moreover, as to what has happened, I at least am conscious and declare that it was done in sorrow rather than in anger or envy. As for myself, I have written to him the enclosed letter, which, you see, is very friendly and full of good will towards him. Not only for your sake, but also because of his own candid confession I am quite reconciled with him, because he writes that it dis- pleases him, if not me, that this accident has happened either through some one's craftiness or malice. Accordingly, you have my authority to do what you like in this matter, and so has Eek. This regard only I should expect from your friendly offices that Eek do not write our Carlstadt a harsh reply, and that he con- sider that his was the first fault that such evil things happened among friends. For since I gave out my Asterisks privately, I be- lieve that there is no necessity of my replying to him, unless he desires it. But if he prefers that a reply should be written, I am ready for that also, although I should prefer peace. Let us know therefore that you grieve with us that this temptation has been launched by the devil, and, again, that you rejoice with us because by the compassionate Christ it has been overcome and put to rest.57) In all fairness it must be acknowledged that Eck's De- fensio was calm and considerate, though as regards the points 56) Enders, I.e., I, 210. 57) XXIa, 103 f. 38 6. THE CHALLENGE TO A DEBATE. in controversy he yielded nothing. There had now been an equal exchange of polemical literature between Carlstadt and Eck, just as between Luther and Eck. The case might have been closed at this point. Luther was so sure that he had come to a fair understanding with Eck that he could assume the role of arbitrator between his colleague and Eck. Carl- stadt had placed Luther in a delicate position. Luther had to disavow all knowledge and cooperation in Carlstadt's polemical undertaking. Carlstadt had interfered in a matter that was almost entirely personal between Luther and Eck, and in which Luther had already taken the necessary action by publishing the Asterisles. The plea that the honor of the university demanded Carlstadt's action is too weak. More- over, Carlstadt had acted with undue haste. By rushing into print, Carlstadt had made it impossible for Eck to ignore the attack made upon him, and Luther frankly acknowledged this. On the other hand, Luther fastened upon Eck the blame of the original offense in this whole sad business. Eck must not forget that he started the trouble. Thus Luther's conduct at this stage of the affair is marked by excellent candor and impartiality. 6. The Challenge to a Debate. Eck's Defensio reached Carlstadt August 28. After read- ing it, Carlstadt gave it a new name : he called it Eck's Monomachia, that is. Duel. As a means to settle his con- troversy with Carlstadt and the Wittenbergers, Eck, namely, had proposed in his Defensio either that Carlstadt's theses and his Defensio be submitted to the Holy See for a papal decision, or that a public disputation be held between him and Carlstadt before the universities of Rome, Paris, or Cologne. For, said he, Of what use is it for -me here at Ingolstadt to keep shouting against you while you are defending yourself at Wittenberg? This will produce nothing but public offenses, waste of time, slanders, divisions, contempt of the Holy Scriptures, and we shall both become ridiculous. For in such a difficult matter to assail so 0. THE CHALLENGE TO A DEBATE. 39 shamelessly the good name of another is indeed in keeping with the practise of theologians, but not with Christian godliness. Paul says to Timothy that the servant of the Lord should not strive nor engage in a wordy warfare. For such striving is not to any useful purpose, but to the subversion of [the faith of] the hearers. For the love of Christ and with a most godly yearning I pray you, therefore, my dear Andrew, let us not seek our own, but God's glory, and although we differ as to terms, let us be united in brotherly love of the truth by the operation of the Spirit, who through the diversity of tongues has gathered all nations in the unity of faith. Farewell, and forget not your profession of love and friendship.58) Carlstadt, however, heeded this appeal sp little that he set to work forthwith to prepare a counter Defensio, which he published September 14. He inscribed it "The Defense of Andreas Carlstadt against the Monomachy of the Excellent Dr. Johann Eck.'' (To avoid confusion, we shall hereafter refer to Eck's treatise as the Monomachy, to Carlstadt's as the Defensio.) Carlstadt prefaced his Defensio vsdth the fol- lowing remarks : — Carlstadt accepts the verdict not only of the Apostolic See and of the universities at Rome in Italy, at Paris in France, or at Cologne in Germany, but of each and all who have read not only the conclusion, but the entire contents of such writings as these: the Dialogs of Jerome against Pelagius, the books of Augustine on the Rewards of Sin, on the Spirit and the Letter, on the Perfection of Righteousness, and against Julian, and the - writings of other Church Fathers, such as Chrysostom, Cyprian, Cyril, Hilary, Ambrose, Cassian, Gregory, Bernard, Bede, as far as these have a bearing on the present controversy, and who have understood these books. It does not bespeak great confidence in the learning of the universities to which Carlstadt refers that he specifies so minutely the qualifications for which he looks in his judges. Or did he only wish to publish a catalog of his own attain- ments, and to serve notice that he would only submit to the verdict of his compeers in erudition? The Defensio itself, however, Carlstadt addressed to Provost Henning Goede and Dean Laurentius Schlamau, doctors of jurisprudence and pro- fessors at Wittenberg, and says : — - 58) Wiedemann, I. v., p. 79. 40 6- THE CHALLENGE TO A DEBATE. It shall be your office to act the part of the Psylli 59) in this controversy, to the end that the truth may send forth its light, and to pray God that pride may be conquered and envy put far away from US.60) This might mean that Oarlstadt chooses Wittenberg as the place, and his colleagues at the university as the judges of his debate with Eck. At any rate, Wittenberg must have been mentioned during the negotiations for the debate; for Kolde records the fact that Eck declined this place.^l) Carlstadt concludes his Defensio vpith a letter to Johann Wortwein of the Order of the Knights of St. John at Wuerz- burg, vcho will "refresh himself," he hopes, "with these lit- erary labors" of his, and with a brief note \o Eck, in which he states that he has reviewed only the first two series of theses in Eck's Monomachy, and says : — Now turn your heart with care to the teachers of the Church. If there is anything ungodly in this affair of ours (which God prevent ! ) , refute it ! Verily, I shall yield to the man who over- comes me in battle. I ask your forgiveness for my hurried writing. In Christ farewell. Then follows the name of the printer, Johann Gruenen- berg, the year of publication, 1518, and this Hebrew citation from Eccl. 1, 2 : Habel habalim, that is. Vanity of vanities.62) What a confession at the end of so much labor! Carlstadt stipulated three conditions that must be met if he was to face Eck in public debate : all his expenses must be refunded him;®) he must be assured of safe conduct to and from the place of debate, and reliable notaries must be secured to take down the arguments on either side. 59) The Psylli were said to tie an African race of snake-charmers who healed snake-bites by sucking the poison from the wounds. 60) XVIII, 632 ff. 61) !. c, I, 192. 62) XVIII, 710 f. 63) Carlstadt complains of extreme poverty in a letter to Spalatin dated June 14 : "I do not wish to conceal from you that I am so poor that I would not like to have my enemies know it. I have not suffered such want as long as I am a doctor. However, do not let the other side know this. I can neither purchase books nor food sufficient to keep in good health. The zeal of my students is my only comfort. I am troubled, however, because many have to stay out of my lectures because they cannot get the necessary copies [of books which Carl- stadt ought to publish for them, but had no money to have printed], and I fear that some will go away in disgust, if our most gracious Prince does not come to my aid. They are appealing to me every day, and I have to feed them with empty hopes. (XV, 807.) 6. THE CHALLENGE TO A DEBATE. 41 The account of Eck's Monomachy and of Carlstadt's De- fensio fills seventy-eight columns in the St. Louis edition of Luther's Works. Carlstadt follows Eck point for point just as Luther had done in the Asterisks. The joint publi- cation of Eck's and Carlstadt's treatises is ,in the St. Louis edition divided into two main sections. In the first, em- bracing forty-two theses, Eck defends the claim which he had set up in the preamble to the Ohelishs, viz., that the kingdom of heaven signifies the Church as it exists now in the era of the New Testament; he denies the necessity of daily re- pentance for believers, and admits such a necessity only for mortal sins. Carlstadt, on the other hand, is occupied with showing the difference between the repentance of which Lu- ther had spoken in his Theses and the sacrament of penance. In the second main division, again embracing forty-two theses, Eck maintains his first OhelisTc, viz., that repentance of the heart is a great thing, because Christ prizes the in- tention and the will above the deed. The argument turns on the question what human free will can accomplish in foro theologico, that is. When applied .to divine matters. Eck's argument is Pelagian; he declares the will the king in man's soiil. Carlstadt argues against the merit of man's works ; he shows that Eck's teaching on the powers of free will repu- diates the Scriptures, and that it confounds intention, which is a gift of God, with the natural powers of man. Eck's third division, on the spirit and the letter, in which me- chanical service is unduly extolled, Carlstadt has not included in his rejoinder. Carlstadt's review of the positions taken hy Eck is drawn out at great length. Carlstadt completed the manuscript of his Defensio in two weeks (August 14 — 28). Luther must have seen Carl- stadt's manuscript, for he writes to Spalatin August 31 : — Another battle is being prepared by Dr. Andrew Carlstadt against Eck's Monomachy. As much as I can gather, Eck has not accomplished anything by his treatise, except that he has shown where he is most vulnerable.64) 64) XXIa, 106. 42 6. THE CHALLENGE TO A DEBATE. Four days later Capito, who was at Basel and had read Eck's Monomachy, wrote to Luther : — Johann Eck has -written against Andr. Carlstadt. You will not debate before fair judges; may your most strenuous efforts place us in a, safe position! I am privately writing Eck with great freedom.65) It is surprising that Capito regards it as self-evident that Luther will be a party to the impending debate, and that he expects a favorable issue from it because of Luther's co- operation. While these polemical writings were being exchanged, the German Diet was assembled at Augsburg. Though nothing was said at the Diet regarding Luther and his attack on in- dulgences, the discussion of his Theses was the most popular subject of conversation among the German princes and the delegates. Eck, too, had come to Augsburg, chiefly to pay his respects to the papal Legate Oajetan, who had been em- powered by the Pope to suppress, by all means at his dis- posal, the Hussite heresy in Bohemia and the neighboring ' districts. Luther was regarded at Eome as a Hussite, and the Cardinal Legate had been given detailed instructions how to deal also with Luther. If it should be necessary, he was empowered to arrest Luther and send him to Rome. Towards the end of August Luther received the official citation to appear before the Legate for a trial of his charges against Tetzel and the Church. A month later he started on his journey to Augsburg. It must have been foreseen that he would meet Eck at Augsburg, for Carlstadt had authorized Luther to arrange definitely for his debate with Eck. Luther entered Augsburg October T, and found lodging with the Carmelite monks. He postponed his' visit to the Cardinal because his friends had insisted that he must not present himself before Cajetan without an imperial safe-conduct, which he did not receive until October 12. During his very first intervie\v, which occurred on this day, the Cardinal cited against Luther the Extravagant Unigenitus, which declares that the indulgences flow from the boundless merits of 65) XXI a, 109. 6. THE CHALLENGE TO A DEBATE. 43 Christ, from which, as from an inexhaustible treasure, the Church dispenses to all who are in need by the sale of in- dulgences. This was the very point on which Luther, in the Asterishs^ had to make an admission to Eck. Luther seems not to have been struck with this peculiar coincidence that the Cardinal at their very first meeting, and after they had exchanged but a few words, put his finger at once on a point which Luther had had to acknowledge to be a weak point in his position. Had the Cardinal been informed? The his- torians think that the circumstantial evidence points to Eck as the informer. Luther, however, makes no such complaint. If a suspicion was raised in his mind by this circumstance, he promptly suppressed it. It certainly would not have helped his cause if he had charged the Cardinal that the latter was fighting him with Eck's weapons. During Luther's stay at the Carmelite convent, Eck came to visit him and discussed his debate with Carlstadt with Luther. It is not easy to fix the exact date when this meet- ing took place. On October 11 Luther writes to Melanch- thon, telling him that he will be informed by Carlstadt what the state of affairs is at Augsburg.66) This letter is not ex- tant.''^) It is possible that it contains an account of Luther's conference with Eck. On October 14 Luther wrote an ac- count to Carlstadt of his third interview with Cajetan, but in this letter he says nothing about having met Eck.''*) Lu- ther left Augsburg during the night of October 20 to 21, and the six days which intervened between his last interview with the Cardinal and his departure were taken up with im- portant literary work. For not only did he write lengthy letters to his friends about his conferences with the Cardinal, but he also wrote very careful statements of his doctrinal position for the use of the Cardinal, and, besides, his famous "Appeal from the Pope ill-informed to the Pope to-be-better- informed." These activities must have fully occupied Lu- ther's time. On this ground we are inclined to believe that Luther's meeting with Eck had taken place before the first interview with Cajetan. If Eck, as is very probable, had 3) XV, 554. 67) Enders, I. l., I, 245. 68) XV, 565. 44 6. THE CHALLENGE TO A DEBATE. formed a connection with the Cardinal, and the two had reached a secret understanding, it was to the interest of Eck and the Cardinal that Eck should visit Luther as soon as the latter had reached Augsburg. For the first time, then, the two men who had exchanged letters for a year and a half met face to face at Augsburg. The meeting seems to have been pleasant, and Eck showed himself quite tractable. Three months later Luther was com- pelled, by another queer move of Eck, to refer to this meet- ing, and in the letter which he addresses to Carlstadt he says the following about this meeting : — As your representative I discussed with him at Augsburg the possibility of composing your, diflferences with him by a personal, friendly, and familiar meeting.69) The places which Eck in his pompous challenge had named for the debate were rejected by Luther. Eck, on his part, declined to have the debate at Wittenberg. The two places on which an agreement was reached were Erfurt and Leipzig, and Luther promised to report the agreement to Carlstadt and have him make a choice. Towards evening on October 31, ISIS,^**) a tired monk rode into Wittenberg on the road from Kemberg. The Duke of Anhalt, whom he met on the road, had laughed at seeing him ride, for it was plain that the monk could not ride. Near Leipzig he had lost his way, or he would have reached Wit- tenberg sooner. The monk was Luther, returning from Augsburg- on the first anniversary of the Ninety-five Theses. 69) XV, 811. — Wiedemann's uncritical work is seen again at this point. He claims tliat Luther was not sincere in his proposal of an amicable settlement of the differences between Carlstadt and Eck by a private meeting of the two. For in a letter to the Elector of Novem- ber 29, 1518, Luther declares that he was ready for a public debate, but Cardinal Cajetan had denied him permission to hold a debate. This remark does not at all refer to the debate between Carlstadt and Eck, but to a debate which Luther was personally willing to hold with any one at Augsburg in order to maintain his ThesSb tor which he was being tried. Besides, Luther had wished to repeat the discussion of the scholastic theology in which he had engaged at Heidelberg ; he thought it might be held at the Carmelite cloister. Also for this dis- cussion the consent of the cardinal would have been necessary. If Wiedemann's remark means anything, it must mean- that since Luther was personally so pugnacious at Augsburg, it is impossible that he suggested a peaceful settlement to Eck of his trouble with Carlstadt. 70) XV, 2428. 6. THE CHALLENGE TO A DEBATE. 45 A year had passed since that memorable day when he had come forward in the simple faith of an honest inquirer with the request that whoever could, would tell him by what right indulgences are sold, and what they are good for. What a year it had been! His humble act had been proclaimed throughout Europe. The great men in Church and State had begun to make inquiries about him, and the majority of his friends had begun to move away from him as from a marked man. He went to his humble cell in the Augus- tinian cloister and wrote to his friend Spalatin : — Hail, my dear Spalatin! By the grace of God I returned to Wittenberg to-day, but I do not know how long I shall remain here; for my affairs are in such straits that I am tossed about between fear and liope.71) But he did remain, trusting that He in whose name he had begun the good work would see him through to the end. He plunged right into his accustomed work, amazing his friend with his courage and confidence. Two weeks later (Ifovember 15) he wrote to Eck: — Magister Andreas accepts our agreement made at Augsburg that you meet either at Leipzig or Erfurt in a, fair disputation for the discovery of the truth, in order that there may be an end of quarreling and writing books. He asks you, accordingly, to fix the day for the meeting and select one of the two places named. He would have made the selection, but he thought that he ought to give you the choice, because the fatigue of the journey will be greater for you, and you may be rushed with work more than he. See to it, then, that I have not urged him to this resolution in vain, and that the hope of our adversaries, that the theologians will quarrel forever and never agree, may be proved futile.72) Carlstadt, then, had the choice of the place for the debate, and courteously surrendered his privilege. Luther seems to have advised him to that effect. This generosity of the Wittenbergers was used to their disadvantage ; for Eck chose Leipzig, where Duke George and his university professors and magistrates frowned and sneered and raved against the daring heretic Luther and the little upstart university on the Elbe. Luther never was a diplomat. Poor Luther! 71) XV, 2408. 72) XV, 810. 46 7. DUKE GEORGE HAS HIS WAY. 7. Duke George Has His Way. Botli Luther and Eck now proceeded without delay to make the necessary arrangements for the debate. The first step to be taken was to obtain the consent of the authorities at Leipzig. Both addressed letters to the theological faculty, Luther still acting as agent for his colleague. Eck, however, wisely sent another letter at the same time addressed to Duke George, under whose territorial jurisdiction the Uni- versity of Leipzig was placed, who was, in fact, its legal owner. In this letter of December 4 Eck recounts to the Duke the development of his difference with Carlstadt in such a way as to reflect all credit on his own conduct and throw all blame on his opponent. His bishop, he relates, had requested him to write out an opinion on Luther's Theses, which he had done in all sincerity. His exceptions had come into Luther's hands, and then Carlstadt had felt himself called upon to defend Luther's propositions, and had attacked Eck in such a manner that the latter had no choice but to challenge him to a public debate, unless Carlstadt preferred to recant his errors and withdraw his charges. Carlstadt had accepted the challenge, but to Eck's surprise had declined Eome, Paris, and Cologne as suitable places for the debate, and then Eck had offered him Erfurt or Leipzig. Wherefore, as I do not fear to debate before any learned men, I beg your Grace for permission to debate at Leipzig.73) By the facts presented in previous chapters regarding the origin and development of the controversy, we are prepared to make the necessary corrections in the account which Eck gave to Duke George. He does not mention that Luther had replied to his Ohelislts, nor that the public discussion had been arranged with the impartial aid of Luther. With his letter Eck sent the Duke a copy of his Monomachy. The first result of this correspondence appears in the fol- lowing letter of December 16, which the Dean and Doctors of the Theological Faculty of the university addressed to Duke George : — 73) Pres. Smith, Luther's Oorresp., I, 135. 7. DUKE GEOBGE HAS HIS WAY. 47 We send your Grace certain letters of Dr. Eck. We surmise that he is trying to get from your Grace that which he spoke about in his letters to our faculty. And that your Grace may briefly comprehend the affair, we give your Grace to understand what happened last summer about the day of St. John [June 24], when there was a dispute about papal graces and indulgences be- tween the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther, of Wittenberg, and John Tetzel, then of Frankfort [on the Oder], as your Grace doubtless remembers. Then Lord Albert, Archbishop of Magdeburg and Mayence, sent an honorable embassy to us to inquire which side in this dispute was nearer the truth and what our opinion on the said difference was. But considering that certain imperial counselors at that time refused to give an opinion, we did the same, and sent his Electoral Grace our memorial testifying our good will to the following effect: Whereas both sides have brought much scandal among the people, and we fear that more will arise, and as each side is convinced that it is in the right, our opinion would not make them lay aside theirs, but would only impel them to assail each other with injury and scandal. Moreover, as the affair concerns the Holy Father at Rome, it is not fitting that we should meddle with it. But we advised that his Electoral Grace should assemble a synod and have the thing heard and decided by them. Otherwise, we feared an increase in scandal. In the mean time John Eck, as he informs us, gave his opinion on the same question to the bishop of Eichstaett, and thereby fell into a, dispute with Dr. Carlstadt of Wittenberg. And when he offered to dispute at Rome, Paris, or Cologne, Dr. Carlstadt declined. And though we were long ago requested by Dr. Luther in behalf of Dr. Carlstadt, as well as by Dr. Eck, to interfere in this affair, we have thought it best for sundry reasons to refuse both parties. For we feared that others, even laymen, might be drawn into the quarrel, and that the Elector Frederick might lay it up against this university, and that thereby there might arise a quarrel between him and your Grace. Where- fore we recommend Eck to commit the chief points of Dr. Luther's ■ propositions to some bishops for decision, or to a select board drawn from certain universities, for thus, by a written or oral disputation between select commissioners, the thing might be ended.74) Botli applicants, then, liad been refused permission by the theologians of the university on the plea that the respect for 74) The entire correspondence on this phase of the Leipzig Debate is quite extensive. It is found in Seidemann, Die Leipziger Disputation im Jahre 1519, p. 22 fE. Ill fC. We have selected only essential parts. Tlie present translation is from Preserved Smith, I. c, I, 139 f. 48 7. DUKE GEOKGE HAS HIS WAY. the Pope, tlie peace of the Church, and public safety de- manded that the debate be not held. These theologians were far better statesmen and diplomats than theologians; their answer would in our day be termed "a beautiful straddle" by every politician. One reason, however, which they did not express was their fear of the antischolastic theology which was being championed at Wittenberg, and which was utterly opposed to their ideals, they being hide-bound schoolmen. Besides, they bore Luther personal ill will, which they had manifested first through their Dr. Dungersheim, who wrote against Luther, and then on a later occasion, of which we have an interesting account from Luther. In July, 1518, Luther had been at Dresden, most likely on business of his order, and had preached before Duke George on July 25. During his visit the following incident occurred which Lu- ther six months later explained to Spalatin at the latter's request : — You must not be surprised, my dear Spalatin, that some people claim I was conquered at a, banquet in Dresden, for they have long been saying even other things, in fact, anything they have pleased. True, together with our John Lang and the Dresden Prior [Melchor Miritsch] I was compelled rather than invited by Jerome Emser (a lecturer in theology at Leipzig and confidential agent of Duke George) to attend an evening drinking party. Thinking that I was among friends, I soon found that I had fallen among spies. There was present a little Leipzig professor [Weissestaedt], a poor Thomist, who thought that he knew every- thing extraordinarily well. Though full of hatred against me, he treated me kindly at first, but finally, when a dispute arose, he attacked me violently and with a loud voice. All the while there stood outside a Dominican monk of the preaching fraternity, who was listening to all I said. Later I heard that he had bragged that he had become extremely incensed against me, and could hardly restrain himself from coming in to spit in my face and call me all manner of foul names. So much this man was scan- dalized because I refuted Thomas Aquinas for the benefit of the little professor. This is the person who boasts even to-day that I was so completely confounded that I could not answer a word either in Latin pr German. For since we argued as usual in mixed Latin and German, he claimed quite confidently, that I did not understand a word of Latin. By the way, our dispute related to the worthless stufl' in Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas. I showed 7. DUKE GEORGE HAS HIS WAT. 49 that neither Thomas nor all the Thomlsts together had under- stood a single chapter in Aristotle/ At last, when he became boastful, I asked him to gather together all the forces of his Thomistic learning and explain to me what it means to fulfil the commandments of God. "I know," I said, "that there is not a Thomist who knows this." At this point the rude man, con- scious of his ignorance, cried out, "Pay your fee!" (for so the money is called which a pupil pays to his teacher) ; for what else could, he have answered since he knew nothing else ? Break- ing into a laugh at this silly reply, we parted. Afterwards the Prior of Dresden wrote me how they had bragged and made me contemptible at the Duke's court, calling me an unlearned, proud man, and I know not what other names; also, how they had twisted my sermon at the castle in every possible way. I had referred to an entirely theological subject, viz., the story of three virgins, and afterwards they prated that I had referred to three women at the court of the Duke. In short, I have had to suffer from a generation of vipers (Luke 3, 7), who, thinking that they lose some of their dignity if they leave anything about me un- blamed, want to do everything and can do nothing. I have treated these clowns with contempt, and wrote him to keep quiet and leave me my Cain and Judas. But Emser has eagerly ex- cused himself, and when I was at Leipzig lately, he swore to me that he had set no trap for me. I said to him what I still say: th|it I despise such empty fury. If they are so very learned, they have presses and paper, let them publish something and display the glory of their splendid learning. My sermon was on St. James the Greater, whose festival occurred at that time. I preached on the Gospel (Matt. 20, 20 — 23) : "Ye know not what ye ask," and I scored the foolish wishes which men utter to God in prayer, and taught what a Christian ought to ask for.75) Kalkoff relates that the spy to whom Luther refers in this letter "collected what Luther said, together with other things he had uttered in his sermons, and some things from his writings, and sent them promptly to Rome, where they pro- duced a great effect. Indeed, this probably had great weight in inducing Pope Leo to change Luther's summons to Rome to a citation to Augsburg (before Cajetan), where it was thought he could be more expeditiously dealt with." ''6) These Leipzig worthies, then, would certainly do all in their power to thwart any public discussion that was to be held in the interest of Luther's teaching. 75) XV, 2386 f. 76) Pres. Smith, I. c, I, 150. DAD, LEIPZIG DEBATE. 4 50 7. DUKE GEOEGE HAS HIS WAY. On December 30 Duke George sent the following answer to the theological faculty of Leipzig : — Honorable, learned, dear, and trusty Gentlemen! We have received your letter and one from our dear and trusty John Eck of Ingolstadt, in which he begged that he might hold a public debate with Dr. Andrew Carlstadt of Wittenberg before you. And we have read the reasons why you refused this, and we consider that if, instead, you would do all you could to further it, and would give these doctors of other universities a place to debate in, you would win no little fame, praise, and honor thereby. And if you did this, you would not therefore be compelled to give any assent or recognition to the debate, but at need could recommend the decision to the papal commissaries or other proper authorities who stand ready to take the responsibility. Moreover, you should not be anxious lest any uproar or unpleasantness might arise from the propositions; but when and if it should arise, we can then deal with it.77) Duke George, then, was determined, in opposition to his theologians, to have the debate take place at his university. His primary reason was the petty jealousy with which he had from the beginning persecuted the young university founded by his relative in Ernestine Saxony, when that part of the Saxon domains, after the division in 1485, was left without a university. The theological faculties were the most promi- nent part of a medieval university; accordingly, when the theologians of a university became dishonored, the entire university suffered serious injury. Duke George knew that ever since the .publication of Luther's Theses the sentiments among the higher and lower clergy were extremely hostile to the new university. If representatives of this university, now, should happen to be defeated in a famous disputation, great honor would redound to the Duke's university, and the university of the Elector would be publicly discredited and, perhaps, be forced out of existence. ^8) Another reason was 77) Pi-es. Smith, I. c, I, 143 f. 78) Luther, too, knew of the scorn with which the University of Wittenberg was treated by ecclesiastics and princes, and at one time he expressed a fear that the affair between Caristadt and Eck might turn out to the harm of his schooi, especially if Rome should succeed in suppressing him first. After his return from Augsburg, where he had appealed to the Pope, it looked as if he would have to be handed 7. DUKE GEORGE HAS HIS WAY. 51 the Duke's low opinion of his theologians. He regarded them as a lazy set of men, who did not earn the bread he was pro- viding for them, and must be stirred up to do something for the glory of the university. During the§e negotiations Eck and Luther were still in correspondence with one another. We noted a letter which Luther wrote to Eck to inform him that Carlstadt had left the choice of the place for the debate to him. Meanwhile Luther had published a reply to the criticism which Rome, through Silvester Prierias, had directed against his Theses. Eck read this reply and wrote his opinion about it to Luther. Ln a letter to Link at N^uernberg, dated December 11, Lu- ther says : — Dr. Eck writes me that he is neither altogether pleased nor altogether displeased with my reply to Silvester Prierias, and adds a very wise and true remark, viz., that his opinion does not weigh much with me; for, indeed, I regard his advice as worthless. 79) In the letter to which Luther refers Eck must also have mentioned the effort which he had made to obtain from the Leipzig authorities the favor to hold his debate at that place. For on January 7, 1519, when Luther was at Leipzig, he wrote to Eck: — My dear Eck, we have tried in many ways to obtain from the gentlemen at Leipzig the permission concerning which you write, but they simply refuse, alleging that it is not in their power to serve us in this affair, because the decision rests with their ordinaries. Eor so the dean of the theological faculty answered my letter. Hence I fear this debate will be frustrated, unless you have another plan. over to the tender mercies of the inquisitorial tribunal at Eome. On November 19 he wrote to Spalatin, pleading that the Elector should insist that Luther be tried on German soil, because of the Wittenberg school. "I would not like to see," he writes, "an Interruption of the study of the best young men, who are showing an extraordinary zeal for the Holy Scriptures, and who ought . to come under the merciful provision of the rule stated in Ex. 23, 19 : 'Thou Shalt not seethe the kid in his mother's milk' ; for they are still suckling kids in theology. But after I am suppressed, the door is thrown open to our enemies against Carlstadt and all our theologians, and our university, hardly bursting into flower, will be suddenly destroyed. Just as Pharaoh ordered the new-born infants of the Israelites to be drowned." (XV, 2420.) 79) XV, 2431. 52 7. DUKE GEOBGE HAS HIS WAY. At the same time Luther replied to Eck's criticism of his answer to Prierias : — As regards my "Explanations" [to the Ninety-five Theses], I expect, and that quite eagerly, that you will do what you have promised, viz., prove that even the principles on which I base my Theses are worthless. When I quote Tauler, you'say: "I do not know who that is," and you are surprised that I prefer Tauler alone to Thomas Aquinas, Bonaventura, Alexander Hales, etc. It seems ridiculous to you that I demand that you should with me accept this one writer who is unknown to the Church, while I have myself rejected so many authorities. But I beg you to read him before you pronounce him a dreamer, unless by your long-continued habit of being engaged on vanities you, too, have become one of those very smart people who call the Pope, the bishops, the professors at the universities the Church, and think that whatever is unknown to these people is unknown to the Church. I wonder, however, who may have told you that Tauler is unknown to the Church. , But you are the Church ; all things are known to you! Do you not see that you arrogate to your- self the right to judge things which you have not pondered? Wherefore, if you wish to admonish me, pray, employ judicial acumen, and consider each point carefully. Reflect that I know very well that he was unknown to your Church; for I said that he was not found in the public schools and had been written in the Latin language. Moreover, remember in what way I have given him the preference to the scholastics, namely, because I have learned more from him than from all the rest. How prudently you have dodged this statement of mine! And yet I do not understand how you can finally threaten to hurl thunder- bolts at me by attacking my ignorance, as if I had not read and did not know what you wrote, while you know well what I wrote, when you say of my authority: "I do not know who that is." Well, that you may know who he is, read him, lest you be found to be a foolish judge who condemns what he does not know. Not to demand of you what is beyond your strength, I do not ask you by drawing upon each and all of your scholastics to produce one sermon equal to his. I do not ask this because I am certain that it is impossible. But I only ask you urgently to use all your powers of intellect, with all the fulness of your scholastic learning, all your qualities and acquirements, and see whether you can fully understand one or two of his sermons. After that we shall believe you that he is a dreamer while you are wide awake, or are at least one who is sleeping with his eyes open. I write you this, my dear Eck, to keep you from spending useless labor by admonishing me, and to induce you. 7. DUKE GEORGE HAS HIS WAY. 53 instead, to undertake something which I cannot overthrow, and which will compel me to change my mind. I mean, do some- thing that is worthy of your gifts and your effort, lest we both make a poor use of our time. Farewell, my dear Eck.80) In Luther's opinion, then, there was to be no debate un- less Eck should find a new way to arrange one. But when Luther wrote this letter to Eck from Leipzig, he did not know that Duke George, seven days before, had given Eck the de- sired permission to hold the debate at Leipzig,^!) and when Eck received Luther's letter, he must have smiled. Yes, Duke Greorge had simply overridden his theological professors. In his letter to the theological faculty which we noted before, he informed them of his action, and enclosed not only Eck's letter to him, but also a draft of the reply which he desired the faculty to send to Eck.- This was brutal ; but brutal was the character of Duke George. . Besides, the Duke knew that only the theologians opposed the debate, while all the other members of the university favored it as an event that was destined to bring great renown to their school. For Eck the action of Duke George proved fortunate; for this eager disputant had as early as December 29 pub- lished twelve theses which he proposed to debate with Carl- stadt "in studio Lipsensi," that is, at the University of Leipzig. This premature publication of Eck has been pro- nounced rash, on the ground that Eck could not know, when he issued the publication, whether he would be permitted to debate at Leipzig. This may be true, and in that case Eck, who at Vienna had had an experience with a reluctant faculty, may have wished to confront the Leipzig theologians with an accomplished fact from which they might feel that they could not recede with honor. Eck could argue that, having waited three weeks for the reply, — he afterwards claimed a much longer time, — and in order not to lose more time, he had 80) XXI a, 136 f. 81) Pres. Smith, I. c. I, 144. Duke George says: "We are pleased that you have chosen our university. We trust to you that this debate may not be dangerous, but only for the sake of elucidating the truth. We have therefore given order [ !] to our university to grant your request." 54 7. DUKE GEORGE HAS HIS WAT. interpreted the silence of the faculty as consent, and pro- ceeded with the further arrangements for the debate.82) However, it is also possible that Eck, at the time when he published his theses for the debate, knew that the university and the Duke were in favor of permitting the debate, and he shrewdly figured on the ultimate defeat of the opposing theologians. In this calculation he was not deceived. The poor theologians received their Duke's letter before January 4. In their plight they resolved to send a personal representative to the Duke, who was to plead with him to desist from his resolution. At the same time they addressed a letter of complaint against the Duke and the other mem- bers of the university to Bishop Adolph of Merseburg, who was the chancellor of the university. During these trans- actions Luther paid his hurried visit to Leipzig, and received the impression that there would be no debate. He did not learn all that had transpired between Duke George and Eck, and Duke George and the Leipzig theologians. But what he had learned and written to Eck was essentially correct; for three days later, January 10, Caesar Pflug, the Duke's trusted counselor, wrote to his master : — The theologians at Leipzig are extremely sorry to allow the disputation between Martin Luther and the professor of Ingol- stadt, and beg that your G-race will be present at it in person.83) But did not Pflug's pen slip when he wrote Martin Lu- ther instead of Carlstadt? We shall see. The Bishop of Merseburg came to the aid of the distressed theologians with a letter to Duke George dated January 11 : — We doubt not that your Grace well knows that many scan- dalous writings and sayings about indulgences have recently gone about, causing much offense among the common people and much danger to souls. Also, we have recently heard from His Holi- 82) He declared later, when he was faulted for having published his theses so soon, that he had acted in good faith, for the refusal of the theological faculty had not reached him till February 4, and Luther's letter from Leipzig he had not received until February 8, because he had been compelled at that time to make frequent journeys between. Ingolstadt and Augsburg. 83) Pres. Smith, I. v., I, 147. 7. DUKE GEOKGE HAS HIS WAY. 55 ness at Rome that he will not suffer such matters to be disputed, inasmuch as they are not doubtful or disputable. But we are in- formed by the worthy and learned dean of Meissen and his brother [Matthew Hennigk, professor of theology at Leipzig] that Dr. Eck, of Ingolstadt, has begged of the University of Leipzig the oppor- tunity to dispute on indulgences, as your Grace doubtless knows. But we think, as the Pope expressly forbids the same, that \re are straitly bound by our oath to hinder in our diocese all that might offend or disparage the honor of the Roman See. Where- fore we have written and warned the dean of the university. . . .84) The bishop's argument is unimpeachable. The Pope had, by the Bull Cum postquam of November 9, 1518, forbidden all public discussion of the Ninety-five Theses, and neither the bishop, as chancellor, nor the theological professors had any option in the matter. But neither, it seems, had Duke George and the other professors of the university, if they wished to be obedient sons of the Church. The comfort which the Leipzig theologians derived from the letter of their bishop was of short duration; for on January 15 the rector and doctors — not the theologians — of the university wrote Duke George : — We would have your Grace know that Dr. Eck has asked for- a convenient time and place to hold his debate with Dr. Carl- stadt. Wherefore we forward his prayer to your Grace, and ask that you will write us what you think on the matter. We will labor diligently in this for the profit of the university, not considering the earnest and written protest of Lord Adolph, Bishop of Merseburg.85) This meant that the theological faculty was disavowed by the rest of the professors. The writers undoubtedly knew the Duke's mind in the matter as expressed in his letter to his theologians, because that had led to the remonstrance with the Bishop of Merseburg, and they refer to that. What they wished to know of Duke George was, whether he adhered to his original resolution* to have the debate take place at Leipzig. Two days later Duke George sent a blunt reply to the bishop, and since there had been a suggestion that the aifair 84) Pres. Smith, I. v., I, 147 f. S-")) I <:. I, 152. 56 7. BUKE GEOBGE HAS HIS WAT. might require oral representation by a confidential agent, he .had the following memorandum drawn up for his counselor Dietrich von Werthern : — Dr. Eck has desired of us that he might debate after the scholastic manner before the theological faculty of Leipzig with Dr. Carlstadt, and has prayed that we should arrange with the said faculty for a time and place, and that we should be present in person to hear the debate. We have no objection to the same, thinking that it will redound to the honor and glory of the uni- versity to have such able men dispute before it. And we rep- resented to the said faculty that they should not object to the same, considering that they were in no wise committed to the subject of the debate, but could take what stand they chose in it, and, moreover, as they were doctors and teachers of the Holy Scriptures, that it was their duty to bring to light what is true and what is false. But the dean of Meissen has informed me that it is not considered well that the disputation should take place, which I think he did at the instigation of the faculty. For they are so small-minded that they fear they will get into trouble through this debate, or perchance, as they themselves confess, they are not able to converse with such learned men. . . . But we think that they should earn their bread by discharging the duty of theologians, namely, bringing the truth to light. For otherwise I should have to tell the truth to Dr. Eck, namely, that I found my theologians so unlearned that they were afraid to dispute with such learned men.Sfi) We see here the same brutal fratikness as on a previous occasion. The pig-headed Duke refuses to do what his re- ligious principles should have compelled him to do, viz., obey the Pope. He would have his way, at least in this instance. On January 19 he wrote to the university that he believed the debate would increase their renown abroad, that he had written a letter to the bishop, which, he hoped, would prove satisfactory, and that he was glad to learn that the members of the imiversity had come to an agreement, and would grant Eck and Carlstadt permission to hold their debate.^?) The bishop, however, was not at all satisfied with the letter of Duke Greorge, and on January 24 wrote to remind him that it was really his duty as a loyal member of the S) I. c, I, 152 f. 87) I. c, 1, 155. 7. DUKE GEOKGE HAS HIS WAT. 57 Church to prevent the debate because the head of the Church would not have it. He now asked the Duke to send a con- fidential commissioner with whom he might discuss the mat- ter, because he felt that it was not convenient to say all he wished to say in a letter. To the university members who had written their bishop an explanation why they had con- sented that the debate should be held, the bishop wrote January 31 and declared it a matter of course that they could not disobey the Duke's order, which clearly was to the effect that the debate should be held. He desired that the Duke's dignity and exalted station should be respected; nevertheless, he asserts that his interdict of January 11 was not issued without compelling reasons. On February 1 the university informed Duke George that they had executed his order and granted Eck the desired permission. It still remained to win over the theologians and the bishop, whose last letter the Duke had answered with another brutal and indignant reply that was not at all com- plimentary to the theological faculty. Instead of sending a commissioner to the bishop, the Duke suggested to the bishop that he might send a commissioner to him. When the bishop, however, on February 5, repeated his request for a conference vsdth a personal representative of the Duke, Caesar Pflug was sent to Merseburg. But he accomplished nothing; for the bishop declared that in view of the papal bull of November 9 he would be compelled to publish a notice forbidding the debate. This was probably the delicate point which he had not wished to mention in writing, because he foresaw that it would rouse Duke George's resentment. The theological debate between Eck and Carlstadt, therefore, was arranged without the consent and against the wishes of the Leipzig theologians and the ecclesiastical powers. It had been anathematized in advance. 58 8- STEIKINQ AT ANDREW AND AIMING AT MABTIN. 8. Striking at Andrew and Aiming at Martin. We noted in the preceding chapter a letter which Luther wrote to Eck from Leipzig. What had hrought him to Leipzig at this time? He was on his way home from a con- ference at Altenburg, where he had met the papal commissary Miltitz. This gentleman had accomplished what Cajetan had failed to accomplish at .Augsburg: he had induced Luther to promise that he would desist from further polemics on the subject of indulgences, provided his opponents would like- wise stop all controversy. At Leipzig Duke George himself told Luther that Eck had been refused to hold his debate with Carlstadt at Leipzig. This augured well for the cessa- tion of hostilities to which Luther had just obligated him- self. To his Elector Luther had written the day before : — ■I promised to stop my discussion of the pending controversies and allow the matter to bleed to death, provided my adversaries, too, remain silent. For I believe that if they had allowed my writings to go unattaeked, everything would now be quiet; the song would be finished, and everybody would be tired of it. I fear that if this measure is not adopted, and they continue to attack me by violence and speech, the quarrel will begin in earnest and the offense will become a serious matter; for my arsenal is still fully stocked. For this reason I have thought it best to stop this business.88) It seemed now as if Carlstadt's trouble with Eck, too, would be relegated to forgetfulness. If peace could be re- stored to the Church by this truce, Luther felt disposed not to hinder it, though he would have preferred to have the matter fought out in a clean argument on the basis of Scripture. Towards the end of January he received a copy of the theses which Eck had published for his debate in Leipzig. Eck called this his "schedula" for the debate; he had sent Luther this copy. To his amazement Luther read the follow- ing propositions : — 1. It agrees neither with the statements of Holy Scripture nor with the holy fathers, Augustine and others, to declare that our Lord Jesus Christ, when saying, "Repent!" desired that the entire 88) XV, 697. 8. STEIKTNQ AT ANDREW AND AIMING AT M.IBTIN. 59 life of believers should be repentance ; accordingly, this term can quite properly be understood as referring to sacramental penance. 2. Although venial sins occur daily, yet we deny that the righteous sin continually, even in every good work, also in the moment of their blessed death; we also declare it an error that the righteous, while his righteousness remains in him, can com- mit a mortal sin, or that in a baptized infant that sin remains which has sprung from the will of another person. 3. We hold that a person who maintains that repentance is not properly begun by abhorring sin and considering its great- ness, etc., and that this makes a person's sin still greater, should not be listened to, because he teaches, as it were, contrary to the Gospel and the holy fathers. 4. We consider it contradictory to Holy Scripture and the custom of the Church to say that God, by canceling guilt, also remits the punishment and does not change it into a temporal penalty by which satisfaction is to be rendered, and which is made known by the canons and the fines which the priest imposes. 5. We do not grant that every priest, no prelate excepted, can and must remit the guilt and punishment of his subjects when they ask him, and that a prelate who does not completely absolve from punishment and guilt commits a sin; because this is con- trary to the practise of Holy Mother Church. 6. ,We consider it an error to say that the souls in purgatory do not render satisfaction for the punishment due their sins, from the guilt of which they were absolved here, but for which they had not sufficiently atoned; just as we do not regard that person free from error who does not believe that God exacts from the dying another punishment besides that of death. 7. We do not grant that because of the imperfection of love and faith there arises in the souls of the dying a horror and something akin to despair by which they are tormented in pur- gatory, and that they are overwhelmed with this horror by their fear of death which causes them to loathe dying; because this is contrary to the truth and reason. 8. We deny as contrary to our faith and all reason that the souls in purgatory merit more grace ( than they possessed here ) , or that their rewards are decreased when they are liberated by the merits of others, or that they are not certain of their salva- tion, or that they do not desire our help. 9. We deny that the merits of the sufferings of Christ are not the treasure of the Church from which indulgences are dispensed, because this contradicts the truth and the Apostolic Decrees; just as we consider it very great ignorance to believe that the Keys are the treasure of the Church. Moreover, we reverently believe that we are helped by the merits of the saints. 60 8. STRIKING AT ANDEEW AND AIMING AT MAETIN. 10. It is an error to say that indulgences are useless; like- wise it is a very vicious error to say that indulgences are a sort of poor makeshift substituted for works, and that they are there- fore of inferior value. Accordingly, we also hold that the per- son errs who says that he is bound to reject indulgences on the ground that the Lord says : For My sake I blot out transgressions, instead of saying: For the sake of money. 11. It is an error that the Pope, by issuing indulgences, can- not remit the punishment due for sin; yea, it is an error that he cannot absolve the souls in purgatory from punishment; but above all we do not admit that the dying, the sick, those pre- vented from going to confession, and those who are not guilty of flagrant and gross offenses, are not in need of indulgences. 12. We deny that the Roman Church, prior to the times of Silvester, was not superior to other churches, but we have always acknowledged the person who occupies the chair and has the faith of St. Peter to be the successor of Peter and the Vicegerent of Christ.89) These theses showed plainly that in the coming debate Eck meant to fight Luther while ostensibly struggling with Garlstadt. His very first thesis is the antithesis to the first of Luther's Ninety-five Theses. He contradicts Luther again when he claims that the souls in purgatory are perfoVming a postponed atonement for their church penances with which they were in arrears at the moment of death, that death does not liberate them from the jurisdiction of the" Church, and that purgatory is not merely a stage in the inner develop- ment of the soul. It is again Luther at whom he aims when he says that buying indulgences for souls in purgatory does not at all decrease^ the merit of those souls, nor diminish their assurance of salvation. Against Luther, too, he affirms that the merits of Christ are applied through the device of indulgences. Last, not least, it is Luther whom he attacks in his last thesis; for that was a point which only Luther had touched in his "Resolutions," that is, in the treatise in which he had explained his Theses against Tetzel. Carlstadt had only lightly touched on some of these points, confining himself almost entirely to a discussion of the powers of free will in fallen man. Carlstadt had not referred at all to the 89) xvin, 712 £P. 8. STRIKING AT ANDREW AND AIMING AT MARTIN. 61 primacy of the Pope, and could not afford to do this, he thought, because he held his position at the SiiftsMrche by a simple grant from the Pope and could be deprived of it by a simple order from the same power. Carjstadt-had in- tended only to combat schola,stioism, and became quite un- easy when Luther showed a disposition to make Eck's twelfth thesis the chief battle-ground.^") "It must rouse the indigna- tion of every fair-minded person," says Hausrath, "to see how this sophist from Ingolstadt shams a duel with Carlstadt in order to make side-thrusts at Luther." 91) Thus the truce which Miltitz had patched up with Luther was about to be broken a few weeks after it had been estab- lished. For Luther could not consider himself bound by that agreement after this new act of faithlessness on the part of Eck. He first expressed his mind in an open letter to Carl- stadt late in January or early in February : — Our Eck has issued a schedule in which he noisily proclaims with grand and proud words, as is his way, that he will meet you in debate at Leipzig. I had conferred with him in your name at Augsburg to see whether your controversy possibly could be com- posed by a friendly and confidential meeting, and, as became your dignity, you did not decline this. See now how beautifully this man is mindful of his claim that he never changes, how, after shamefully abusing you, he promises you a duel, but now turns his frogs or gnats — I know not which — against me. I had hoped that such highly important subjects would be discussed as the grace of God, human misery, and the matter which is the principal point in your controversy with him. Mean- while Eck is shouting against poor me. In keeping with the times he is playing a carnival prank: he digs up the foolish questions regarding indulgence. Your subjects he treats as side- issues, and does not touch them with the tip of his finger, as we say. Perhaps the Holy Ghost foresaw this prank and trick, and inspired the heart of the excellent doctors- of the University of 90) By the way, in this thesis Eels had changed the wording of Luther's "Resolutions." Luther had denied that the Eoman Church was over the other churches (super alias) ; Eck makes him deny that the Eoman Churcli is superior to the other churches {superior alUs). Moreover, Luther had Insisted on the supreme authority of the Scrip- tures in this connection ; this Eck interprets to be a denial of the authority of the Pope. (Bnders, I. c, I, 406.) 91) I. c, I, 288. 62 8. STRIKING AT ANDEEW AND AIMING AT MARTIN. Leipzig to I'efuse you permission to settle this matter at their school. But, my dear Andrew, neither will I have you go into this mean sham debate, not only because this pretty red-cheeked and white-armed mask is attacking me and my propositions, but also because your gifts and your disputation are of too high an order to be degraded by a discussion of the foolish claims of this sophist and of my assertions regarding indulgences, which should rather be called negligibles. All teachers, even the scholastics, those miserable authorities of Eck, admit, first, that indulgences are not necessary for a Christian; next, that it would be better there were none, and that this subject is as suitable for being treated in writing or in a debate as a donkey for playing the harp. Nor had I ever considered it worthy of a debate, if it had not been necessary for the sake of Christ's people on account of deceivers, vain talkers, selfish and greedy people, who must be reproved. (Titus 1, 10. 7.) Nevertheless, these great and noble theologians are worried so fearfully with these trifling and useless things and strive to magnify their importance with such a display of anxiety that one can see they believe the honor of their name and office to he at stake. In the mean time they entirely neglect and put aside the true object of theology and of the essential things — not, of course, because they seek after lucre and glory, oh, no ! — except in an incidental way, and provided these advantages are not put too far from them. However, God wills that I shall not be engaged in a worthier occupation than to spend my life wrangling with tricky and senseless sophists, with the noxious fawners of the Pope, and with Romanizing tyrants. I shall therefore put my serious occu- pation back gladly and cheerfully, and attend to the pleasantries of these people. Accordingly, my dear Eck, I do not charge you with a vanity that is very plain, because you published your schedule for the debate before you were assured of the consent of Leipzig, yea, after you had learned from me that they absolutely refused their consent. For you have indeed hoped to gather fame from the air, that is, from a debate which is never to take place. I do not charge you with treachery, lack of kindness, and conduct un- becoming a theologian because you present theses to Carlstadt which are foreign to the matter between you. Since you could hope that he would not acknowledge them as relating to him, you would again score an empty triumph over such a great man. I do not charge you with having changed to most contemptible fawning to the Pope, with having again produced a fiction about me, and foisted new errors upon me which you have imagined, while you pretend to do nothing of the kind. I submit to such 8. STRIKING AT ANDREW AND AIMING AT MARTIN. 63 treatment from a theologian. I only want to show that we see through your miserable artifices and the fancies which you have woven out of nothing, and we wish to remind you kindly to employ a little subtler cunning in your insidious machinations. Your boorish and sleepy smartness you may employ against your foUow-sophists. ileanwhile be a brave man and "gird thy sword upon thy thigh, most mighty" (Ps. 45, 3). For since you have not ac- cepted me for your peace as arbitrator, you may perhaps wel- I come me as a combatant. Not that I have decided to gain a vic- tory over yovi ; I only want to give you an opportunity — after your victories in Austria, Lombardy, and Bavaria (at a disputa- tion held at Landshut ) — to achieve the reputation of having triumphed also in Saxony and Meissen, and to be hailed forever- more as the great paladin of the empire. Then, after gaining such great and eternal glory, you will be able to rest, according to the saying of your master: Motion ceases when the highest perfection in anything has been attained. I should prefer, how- ever, if you would at last give birth to the wonderful beast which you are carrying about with you such a long time, and spit out the nauseous things that afflict your stomach, and thus make an end of your imposing and grandiloquent threats. But, my dear Andrew, I come back to you and beg that you will join me in writing to the gracious prince, Duke George, and the wise counselor at Leipzig, whether they would let us have some public hall in which we might hold the debate. For I do not wish at all to see the excellent doctors of the university bur- dened with the dangerous office of judges of this debate, which they have very prudently declined. Yes, this is what we shall do : we shall call in two notaries to whom both Eck and Luther, and others if they wish, may dic- tate their arguments. I make this suggestion lest we, too, should be charged with that contemptible vainglory and useless labor which can be observed in Eck's disputation at Vienna; also, that the shouting and violent gesticulation with which disputants in our day are in the habit of raving and slaying the truth may be subdued, and, on the other hand, that every point may be set down in writing with the greatest modesty, and then be sub- mitted to the Apostolic See, the bishops, and the entire Christian world for their judgment.92) Wlieii Beatus Etenanus read this open letter, he wrote to Zwingli that no painter could have portrayed Eck more strikingly than Luther had done in this letter. 92) XV, 811 64 8. STRIKING AT ANDREW AND AIMING AT MAETIN. For many weeks Luther in Ms letters to friends expresses his indignation and grief at this latest treachery of Eck. On February 2 he writes to Egranus at Zwickau : — Our Eok, whom I approached at Augsburg for the purpose of inducing him to meet Carlstadt in public debate with Carlstadt at Leipzig, in order that the controversy might be settled, has at last consented. Listen now how this man acts : he seizes upon my Theses and chews them up terribly, hut he ignores the party with whom he has to do. One is tempted to think that he is in- dulging in a carnival play. I shall be forced to enter into a con- flict with this man about my Theses on indulgences. He is a quite vainglorious, miserable little beast. He promises to hold the debate after Easter. Some claim that he has been instigated- by the Dominicans. The Lord's will be done ! I would have sent you a copy [of Eck's theses], but I have only one, which was sent me from Nuernberg.93) On February 7 Luther published twelve counter-theses in reply to Eck : — 1. Every day a person sins, and every day he repents, as Christ teaches us, saying, "Repent." (Matt. 4, 17.) We must except as not in need of repentance a certain righteous person who has recently appeared, although the heavenly Vine-dresser purges even the branch which bears fruit. 2. To deny that a person sins even when' engaged in a good work, and that a sin is venial, not because of its nature, but only by the mercy of God, or that there is sin remaining in an infant even after baptism, is to tread both Paul and Christ under foot. ■ 3. We number with the Pelagian heretics any one who claims that before loving righteousness a person may begin a good work or repentance without sinning therein, and we shall prove even with his master St. Aristotle that the claim is senseless. 4. God changes eternal punishment to a temporal by making us bear the cross, which neither canons nor priests have any power to impose or to remove, though, being led astray by vile flatterers, they have dared to do so. 5. Every priest must absolve a penitent person from punish- ment and guilt, or he commits a sin ; likewise a prelate sins when he reserves secret processes without sound reasons, although the practise of the Church, that is, of the flatterers, is opposed to this. 6. Perhaps the souls in purgatory do atone for their guilt, but only in vilest rashness can the claim be set up that God demands of a dying person anything beyond this that he die willingly, be- cause this can in no wise be established. 93) XV, 2442. 8. STRIKING AT ANDREW AND AIMING AT MAKTIN. 65 7. It is indeed contrary to truth and reason that those who are loath to die are deficient in love, and for that reason suffer a horror of purgatory, provided truth and reason are the same as the opinion of poor theologians. 8. We know that the claim is set up by poor theologians that the souls in purgatory are certain of their salvation, and that grace is not increased in them, but we wonder at these highly learned people because they can produce for their faith no ground that even seems plausible to the average man. 9. It is certain that the merits of Christ are the treasure of the Church, and that we derive aid from the merits of the saints ; but that indulgences are this treasure can only be claimed by a vile flatterer, by Extravagances which conflict with the truth, and by a few mythical acts and customs of the Church. 10. It is madness to say that indulgences are a blessing to Christians, for they are in reality a makeshift for a good work. A Christian must repudiate indulgences because of their abiise, because Christ says ( Is. 43, 25 ) : "For Mine own sake" — not for money ! — "I blot out thy transgressions." 11. It is certainly a dream of the very learned sophists and harmful flatterers that the Pope can remit all punishments due for sins in this and the future life, and that indulgences benefit those who have not committed gross sins; but not the least proof can be offered for this dream. 12. That the Roman Church is superior to all others is es- tablished from the altogether lifeless decretals of the Roman Popes that have appeared during the last four hundred years; but the history of eleven hundred years, the text of the divine Scriptures, and the decree of the Council of Nice, which is the holiest of all, contradict this claim.94) These theses Luther forwarded to Spalatin on the day of publication, with the following remark : — Our Eck, the little vainglorious animal, has published a sched- ule for his debate with Carlstadt after Easter at Leipzig. In his unreasonable and crooked way of acting the man wants to in- dulge the hatred which he had conceived against me long ago,95) and now rushes against me and my writings. He names one person as his opponent in the debate, but attacks another, and 94) XVIII, 718. ^ 95) "When Eck noticed that Luther in his writings and sermons vigorously opposed the Semi-Pelagian error (viz., that the human will has the power to effect a person's conversion), he conceived a secret grudge against Luther, and took occasion of the publication of Luther's Theses against indulgences to comment on them sneeringly." (Loescher, I.e., II, 62 f. ) This is a really keen observation and points out cor- rectly the real cause of Eck's animosity. DAU, LEIPZIG DEBATE. 5 66 8- STRIKING AT ANDREW AND AIMING AT MARTIN. forces him to take up this matter. I am displeased with the cowardly hypocrisy of the man, and have published a reply to his theses, as you can see by the enclosed print. Perhaps Eck will furnish the occasion for treating in a serious manner a sub- ject that has so far been treated only in a playful way. This will be unfortunate for the Roman tyrants.96) To Eck, however, Luther wrote February 18 : — I salute you and wish that you would at last stop seducing the Christian people. I regret, my dear Eck, that by plain proofs your friendship for me has at last been shown to be hypocritical. You boast that you are seeking the glory of God, the truth, the salvation of souls, the increase of faith, and yet you teach in- dulgences, which is done to the neglect of truth, faith, salvation, and the glory of God. Yours is such an obtuse head and such a beclouded brain that, as the apostle says, you understand neither what you say nor whereof you affirm ( 1 Tim. 1, 7 ) or, to speak in terms of your logic, you do not see what the predicate states regarding the subject. Either your hatred against me or your greed of glory has driven you into this blindness. Accordingly, when the whole world now calls you a silly person and a sophist, you must attribute that to your immoderate conduct, not to me; for I was so much concerned about you that I first suppressed my Asterisks for your sake, and afterwards labored to reconcile you with Carlstadt. Champion that you are for the grace of indulgences, you are rewarding me beautifully for my labor : you intend to debate the subject pf repentance with Carlstadt, and at the same time you rave against me on the subject of indul- gences, that is, on the remission of repentance, and thus under- take matters that are entirely contrary to one another. I leave you to refiect what sort of person he is who undertakes such things. Well, I. desire that you fix the day for the debate; or if you prefer, I shall fix it. All the rest we shall settle at the time of the debate.97) This letter of Luther passed in transmission a letter which Eck wrote to Luther February 19. This letter connects with Luther's letter to Eck from Leipzig. It furnishes the direct pi'oof that Eck had all the time, while arranging with Luther for a debate with Carlstadt, intended to make Luther his real opponent. Grace in the Lord, and I wish that you may be truly wise in Jesus. It was very annoying to me that the very learned gentle- 96) XXI a, 14.5. A brief reference to the same matter occurs in a letter to Spalatin of February 12. (XV, 2391.) 97) XXI a, 146. S. STRIKING AT ANDREW AND AIMING AT MARTIN. 67 men at the University of Leipzig declined the task of listening to us, and I did not see clearly what course to pui-sue, when the most gracious prince Duke George of Saxony took action on my petition to his university, so that they finally gave their consent, as is shown by letters which I received to-day from the most illustrious Duke, from the university, and from the [theological] faculty. Accordingly, I have chosen June 27 for the opening of the debate, but we are to meet on June 26, to determine who is to be the first speaker. Now, since Carlstadt is your champion, while you are the real principal, by spreading these teachings throughout Germany which in my poor opinion are false and erroneous, it is proper that you appear, too, and either defend your teaching or disprove mine. But how I would love to see you change your mind, show your- self obedient in all things to the Apostolic See, listen to Leo X, the vicar of Christ, not seek to be singular, but come down from your opinion to the unanimous belief of the teachers, being as- sured that Christ vrould not have permitted His Church to re- main for four hundred years in such errors as you imagine! You see from my schedule for the debate that I have drawn up my theses not so much against Bodenstein as against your teach- ing. Farewell, my dear Martin, and let us each pray for illu- mination.98) History has handed down her judgment on Eck: he is "a bold, bad man."- With the 7ionchalance of impudence and the air of innocence, as if what he does is eminently proper and needs no justification, he faces Luther. This must ac- count for Luther's vindictive speech to the man. Luther at first seems non-plussed at the brazen audacity of his self- appointed antagonist; then he sees through the vile trick that is being played on him, and after that he does not spare the trickster. Let it not be said that Eck thought he was doing right, that he was defending what was dear to his heart and his Church. That would merely make him out to be an honest fanatic in an unrighteous cause, who does not scruple about the means and methods to carry his point and gain his end. He acted With that dull, rooted, callous impudence Which, dead to shame, and every nicer sense. Ne'er blushed, unless, in spreading vice's snares, She blundered on some virtue unawares.99) 98) Enders, I. c, I, 428 99) ChurcMll, Rosciad, I, 135. 68 9- THE HAND OP GOD. 9. The Hand of God. Despite the resentment with which Luther viewed the un- blushing perfidy of Eck, he had the grace to see also in these sinister movements of his enemy the call of God summoning him to a task far greater than he had imagined when he published his Theses. It was a far-seeing remark which Luther made to the Elector in the letter in which he an- nounced his agreement with Miltitz : that agreement would not only have brouglit literary peace to a few controversialists and ease of mind to frightened churchmen, but it would have put a quietus to a hopeful movement in behalf of vital in- terests of true Christianity. A modern reviewer of Luther's life-work has caught the significance of Luther's remark to the Elector that, if unopposed by the priests and monks, the thing which he had started would bleed to death. ■ Referring to the period after the conference with Miltitz, this reviewer says: "Things seemed to be going well with Luther, and in some respects they were going well; the suspension of active measures against him brought quiet, and in the quiet his writings were circulated and read. All this was good, and, as things turned out, only good. But in this quiet there was danger. If it had continued, the interest in the Lutheran controversy must have waned, and after a while ecclesiastical matters would have settled down in their old channel, and what became 'the Lutheran tragedy' might have turned out to be only 'the Lutheran incident.' This result was favored by political conditions. As a rule, when an important matter has once thoroughly possessed the public mind, it does not give place until it has gone on to its logical conclusion — the exception occurs when it is thrust aside by some rival interest. In this particular case the rival interest was fvir- nished by the death of the Emperor if"") and the questions connected with the choice of a successor. The affairs of the Empire might have supplanted the affairs of the Church, and 100) The fifty years' reign of Maximilian I came to a close Janu- ary 12, 1519, five days after Luther's conference with Miltitz at Altenburg, 9. THE HAND OF GOD. 69 wken Europe had once become involved in the great national contests that soon followed, there would have been no time or inclination to return to Luther's aflfairs. Luther was right : 'If let alone, the thing would bleed to death,' and it seemed to be in danger of being left alone. For the present, at least, Luther was safe. He was under the strong protection of the Elector, and the Pope was too busy to care for him — his principal enemy could not disturb him, and he was pledged to peace. Let the peace last and the tide would ebb, the opportunity would pass. But the peace did not last." 101) For now comes blundering Eck, the little "Euhmtierlein," as Luther called him. But behind Eck, in the darkness with which He veils His awful, but always beneficent designs, stands God. Luther's eye of faith saw Him as in a glimpse, and saw God beckoning him onward. He bowed his head and obeyed. Already on February 3 he wrote his friend Lang at Erfurt : — Our Eck is planning a new war against me, and, if Christ gives me the grace, you will see me do what I have long medi- tated, viz., I will at last rush at this Roman brood of vipers with a book. So far I have only dandled and played with the Roman affair, although they set up a grievous wail as if I had written against them with intolerable seriousness. 102) Now he writes to Staupitz under date of February 20 : — My Eck, the treacherous man, is again dragging me into a new affair, as you see from the enclosed [open letter to Carlstadt and Eck's schedule]. Thus the Lord takes care that I shall not be idle. But, Christ willing, this debate will turn out disastrously for the Roman rights and customs which Eck regards as his staff of support (Is. 36, 6; Ezek. 29, 6). 103) To Scheurl Luther wrote on the same day : — Our Eck, who has hitherto fairly concealed his rage against me, has at last revealed it. See what sort of man he is. But God, who is in the midst of the gods [the authorities on earth], knows what He intends to bring forth out of this tragedy. In this affair we shall not serve our interests, neither Eck his, nor I mine. It seems to me that the counsel of God is being carried out in this. I have often said that what I have done heretofore 101) Vedder, I. c, 88 f. 102) XV, 2468. 103) XV, 2444. 70 9- THE HAND OF GOD. has been mere play; now I shall at last act in earnest against the Roman Pope and the Roman arrogance.104) To anotlier prominent person at Nuernberg, Pirckheimer, Luther wrote on the same day : — I have quite thankfully received the artifices [the schedule for the debate] of my very suave Eck. I am sending you what I have composed against him. My aim, as, you 'see, is directed against the holy canons, that is, against the unholy perversions of the Holy Scriptures.' I have long wished for such an oppor- tunity, but upon my own initiative I did not like to come out with this matter. The Lord is drawing me, and I follow not unwillingly. If the Roman court is in mourning over the dying indulgences, what will it do when, God willing, the decretals ex- pire? Not that, confident of my strength, I am raising a shout of triumph before the victory is gained, but I put my trust in the mercy of God, who is wroth at the traditions of men. I shall maintain and acknowledge the authority and majesty of the Pope, but I shall not tolerate the perversions of the Holy Scriptures.105) These remarks show that Luther's mind was being con- centrated on Eck's twelfth thesis, the primacy of the Pope. In a peculiar manner Luther's attention had been called to this subject to which he had not given much thought pre- viously. In August he had been waiting at Wittenberg for the decision of the Curia, and had resigned himself to the thought that he would be delivered up to Rome and martyred for his Theses. In those days a manuscript had been handed him in the form of a letter which opened up a new world to him. The document had been prepared for the Diet at Augs- burg ; in trenchant terms it warned the Germans against sub- mitting to the tax for the war against the Turks. On Sep- tember 2 Luther wrote to Spalatin, who was at Augsburg at the time : — There has arrived here a very intelligently written letter from the city of Eome,106) which sharply criticizes the levy of new taxes for a war against the Turks. It is plain that this tax was devised by the Florentines, the greediest people under the heavens. 104) XXI a, 149 f. 105) XXI a, 151. 106) This letter is the treatise Exhortatio riri cujusdam doctix- simi ad principes, ne in decimae praestationem consentiant (An Ex- hortation by a very learned gentleman to the princes not to consent to the levying of the tax). The author was canon Frederick Fischer of Wuerzhurg, who had lately returned from Italy.) 9. THE HAND OF GOD. 71 They are making use of the Pope's good nature to fill their maw. . . . You may not know that the cardinals are the am- bassadors of avarice, but it is surely so, if this report is true.107) German literature had been enriched in those days with many a treatise on the same subject; on many a diet the German nation had voiced its grievances against the extor- tions of the Roman Curia, but of this Luther knew nothing. All the more reason why the letter which he had received gave him food for reflection. It also roused the patriot in Luther. On September 1 he wrote to Staupitz : — I shall give free scope to my thought and pen, and show that there are people in Germany who see through these Eoman tricks. The sooner I can do this, the better it will please me. Too long and too grievously these Romanists with their endless intrigues, turns, and pranks have mocked us as dunces and clowns. They do not so much deceive us with their cunning as they openly and impudently make fools of us.108) But Luther was not ready yet to believe all that he had read in Fischer's letter. His eyes were opened at Augsburg at the conference with Cajetan and his Italians. One day Urban of Serralonga, of the Cardinal's suite, had come into his lodging and pleaded with him to recant his Theses. He had advised Luther not to enter into an argument with the authorities of Rome. He might think and believe what he pleased, but he must not attack the Pope's power. Luther relates the episode in a letter to Spalatin of October 10 and says : — Then he proceeded to make the most stupid suggestions. He declared frankly that it was permissible to preach lies, if that will bring money and fill your coffers. He said the Pope's power must not be disputed, but you must extol him so highly that you declare, by one nod the Pope can abolish anything, even things that belong in the Creed, especially in my present contention. He said a few other things, which I will communicate to you orally. But I turned down this Sinon, who has not been v/ell trained in the Pelasgian art,109) and he went.UO) 107) XV, 2399. 108) XV, 2395 f. 109) Sinon is a wily Greelj, who appears in Virgil's Aeneid, II, 79. 106. 152. 110) XV, 2414 f. 72 9. THE HAND OF GOD. Henceforth, in Luther's view, the Germans are "the living antithesis to the Italians and the Eomanists." rrom Augs- bnrg he writes to Melanchthon, October 11 : — Italy has been hurled into an Egyptian darkness that can be felt. All of them are completely ignorant of Christ and Chris- tian affairs. And yet we have them for lords and masters of our faith and morals. HI) These reflections might momentarily recede to the ' back- ground amidst his multifarious other duties, but Luther did not get rid of them. The impressions which he had received were deepened by other writings which came to him, and which painted in similar colors the corruption of the Roman Curia, and the extortion which it practised on Germany. When the records of his conference with Cajetan were pub- lished soon after his return from Augsburg, Luther was led into a more searching study of the essence of the papacy. His mind became flooded with the most surprising thoughts. On December 11, 1518, he writes to Link : — I am sending you the records of my conference at Augsburg; they are couched in sharper terms than the Legate may have expected, but my pen will give birth to still greater things. I do not know whence these thoughts come to me; in my opinion, this business, far from being ended, as the Roman grandees hope, has hardly been begun. I shall send you my trifles, in order that you may see whether I rightly suspect that the true Antichrist, as Paul depicts him 2 Thess. 2, 3 ff., is ruling at the Roman Curia. I think I can prove that at present he is worse than the Turk.112) The tax for the Turkish war troubled the Saxon rulers sorely; through Spalatin they asked Luther for a theological opinion on Scriptural grounds. The mere questioning of the propriety of this tax was significant; it showed what a deep impression such treatises as Fischer's had made on the Ger- mans. Luther denied the right to levy this tax in a sermon which raised a sensation. He relates this in a letter to Spalatin December 21, and says: — I hold that if we must fight the Turks, we ought to begin fighting at home. It is useless to wage carnal wars abroad while v/e are being defeated in spiritual wars at home. Moreover, 111) XV, 555. 112) XV, 2430. 9. THE HAND OF GOD. 73 I know of no war either in tlie Old or the New Testament that was waged with human strength, and that did not result un- happily and inglorioualy. If the outcome was good, the war was waged from heaven, as I could show by abundant proofs. Now, since the Roman court surpasses the tyranny of all the Turks, — for with such abominations it fights against Christ and the Chtireh, — and since the clergy is deeply merged in avarice, vain- glory, and lewdness, and the condition of the Church is every- where quite miserable, I have no hope of a good war or of a happy victory. As far as I see, God is warring against us; He must first be overcome by tears, prayers from a pure heart, holy liv- ing, and pure faith.113) The entire winter 1518/19 was a season of grave thinking for Luther. A momentous inward development was taking place in him. From all sides he was urged to be lenient and to yield, and we have already seen that at the conference with Miltitz he did yield. The chasm that yawned between the old theology and the new had only been glimpsed; few men saw to the bottom of the contrasts that were being revealed between Christ and Antichrist. Luther himself had not sounded those depths, but ,he felt instinctively as he pon- dered the mystery of iniquity that had been reared in the temple of the Lord that a serious conflict was arising for him, and with the impatience of strong characters he would sigh that the battle might be on soon. To a mind thus racked with painful discoveries came the provocation embodied in Eck's twelfth thesis. Catholic critics of Luther profess themselves shocked at the insincerity of Luther at this time. Says a writer in the Catholic En- cyclopedia: "While the preliminaries of the Leipzig Dispu- tation were pending, a true insight into Luther's real atti- tude towards the papacy, the subject of which would form the main thesis of discussion, can best be gleaned from his own letters. On 3. March, 1519, he writes Leo X: 'Before God and all His creatures I bear testimony that I neither did desire, nor do I desire, to touch or by intrigue under- mine the authority of the Roman Church and that of your Holiness.' (De Wette, I, 234.) Two days later (5. March) 11.3) XXI a, 130. 74 9- THE HAND OF GOD. lie writes to Spalatin: 'It was never my intention to revolt from the Eoman Apostolic chair.' (De Wette, I, 236.) Ten days later (13. March) he writes to the same: 'I am at a loss to know whether the Pope be Antichrist or his apostle.' (De Wette, I, 239.) A month before this (February 20) he thanks Scheurl for sending him the foul Dialog of Julius and St. Peter, a most poisonous attack on the papacy, say- ing he is sorely tempted to issue it in the vernacular to the public. (De Wette, I, 230.) 'To prove Luther's consistency — to vindicate his conduct at all points as faultless, both in veracity and courage — under these circumstances may be left to myth-making simpletons.' (Bayne, Luther, 1,457.)" 11'') We shall now introduce an American simpleton who does the very thing which Bayne scouts. He is not a Lutheran, and does not believe that Luther was "the docile, peace- loving, engagement-keeping man, provoked into controversy, dragged unwillingly into disputation by Eck, which he him- self afterwards claimed to be, and has been so often asserted by others in his defense." But he does not hold Luther guilty of the charge of hypocrisy at this period. "The 13th of March Luther said, 'I am studying the decretals of the Popes, pre- paring for my disputation, and (I whisper it in your ear) I do not know whether the Pope is Antichrist or his apostle.' It was only ten days before that he had written his respect- ful, submissive letters to the Pope. What shall we think of this ? It would be easy to say that Luther was acting a double part, playing fast and loose, blowing hot and cold. It would be more charitable, and probably truer, to say that his con- duct was that of a strong man agitated by different motives; now reverence for long established order and duly constituted authority, now love of truth; at one time shrinking from the confusion and trouble that he saw just before him, at another conscious that he was working the work of God. One point is clear: he saw no inconsistency between utmost hatred of the Pope and most reverent obedience to him. He said in a letter to Spalatin: 'I am content that the Pope should be 114) IX, 443 f. The references to De Wette correspond to the St. Louis edition as follows : XV, 705. 2445 ; XXI a, 155. 149. 10. OBSTACLES. 75 called and be lord of all. What is that to me, who know that even the Turk is to be honored and endured for the sake of the power?' He would submit to the most tyrannical rule, as submitting to God, who permits, even ordains, that rule. We must interpret his conduct from his own point of view. Let us remember that few men have been subjected to such a trial as that through which he was passing; also, let us be- lieve, if we can, that he was seeking the right way, but was not yet certain which was the right way; that his was the hesitation and vacillation of the eagle before he has chosen finally the direction of his flight." H^) 10. Obstacles. Luther's open letter to Carlstadt had contained the sug- gestion that Carlstadt's debate be dropped, and that Luther take his place and debate with Eck in some public hall at Leipzig. Luther retained the place chosen by Eck because through Eck's schedule Leipzig had already been announced to the world as the place of the debate; he suggested a hall instead of the university because he knew the opposition of the Leipzig J;heologians to the debate. How his suggestion was misunderstood in one point and resented as a whole is shown by a letter which the rector, professors, and doctors of the university addressed to Duke George February 15 : — At your Grace's written command we have granted permission to tlie honorable and learned doctors, John Eck and Andrew Carl- stadt, to debate. Thereupon the said Dr. Eck reduced to writing his conclusions on Dr. Martin Luther's propositions concerning grace, in order to give public notice of the debate with Dr. Carl- stadt at your Grace's university. Straightway Dr. Luther, com- pelled by this to mix in the debate, thinking to defend and up- hold Dr. Carlstadt, publishes a letter in which he announces, contrary to your Grace's written command and the decision of the whole honorable university, that the said debate is at an end, and, nevertheless, without greeting your Grace or the university, he publicly and in writing announces that he will debate at your 115) Tedder, I. v., 90. See also Kolde, I. v., I, 193 £E. 76 10. OBSTACLES. Grace's university. And as the said Dr. Martin touches the legal rights of the Pope's holiness, the said debate would be thereby- hindered, and every one would be deceived by having the truth thus abandoned. Wherefore we beg that your Grace will see to it that Dr. Luther should not announce debates without your Grace's or the university's consent. 116) Four days later the -university sent the following repri- mand to Luther : — Recently, while celebrating the nativity of our holy Redeemer in accordance with Christian custom, John Eck, the excellent Doctor of the Holy Scriptures, wrote to the most gracious prince Duke George, to this university, and to the Doctors of Theology, choosing the theological faculty as a Lesbian rule to be judge in his controversy, requesting them most urgently to permit him to debate with Dr. Carlstadt in our far-famed university. Inasmuch as by this investigation through the disputation the truth is to be defended against its calumniators, and, as it were, brought to light out of that deep ditch of W|hich Democritus speaks, we have, as far as we could, acceded to his request, and granted him a place for the debate. Dr. Eck has relied on our good will, and being resolved to institute a scholarly debate with Dr. Carlstadt at this place, he intends to unfurl his banner, march out of the camp of Pallas, and meet your champion, as he calls him, in open battle. To this end he has published a schedule for his disputa- tion, which is like a banner. You think that he has thereby offered battle to your Theses. Since he does not propose to yield, you have by a published letter challenged him on your part to a debate. ^Ye are greatly surprised that, contrary to our actual resolution, you write that we have refused Dr. Eck permission to hold his debate; but we are still more surprised that you spread the news that your disputation will be held at our university at Leipzig, when nothing of the kind is known to us, and you have obtained no such permission either from us or from our most gracious prince, the benign Maecenas of our university. Since yours seems a bold action, which, -we are told, you abhor other- wise, we request you urgently not to drag us into trouble, since we know nothing about your arrangement, and we ask you to recall your announcement, if you will, or at least to sound your retreat from the battle by publishing an answer to this letter \ which we urgently request, and that you wait until you have j obtained from us the permission to hold your debate.117) On the' same day (February 19) Eck blandly wrote to the university : — 116) Pres. Smith, I. c,-., I, 162 f. 117) X\, 837. 10. OBSTACLES. 77 I was somewhat troubled when I heard that you did not care to hear the burden of hearing and judging us, although I re- ceived your letter late, that is, on February 4. But now I am made more cheerful, since I have learned that you have changed your opinions, for which I render you immortal thanks. Con- cerning the time of the debate, I should like it to begin on June 27, for reasons given in another letter to your university, for I shall be obliged for urgent reasons to be away from our university of Ingolstadt then anyway. ... I am writing to Luther to be present, for there is just as much reason for his presence as for that of Carlstadt; for, in my poor opinion, both of them"^ are equally in error.118) Here are interesting cross-purposes : one of the principals to tlie debate declares: Luther must come! while one of the hosts says: He shall not come! It is amusing to note what a bold, masterful air the same men can assume to Luther that had ignominiously gone down before his pig-headed Grace, Duke George. To add to their confusion and dis- grace, on the same day on which they issue their heroic reprimand to Luther, Eck, whom they foster as their pet, writes them that he has done the same thing for which they have reproved Luther : he has taken it upon himself to write to Luther that he must be at the debate. "What did these Leipzig gentlemen now do to Eck? Nothing. Oonsistency, thou art a jewel! Meanwhile Luther had come to the conclusion that Carl- stadt's debate could not be recalled, and that he must take •part in it. Accordingly, he proceeded in an orderly way to obtain the consent of the proper authorities. On February 19 he wrote to Duke George : — My devoted poor prayer and humble service to your Grace. Serene, high-born Prince, gracious Lord! The worthy Dr. Eck writes that he .has applied to your Grace for permission and gracious sanction to conduct a debate at your Grace's university at Leipzig against the worthy Dr. Carlstadt. However, although Dr. John Eck proclaims a debate with Dr. Carlstadt, he has made only a slight attack on the theses of Dr. Carlstadt, while he falls with all might upon my propositions. It becomes me, therefore, to meet this presumptuous giant and defend my position, or let myself be better instructed, Wherefore it is my humble peti- 118) Pres. Smith, I. c, I, 165. 78 10. OBSTACLES. tion to your Grace, for the love of the truth, to graciously allow such a debate. For the worthy doctors of the university have just informed me that they have given their promise to Dr. John Eck, though I had heard previously that they had refused. How- ever, they lay it up against me that I have published my debate before I had asked permission of your Grace. I did this relying on your Grace, and I hope that your Grace will not refuse me, especially since permission has already been granted to Dr. Eck, as he boasts. I pray your Grace to kindly forgive me. May God mercifully spare and uphold your Grace. Amen.119) The Duke's answer on March. 4 said : — Worthy, learned, dear, and pious Sir! We have read and noted all the contents of the letter you have written us regarding the debate which we have granted permission to Drs. Eck and Carlstadt to hold at our university at Leipzig, also your excuse. Since Dr. Eck has informed us by letter that he has come to an agreement with Dr. Carlstadt regarding the debate to be held at Leipzig with our permission, we did not wish to refuse him. Now if you will also come to an agreement with him and apply to us again, we will then, as is proper and becoming, let you know our prudent and gracious answer. This in answer to your letter.120) Acting on the Duke's suggestion, Luther wrote to Eck, April 5 : — I am >vriting again, dear Eck, for the reason that the most gracious prince, Duke George of Saxony, has replied to my letter, saying that he would give me a definite answer to my petition to be permitted to debate with you at Leipzig after he had been assured that I had come to an agreement with you; for he states that he has received letters from you with reference to Carl- stadt, but not with reference to me. Now, since Carlstadt rightly despises your treacherous pranks, and perhaps will not condescend to debate with you, moreover, since you are afraid because you have already felt his strength by his reply to you, — still, after you have deceived the Duke by fighting against another person than the one you attacked, it will behoove you now to inform either the Duke or me whether you are pleased with this new arrangement, in order that we may not leave the Duke in suspense any longer. Try, therefore, to send me your reply soon, in order that I may obtain a definite answer [from the Duke], for the consent of the university I have in writing. Farewell, and change at last from a sophist to a theologian. 121) 119) XXIa, 148. 120) XXIa, 154, 121) XXIa, 174. 10. OBSTACLES. 79 The available documents do not afford suiScient informa- tion regarding the period between Luther's letter to Duke George and his letter to Eck to enable us to verify Luther's statements in this letter regarding the possibility of Carl- stadt's receding from the debate and regarding the written consent which Luther had received from the university. Cross-purposes still seem to be at play during this period. For Luther seems not to have received Eck's reply as speedily as' he had expected, and this caused him to write another letter to Duke George on April 28 : — My poor prayer and honest endeavor always at the devoted service of your Grace. High-born, serene Prince, gracious Lord! 1 have received your Grace's letter and kind answer, and have, according to your Grace's suggestion, offered an agreement to Dr. John Eck, but have so far waited in vain for his answer. In the mean time the said Dr. Eck has by a published notice sum- moned both Dr. Carlstadt and myself, and, besides, has taunted us in provoking terms, and may eyen now be singing a song of triumph over us, as I expect your Grace has been informed. Accordingly, I address to your Grace a devoted humble prayer like the previous one, to graciously grant me permission to hold this debate. And as this affair has endangered my life and caused me much enmity, I pray your Grace for God's sake to grant me a safe-conduct to and from the place of debate. For, while venturing into this business, I must not tempt God by despising ordinary hiunan help. I shall always humbly requite your Grace with my poor prayer to God.122) Duke George answered this letter May 7 : — Worthy, learned, dear, and pious Sir! We have received your second letter and noted the contents. You will have to bear in mind that, if you wish to debate with Dr. Eck, you will have to have Dr. Eck's answer and definite consent. Accordingly, we wrote you in our previous letter that you must come to an agree- ment with him. When we receive a request from both youand him to grant you permission to hold your debate, we shall return you a prompt answer. Here is where we rest the matter, and this is what we have to say in answer to your last letter.123) It appears, then^ that Eck, after summoning Luther to meet him at Leipzig, was doing nothing to facilitate Lu- ther's coming. What shall we think of Ms conduct? Why, 122) XXI a, 162. 123) XXI a, 163. 80 10. OBSTACLES. it is tlie habitual Eckian perfidy. Being still in suspense whetlier lie could go to Leipzig, Luther addressed a third letter to Duke George on May 16 : — Ever my poor humble prayer for your Grace! Gracious, high- born Prince and Lord! I humbly pray your Grace for God's sake not to take it ill that I write to your Grace again. Your Grace's last letter has caused me great trouble and terror. For I fear, or I imagine, that I may have somehow displeased your Grace, and now have in you an ungracious lord. I am not conscious of anything, and it greatly grieves me. Your Grace has given a promise to Dr. Eck and your consent to hold his debate without requiring Dr. Andrew Carlstadt to inform you of his willingness. Yet you will not grant me the same privilege without a letter from Dr. Eck, while the latter in a public notice plainly declares that I shall also have to debate with him at Leipzig, and thus compels me. I informed your Grace of this and wrote to Dr. Eck in accordance with your first letter. I do not know what else to do in order to obtain your Grace's permission, and I cannot thinlc otherwise than that I have fallen into disgrace with you. Noav, my most gracious Lord, I know well that the world has stood before my disputa- tion, and that it will remain after it. I have not invited my- self to this debate, but have been forced into it by Dr. Eck. Now I pray for God's sake that your Grace will inform m.e, and forgive me if I have in any way offended; I shall gladly make amends. For I cannot compel Dr. Eck to write you the letter which you require, but I shall write him once more and ask him to do so. Commending your Grace to the favor of God, I ask your Grace to kindly forgive me.l24) Immediately after finishing this letter, Luther wrote to Spalatin : — Duke George has answered me twice without giving me per- mission to hold my debate, tliough I had informed him that Eclc has both by private letters and public notices compelled me to answer him. Now, why does he insist that Eck must intercede for me when he did not hesitate to give Eck the permission, and did not make the same demands in the case of Carlstadt? What abnormal doings are these! I am sending you his two letters, and am writing him now for the third time. Please advise me what to you seems best to do in this matter. 135) The Duke's and Eck's action were indeed abnormal — "ein Unding"; it was plainly calculated to provoke Luther 124) XXI a, 169. 125) XV, 2446 f. 10. OBSTACLES. 81 and prompt him either to desist from the debate in disgust, or commit some rash act that would have incriminated him. But his patience was to be tried further. Duke George answered Luther's last letter May 23 : — Worthy, dear, and piovis Sir ! We have read the letter which you have addressed to us regarding the permission for the debate, and noted its contents. We know of no displeasure which we have conceived or bear towards you. True, many things have been reported to us about which we would not dislike to speak with you, but we shall defer this until you come to us. More- over, it is no small surprise to us why you insist so strongly on this debate after you declared formerly that this is not a good subject for a, debate, and after you stated that the doctors of the theological faculty had refused their permission for the de- bate. It is true that no request has come to us from Dr. Carl- stadt; however. Dr. Eck informed us by letter that he had reached an agreement with him regarding the said debate. Now, if this is done in your case, viz., if you agree with one another, as according to your writing you are trying to do, we shall return you a definite answer as we wrote you in our last letter.126) It was now but a month till the debate must begin; in little over a fortnight Luther must start for Leipzig, and still he was kept in this tantalizing uncertainty. On June 6 he wrote to Lang : — I am now publishing my proofs against that hateful thir- teenth 127) thesis, being urged to do this by the jealousy which will not admit me to the debate where I would answer it. Though I have written three letters, I have not obtained a definite answer from Duke George. That fellow Eabe from Leipzig 12S) has gone to Rome to spread lies about me, and to bring back more abomi- nable reports. But I shall be present, and at least oiler to make answer. To Carlstadt everything is permitted.129) On June 10 the following safe-conduct arrived at Leip- zig: — At the desire of Dr. Carlstadt, we, George, Duke of Saxony, grant to him and to those whom he may bring with him, for the debate to take place at Leipzig with Dr. Eck, as long as he may be with us and until he returns to his own home, free and safe conduct.130) 126) XXI a, 172. 127) This is explained in the next chapter. 128) Hermann Rab had been made a Doctor ol Theology at Leip- zig in 1512 ; since 1517 he was Inquisitor haereticae pravitatis. 129) XV, 2475. 130) Pres. Smith, Z. c, I, 195. DAn, LEIPZIG DEBATE. 6 82 10- OBSTACLES. "And to those whom he may bring with him" — that is the only answer Luther ever received from Duke George on his repeated requests. "Under the wings of Carlstadt," he said, he had to go to Leipzig. The Duke, whose heart was set on having this debate at his university, had nevertheless purposely and systematically snubbed Luther. But this was not the only obstacle. In view of the under- standing which he had reached with Miltitz at Altenburg in the first days of January, and which he had reported to the Elector, Luther had now to explain to the latter his reason for desiring a debate with Eck. He wrote to the Elector March 18 : — My poor, humble prayer is ever for your Electoral Grace! Most serene, high-born Prince, most gracious Lord ! Your Elec- toral Grace's chaplain, Magister Spalatin, has sent me certain statements which the Honorable Charles von Miltitz, commissary of His Holiness the Pope, has communicated to your Electoral Grace concerning me, viz., that I am henceforth to remain quiet and start nothing new. This is in accordance with our agree- ment at Altenburg. God knows that I was altogether in earnest and glad that the game was to be ended thus, and as far as I am concerned, I have kept the agreement, so much so that li have passed over the reply of Silvester Prierias, although it contained much that was provoking to me. I have also, against the advice of my friends, treated with contempt the wanton ridicule of many of my adversaries, although, as the Honorable Charles well knows and has admitted, I promised to remain silent only on condition that my opponents, too, kept quiet. However, since Dr. Eck, without giving me warning, attacks me with the plain intention of bringing about, not my disgrace and dishonor, but that of the entire University of Wittenberg; moreover, in- asmuch as many respectable people think that he has been bought to do this, — I have thought it unbecoming to treat the treach- erous trick of this weathercock with contempt, and to desert the truth in the face of such ridicule. For if I am to be muzzled while everybody else may open his mouth wide, your Electoral Grace cart easily see that I would then be assaulted even by persons who otherwise would not dare to look at me. Now, I am heartily disposed to follow obediently the faithful counsel of your Electoral Grace and to remain absolutely quiet, provided they also keep quiet; for I have more things to do and am not seek- ing any personal gratification in this business. Otherwise I pray your Grace not to lay it up against me if I speak out ; for I can- not with a good conscience forsake the truth. Although the 10. OBSTACLES. 83 proposition to be debated concerns His Holiness the Pope, I had to follow the lead of my opponent in debarte, and had to main- tain the opposite view, however, always reserving my submission and obedience to the Holy Roman See. May God graciously spare your Electoral Grace! Amen.131) Tlie appeal to fairness in this letter made an impression on the Elector; he refrained from any interference with Luther's debate. No doubt, he saw too that the affair was incidentally becoming a test of strength between his uni- versity and that of Duke George. The most serious obstacle, however, that was thrown in Luther's way came in the form of a letter of the Po^e, who on March 29 summoned Luther to appear before him at Eome : — To his beloved son JIartin Luther, of the order of Eremite Brethren of St. Augustine, and professor of theology. Beloved son, — Greeting and the Apostolic Blessing! We were .highly pleased to learn from the letters of our beloved son Charles Miltitz, our nuncio, whom we had sent to our beloved son, the noble Frederic, Duke of Saxony, that what had been incorrectly written or said by you had not been written and said with the intention and purpose of causing any offense to us, or to the Apostolic See, or to the Holy Roman Church, but In answer to a certain monk who provoked you by proclaiming certain in- dulgences by order of our beloved son Albrecht, the Cardinal Priest of the title of St. Chrysogonus.132) We also have learned that, while you were attacking him too violently, you went further than you had intended, and exceeded the bounds of decency and truth, and that, after mature reflection, you have with bitter grief regretted and bewailed what has happened, and are now ready to recant all this in writing and confess your error to the princes and others to whom your writings have come, and to refrain from such things in the future. We have learned that you would have recanted in the presence of our Legate, if the Legate had not been inclined to deal too harshly with you and show too much favor to the said monk, who, as you claim, has been the cause of your error. ' Considering now that the spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak, and that in the heat of passion many things are said which have to be corrected on second thought, we give thanks to Almighty God who has condescended to illumine your heart and to prevent the believers of Christ by your authority and your teaching from being drawn into grievous and pernicious errors in matters which concern the salvation of 131) XV, 720. 132) The Archbishop of Mayence. 84 10. OBSTACLES. souls. Acting, therefore, here on earth in the place of Him who has no pleasure in the death of the sinner, but that the sinner turn from his way and live, we accept your apologies in a fatherly and benevolent spirit, which we accord to all men who are engaged in any science, especially to the Doctors of Holy Scripture. We desire to see and hear you personally, in order that you may safely and freely make before us, the Vicegerent of Christ, the recanta- tion which you were reluctant to make before our Legate. Ac- cordingly, upon the receipt of this letter you may start on your journey, and come to us without dela,y. We hope that you will put aside all hatred and cherish a conciliatory spirit, and that, filled not with any passion, but only with the Holy Spirit, and confirmed in love, you will so consider what makes for the praise of Almighty God, that we shall be glad that you have been an obedient son, and that you may be glad to have found us a pious and gracious father.133) It is true, this letter never was delivered to Luther. It is likely that it was sent to Miltitz to be forwarded to Luther, and that Miltitz, as a wise diplomat, retained it in view of the changed conditions in the empire consequent upon the death of Maximilian I. But Miltitz now became active against Luther himself. He had at first carried out his agreement with Luther so far as to summon poor Tetzel before him; and make him the scapegoat for the Pope's and the Cardinal's sins. The miserable friar had left Miltitz's presence utterly crushed, and hied himself to the Dominican convent at Leipzig, where he kept himself concealed and slowly pined away of a broken heart. But Miltitz had not raised a finger against Eck. On May 3, however, Luther received a letter from him which summoned him to come to Coblenz at once. On the same day the Legate wrote to Spalatin and to the Elector, strongly urging them to speed Luther's departure and promising him the kindest treat- ment.!**) With Miltitz there was at Coblenz at this time Cajetan with his train of Roman attendants. He had re- mained in Germany after the Diet of Augsburg, and was framing the papal policy for the next Diet. Luther -was not caught in this snare. In the letter to Spalatin of May 16, to which we referred before, he says : — 133) XXI a, 158. 134) XV, 726. TS.'S. 731. 10. OBSTACLES. 85 That ridiculous man, Charles Miltitz, admits that he has re- ceived no order from Rome concerning me; still he summons me. Jloreover, it is not he that issues the summons, but the arch- bishop, and the summons is nevertheless that I am to appear be- fore the Cardinal. I wonder whether these men are crazy. I shall write him; meanwhile I ask for your advice.135) To Miltitz Luther wrote May 17 : — Greeting. Dear Sir, I received your Excellency's letter ad- vising me that it would be to my advantage forthwith to repair to Coblenz. Please listen to me patiently. In the first place, when we came together at Altenburg, my presence did not seem to myself necessary; for as my books, in which I most clearly opened my mind to all, were published, I thought it sufficient if, after weighing my opinions, articles should be determined on for me to revoke, and reasons should be assigned for the recan- tation, so that it might appear efficacious and praiseworthy; for otherwise men would say that it had been extorted from me by force, and the last state should be worse than the first. I am of this opinion still. But even if I ought to come, you yourself can see how foolish those who have charge of this affair think me, since you write that the mandate has not yet come from Rome, and that the Archbishop does not summon me in virtue of such a mandate. I am not sure that the mandate will arrive, especially in this crisis of the 'Empire, nor am I sure, should it arrive, that the Archbishop would receive it. How can I, therefore, trust my- self to such a doubtful and perilous situation, or how can so poor a man as I get the necessary money? I have already spent so much in this matter that I have wearied my patrons and am ashamed to ask for more, not to mention the fact that during the interregnum no one can give a safe-conduct, particularly to a man with as many enemies as I have. Furthermore, the great debate which the most reverend Lord Cardinal refused to allow me to hold at Augsburg is coming off at Leipzig. For I am challenged by John Eck, and should I de- cline, in so just a cause, to meet him, with how much shame I should I brand not only myself and all my friends, but our most illustrious Elector and our whole prder and my university! In this debate the whole case will be examined by many learned men impartially, with good arguments on both sides, which could not be the case before either the Archbishop or the Cardinal. So that it is better that your proposal should wait on the debate than that the debate be -hindered. . . . But come! Even if all these difficulties were met, yet would 1.-35) XV, 2446. 86. 10. OBSTACLES. I not wish to have the cause tried by the Cardinal. I do not want him present, for he is not worthy of it. He tried to harass me from the Christian faith at Augsburg, wherefore I doubt whether he is a Catholic Christian himself. If I had time, I would write to the Pope and cardinals and expose him, un- less he should retract all his rank errors. I regret that the legates of the Apostolic See are men who try to destroy Christ. Thus, Sir, I think that I have justly excused myself from coming. I might add that a certain spy, armed with many letters, has been here, seeking first you and then me, and he excited a lively suspicion that he was preparing some violence against me; iinally he was obliged to flee, lest he should be ducked in the Elbe, as he almost was and would have been had not we prevented it, for men thought that he was your agent, especially after we heard that you were lingering in Germany, though you promised us to go straight to Rome. So it happened that although I exonerated you from this charge, yet I saw that there were snares all around for me to fear. . . . If what you write is true about having to come after me with papal letters, may God grant that you come safely! I am very busy, serving many men, and am not able to lose time and wander about without causing loss to many. Farewell, excel- lent Sir.136) Yes, during all this exciting correspondence Luther was "very busy." E"ot only did he carry on his work at the university and preach to the people of Wittenberg, but he even conducted a lengthy controversial correspondence with Prof. Dmigersheim of Leipzig on the subject of the primacy of the Pope,l3'^) and wrote a lengthy defense of his position to the monks at Jueterbogk, who had raised eight charges of heresy against him. 138) On March 27 he completed his Ex- position of the Psalms, which he dedicated to the Elector,l39) and for which he asked the Elector six weeks later to bring him a black and a white cowl from the fair at Leipzig.l^O) He probably needed these to make a respectable appearance at the debate. Last, not least, he exchanged flattering let- ters with the prince of the Humanists, Erasmus, during this period, i''!) 136) XV, 726. Translation by Pres. Smith, I. c, I, 185 f. 137) XVIII, 49S. 502—528. 138) XVIH, 1362 ff. Tills was completed May 15. 139) IV, 206. 140) XXI a, 185. 141) XVIII, 1582. 1586. 11. FINAL PREPARATIONS FOR THE DEBATE. 87 11. Final Preparations for the Debate. On December 29, 1518, Eek, as we have seet, had pub- lisbed his schedule for the debate at Leipzig. This schedule was accompanied by twelve theses directed against Carlstadt. The publication of Luther's open letter to Carlstadt with the twelve counter-theses, and Luther's complaint that, while pre- tending- to fight Carlstadt, Eck had attacked him, induced Eck to change his challenge. On ilarch 14 he republished his schedule with the twelve theses in a new edition. This new edition contained an additional thesis, which had been inserted between the sixth and seventh theses. Eck claimed that this thesis had accidentally dropped out at the time of the first publication. The total number of the theses thus was raised to thirteen, the original seventh thesis becoming the eighth, and so on. The critical twelfth thesis, on the primacy of the Pope, henceforth is the thirteenth. This new schedule Eck labeled "against Luther and Carlstadt,'' naming Luther as his opponent in the first place. Eck's new seventh thesis reads : — He errs who denies that the free will of man is lord over man's actions, claiming that man is active only in reference to ^what is evil, while he is passive in reference to what is good; nor is he without error who holds in opposition to the scholastics that faith is destroyed by every gross sin; nor is he without very great error who preaches recklessly that a, person is ab- solved by faith, regardless of his repentance.M2) There are so many possible ways of explaining the omis- sion of this thesis that we shall not suggest any one in par- ticular, but leave it to the indulgent reader to choose the one that suits him best. Any one will serve if a person has the good will to apply it. Against the new seventh thesis of Eck, Luther, on Feb- ruary 7, issued the following counter-thesis : — He who prates that free will is lord over man's actions, whether they are good or bad, or who dreams that man is jus- tified not by faith alone in the Word, or that faith is not de- stroyed by a gross sin, does not know either what faith, or repentance, or free will is.l43) 142) XVIII, 71.3. 143) XVIII, 719. 88 11. FIJSTAL .PREPARATIONS FOR THE DEBATE. Eck had called the enlarged republication of his schedule his Disputatio and Excusatio. In the literature of the day it is referred to simply as "Eck's Excusatio." This republi- cation was accompanied by the following letter : — To the Prelates beloved of God, Caspar, Abbot of Wessobrunn, and John, Provost at Polling, his highly revered patrons, Eck wishes happiness in the Lord. Reverend fathers! It is not unknown to you what I did be- cause I believed that the new doctrine of M. Luther, Augustinian, departs from the path of truth, nor what followed upon the be- ginning which I had made when Andrew Bodenstein entered into the affair. I have always hated that style of writing which in- dulges in violent attacks; I have, accordingly, resolved to test my views before the most learned men, under whose judgment I would take captive and make a slave of my reason, because I know that self-esteem is a mother of errors, also that singu- larity brings about a person's overthrow, ■ as Bernard says; and lastly, that it is folly not to believe people who are wiser than ourselves, as Boethius says. Although the opportunity for a de- bate had for a long time been cut off by the adversary, we have at last agreed to meet at the University of Leipzig. Accordingly, following the direction of Aurelius Augustine, I have comprised the sum of the coming disputation in a brief schedule. I did this in great hurry, so much so that I overlooked the thesis on free will and faith, which should not have been omitted. I sent this schedule to brother Martin Luther, who is a great carper, and he soon spread it among tlie people by means of an open letter to his champion. I leave it to the decision of my readers to say whether this open letter is as modest as Eck would have made it. But since people of this sort, as St. Gregory assures us, love only those who are silent, I shall neither be stirred up nor offended by his biting letter. Would to God that I were deemed worthy of the glory of the apostles, vis., to suffer shame for the truth and the Lord Jesus. But I see that I must be con- cerned about the weak, lest they are offended; for if they see no excuse from me, they may easily side with my detractor. Luther is indignant because I have directed n>y attack against him, though I had promised to debate with Dr. Bodenstein at Leipzig. Being Altogether an 01ibrius,l-t4) he has said that he does not know whether I let my frogs or my gnats loose upon him. \Yhile making a great noise about his trifles concerning indulgence, he says, I had treated the propositions of Dr. Boden- 144) The Roman consul Olibrius was a crank and the subject of many a scurrilous street-song. 11. FINAL PKEPARATIONS FOR THE DEBATE. 89 stein as a side-issue and hardly touched them "with the tip of my finger. But it will not escape the observation of the reader what an impudent charge this is. For Bodenstein is Luther's champion, and has, not in a scholarly, but in a malicious manner, rejected three of my annotations to Luther's Theses on Indulgence, and has threatened to do the same with the rest. Accordingly, I have not without reason touched upon the subject of indul- gences in three theses. This subject, on which so many master minds have labored, Luther calls his jokes, as if it were some- thing contemptible. I know that Jerome says that jokes in the mouth of a priest are blasphemies. As regards this disputation, however, I have been of the opinion that men who are fighting tooth and nail for the same thing need not be kept separate. Accordingly, when the most serene prince, Duke George of Saxony, my most gracious lord, and the council of the honorable uni- versity of Leipzig and the theological faculty had consented to our debate, — for the spirit of Luther no longer influenced them to decline hearing our cause, — 1 have in a public notice chal- lenged Luther as the principal defendant in the case, either, to defend his positions or to overthrow mine. I have informed the theological faculty of Leipzig of my action. But I will not suffer Luther to spirit Andrew Carlstadt away from the battle-ground secretly, since the latter is so brave in writing calumnies and singing his song of triumph before the victory. He refused to meet me at Eome, Paris, or Cologne, and gave as his reason the great expense and the long journey. And would he decline the battle and_ withdraw behind his ramparts now that I have fol- lowed him to the door of his home country? That would be a conduct becoming a degenerate and cowardly soldier. How- ever, if he should have become wise in the mean time, if he should recant his errors and follow the Roman Church, I would heartily kiss him as a friend, yea, as my second ego. But I have laid the ax to the root of the tree when I published six theses against Dr. Bodenstein and sent him the seventh in writing. I think I have comprehended the sum of all our writings in these theses. I have touched upon these subjects not as side- issues nor in a treacherous manner, but I have opposed my theses to Bodenstein with a theologian's singleness of heart. The propo- sitions, however, which I have directed against you, Luther, I have not forced upon you, nor raised false charges in them against you, but I could put my finder on all the places where you have uttered these enormities. Would to God I had not found them in your writings ! ' He charges me with vainglory because I published my schedule before I was sure of the consent of the doctors at Leipzig. I ad- mit this ; but ^what great guilt do I thereby incur ? Ah, he says : 90 11- FINAL PREPABATIONS FOR THE DEBATE. "After you had learned from me that they had absolutely refused you the permission." That is surely a lie made of whole cloth. My schedule was printed at Augsburg before January, while I was traveling to my home. I have a letter from Luther, dated Leip- zig, January 7, which I received February 8. Observe, most reverend fathers, that my schedule was printed before Luther wrote me his letter. I need not mention that on account of the distance the letter was slow in reaching me. I think you under- stand now what reason there was for speaking about my "un- happy cunning artifices,'' my "imaginations formed out of noth- ing," my "subtle art," and my "sleepy prudence." I shall submit to their pleasantries about me and their ridi- cule. Far be it from me to be boastful. If I did debate when a young man at some universities in Germany and Italy, I did this to train my intellect. Suppose I am what Luther and Boden- stein think I am: a hair-splitting sophist, a poor theologian, an arch- Aristotelian, a scholastic, a debater; suppose I know noth- ing and they know all; I know that I have scant resources; suppose I am a flea, while they are, the one a Goliath, the other a Hercules; suppose, they are what they consider themselves to be, my unhappy teachers, whom I regard as happy, although. they seek to dishonor me in every way, — I shall suffer all this, if they will only admit that I am a believer and a Christian. I know that I am an unprofitable servant, even if I had done all that the Lord had commanded me; how much more, when I perceive that I have not done it. But I shall gladly sacrifice everything that I have received by the grace of God to protect the truth of our faith and of the Catholic Church, and with the strength that God gives me I shall fight against these errors and exterminate them. For Gregory says: No calumnies must move us to depart from the true way and the sure rule. But Luther claims that my friendship for him has been hypo- critical. I admit that, because of our scientific studies, I entered into friendly relations with him before I had seen him, as fre- quently happens among scholars; but I did this only on the rec- ommendation of our mutual friend, the very learned Christopher Soheurl, a very honest jurist. Does he, then, believe that I can be a friend to a person who is fighting outside of the one Chris- tian Church? St. Jerome says that it has been his diligent care to have the enemies of the Church for his own enemies. I love that man, but, with Augustine, I hate his errors. Is this doing something monstrous to protect the truth and the Pope, and to lead my neighbor out of error? I have seen and read with great grief the arrogant treatise in which he relates his transactions at Augsburg before the Legate of the Apostolic See, and his appeal to a council, and with many a sigh I have culled from them a few 11. FINAL PBEPARATIONS FOR THE DEBATE. 91 statements. I should have expected more soberness and patience beneath the black cowl. Would to God that he had been, or still might be, a pupil in modesty to the martyrs Eogatianus and Cornelius, who, as St. Cyprian relates in his letters, declared that contempt of the clergy leads to heresy. And in another place he says: Self-appreciation, proud conceit, and contempt of supe- riors are the beginnings of heretics and the origin and doings of evil-minded schismatics. That is the way to depart from the Church, to erect an unholy altar outside of the camp, to cause rebellion against Christian peace and divine order and unity. For — says he, writing to Pope Cornelius — from no other source have heresies and schisms sprung than from disobeying the priests of God. How well would it be if Luther would apply to himself what St. Bernard advised the citizens of Pisa to do with reference to Pope Honorius : Honor him who is your father and the father of the universe. But Luther is fanning dead embers into a flame, and makes new weeds grow after the old cutting, as Ambrose says. May the Almighty God, who has undertaken to be with His Church unto the end of the world, illumine the hearts of believers and give us His peace! To conclude, as I have promised, I shall debate with both opponents in behalf of the truth of our faith and for the pro- tection of the Apostolic See, with the help of Christ, not in some secular building or in a hidden corner, but at the greatly flourish- ing University of Leipzig, in the presence of the most learned fathers of this school. And I shall speak with becoming modesty, in order that the truth may be preserved and not destroyed. I am pleased that in accordance with the rule of Augustine and Jerome the entire debate is to be taken down by reliable notaries, and that it shall then be published to the City of Rome and the entire world. Of these matters, my dearest patrons, I wished to inform you and, through you, the entire Christian world, since you esteem the sacred truth very highly, revere the head of the Church, the vicegerent of Christ, the Pope, and with your brethren pray with- out ceasing for the welfare of the Church and of the See of Peter. In behalf of Christ and Peter I commend to you, together with myself, this cause of the truth. 115) Luther accompanied the publication of his thirteen counter-theses with the following letter "to the dear reader" : — My Eck is angry, dear reader, and he had dedicated to the Apostolic See another schedule, which is filled with his wrath 145) XV, 816 fE. 92 11. FINAl PREPARATIONS FOE THE DEBATE. and with accusations against me. To his former theses he has added another, a very angry one, which would afford a beautiful opportunity to reply to his abuses once for all time, if I did not fear that out of it there might arise an obstacle to the coming debate. Well, there is a time for everything. For the present let this suflBce. By citing the sayings of a few of the holy fathers, he accuses me of being an enemy of the Church. I take this to be his mean- ing, dear reader: The term "Church" signifies his notions and those of his champions who have labored in the cause of indul- gences. For he is a person who consecrates things to the Apostolic See. He speaks after the manner of the men whom he regards as his champions, and who use tlie words of Scripture and of the fathers as Anaxagoras used the elements: after they have con- secrated them to the Apostolic See, the words change their real meaning and mean anything they please. It is wonderful! They may be turned from any meaning into any other; they are also apt to mean what these men imagine in their feverish dreams, or anything that they rashly spout forth in the impotence of their womanish spite. Yea, their knowledge is of so little service to them that they do not even rightly understand the good things they have learned, and, as the apostle says ( 1 Tim. 1,7), they under- stand neither what they say nor whereof they affirm, that is, they have not learned how to connect the subject with the predi- cate or the predicate with the subject in a declarative clause. We hope that in the coming debate he will cite other testimonies equally apt, in order that the children, too, may be given a chance to laugh. I had hoped that from the letter of Erasmus,146) the master of all knowledge, and from the invincible Defensio of Dr. Carlstadt, Eck would have learned to know his narrow-minded- ness; but his patience conquers everything: he is content to dis- please everybody if only he pleases himself and his champions. He has charged me with gross impiety by calling me a heretic and a Bohemian, and says that I am "fanning dead embers into flame." He says this in accordance with his rule of modesty, or as a function of consecration by which everything becomes consecrated without having any other ointment applied to it than the poison of his tongue. However, I let you know, dear reader, that I do not accept the evil name which he has given me, and that, as regards the monarchy of the Roman Pope, I do not despise the respectable consensus of opinion of so many believers in Italy, Germany, 146) Erasmus's letter to Eck of May 15, 1519 (Weimar Ed.), made Jearned Europe laugh because of the good-natured raillery, fine irony, and the consummate slsill with which the famous Humanist showed up the hollow pretension of Eck's learning. 11. FINAL PREPARATIONS FOR TUB DEBATE. 93 France, Spain, England, and other countries. There is only one thing that I ask of the Lord: that He will never let me say or think anything that pleases Eok, such as he is at present, lest, for the sake of maintaining human free will, I might ridicule Christ, the Son of God, and lest, for the sake of the Eoman Church, I might deny that Christ rules in India and in the Orient, or — speaking likewise in riddles for the benefit of this ingenious manufacturer of riddles ! — lest I open again the sewer of Con- stanzll") and start a new martyrdom in the Church because of old murders in Africa. For in order not to be offended at his\ vicious riddle, you must know, dear reader, that some number ' with the articles of John Hus this one, that the papal primacy ' of the Bishop of Rome is derived from the emperor, as Platina ' clearly states. But I have asserted that this primacy is proven, not by imperial, but by papal decretals. For in the well-known verse 148) the Lateran Church of Rome itself describes the extent of its authority, saying that both by papal and imperial decree it is the mother of churches, etc. How now? Even this church, in the view of Eck, will become Hussite, and fan dying embers into flame. Again, since the above verse is sung by order of the Pope, with the consent of the cardinals, of entire Rome, and the Church universal, it is not surprising that Eck has grown tired of these old embers, and is desirous to perform a new act of consecration, of offering to the Apostolic See a new holocaust by incinerating at once the Pope, the cardinals, and the Lateran Church. God be praised that there remains at least one Eck who 1 is of a. Catholic mind, the solitary persecutor of the idea of/ standing alone, all the rest having become corrupted by the poison' of Bohemia. But why should we wonder that sophists do not know these historical matters, when they do not even understand their own simple statements? I have, indeed, never treated this subject, nor have I thought of making it the subject of a debate. 147) The "sewer of Constanz" is the Council wliich was held in that city 1414 — 1418, and which sentenced Hus to be burned. 148) Luther here refers to these lines: Dogmate Papali datur et simul Imperiali, Quod sim cunctarum Mater, Caput Ecclesiarum. Hinc Salvatoris, Coelestia Regna datoris, Nomine sanxerunt, cum cuneta peracta fuerunt. Sic nos ex toto conversi supplice veto Nostra quod haec Aedes tibi, Christe, sit inelyta Sedes. The meaning is : By papal and at the same time by imperial decree it is given me to be the mother of all, the head of the churches. There- fore, when everything was completed, they consecrated me by giving me the name of the Savior, the bestower of heaven. With all our heart, then, we aslt in fervent petition that this house of ours, may be a famous seat for Thee, O Christ. — The reference is, of course, to the formal dedication of the completed church-building. 94 11. FINAL PEEPARATIOKS FOE THE DEBATE. But Eck, who has been long incensed at me with the most mali- cious spite, and who knows that such theses are odious, has hoped to rouse indignation against me at least by this point, since he despaired of victory as regards the other points. For he has learned to slay the young lion while the old lion is looking on, as the saying is; that is, he wants to turn a disputation for the discovery of the truth into a tragedy of hatred. But let them accuse me as much as they will; let them con- secrate their flatteries to the Apostolic See, to its throne and footstool, yea, let them consecrate things also to the apostolic money-chest, since that pertains most to this business of the in- dulgences and the papal primacy; let them leap around the altar of their Baal; let them call him with a loud voice to rouse him, for he is a god, he is making verses, he is engaged, he is gone afield, he is sleeping, etc. 1 Kings 18, 26 f. It is sufficient for me to know that the Apostolic See neither intends nor is able to do anything against Christ. In this discussion I shall not be afraid of the Pope nor of referring to his name, least of all of such featherlets and manikins.149) I am concerned about one thing only, viz., that I may not be deprived of my Christian repu- tation to the injury of the entire pure doctrine of Christ. For in regard to that I would have no one expect me to be "patient," and I would not have Eck look for modesty either under the black or white cowl. Cursed be the praise of that wicked modera- tion of Ahab who allowed Benhadad, the enemy of Israel, to es- cape ! ( 1 Kings 20, 34. ) For in this matter I would like to be not only what grieves Eck, a champion in biting polemics, but also invincible in devouring, that I might make one mouthful of all the Silvesters, Civesters, Cajetans, and Ecks, and the rest of the false brethren who are fighting against Christian grace, as Isaiah expresses it, chap. 9, 12. Let them frighten others with their flatteries and consecrations [to tlie Pope] : Martin de- spises the priests and sacrificers to the Apostolic See. On the other matters I shall speak in the debate and after. But Dr. Andrew Carlstadt, too, who has already conquered the error of Eck, will come not as a fleeing soldier, but will con- fidently meet this dead lion that has been cast at his feet. Mean- while we shall let his miserable conscience enjoy his fictitious hope of victory and his empty boastful threats. Accordingly, I add to my theses a thirteenth in opposition to the wrath of Eck. God will have to bring something good out of this debate which Eck has soiled with so much evil, malice, and abuse. Farewell, dear reader. 150) 149) In the original tliere is at this place a pretty pun on papam — pappos — puppas. 15D) XV, 821 tf. 11. FINAL PREPARATIONS FOR THE DEBATE. 95 Lastly, Carlstadt, tlie original cause of the debate and tlie real principal on the Lutheran side, issued his theses for the debate as follows : — 1. Since Dr. John denies that the believers'' entire life is re- pentance, and that there is always need of repentance, he is a Jew- in the skin of a Christian, for he cries: If the righteous be the son of God, let him come down from the cross, and he. does not know that this life is a season in which we must expect to bear the cross. 2. In like manner he draws a false conclusion, thus: The life of believers does not signify the sacrament of penance, hence, not repentance. 3. To bring out Dr. John's knowledge, also this proposition, drawn from Cyprian and Bernard by conjecture, will be main- tained: The entire life of believers has the sacrament of penance. 4. Dr. John regards it as something curious that I have turned from that repentance which has been commanded to penances which are scourgings and punishments that one suffers, but he does not wonder at the penitent prophet who is prepared to undergo scourgings and pain, nor does he wonder at himself for not knowing himself. 5. Since Dr. John boldly denies that the righteous repent, he denies what the Church confesses. He is also under the ban of heresy for claiming that the righteous, while still in this life, are not really sinners. How will a person who is under Such a ban defend the Church? 6. Little sins are true sins that must be atoned for and re- pented of. 7. Every little sin which man does not regard is damnable; it is, therefore, not sufficient not to have consented to sinning, but one must acknowledge that real sins are referred to in such passages as: "Who can understand his errors?" and: "Cleanse Thou me from secret faults." 8. Daily sins which are neither recognized as real sins here on earth, nor atoned for by rendering due satisfaction for them, are mortal sins. At the vain objections of sophists I shall not feel astonished. 9. By setting up scholastic teachings which have been in con- troversy four hundred years against the older truth. Dr. John has instituted a new statue of custom and limitation which was un- known in former times, viz., that errors and sins also can be made a rule. Look to it, then, ye oldest of the fathers, and thou, Augustine, for you have not overcome the Donatists, but enmeshed them by a false reasoning. 10. Furthermore, ye apostles, prophets, and Thou, Christ the 96 11- FINAL PEBPARATIONS FOE THE DEBATE. Savior, beware, for by improper speech you have led us to be- lieve that vre are sinning even in every good work. 11. Free will, before a person has received grace which is in- fused by the Holy Spirit, is eflScacious only for sinning. But this earthly fact my deceiver does not believe; how, then, will he believe when I speak of heavenly things? 12. Yea, our will, when not governed by the divine will, ap- proaches the more rapidly to wickedness, the more eagerly it is bent upon acting. 13. By his principle, which is a stock argument of debaters. Dr. John can do what is in his power, viz., he can remove the bar, or obstacle, to grace, that is, he can soften the stony heart, which contradicts Ezekiel and the thesis of Ambrose already cited'. 14. Since Dr. John does not see that a good work is entirely of God and God's operation, he is still looking at the Scriptures, and understanding them, with the veil of Moses over his face. 15. Finally, everybody can easily see what theological learn- ing Dr. John possesses, for in his Ghrysopassus he has collected 1 do not know how much ragged material regarding predestina- tion, and yet he denies that the passages which treat of pre- destination may refer to works that are to be rewarded. ' 16. Dr. John cites against me the saying of Bernard: Take away free will, and there will be nothing left that can be saved, in order to prove that free will can accomplish very much. He has altogether misread Bernard, and reveals sufficiently with what penetration he examines the church fathers. He renders himself suspected to all students as a falsifier. 17. Dr. John Judaizes when he declares that salvation depends on the canons in so far as a person must do what they command by virtue of his free will; pursuing the law of righteousness, he thus sets up his own righteousness. 151) Of all the papers that were prepared for the debate this is the most difficult to understand, because of the peculiar brevity of style which- Oarlstadt afPects, and because of his far-fetched references and obscure allusions. These theses were published April 26, with the following, letter : — To the excellent Dr. John Eck, the defender of metaphysical theology and our Magister, Andrew Carlstadt wishes grace and a better mind in the Lord. If I did not love, revere, and honor the most holy father and lord in Christ, Leo, by the providence of God the tenth Pope by that name, and the holy Church of Christ, I should not, my in- vincible debater, consider your rather coarse and boorish impu- 151) XVIII, 714 ff. 11. FINAL PREPARATIONS rOR THE DEBATE. 97 dence worthy of tMs reply. I shall, therefore, reply only that you may know that I am, I hope, not only a most devout reverencer of the name of the Pope, but also an obedient member of the body of the Lord, redeemed Avith the precious blood of Jesus. But you object that for this very reason you, too, had taken upon yourself the task of this defense, and have thundered against me the arguments of Cyprian, Augustine, Jerome, Ambrose, and Gregory, as if you had unleashed a pack of terribly barking dogs against me. But I perceive your tricks and treacherous pranks quite plainly. From a distance you are shooting your light ar- rows against the Wittenbergers, but you are wounding at the same time the teaching of Christ, and while attacking us, you are perverting, mutilating, yea, destroying the Holy Scriptures, for in many ways you are dragging in the heavenly wisdom to prove your false conclusions and Skyings of the heathen, so that simple people, who cannot make an exact test of such learned matters, become infected with your poison. For you cite the church fathers to people who are not keen enough to see what is to be proven and what not, and who imagine that it is suf- ficient to collect an abundance of testimonies without pondering what their force is in an argument, or whether they are apt to remove scruples and cut the knotted fetters of doubts with which they are bound. Therefore, dear reader, I ask you to be mindful of the tribunal of God and the judgment, and not to side either with me or my opponent, considering not the persons of the combatants, but the subject which they debate, and the testimonies with which they are armed. Yea, I would remind you, dear reader, that as I am to speak in the fear and reverence of God, so you must hear me in a like spirit. Dr. Eck is not citing the church fathers in an honest manner, and is not without malice, but is laying traps and snares. The deceitful hypocrite cites the testimony of Cyprian, Augustine, and others; but are the good things which he cites true? If true, are they good? Are they, as a rule, cited in the proper place? Barely. Does he always say only what is true? Oftentimes he does not. He says good things, but they are not to the point. With one salve he wants to cure everybody's sore eyes. His cunning ways are suspicious. The theses which he proves are not in doubt with either of us, since both I and he take our stand on them. But by these arts he blinds the eyes of those who do not understand the issue, and leads them to be- lieve that we are at variance in a well-known matter about which there can be no controversy. In the principal points, how- ever, he is weak and easily defeated. This vainglorious fencer desires nothing more than to achieve a little renown with the semi-learned or unlearned, for he is so desirous of glory that he DAU, LEIPZIG DEBATE. 7 98 11. FINAL PEEPAEATIONS FOB THE DEBATE. is not ashamed to snatch it by force and childish pranks. In Vienna this brawler was miserably discomfited; his heart is still weak and sore from the stabs which he received from his oppo- nents; but with his tongue he hissed at his conquerors, dissem- bling his wounds. However, no sooner had he picked himself up out of the dirt of the arena and slunk away than he composed a eulogy, comforted himself with having achieved a victory, and proclaimed his fictitious praise to people living many miles from the place of combat. Several persons have affirmed this who heard him at Vienna flinging about his metaphysical notions. The fox may leave his skin, but not his ways. This vile logician is still afflicted with the itch ; he is looking for some one to rub against, some person whom he may injure and infect. Buf it seems to me his malady should be treated not with a sound arm, but with thorns of juniper. In my writings which I pub- lished against this fox it will be seen that I did not run away from a trial before the university at Rome or before other learned men. Yet Eck maliciously dares to slander me, saying that I will not submit to the judgment of the Church, and that I am a sedi- tious person. I have submitted to the judgment of any one who has diligently and carefully examined the church fathers. The first page of my defense shows this; still this mean talker is not ashamed to say that I have refused to be judged by many. I do not deny that such fruitless and vain quarreling, which Paul for- bids, is displeasing to me, as it naturally ought to be; for in such a, contest the parties do not seek after the truth, but each makes a great noise and wants to capture trophies ; he scores a victory by hook or crook, even. with painted guns. There was a time when I, too, thought, like my little opponent, that when truth gained a triumph, I might remain silent as though I had been defeated. But now I consider it disgraceful and pernicious not to side with the truth at once. That exceedingly wicked woman Calpurnia was the cause by her shameless libel, and by the unrest which she caused a magistrate, that a law was issued that no wanton charges should be lodged with the praetor, but honor and decency must be respected. But my iippudent blusterer and brawlers like him raise such a womanish tumult and uni- versal disturbance, and respect the office of theologians so little, that they utterly disregard decency. I yield to wordy quibbling, however, with contempt and declaring my dissent; but I gladly take part even in minor discussions by which the fruitful truth is investigated and hidden meanings are discovered, provided the discussion is taken down by notaries. For if it is not taken down in writing, the opponents difi'er shamefully in their claims. By this device a bit is placed in the mouth of bold men, making it difficult for them to lie. 11. FINAL PREPARATIONS FOE THE DEBATE. 99 I am surprised that Dr. Eck has slapped together so many laws and statutes — the best he has omitted — that relate to his oath, by which paltry matters are raised to great importance for his side, and that, while he made his collection, it has not occurred to him that the holy fathers ordained that weighty matters were tp be set down in writing before judges, so as not to leave any room for men's malice. Secular and minor affairs relating to temporal things are embodied in written accusations; against these the defendant contends with objections and counter-argu- ments; they are made still plainer by double and triple counter- arguments, yea, with other legal helps, until the matter is thor- oughly explained and all mystery removed; then at last the litigation is definitely ended by the decision of the judge. And now, in a sacred matter of spiritual and quite eminent import, that concerns the salvation of souls and the majesty of God, you. Dr. John, would have for judges men that are only supplied with ears, but are not keenly discerning judges, or such as glance superficially at a matter, hurry through with the case, and do not investigate anything thoroughly; men who, without having understood even the beginning of the case, and without having had doubtful points established and obscure points made clear to them, will render a decision favorable to you on a mere sem- blance of right; and this thoughtless and stupid judgment is to go out under my name in opposition to the divine truth, and is to decide our important and necessary controversies. I am quite certain that our subjects will not suit the bad metaphysical theologians, because, although they are Christians, they hear but with the ears of pagans and mingle everything they hear with their gall. Let these keep back their judgment and wait till the end of our discussion, lest pure and honest theologians complain of their having listened sleepily and rendered a wishy-washy depision in ignorance or haste. As arbiters of our contest I de- sired the excellent teachers of the University of Leipzig, my superiors, whom I always seek to honor, however, with this under- standing that the matter remain undecided until we have closely and thoroughly considered it and brought to light the hidden meaning of Scripture. For during our contest we shall have to carry our investigation quite far, because I see that you have taught heresies, that is, things which plainly contradict the Holy Scriptures. Now, what purpose is served by your criticizing and insulting me before the whole world as a runaway soldier, and by dressing up your lies so skilfully? It is a shame to play such coarse tricks and to tell such palpable lies. Suppose I had chosen to withdraw from this sophistical fencing-match and to remain within my walls, would I on that account have to be called a timid 100 11- riNAI. PBEPAEATIONS FOE THE DEBATE. and cowardly soldier? Is he a timid and cowardly soldier who remains within the walla and looks with contempt on the tumult of the enemy, repelling attacks only by watchfulness? A brave man makes no great ado, conducts himself quietly and properly, does not act unseemly and dishonestly, does not brag, and either conquers the evils of war or submits to them. On the other hand, it is a sign that a person has become disheartened when he per- mits threats and every faint noise of a tumult to scare him. And could there be a greater proof of timidity and cowardice than for the defendant of a just cause to grow pale at the words of a miserable windy brawler? They say in war that those fight with twofold force who are fighting in a just cause. Acc6rdingly, I do not surrender to the enemy, nor do I trust in my bow, but in the arm of the Lord, who alone gives man a courageous heart. Since you have so fiercely and violently provoked me, I shall come and attack Goliath, and in order to.be all things to all men, I shall make a strong effort to defeat the perverter of Scripture. Finally, this sharp thinker says that he is going to fight for the Holy See after the manner of wasps. Ask him, dear reader, whether I ever had or could have had any complaint to raise against the Apostolic See. Does it mean to insult the Church when you honor its command ? Does it mean to insult the Church when you exalt everything the Church needs for her holy service and sacrifice to God? Does it mean to insult the Church when you investigate, rightly discern, and eagerly defend the purity of the Scriptures and the sincerity and truth of the church fathers? See what a champion Eck is: he has the Church on his side, and pretends to come to its rescue; he simulates a defense to which he is not authorized. miserable condition of the Church, when it has not even a protector who firmly maintains his cause! the danger to the Iamb when the wolf comes to its aid! This is the sly protector who wears sheep's clothing to fool the sheep and seek his own profit. the horrible audacity of the man •w'ho forces himself upon the untroubled Church for its protec- tion! Who has hitherto defended the Church? And who will defend it after you are dead? What the emperor of the world scarcely dares to undertake, that this bold emperor of theology undertakes. My dear John, if you can persuade me that you can drive out error with the fire of your abuse and the plaster of your own errors, I shall believe that you will destroy error. As for me, 1 shall honor the Roman Pope, to whom I am especially indebted, and the holy Church with word and deed, and shall, as much as I can, do away with this mess of Eck, though the knave has been unfair and has proposed theses of which he knows that I do not 11. FINAL PREPAEATIONS FOK THE DEBATE. IQl question them, while I have preferred to select from my defense against Dr. John such conclusiqns as each of us understands in a different sense. I desire for my judges neither friends who declare wrong right, nor enemies who look for a flaw in the cor- rectest matter. Meanwhile you may diligently read the church fathers and take good care of yourself. 152) At the risk of becoming tedious we have reproduced these three documents entire. To the age in which we live these elaborate efforts of three learned men to declare their senti- ments, to terrify each other, to fortify themselves for the coming ordeal, seem overwrought, unnatural. There is in them a strange mixture of religious fervor and human passion. We imagine that we discern in them a note of false heroism, of bravado, such as in the speeches of the ancient warriors of Greece in the camp before Troy, when "battles" were fought that would hardly be recorded as skir- mishes nowadays. We have changed our customs since the days of the Leipzig Debate. Says a modem writer : "It was a time when the joy of disputation was like the joy of battle, and victors achieved honors not less coveted than that which lured the stainless Bayard to deeds of daring. Victory in such a contest was almost equal to winning the Marathon race to-day, and the triumph of its champion brought nearly as much fame to a university then as the championship in football brings to an American university in our day. The men of the sixteenth century knew no better than to think that mind ought to coimt for more than muscle in a uni- versity; we of the wiser twentieth century have changed all that." 1^) This is fine sarcasm, and it is deserved. But the phenomenon confronting us in these ante-bellum deliverances of the combatants have a deeper meaning. They were the instinctive response to sentiments that were deeply stirring the men of that age. The people desired to hear from their spokesmen. They had no newspapers; pamphlets and bro- chures prepared them for the great events of history that were then in the making, and in them they caught glimpses 152) XV, 826 ff. 153) Vedder, Z. c, p. 92. 102 11- FIKAI. PEEPAKATIONS FOB THE DEBATE. of the quality of their great men and the nature of their contentions. ISTor were the leaders, Luther before the rest, slow to perceive the value of the common people's support in a cause. Thei,rs was a struggle for popular rights. The chal- lenge that had been issued to amautocracy, the more galling because it was exercised in the sacred affairs of the heart and conscience, had first been voiced, it is true, by a clergyman, but it was really the voice of the people who had found in him an apt interpreter of their aspirations. The struggle that now commenced was for the people, in behalf of their God-given rights, liberties, and privileges. It must, to be suc- cessful, be waged ultimately by the people. Therefore their intelligent interest and cooperation was a matter of para- mount importance to the combatants. We are too far re- moved from the issues of those times to estimate aright their full meaning. We have enjoyed the privileges which were then secured such a long time that they are regarded by us as a matter of course, and we are apt to smile at the excite- ment which accompanied their advent as we smile at a child clapping its hands when beholding the sun rise. For the purpose of aiding the twentieth century reader to adjust him- self to the feelings of an age that gave us the essence of blessings we are enjoying now, the seeming trifles that were precursors of the Leipzig Debate have been set forth with such an abundance of detail. That debate was a really great event. "This disputation is one of the most famous in his- tory, and as much perhaps as anything that occurred in- fluenced the course of subsequent events. It brought the two parties into close and sharp contact, and permits us to see what were the views of each, and by what arguments they defended them." 154) There is one incident that remains to be noticed in con- nectiotL with the final preparations for the debate : Oarlstadt issued those 406 theses which he had drawn up for debate by graduates at Wittenberg, and which first excited Eck, in a new edition, with a supplement in the form of a cartoon. 154) Vedder, I. v., p. 93. 11. FINAL PBEPAKATIONS FOE THE DEBATE. 103 This cartoon served as the cover for the pamphlet. It was satirical : it showed two carriages, one, representing the true theology, headed for heaven; the other, representing the scholastic theology, headed for hell. There was a monk- sit- ting in the second wagon. Loescher, who saw this cartoon, says that the monk "does not represent any one in par- ticular," which means, of course, that he does not represent Eck. A cartoon is rarely edifying and convincing. We probably shrug our shoulders nowadays at this pictorial at- tempt to assure the students at Wittenberg by a glance that they were on the right road with their theology while Eck was on the wrong road with his, and to make an impression' on illiterate people, who could only look at a funny picture, while they were unable to read a book. But there are more serious objections to be raised to this campaign publication of Carlstadt: he has surrounded the pictures in the cartoon with descriptive literature. In one place he deprecates loving God for spiritual benefits, which would render the Second Petition largely superfluous. In another place there occurs this false estimate of the Scriptures : — Though Holy Writ is good and holy, Still it frequently makes sin violently alive, Serves for transgression, wrath, and death. Concludes all men under death, Only quickens desire and forges sinful bonds. Let no one take comfort in Scripture Who would he saved by Christ. This applies what can be said only of the Law to the entire Scriptures, hence also to the Gospel; for Carlstadt speaks of that Scripture which shows us Christ "and says: He is your Savior!" Further on a penitent expresses this senti- ment: I bring before Thee my malice; That is my righteousness. The meaning is that, when a person bares his wickedness to God, he does right and becomes righteous by that act of self-abasement. That, however, means to derogate from the righteousness of Christ, which is the sinner's by faith. The 104 12. THE THIRTEENTH THESIS. cartoon ia also very deferential to "the Eoman Christian Church." Carlstadt declares: "I allow even a child to cor- rect me.'' The reader is to supply the conclusion : How much more do I submit to the corrections of the Holy Pather.155) The mystic and fanatical elements in Carlstadt's theology which wrecked his career three years later are beginning to show already at this time. 12. The Thirteenth Thesis. A most interesting and cheering glimpse of the busy Luther during these stirring months is afforded us in a letter of March 13 to Spalatin. He says : — I cannot write the Lord's Prayer in Latin 156) because I am occupied with so many tasks. Observe, now, some of these tasks: Every day towards vesper time I recite the Ten Command- ments and the Lord's Prayer with the children and the laymen, and then I preach. I am also preparing (my exposition of Paul to the) Galatians for publication; besides, I am reciting tjje pre- scribed prayers and lessons.lST) I have absolutely not time enough for my work, not to speak of having time to spare. I have in mind now writing a sermon on the Meditation upon the Suffer- ing of Christ,158) but I do not know whether I shall have suiScient leisure to write it out; I shall try. Still more is Luther engrossed with care about the uni- versity. A year ago a bright and able young professor had come to Wittenberg, for whom Luther had conceived a great love. His name was Philip Melanchthon. The council of the university was trying to put more work on him than he was already doing, and Luther protests : • — 155) Vnschuld. Nachr., 1707, p. 485 ff. There is also a detailed description of this cartoon in the St. Louis edition of Luther's Worlcs in XV, 808 f., but it is not as complete as Loescher's. 156) He refers to the Exposition of the Lord's Prayer for Simple Laymen, VII, 752 ff. 157) It win he remembered that Luther at this time was still a monlc, subject to the rule of the Augustinian order, which was one of the strictest, 158) XI, 574. 12. THE THIRTEENTH THESIS.' 105 It will exceed the strength of our Philip, my dear Spalatin, to burden him with so many tasks, because he is already over- burdened. For although you suggest that he should lecture every other day, still his mind is engrossed with too many cares. Moreover, Aristotle's Physics is an altogether useless subject for students of any age. The whole book discusses in a way an inane subject, almost a fictitious matter. Rhetorical exercises are of no use, unless you want to see a brawling orator exercis- ing his brains and ability by discoursing on the subject of manure or some other useless subject. God in His anger has decreed that the human race for so many centuries should be afflicted with these silly matters, which, by the way, have not been understood at all. I know the book from beginning to end; for, omitting the glosses, I have twice expounded it to my brethren in private. Yea, we hold that the only reason for reading it is to convince everybody at last — and that soon ! — that the reading of it should be discontinued, because it would be far more useful to read any one of the rhetorical exercises of Beroaldus.159) There is absolutely nothing to be learned about nature from this book. The same holds good of his Metaphysics and his treatise On the Soul. It is, therefore, unbecoming that a mind like Melanch- thon's should be occupied with the filth of such empty vanities. It is better to read it through without understanding it — merely for the sake of having read it, than to try to understand it. But is Luther not thinking of his debate at all? Tes; he is "whispering something into Spalatin's ear" in this letter : — For my debate I am examining the decretals of tlie Popes, and let me tell you below my breath that I am undecided whether the Pope is Antichrist or his apostle, because in these decretals — I am telling the truth ! — he has miserably perverted and cru- cified Christ. I am exceedingly grieved to see the people of Christ fooled under pretense of the laws and name of Christ. Some day I shall send you my annotations to these decretals, in order that you may see what it means to make laws without regard to the Scriptures, in the endeavor to usurp the autocracy; not to men- tion other evidences, quite similar to those ascribed to Anti- christ, which are perpetrated by the Roman Curia, and rush forth from there. From day to day the Scriptures are becoming of more aid and assistance to me.l60) We saw in a previous chapter how Luther's mind gradu- 159) Philip Beroaldus, Sr. (t 1505), had been teaclier of rhetoric at Parma, Milan, and Paris. 160) XXI a, 155 f. 106 12. THE I'lIIKTEENTH THESIS. ally verged to this critical subject of the primacy of the Pope, and how his friends were filled with anxiety on this account. For Carlstadt was not the only person who desired to see that subject avoided. When Luther's thirteenth thesis began to be understood, and such remarks as Jjuther had dropped in the foregoing letter began to circulate among the friends, there was much ominous shaking of heads and whispering with bated breath about Brother Martin's daring thesis. Spalatin sent a warning note to Luther. Others ad- dressed excited and nervous inquiries to him. Prof. Dungers- heim of Leipzig, with whom Luther was engaged in a corre- spondence on the primacy of the Pope, wrote him sneeringly : it seemed that he was clutching the Council of ISTicea for his support. Reserving his real arguments for the oral discussion at Leipzig, Luther decided to allay the fears of his friends and to stop the gadding of his enemies by publishing a trea- tise on the mooted question of the primacy in advance of the debate. He called it An Explanation of the Thirteenth Thesis on the Authority of the Pope. In the prefatory letter to the public he says that he has hurriedly compiled this ex- planation to meet the vilest slanders of his enemies. In this treatise he discusses principally the testimony of the Holy Scriptures to which he had appealed in his thirteenth thesis. He says that the Power of the Keys which Christ (Matt. 16, 16 — 18) had conferred on Peter was not delegated to Peter alone, but to all the disciples in common, hence to the entire congregation of the believers in Christ. This congregation of believers, now, who are sanctified by faith in Christ, is in Luther's view the "Catholic Church." It is not essential to this Church that it have a human head besides the Heavenly One, with whom the believers are joined as members. To prove that he has rightly understood this matter in accord with all Christendom, Luther appeals to the Creed, which says: "I believe one holy catholic Church, the communion of saints." His inquiry leads him to this conclusion: "I do not know whether the faith of Christians can tolerate the setting up on earth of another head for the Church universal besides Jesus Christ.'' 12. THE THIRTEENTH THESIS. 107 He is willing to concede a certain superiority to the Roman Church. This superiority is essentially the same as that of which Paul speaks in Eom.»13, 1, where he enjoins obedience to the secular authorities. The papal authority is one of "the powers that be." In so far as it actually exists, then, alongside of other powers, Luther is willing to regard the papal power as "ordained of God." He regards this as the strongest argument for proving that it is the duty of Christians to obey the Pope. But he has another argu- ment: As long as it is admitted that the authority of the Pope is merely a secular or hiiman authority, he is not going to quarrel about it ; it is a paltry affair, for which Christians should never sacrifice the unity of the Church, and that love and humility which makes them true members of the Church. But the question becomes an entirely different one the mo- ment we are required to believe that the primacy of the Pope has been ordained of God by an immediate act, and when submission to the same is enacted by force and intimi- dation. That can only engender hatred. Such a primacyr cannot be maintained by an appeal to Matt. 16. In agree- ment with the ancient fathers, Luther holds that the cir- cumstance of Peter answering the question of the Lord must not be stressed: he was simply the spokesman of all the dis- ciples; for by the revelation which the Father had made to them they had all acknowledged Jesus to be the Christ. If the Power of the Keys had been conferred on Peter alone; if Peter were the Eock on which the Church is built; if it is not rather Peter's faith, — then the law of consistency re- quires that the Eoman Bishop, the Pope, be also addressed in that word which Christ addressed to Peter on a later occa- sion : "Get thee behind me, Satan." Now, the fact that the Power of the Keys was not withdrawn from Peter when he erred, proves that this power was not conferred on him per- sonally, but in him on all believers; for otherwise it would have been withdrawn. Hence the Power of the Keys is wherever there is such faith as Peter had, and whatsoever the church at Eome possesses every congregation, no matter how small, possesses likewise. Wherever the Word of God is 108 12. THE TI-IIKTEBNTH THESIS. preached and believed, there is true faith, there is the Rock that cannot be overthrown. But vi^herever faith is, there is the Church, there is the bride of Christ; and the bride has all that her Bridegroom has, all that follows in the wake of faith — the keys, the Sacraments, the power, and every- thing else. The primacy of the Pope, then, can only mean a priority of rank and external distinction. This applies also to the bishops : they are not by divine right above the other spiritual shepherds of a Christian congregation. Luther calls atten- tion to the fact that as late as the age of Jerome the belief was common in the Church that the ministry was originally established by Christ on a basis of equality. It was only in the Western Church that the belief arose that the one holy Christian Church could exist only in union with the episcopal hierarchy of the Pope as its head. This view of the unity of the Church, Luther holds, destroys the very essence of the Church. Luther reiterates his appeal to the Council of Nicea, to the ancient fathers, and the old Christian congregations in Asia, Greece,, and Africa, who never acknowledged the supremacy of the Pope. What does that mean? Why, it means this: You can be a good Christian and go to heaven without having submitted to the rule of the Pope. Or do we want to deny, Luther queries, that there are real Christians in the Orient, although their pastors and bishops were not ordained by the Pope? The old papal decretals that had been cited against him, Luther has now studied to such an extent that he is prepared to say that any appeal to these decretals is a very weak argu- ment. Luther refuses to recognize any papal authority that could restrict his right to criticize the authenticity and bind- ing force of those decretals. He has found in one of these decretals the statement that both the secular and spiritual authority have been conferred on the Pope. This wrests from him the indignant cry : "Ought this not force tears into our eyes that we are compelled, not only to read this, but also to believe it, as though an oracle had spoken it? Tea, they 12. THE THIRTEENTH THESIS. 109 want to compel us to accept this as truth under pain of being burned at the stake. And yet men are dreaming that they behold the Church in a beautiful condition ! They do not see Antichrist sitting in the temple of God." l^^i) This Explanation made a powerful impression: it raised the interest in the Leipzig Debate to the highest intensity throughout Europe. The atmosphere had suddenly become charged with electricity: soon the storm must break and the lightning strike. God have mercy on Dr. Martin! Yes, God be with our Martin ! He is in sore need. From all the interesting correspondence that Luther has crowded into the weeks immediately before the Leipzig Debate, we shall select only one passage from a letter to Lang, dated June 6. He states that he has finished his Explanation, that Duke George has not answered his third letter with a defi- nite ■ statement that he may come to Leipzig, that Eab has gone to Rome to denounce him and bring back more papal thunder, and then adds : — Over and above all this, another afiBiction, more grievous than all the rest, has been visited upon me. The Lord teaches me by all these events what man is. And I thought I knew this well enough before! . . . Farewell, and pray for me, great sinner that I am. I need absolutely nothing except the mercy of God. That is what troubles my jealous opponents ; they are aware that I am in need of nothing else.162) One of those spells of despondency had seized him again of which he had complained on previous occasions. Thoughts like these would torment him : Martin Luther, you are a sin- ner ; you are not called to do this holy work for Christ. The Lord does not want you at all. — And then a deep sadness would settle on his bruised and crushed heart, and in that humbled condition he would indeed be conscious of one thought only, the desire for the mercy of God. But this was the schooling which the divine Master applied to his pupil; in this way, by utterly abasing him, he trained him to efficiency, and made him great. 161) XVIII, 720 ff. 162) XV, 24T5. 110 13. LEYPTZIGK. 13. Leyptzigk. So Luther wrote the name of the city where he was to hold his famous debate. — The university in this city is the second oldest in the German Empire. It came into existence as the academic antithesis to Hus and the Uni- versity of Prague in 1409. King Wenceslaus had deposed John of Muensterberg as rector of the University of Prague in May of that year. ISTational disorders broke out in Bo- hemia soon after, and the deposed rector, with quite a number of students, left Prague and came to Leipzig, where Frederick and William, Landgraves of Thuringia and Margraves of Meissen, founded for them a studium generate, that is, a uni- versity. The bull for the foundation was issued by Pope Alexander V at Pisa, September 9, 1409 ; the charter was signed December , 2, of the same year. The deposed pro- fessor from Prague became the first rector of the new uni- versity, and in the first semester 369 students matriculated. The Bishop of Merseburg was appointed chancellor. "At the opening of the 16th century Leipzig was, like Cologne, a stronghold of scholasticism, and a large part of the Epistolae Oiscurorum Virorum, written in Erfurt near by, refers to it.' The university, ' especially the theological faculty, remained true to the Church at the beginning of the Reformation. . . During the period of religious dissen- sion the University of Leipzig declined greatly." 163) The city was an important trade center : the Leipzig Fair was a famous event even in Luther's time. It boasted con- siderable wealth; it had some paved streets, which were very hot' in summer, and the lax morals of the clergy and the students had given it an unsavory reputation. It was par- ticularly notorious for its drunkenness and lewdness. There was a special brand of beer brewed at Leipzig, which the stu- dents called "Eastrum." This word is really the name for a farmer's rake or mattock. The beer was thus called be- 163) Cath. Eiioycl. IX, 140. 13. LEYPTZIGK. Ill cause it scratched and furrowed the stomach like a peasant's rake.lW) The immorality of the ecclesiastics of Leipzig is por- trayed especially in the ninth letter of the Epistolae Ohscu- rorum Virorum.^^) True, the Epistolae are a burlesque i but what else was the medieval monk ? Besides, there is abundant other evidence to establish this point.l'^'') 164) An unknown genius at Erfurt composed a "Quodlibetum," in which, amongst other things, he dilates on the "Rastrum" and the other beers of Leipzig; "Lipsensium vero cerevlsiam studentes vocant Rastrum, metaphora puto sumpta ab agricolis, quod quemadmodum hi rastrls et sarculis et ligonibus omnem duritiem vertunt et emolliunt, ita Lipsensium cerevisia velut rastrum intestinal omnia sua acetositate laedit, movet et corrumpit. Est autem triplex, de quo talis est versus : Ein topfC Scherpentum, zween Rastrum, spanque Coventum. Nihilomiuus tamen in tam nobili oppido externae quoque habentur cere- visiae. Ut sunt Einltecensis, quae apud nos est optima. Neuburgensis, quae oculos laedit. Targaviensis. lielgeranensis, de qua Proverbium est. Belgerana est omnibus Sana. Wurizellensis. Friburgensis et reli- quae id genus. Praeterea quis non novit Saxonicas quoque cerevisias diversis appellari nominibus ? Filts scilicet Magdeburgensts. Momnion sive Mommum Brunswigense. Gause Goslariensis." Seidemann, Die Eeformationszeit in Sachsen von 1517 Ms 1SS9, P. VIII. — We offer this and the following citations relating to the moral status of Leipzig as evidence for what we have said about the taverns and brothels of Leip- zig in Luther Examined and Reexamined. 165) See also pp. 100 — 2. 112 — 4. 135. 149 ft. in Seidemann, op. cit. 166) The brothels were called by the students "das fuenfte Colle- gium." The author of the Epistolae explains this as follows : The Dominicans numbered five evangelists, , regarding "Thomas von 'Wasser- burg' " (the well-known Aquinas) as the fifth. {Ep. Ohs. Vir., p. 414.) Now, the Lipsians decided that they must also have something that they might label "the fifth." This fifth entity was the "Freiweib." Schuetz has given us a letter that shows how Luther drove these "free women" out of Wittenberg. (Dngedruckte Brief e, I, 404.) — The old Saxon annalist Froeschel (Bl. G. LIII) says : "Wie auch hey vns im Aduent, wenn man das Rorate hat gehalten vnd gesungen, da man schier mehr Megde auff den Collegl.is hat gefunden, denn in den Kirchen vnd in jren Heusern vnd Herbergen. Auch wie es die nacht ist zugangen, wenn die Papisten jren Herrgott ins Grab gelegt haben, vnd die Kirche zu nachtes lange lassen often stehen, vnd wenn man auch in die stuele gelegt hat. Auch zu Weihnachten, wenn man die Christmesse in der nacht gehalten hat, dauon einem grawet, wenn man allein daran ge- dencket." Seidemann also calls attention to this passage in Luther's Table Talk, chap. XIII : "Da ist das Rorate zu einer jemmerlichen, auch eusserlichen groben Vuzucht vnd Hurerei worden, sonderlich zu Leyptzigk etwan, da eine so grosse vnzucht vnter der Roratemesse ge- trieben worden, das es mit menschen gedanken nicht zu begreiflfen ist. Der Creutzgang zu S. Thomas wuerde es am besten zeugen, wenn er reden koendte." Prof. Dungersheim, whom we have mentioned a num- ber of times, was told by his opponent Schoenichen that the priests at Leipzig were "mith huren behangen, wie ein pilgram mith muscheln." (Seidemann, op. cit., p. 12 f.) 112 13. LEYPTZIGK. George the Bearded, also called the Rich, the reigning prince of ducal Saxony, was born at Dresden August 2Y, 1471, and died in the same city, April lY, 1539. He had originally been intended for the church, being a younger son. Accordingly, "he received an excellent training in theology and other branches of learning, and was thus much better educated than most of the princes of his day. . . . Hardly one of the secular princes of Germany held as firmly as he to the Church." 1^7) The character of Duke George is a strange mixture of progressiveness and reactionism. He was, according to the testimony of Hausrath, one of the ablest of the German rulers. He governed his country well, subduing his refractory nobles, and in general keeping the reins of government well in hand. He became one of the founders of the Saxon mining industry; he secured from the Curia the elevation of the church at Annaberg to the dignity of a place of pilgrimage. Thus there dwelt side by side in his strange head an energetic business sense and a firmly rooted medieval superstition. He was very strict with the clergy and the Curia in financial matters; every gulden 'had to be exactly accounted for; he was indignant at the greed of the Eoman priests, but he never doubted a moment that only through them his church could obtain efficient indul- gences. In his transactions with Rome regarding the eleva- tion of Annaberg he was guided by two motives : the money must remain in his country, and the miners and his subjects in general needed the indulgences. His piety consisted in a rigid conservatism; he was resolved to "abide by what his good father and his dear mother had taught him." Accord- ingly, be was inexorable toward those who fell away from the old faith. Luther's doctrine shocked him, not so much because it was heretical as because it was new. His stub- bornness and pedantry at length made Duke George un- bearable to his own people. Luther, who, as we have seen, had to suffer much from his smallness, would jokingly say, referring to the Duke's closeness and self-will : "He is look- 167) Catn. Encycl. VI, 457. 13. I.EYPTZIQK. 113 ing for the fifth corner of the bag"; or, alluding to his A\'rathfulness, he would say : "There is no hope that he will quit raving; the ocean would dry up sooner." Luther de- clared that this pig-headed Duke and the treacherous Arch- bishop Albrecht of Mayence had "taught him what sort of weeds the men of this world are." 1^8) Most elaborate preparations had been made for the debate under the personal directions of Duke George. In antici- pation of the large number of visitors, who could not have been accommodated in the chapel of the loniversity, the Duke had ordered the great hall in his castle Pleissenburg to be made ready for the debate. Here two desks were placed opposite one another : over the one from which Luther would speak a picture had been mounted on the wall representing St. Martin, while Eck's desk was surmounted by a represen- tation of St. Greorge the Dragon-killer. Plainly there was design especially in the placing of the second picture: it foreshadowed the victory of Eck over the dragon of heresy, Luther. Hausrath raises our smile by remarking that the legend of St. George is of heretical origin : the knight St. George is the heretic Arius, and the dragon is the good orthodox church father Athanasius. This is true, and it proves that either the Duke's artists or theologians were poor archaeologists ; but it mattered little because the legend had been changed from its original to the opposite meaning. — In the city the police force had been increased, and they had much to do during the four weeks that the guests re- mained in the city. The various guilds and the city guards had been ordered to meet the incoming disputants and con- duct them with due honors to their quarters and to and from their meetings. Each division had its special station assigned to it, and aU acquitted themselves of their appointed tasks with a great deal of pomp and more noise. Only the members of the theological faculty were sulky. An order had come to them from the Bishop of Merseburg forbidding the debate, and, accordingly, the debate from be- 168) Hausrath, I, 293. DAU, LEIPZIG DEBATE. 114 13. LBTPTZIGK. ginning to end was held without their official cooperation. During the debate they sat behind Eck's desk. The bishop's order was posted on one of the church-doors on the very morning when the debate opened; but when Duke George heard of this, he sent a messenger to tear it down and to arrest the man who had d,ared to post it. This order was accompanied with rather descriptive language a la Duke George. He would have it understood that this was his town, and his university, and his debate, and neither bishop nor Pope would be permitted to interfere. With the bishop's order also the Pope's Bull Cum postquam had been posted, and this, too, was ordered removed. And this Duke hated Luther for attacking the authority of the Pope! Was there ever such pig-headedness ? i^^) Eck had contrived to arrive at Leipzig five days in ad- vance of the day for the opening of the debate, on June 22. He made the best of his advantage by ingratiating himself with every prominent person in Leipzig, and creating a dis- tinct animus against the Wittenbergers where such animus did not already exist. He was a tall, robust man, lively, jtovial, courteous, and displaying every possible trait that might win him favor. He came with a special letter of recommendation from the mighty Fuggers of Augsburg, and at once the financiers of Leipzig were duly impressed with the importance of a gentleman who enjoyed the friendship of the greatest bankers in Germany. He came among the university professors with a humble and deferential de- meanor, and coddled particularly the moss-grown obscu- 169) For all these details and many others relating to the opening, the conduct, and the close of the debate we are indebted to the accounts given of the affair by eye-witnesses, particularly of Prof. Mosellanus, to the report of the debate which each of the chief disputants drew up afterwards, and to the correspondence of Eels and Luther during and after the debate. There are over three hundred references to the debate while it was in progress, and to its immediate consequences, scattered in Vols. XV, XVIII, and -XXI a of the St. Louis edition. Additional material is found in Seidemann, Wiedemann, and Preserved Smith's Luther's Correspondence. We would like herewith to refer to all these sources, as it would destroy or considerably mar the effect of the description of the debate to give the exact authority for every item. We shall give the exact reference only for the speeches during the debate. 13. LEYPTZIGK. 115 rantists in the theological faculty by saying ever so many nice things about their learning and intellectuality, and everybody was carried away with the affability, the decorum, the enlightenment of the great Doctor from Ingolstadt, who could with such excellent tact not only descend to the level of his inferiors, but make his inferiors believe that they were above him. Only one of the Leipzig professors seems to have understood the game the wily Eck was playing: this was Mosellanus. Eck met the rich burghers at their homes and was feasted and flowered, dined and wined; and wherever he went, he charmed his hosts and hostesses by his wit, his fluent conversation, his cosmopolitan manners, and his easy morals wherever he discovered a leaning in that direction, while he could also be very devout and full of reverence and pious reflections with others. On the day after his arrival he joined the clergy and the professors in the customary pro- cession of Corpus Christi Day (Thursday after Trinity Sun- day) , and impressed the throngs of spectators along the route with the fervor of his devotion and his great humility. The theologians were enraptured with him ; henceforth they clung to him wherever he went; they went out riding with him, they arranged collations for him, they presented him with new garments, and in every possible way lionized him. Eck had a shrewd adjutant among them, the Duke's chaplain. Eraser, who had come up from Dresden. This is the same Emser whom Luther mentions in his account of the social evening which he had spent at Dresden, and where he had suddenly found himself among traitors. This Emser went from one theologian to the other, from one cleric to the other, whispering to them that they must in every way give Eck the preference, flock to him whenever he would show himself in public, sit on his side in the hall during the debate, give approval to what he might say, and, on the other hand, treat the Wittenbergers coldly. The Wittenbergers arrived June 24, entering by the Grimma gate. Magister Eroeschel, who has left us such interesting information about the rhorals of Leipzig, has de- scribed their entrance into the city. First came a wagon 116 14. CAKLSTADT VEKSUS ECK. witli a lone occupant of small stature and swarthy face. This was the principal of the debate from Wittenberg, Carlstadt. He carried the passport for the entire Wittenberg party, and it had been arranged for that reason that he should ride ahead alone. Next came a wagon in which were Luther, his youthful colleague Melanchthon, then twenty-two years old, the Augustinian vicar of Erfurt, Lang, Nicolaus von Ams- dorf, and others. On both sides of the wagons rode and marched two hundred armed Wittenberg students, headed by the rector of their university, the young Duke Barnim of Pomerania. When this train passed the cemetery at the church of the Paulinians, the wheel came off on Carlstadt's wagon, and the unfortunate Doctor was ignominiously spilt in the mud. Emser was in the crowd, whispering to the spectators the meaning of what they had just seen. Soon a murmuring ran through the crowd: Eck is going to con- quer, and Carlstadt will be defeated. Eor did not this acci- dent conclusively prove it? Melchior Letter, the printer on the Hainstrasse, who had published several of Luther's writ- ings, and who afterwards moved to Wittenberg, was Luther's and Melanchthon's host. The rest, of the Wittenbergers found lodging in the various inns of the city and with citi- zens. Particularly the students took up their lodging at the public houses, and there was much friction between them and the Leipzig students during the time of the debate, and the bailiffs and city guardsmen had to interfere to stop argu- ments that were delivered with the fist and the sword. 14. Carlstadt versus Eck. The debate came near being called off during the prelimi- naries. First, as regards Carlstadt. He was nominally the champion of the Wittenberg side. It was proper that in point of order he should be given the precedence over Luther, for the debate had been arranged directly for him. Two matters had to be settled before the debate could begin: the notaries had to be appointed who were to take down the re- 14. CABLSTADT VERSUS ECK. 117 marks of the speakers, and the final judges were to be chosen to whom the entire argument was to be submitted for a de- cision regarding the orthodoxy of each speaker's position. This had been plainly stipulated in the writings that were exchanged during the weeks before the debate. Imagine, then, the surprise that was created when Eck declared that he was not in favor of the appointment of notaries. He argued that they would prove an inconvenience to the dis- putants: a ready speaker would deliver his arguments quite rapidly, and his fluency would suffer if he would constantly have to think of the notaries whether they were really taking down all his remarks. The debate would thus be- come a tedious affair, dragging 'along in a listless fashion, dampening not only the ardor of the disputants, but also killing the interest of the listeners. For himself Eck de- clared that he would chafe under the restraint put on him by the presence of notaries; he preferred unhampered free- dom to express himself quickly and rapidly in order to make the debate lively and a real success. The success which Eck had in mind was a success from the oratorical point of view. He wanted to shine as a fluent speaker, a splendid orator, and a quick-witted debater. But his specious plea shrewdly concealed his real motive: he knew, and others knew like- wise, having heard him before, that he was apt to make bold assertions in defending his position — assertions the weak- ness and irrelevancy of which he could manage to conceal by the tricks common to an orator, strong gestures, eloquent periods, and an attack upon the feelings. He was afraid that his remarks, when carefully recorded, woiild be found, on close examination, to contain subtle prevarications. How- ever, Carlstadt held him to the original stipulations, and he ultimately yielded. The next trouble was caused by Carlstadt: he refused to have the protocol of the debate submitted to judges. It had been pointed out during the discussion of the previous point that already for the sake of the judges, notaries were necessary, or there would be nothing to submit to the judges; but Carlstadt persevered in his unwillingness on the ground 118 - 14. CARLSTADT VERSUS ECIC. that lie knew of no impartial judges to whom he would be willing to entrust his cause. The position which the Wittenberg faculty had taken on the scholastic theology, on human free will, and on indul- gences,- still more the position which Luther had taken on the primacy of the Pope, was indeed such as to array the learned world of Europe against them a priori, and it was a foregone conclusion that no theological faculty would render a de- cision in Carlstadt's and Luther's favor. But when even Duke O-eorge insisted that a court of theologians must be appointed to render a decision on the debate, Carlstadt yielded. It was agreed that the actual choice of the judges should be made later. The party of secondary consideration, though to all in- tents and purposes, the acknowledged Wittenberg primary in this debate, was' Luther. He had been so persistently snubbed, and from the moment that he set his foot into Leipzig was being ignored by the Leipzig managers of the debate with such studied efiort, that he had become utterly disgusted by the time the preliminaries had to be arranged. The great number of visitors that were flocking to Leipzig came chiefly, if not solely, on Luther's account. Eck and the Leipzig professors had wanted him to attend the debate, and yet they labored by continuous petty acts that were cal- .culated to irritate Luther, to belittle him, cause him to feel out of place, compel him to seek recognition when it should have been readily accorded him, make him appear as a sus- pected and marked man. In short, they resorted to all those small and contemptible meannesses by which jealous people know how to rob the person whom they do not like of his ease of mind, and unnerve him for the work he is to do. Under these circumstances, Luther was ready to drop the debate and return to Wittenberg. He was present at the arrangement of the preliminaries, but refused to sign the articles of agreement. A theological court of judges he would not accept at all. How could he consistently ask for a ver- dict on his l^eachings from papists when he had already ap- pealed from the Pope to a council of the Church? All 14. CARLSTADT VERSUS ECK. 119 efforts to make liim yield were wrecked on his iron determi- nation. It looked as if there really would be no debate after all. Then the Wittenberg delegation began to urge and plead and persuade. They even became bitter against Luther: had they come all the way from Wittenberg only to go right back and hp laughed at? How would the Wit- tenberg university be parodied among the learned men of Europe when it became laiown that they demanded a debate from which they backed out in the last moment! And what impression would this make on the common people ! Luther's disgust must have been reported to Eck: he came to see Luther at his lodging, and the following conversation en- sued : — Eck : I have heard that you are withdrawing from the debate. Luther: How shall I be able to debate when I have not suc- ceeded in obtaining a safe-conduct from Duke George? Eck : If I cannot debate with you, I do not care , to debate with Carlstadt, for I came hither for your sake. What if I get you a safe-conduct? Will you then debate with me? Luther: Get it, and I shall debate.170) Luther himself related this incident in 1545. The reason which he offered Eck for not wanting to debate was, of course, intended merely as a reproof of Eck's faithless conduct dur- ing the previous weeks. He could have secured the safe- conduct for Luther long ago; but it was part of his plan to humiliate and irritate Luther that he had forced him to come to Leipzig "under the wings of Carlstadt." For Eck had hardly left Luther's lodging after the interview just noted, when a safe-conduct was brought to Luther. Duke George also invited him to be his guest, and repeated this invitation several times during the days of the debate. Luther now decided to remain, but still refused to sign any agreements. Loughlin has noted, with a curious comment, that "the Leipzig Debate was the last occasion on which the ancient custom of swearing to advance no tenet contrary to Catholic doctrine was observed. In all subsequent debates between ITO) Erl. edit., 0pp. u. u.. I, 19 f. 120 14. CAKLSTADT VERSUS ECK. Catholics and Protestants the bare text of Holy Writ was taken as the sole and sufficient fountain of authority. This, naturally placed the- Catholics in a disadvantageous position and narrowed their prospect of success." ( ! ) 1''!) On Monday, June 2Y, at seven in the morning, the solemn acts for the opening of the debate began. Crowds of spec- tators, some from a considerable distance, and many men of prominence had gathered at Leipzig. Tears after they would tell and write to their friends about the great scenes they had witnessed during the days of the debate. The meet- ing was opened in the hall of the princes at the university. Dr. Simon Pistoris, professor-in-ordinary of the faculty of jurisprudence, delivered the salutatory address. Then a pro- cession was formed: two by two the assembly marched to St. Thomas Church, a delegate from Wittenberg always walking with a Leipziger. The citizens' guards with their arms marched alongside. A solemn high mass was cele- brated at the church, and then the procession reformed, and with banners waving and drums beating marched to the splendidly decorated hall at the Pleissenburg. After every- body had occupied the place assigned him, Duke George sitting surrounded by his notables, and the elite of Leipzig having grouped itself around Eck, another oration was de- livered by Peter Schade from the Moselle valley, hence called Mosellanus. The speaker had been pressed into service for this number of the program when the sulking theologians refused to have anything to do officially with the debate. Mosellanus, who belonged to the faculty of arts, was favor- ably inclined towards Luther. He hit upon the plan of sub- stituting a beautiful allegory for his speech. A boy was to represent the childlike purity of sacred theology, and in a highly poetical recitation, spoken from memory, was to describe to the audience the solemn meaning of the acts which they had come to witness. The recitation had all been finely written, but the boy to recite it could not be found. Finally the professor had to assume the role of the boy and 171) Cath. Encycl. V, 35. 14. CABLSTADT VERSUS EOK. 121 recite his own product. To make matters still worse, Mosel- lanus had been taken ill a few days previous, and had not been able to properly commit his artistic production to memory. His voice was weak, he stammered and halted in his delivery, and since he had not changed those portions where the reciter referred to himself as a child there were episodes in the recitation that were quite ludicrous. But with enforced dignity the audience bore the infliction. Mosel- lanus referred to Eck and Carlstadt by name and with lauda- tory epithets, but did not mention Luther at all. Since he was an admirer of Luther, the historians have been able to explain his silence only by assuming that he had not been sure of Luther's coming when he composed his address, or he had received a hint from Duke George or some one else not to mention Luther. As it was, the absence of all reference to Luther proved another snub. After Mosellanus had con- cluded, a trained choir with musical accompaniment intuned the noble old hymn "Veni, sancte Spiritus," which was sung three times, the entire audience kneeling. — These solemn acts had occupied the entire forenoon, and everybody hurried to his noon repast when the last notes of the noble hymn had died upon the air. Rumors had begun to circulate in the crowd that quite a number of Bohemians had come up from Prague, because they considered Luther the spokesman for their own tenets. Duke George gave orders to increase the civic guards and to sternly repress the least disturbance. The guards were kept on duty throughout the debate. The actual tournament began at two in the afternoon; it was continued the entire next day. Then came two days of interruption because of the festival of Sts. Peter and Paul. The debate was resumed on July 1 and closed on Sunday, July 3, another recess having been taken on Saturday be- cause of the festival of the Visitation of Mary. The subject for discussion during these days was the quality and power of human free will, independent of the grace of God, and when aided by divine grace. Carlstadt spoke first; he declared that he would not depart from the teaching of the Church, but would consider Scripture the 122 14. CAKLSTADT VERSUS ECK. highest authority. Eck began his discussion with a brief prayer, and then declared that he would teach nothing in contradiction of the Scriptures and the Church. He now plunged into the thesis: It is man's free will, and not the grace of God alone, which actively produces good works. Appealing to Ecclus. (Sirach) 15, 14 — 19,1^2) and referring to the Defensio which Oarlstadt had published, he claimed that the passage quoted referred, nof to man in the state of innocence, but to man in his present state under sin. On the authority of Jerome, Ambrose, and Bernard he asserted that free will in man existed also after the fall. Carlstadt maintained that the passage must be interpreted to refer to the state of innocence, and criticized Eck's citations from the fathers. In his reply Eck made the direct assertion that human free will is entitled to reward for man's good works, because the servant in Matt. 25, 20 says that he had earned five talents. Carlstadt rejoined that the servant had not earned those talents by his free will, but by the grace of God, which operated through him, as can be seen from 1 Cor. 15, 10. Eck insisted nevertheless that the servant had labored and earned his wages. The time for adjournment having arrived, he declared that he would continue his criticism of Carlstadt to-morrow. Carlstadt reminded him that it would be his turn first to speak to-morrow; still both agreed to dis- cuss this point once more. The next morning at seven Carlstadt began reading a paper in which he declared that the passage from Eccle- siasticus had been explained against Eck by Augustine, and that 1 Cor. 15, 10 had been sufficiently discussed. However, he wished to show from 2 Cor. 4, 7 and John 3, 27 that all merit for man's good actions belongs to God, and not to man, because the latter is called a vessel of grace. Moreover, he 172) "He Himself made man from beginning and left him in" the hand of his counsel : if thou wilt, to keep the commandments, and to perform acceptable faithfulness. He hath set fire and water before tbee : stretch forth thy hand unto whether thou wilt. Before man is life and death, and whether him liketh shall be given him. For the wisdom of the Lord is great, and He is mighty in power, and beholdeth all things : and His eyes are upon them that fear Him, and He Icnoweth every work of man." 14. CAHLSTADT VEBSUS ECK. 123 called attention to the fact tliat Eck had had to admit that before regeneration man's free will is not capable of any good action. This admission upsets, he said, all that the scholastics have said regarding merits prior to regeneration and about acts by which man prepares himself for justifi- cation. Eck demanded that no one should be permitted to read anything from a paper, but every speaker must speak ex corde. He accepted Augustine's explanation of the pas- sage from Ecclesiasticus, because, he said, grace and man's free will cooperate. This position he fortified by quotations from Ambrose, Jerome, and Augustine. The latter, in par- ticular, has said that grace is the rider and man's free will is the horse. Hence, he said, there is indeed an activity in man's free will independent of the grace of God. At this point Carlstadt rose to reply, but Eck claimed that the next hour still belonged to him. At three in the afternoon Eck was still speaking, expatiat- ing on the statement in 1 Cor. 15, 10 : "His grace which was bestowed upon me was not in vain," and illuminating this passage by a quotation from Bernard. Carlstadt replied that Augustine had not compared man's free will to a horse, but had said that the wounded man is placed on a horse. He de- clared himself pleased with a statement of Eck to the effect that no particular activity need be ascribed to man's free will, which he endorsed as coinciding with the saying of Bernard : Grace does the entire work; it is all by grace; and with James 1, 17. But how little Eck had admitted what Carlstadt thought he had, appeared when he took the floor again and declared that Augustine speaks of free will as a secondary cause, and that a certain activity must be ascribed. to all causes of that kind. Moreover, where he speaks of the rider and the horse he calls the horse a "jumentum," that is, a draught animal. Hence, it is plain that grace and free will cooperate. Carlstadt maintained that no natural ac- tivity can be ascribed to human free will in the performance of a good work; still man's free will might be called a "jumentum," because it must be tamed like a wild animal. The share which man's free will has in any good work 124 14. CABLSTADT VERSUS ECK. amounts to nothing more than that man assents, and even this assent is inspired by divine grace. Eck replied that he understood Carlstadt now to admit an activity of man's free will that is communicated by divine grace. In his Defensio he had asserted, and so had Luther, that there is no activity of free will whatever in man. He still insisted that while the grace of God is the principal cause, still man's free will is a less principal cause of the activity of man, and the two work together. At this point Carlstadt began to speak halt- ingly and admitted an activity of man's free will that is communicated by grace, but he claimed that activity is as when a wagon is set in motion : it is really grace alone that operates. Melanchthon had meanwhile slipped a paper to him from which Carlstadt tried to read, when Eck protested that this was against the rules of debate on which they had agreed. He also charged that Carlstadt had brought a private notary into the meeting who was carefully taking down Eck's remarks, and then helped Carlstadt at his lodging to prepare his replies for the next day, while he, Eck, was compelled to rely solely upon his memory and had to speak extempore. Duke George had appointed two moderators, and to these Eck appealed, with the result that they declared Carlstadt's prac- tise out of order. Caesar Pilug, the ' Duke's counselor, an- nounced their decision in German. Carlstadt took the de- cision with visible indignation, and seemed inclined to drop the debate. But inasmuch as strangers were still pouring into the city, he agreed to submit to the ruling of the moder- ators and to continue the debate. On the next day there was no debate. Luther had been asked by Duke Barnim to preach. No church could be ob- tained for him to deliver the sermon, and he was forced to preach in the hall of debate. The hall was crowded. Some had come as spies to find a cause against Luther. Duke George had gone to Dresden and was not present. Luther spoke on the Gospel for the day, Matt. 16, 13 — 19. , He touched upon the great questions on which the debate turned, and explained them briefly and to the edification of his hearers. On the basis of Jesus' words : "Flesh and blood 14. CAELSTADT VEKSUS ECK. 125 hath not revealed this unto thee," etc., he showed that in spiritual matters divine grace must do all, and human free ■will can do nothing. The soul must first despair of its own strength; then comes faith, which lays hold of the grace of God, and in the state of grace and by grace the believer then begins to do good works. Proceeding to the discussion of the keys that were given to Peter, Luther showed that they were given to Peter, not to have and keep them for himself, but as the representative of the Church, and for applying them for the comfort of poor sinners, in order that these might by faith cling the more firmly to the promise of the forgiveness of their sins. Common people, he said, need not 6nter into great discussions regarding the power of Peter and of the Pope; it is of much greater importance that they know how to apply the power of the keys for their souls' benefit. i''3) This sermon, spoken in the plainest style, but with the quiet firmness and warm glow of a deep conviction, made a powerful impression upon the hearers. Forthwith Eck was induced to announce that he would preach on the next festival day at St. Nicholas' Church. He preached another time, and all churches were open to him. Caesar Pflug remarked when he heard of Luther's sermon, "I wish he had saved his sermon for his Wittenbergers." On July 1, at eight in the morning, Carlstadt resumed his argument. He charged Eck with having contradicted himself, because he had asserted at the beginning of the de- bate that man's free will possesses a special and natural power of its own for the exercise of good works, while now he declared that it possesses no other activity than such as is communicated by divine grace. Eck denied the first part of this statement, claiming that he had never said that. In the same breath, however, he said that the activity which he ascribed to man's free will is distinct from God's activity, and when grace begins to operate upon man's free will, it confers upon free will an activity which is then the activity of man's free will, and may be called a special activity, but 173) XI, 2306 ff. 126 14. CAELSTADT VEBSUS ECK. it is a supernatural one. Some activity like- this/ he said, must always be admitted in the operations of man's will; according to Jerome man's will is independent and free to engage either in a good or evil action. Carlstadt objected that the same effect cannot be ascribed to two causes in such a way that we can claim that it was produced entirely by either cause. Eck answered that an effect can indeed spring from two causes, but neither cause produces the entire effect ; free will is always subordinate to divine grace. Carlstadt called this argument of Eck Aristotelian hair-splitting and a useless distinction; moreover, he reminded Eck that his authorities, Capreolus and Scotus, declare man's free will to be the principal cause of good and meritorious works. Eck interposed: Nevertheless they teach that free will is in- capable of -a good work without the grace of God. Carl- stadt now asked Eck to define what share in any good work free will can claim as man's peculiar product. Eck dodged the question by saying, a good work cannot be divided. At this point the meeting was adjourned, fortunately for Eck. At four in the afternoon Carlstadt arose to declare that Eck's citation from Jerome was from a writing that was con- sidered spurious. He tried to- prove from Augustine and from the collects used in the service at church that God alone effects entirely whatever good works we do, while the' scholastics teach neither that an entire good work, nor that a good work entirely, proceeds from God. If Eck, he said, admits the former, he teaches better doctrine than the scho- lastics. Eck answered that he had cited the passage from Jerome because the treatise from which he had quoted is commonly' ascribed to Jerome. He declared that in the be- ginning of conversion man's free will is purely passive. Aa to the scholastics, he asserted that Thomas of Strassburg teaches indeed that good works proceed entirely from God. The session was now adjourned until Sunday, when Carlstadt began to complain that Eck would not permit citations to be read from books. He also declared that Augustine and Ber- nard derived all good works from God alone. Eck replied that nevertheless these fathers admitted an . operation of 14. CABLSTADT VERSUS EOK. 127 man's free will. They say that good works spring from {ex) the grace of God alone; this term ex they use to designate the radical principle, or the origin. They do not use this term in connection with man's free will. Carlstadt now tried to prove with citations from Augustine, Cyril, and Gregory that good works are entirely from God, and he asked Eck the direct question whether he admitted this. Eck re- plied that notwithstanding the quotations that had been intro- duced he was sure that the fathers admitted an independent activity of the human will, because they say that grace is an auxiliary to man's free will. The ability to do good, he said, is also a pure gift of God. Now, in a good work man co- operates VTith God, hence the good work which he does is not something that he receives as a pure and total present. Carl- stadt asked, What activity is there in a rod with which a teacher beats his pupil? Eck replied, None; for the rod is a dead instrument, but there are also animate instruments. Carlstadt now cited Is. 10, 15 : "Let not the rod shake itself [that is, glory] against them that lift it up." If good works, he said, are entirely of God, man cannot glory. Eck declared that he claimed no glory for man, but only an activity. Carl- stadt asked him to state in what theologian he had found the term "totally" in this connection, that good works are en- tirely of God. Eck replied that the term "consubstantial" (which.is used to describe the coequality of Christ with God) is not found either in any of the fathers before the Council of Nicea. Here the crier announced that the first half of the debate was closed, and that Luther would take up the debate with Eck on the morrow. i''*)' This brief summary, no doubt, impresses the reader as very tedious. The actual debate was still more so. ' In end- less repetitions, with only slight variations, the disputants circled around the same point without settling anything. Theologically considered, the debate was a complete failure, and we are not surprised to read in the report of the chroni- clers of the debate that the reverend fathers of the faculty, 174) Wiedemann, p. 100 £E. Loescher, I. c. III, 293 — 330. 128 14. CABLSTADT VEESTJS ECK. the doctors from abroad, and tlie honorable citizens of Leip- zig, under the double influence of the summer heat and the opiate of Carlstadt's speaking gently fell asleep, and some- times had to be roused at the end of a session, while the stu- dents left in disgust to find a cooler place and better enter- tainment. The only really attentive listener, besides Duke George and the Wittenberg theologians, was Duke Barnim, who had placed himself so that he could hear every word that Carlstadt spoke, and observe his every movement. Nature and grace had not favored Carlstadt. Over and against the tall, portly Eck with his dapper appearance and jaimty airs the little sallow professor from Wittenberg with his hollow, monotonous voice, his poor memory, and his nervous and irritable temper made a very poor showing. He was habitually confused, had to hunt among his notes for the remark which he was going to make when his turn came to speak, always came into the hall with a load of ponderous tomes, which he was incessantly searching without finding what he wanted, and to the unconcealed enjoyment of the Leipzigers became completely disconcerted by a specious ob- jection, or a glittering phrase, or some peroration of Eck that was delivered with great pathos. Standing nonplussed for a few moments, he would finally say that he would answer Eck's remark the next day. Eck came into each session smiling, bowing right and left, bandying polite and facetious remarks with everybody, eliciting smiles and laughter, and looking at his poor victim at the other end of the hall with mock sympathy. Sometimes he would come into the hall still carrying his riding-whip, to show that he had just come in from an exhilarating ride and had not considered it neces- sary to make special preparations for the debate. When he spoke, it was with a strong, sonorous voice, full of the pectoral tones of 'Conviction. He was never at a loss what to say, interlarded his speech with interesting illustrations, moving appeals, and some humor, and was quick at repartee. Luther groaned inwardly as he sat through the weary sessions from Monday till the next Sunday. In a letter to a friend he summed up his judgment of the debate thus : 15. A MEMORABLE FOURTH OF JULY. (FORENOON.) 129 Male dispidatvm est; perditio temporis; that is, The de- bating has been wretched ; a sheer murdering of time. Years after he still remembered the tortures which he had under- gone while watching the labored efforts of his incapable colleague, and remarked to the guests at his table : "He dis- honored, instead of honoring, our cause. He is a most un- happy debater, of an appallingly dull mind." The Witten- bergers were hanging their heads in shame during this ordeal. Thus matters stood on the eve of July 4, 1519. 15. A Memorable Fourth of July. (Forenoon.) Luther had yielded to the pressure exerted upon him by friends and foes, and had subscribed to the conditions of the debate as they had been arranged between Carlstadt and Eck. That is what the announcement of the crier at the close of the first half of the Carlstadt-Eck debate meant. But in accepting the notaries and the judges, Luther had reserved the right of appeal. The other side had accepted this con- dition in silence. Thus Luther served notice on his adver- saries that he understood their object: they calculated that, no matter how the debate might result, they were always sure of the verdict of the final court. By his reservation Luther gave them to understand that that verdict would not be final. While the preliminaries between Carlstadt and Eck were being arranged, Emser had approached him, and with a great show of pious fervor had solemnly adjured Luther to proceed very gently and use moderation in his debate, in order that sacred truth might be duly honored by its defenders, and the glory of God be magnified. Luther read the mind also of this hypocrite and replied, "This affair was not begun with God, and it will not be ended with God." We have noted before how Emser, this sanctimonious lover of peace and gentleness, had been busy filling the hearts of the Leipzig clergy with hatred and malice against Luther. One day DAU, LEIPZIG DEBATE. 9 130 15- A MEMORABLE FOURTH OF JTJI.Y. (FORENOON.) Luther had chanced into the church of the Paulinians: the mass priests were at the main altar;' others were reading mass at side-altars. When Luther's presence became known, they all grabbed the holy vessels as though these might be- come contaminated by the presence of the "Bohemian," and hurried with them into the sacristy. At the home of the printer Herbipolis our good chronicler Froeschel used to take his meals. One day he was dining together with Dr. Metzler from Breslau, who had come to attend the debate, and Metz- ler was telling Froeschel his experiences in Italy, whence he had recently returned, when a friar by the name of Baum- gaertner, one of Tetzel's partners, came in and began to abuse the Wittenbergers in such a foul manner that Herbipolis had to call in a halberdier, and kept him at his house for the time of the debate to preserve peace. Luther had observed all these malicious machinations of his opponents and yet consented, for God's sake and for the poor people's sake, to join in the debate. It is remarkable that the chroniclers of the events during the debate all have noted the absence of all squeamishness, sullenness, and resent- ment in Luther's conduct during his days in Leipzig. He showed himself evenly friendly and courteous to all whom he met; he seemed to fit into any company that he happened to join. He did not assume proud and distant airs, shroud- ing himself in the austere silence of conscious superiority, but was genial, pleasant, and kind, without the least affecta- tion and without any intention of currying favor; in a word, he was as natural as men could wish to see any one who comes into their circles. His countenance was placid, indi- cating a mind at rest. His great application to work and his monkish exercises had left their traces on it: he was lean and pale, but there was nothing of the acidity of the hypochondriac in him. When he spoke, his clear, ringing voice was very pleasing to the ear. Still more his wealth of information, the ease with which he discoursed on the gravest questions, and the striking, noble, and comforting conclusions to which he led up in his talk, charmed the hearers. The hall of the Pleissenburg was ■ thronged with eager 15. A MEMORABLE FOUKTH OF JtTLY. (FOEENOON.) 131 spectators at seven in the morning on Monday, July 4, when Luther rose and spoke: "In the name of the Lord. Amen. I accept and submit to the terms of this debate with the excellent Dr. John Eck. I only add that from reverence for the Supreme Pontiff and the Roman Church I should gladly have avoided this subject, because it is unnecessary and creates an astonishing amount of odium against one; but I was drawn into it by the thesis of the excellent Dr. Eck. I am also pained to observe that those are not present who ought to be here before others; I mean those who have privately and publicly so often sullied my name with the vile charge of heresy. Now that my cause is about to receive a hearing, they have withdrawn themselves — these inquisi- tors of the depravity of heresy who have neglected fraternal admonition and instruction and used incriminations in- stead." A fine exordium — was it not? So speaks a man who has a good conscience before God and men. The one man who should have been there before all the rest was in his last agonies that morning a few streets away. We shall refer to him later. Eck- began : In Thy name, sweet Jesus. Before I enter the lists, I protest before you, most illustrious, noble, mag- nificent, and excellent lords, that all I shall say or have said shall be submitted, first of all, to the judgment of the First Seat and of the Lord sitting in the same ; next, to the judg- ment of any others whose business it may be to correct the erring and lead them back to the knowledge of the truth. INTow, the reverend father in his opening remarks, by way of excusing himself, as it were, asserts that out of reverence for the Supreme Pontiff he would gladly have avoided this sub- ject if he had not been drawn into it by my thesis. But the reverend father will remember that if he had not first de- clared, in a set of resolutions, that before the times of Sil- vester the Koman Pontiff was not above the rest, it would not have been necessary for me to draw up my thirteenth thesis. Moreover, in the protocol of his conference with the Legate of the Apostolic See [at Augsburg] he charges that the blessed Pope Pelagius has twisted the evangelical Scrip- 132 15. A MBMOEABia FOTJBTH OF JULY. (FOBENOON.) tures, and yet this Pope, more than all the rest, received the words of Christ as they were interpreted by the holy fathers. In vain, therefore, the reverend father puts the blame for this business on me, for he furnished the occasion for it more than once. But I shall waive these digressions, and, God directing me, address myself to our principal object. Reverend father, your thirteenth thesis in opposition to mine affirms that the Roman Church is superior to others only according to the worthless decretals Roman pontiffs have issued within the last four hundred years. You say that this is contradicted by the text of Holy Writ and by the approved history of eleven hundred years. (Luther had added, what Eck omitted : ''and by the decree of the Coun- cil of Nicea, the holiest of all.") Against your position I assert: There is a monarchy and a single principality in the Church by divine right, and instituted by Christ. There- fore, Holy Scripture and approved history do not contradict this. Tor this Church militant, which is like one body, as Paul says, is ordained and fashioned after the image of the Church triumphant, in which there is one monarchy over all subjects, they being arranged in ranks up to the one Head, namely God. A like order therefore was set up on earth by Christ, for He declares, John 5, that the Son does nothing but what He sees the Father do. Hence he is not from heaven who refuses to be under the Head, just as he is not from heaven, but from Lucifer, who will not submit to God. All this I could establish at great length, especially by that devoted soul, the blessed Dionysius Areopagita, who says in his book on the Heavenly Hierarchy : "Our hierarchy is re- ligiously arranged in orders which God ordained, and is con- formed to the heavenly hierarchies of the saints." Likewise Gregory ISTazianzen says in his Apologeticus that "sacred mysteries are being celebrated after a heavenly pattern, and thus we are, while still on earth, formed into one society with the heavenly orders." What a monster would the Church be without a head ! All heretics — as St. Cyprian indicates in his letter to Rogatianus and Puppianus — have "tried to bring this about that the Head might be destroyed, and they 15. A MEMOBABLE FOUKTH OP JULY. (FOEENOON.) 133 might then with impunity plant their errors and their poison in the minds of men." This was the principal reason, with others annexed, why the flourishing Paris imiversity con- demned John of Tornais, who denied the primacy of the Eoman Church. Similar to this was the error of Wyclif, viz., that the Roman Church is not, by order of the Gospel, above the rest. Luther: When the Doctor argues that there is one \mi- versal Head of the Church, he says very well. If there is. any one who by some private covenant has agreed to defend the opposite, let him step forth. This argument does not concern me. Uch: The reverend father says that what I intended to prove does not concern him, namely, that there is by divine right a monarchy in the Church militant just as in the Church triumphant. I praise him for this statement, for he agrees with John, who says in Revelation : "I saw a new holy city descending," etc. But let us approach the matter some- what more closely: If the Church militant has not been without a monarchy, I should like to be told what other monarch there is or ever has been except the Roman Pontiff, or what other primary chair there has been except the Chair of Peter and his successors. This accords with what the blessed Cyprian says in his second epistle to the Roman Pope Cornelius against the Ifovatians, who were stealthily coming into Rome: "Under a bishop set up by heretics they dare to sail hither and bring letters from heretics and profane persons to the Chair of Peter and the principal Church, where sacerdotal unity takes its origin, and they do not consider that these are the Romans whose faith was praised by the apostle, and to whom faithless persons can have no access." Likewise Jerome declares against the Luciferians : "The wel- fare of the Church depends on the dignity of the Supreme Priest; for if no extraordinary power eminent above all 'the rest is given him, there will arise in the Church as many schisms as there are priests." That this Supreme Priest is the Roman Pontiff appears from the two epistles of the same Jerome to the Pope Damasus. Nearly every woi:d in these 134 15. A MEMORABLE FOUETH OF JUI.Y. (FOKEWOON.) epistles relates to our subject, but for the sake of brevity I shall note only the following: "I am speaking with the successor of the fisherman and disciple of Christ. Seeking no reward except Christ, I wish to share your blessedness, namely, I want to be associated with the Chair of Peter. I know that upon that Eock the Church is founded." Fur- ther on he says : "Whoever does not gather with thee scat- tereth." Every good Christian easily gathers from these statements that sacerdotal unity flows from the Roman Pon- tiff, and that this has always been the principal seat, pre- ferred before all others, and that it is that Eock of which Jerome says that he laiows the Church is built upon it. ISTow let the reverend father indicate another' monarchy in the Church in former times. Luther: That there is a monarchy in the Church mili- tant, and that its head is not a man, but Christ Himself, I fully profess, and that on divine authority. In 1 Cor. 15 we read: "He must reign until all enemies are put under His feet." A few verses before that the apostle says : "Then Cometh the end, when He shall deliver the kingdom to God and the Father, w^en He shall have abolished all rule and all authority and power." This Augustine in the first book on the Trinity, in the last chapter, interprets of the kingdom of Christ at the present time. It appears, then, that Christ transfers to us, who are His kingdom. His likeness by faith. Likewise, in the last chapter of Matthew He says : "Lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world." Again, Paul, Acts 9, heard a voice from heaven : "Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou Me?" on which Augustine remarks: "The Head stands for His members." Accordingly, we must not listen at all to persons who push Christ out of the Church militant into the Church triumphant; for His kingdom is one 'of faith, that is, we do not see our Head, and yet we have Him for our Head, according to Ps. 122 : "There are set thrones of judgment over the house of David," l''^) that 175) The speakers at this debate quoted the Bible in the Latin Vul- gate translation. 15. A MEMOKABLE FOURTH OF JULY. (FORENOON.) 135 is, there are many thrones on ' %vhich sits the one Christ. We see the seats, but not Him who sits on them, the King. Now, to take up the authorities of our excellent Doctor, when he says that there exists by divine right, and instituted by Christ, one principality, he gives us his opinion, but he proves nothing. For his first authority, Paul, especially in Eph. 4, .where he says that Christ is the Head of the Church, proves for me and not for him; for he certainly speaks of the Church militant and calls Christ its Head. There is another passage that is against him, 1 Cor. 3: "What is ApoUos? What is Cephas? What is Paul? Is Christ di- vided?" etc. Here any other Head than Christ is plainly ruled out. His second authority is John 5 : "The Son can- not do anything but what He seeth the Father do." This refers neither to the Church militant nor to the Church triumphant, but, as all the doctors hold, to the equality of the Son with the Father; the Father namely does, and can do, nothing but what the Son does, and is able to do. I pass over his remark that he is not of heaven who refuses to be under the Head, and that he is of Lucifer who will not be subject to God; for just as his authorities were badly cited, so this remark was badly inserted by him. In the third place, his citation from Dionysius proves nothing against me; for I do not deny the ecclesiastical hierarchy, but the point I am debating refers to the head, not of the monarchy, but of the hierarchy. In the fourth place, his citation from Gregory Nazianzen, that by our sacred mysteries we asso- ciate with the heavenly orders, is understood by every one who knows grammar to say nothing either of a monarchy or of a head. I admit, what he adds, that the Church with- out a head would be a monstrum; but for this head even the Doctor cannot give us any one else than Christ. I can make this quite evident: If his head, which he calls the Eoman Pontiff, dies, being human, then the Church is with- out a head. If in the mean time Christ is the Head of the Church until another Pope is elected, is it less monstrous to hold that Christ yields His place to a living Pope, and only takes the place of a dead one? His fifth citation, from 136 15. A MEMORABLE FOUETH OF JTJLT. (fOBENOON.) St. Cyprian, who sets upon the heretics that undertake to destroy the head, in order that they may with impunity sow their errors among men, is not to the point at all. For Cyprian is not speaking of the Eoman hishop, but of the head of any diocese. If our excellent Doctor will stand by his authority Cyprian, we shall close the debate this minute. Tor Cyprian never salutes the Eoman Pontiff in any other way than as his very dear brother. Besides, throughout his epistles, when speaking of the election and confirmation of bishops (pastors), he shows most convincingly that this right belongs to the people who exercise it with the aid of two or three bishops from the neighborhood, and this practise has been sanctioned by the most holy Council of ISTicea. Tea, this blessed martyr, as Augustine relates in his second book on Baptism, chap. 2, says : "None of us sets himself up to be a bishop over bishops, or by some tyrannical infatuation lays upon his colleagues the necessity of obeying him, be- cause every bishop, in the privilege of his liberty and authority, is his own master; as he cannot be judged by any other, so he judges no one ; but let us all abide the judgment of our Lord Jesus Christ upon the universe.'' His remark that at Eome and at the Seat of Peter originated sacerdotal unity, I grant quite freely, with reference to the Western Church. But in reality the Roman Church sprang from the Church at Jerusalem, and this latter is properly the mother of all churches. But the inference which he draws is worth- less : since sacerdotal unity has its origin in the Roman Church, therefore that Church is the head and first mistress over all; with his logic he might establish beyond question that Jerusalem is the head and lord over all churches. His last authority, Jerome, even if he were altogether reliable, has not been correctly quoted by our excellent Doctor; he intends to prove that the monarchical power of the Roman Church exists by divine right and has been instituted by Christ. Jerome's words do not say this. His remark: "There would be as many schisms in the Church as there are bishops, imless some extraordinary power eminent over all others were given him," means : Let us assume that this 15. A MEMOBABU; FOUKTH OF JULY. { FOEENOON. ) 137 could be done by buman rigbt, all the rest of tbe believers giving their consent. Por I myself do not deny that if the believers throughout the world were to agree on a first and supreme pontiii at Rome, Paris, Magdeburg, or anywhere else, this person ought to be regarded as the highest monarch out of respect for the entire Church of believers who are thus agreed. But this has never happened, nor is it happening now, nor will it ever happen; for down to our times the Greek Church has given no such consent, and yet has not been regarded as heretical. That this is Jerome's meaning I prove from his epistle to Evagrius, where he says: "Wherever there may be a bishop, whether at Rome, or Eugubium, or Constantinople, or Rhegium, or Alexandria, or Thanae, his worth and episcopal office is the same. The influence of wealth and the humiliation of poverty may make one sublime, the other lowly; nevertheless all are successors of the apostles." "We find the epistle cited in Decretals that are not woTthless, in the 93d distinction. In his commentary on Titus the same author says: "The presbyter is the same as the bishop, and ere by the devil's prompting there came to be competition in religious affairs and people were saying, 'I am of Paul, I of Cephas,' the churches were governed by a joint coimcil of the presbyters. Afterwards, when each presbyter thought that those who had been baptized by him belonged to him, the rule was made for the whole circuit that one presbyter should be chosen to be above the rest." ^Vud citing Scripture-proof, he says toward the end: "Ac- ■cordingly, as the presbyters knew that by a custom of the Church they were subject to the person that was placed over them, so the bishops knew that they were above the pres- byters in consequence of a custom rather than of any ar- rangement of true overlordship." The Doctor's remark, that Jerome had referred to the Supreme Pontiff at Rome when he said: "I am speaking with the successor of the fisher- man and disciple of Christ, and I am an associate of his happiness, that is, of the Seat of Peter; I know that the Church is built on that Rock," is irrelevant. It does not follow that because I associate with this particular church. 138 15. A MEMOBABLE FOURTH OF JULY. (FOKBNOON.) therefore it is the first. It does not follow that because this church is built upon the Eock, therefore it alone is thus built up. Add to this the decree of the African council in the 99th distinction, chap. 1 : "The bishop of the first seat shall not be called the prince of priests nor the supreme priest, nor by any similar title, but only the bishop of the first seat. Nor shall the Bishop of Rome be called the uni- versal pontiff." Now, if the monarchy of the Eoman Pontiif exists by divine right, all these statements would be heresy, which it would be rash to assert. 'To conclude, let us hear our Lord Himself, who says Luke 22: "There was also a strife among them which of them should be accounted the greatest. And He said unto them. The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them ; and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors. But ye shall not be so: but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger." This argument shows with what success Luther had pur- sued his historical studies on the origin of the papacy when he whispered that remark into Spalatin's ear on March 13. Ech: The reverend father has entered the lists quite well informed; he has his materials arranged in good order in the book which he has written and published. Accordingly, your most illustrious lordships, excellencies, and principali- ties will pardon Eck, who has for a long time been engrossed with other business, if he is not able on the spot to heap up such a well-rounded and accurately worded pile of arguments as the reverend father has done. For I came here to debate, not to publish a book. But let us take up in order what the reverend father has said. First of all, he means to prove that Christ is the Head of the Church, which is quite superfluous, because no one presumes to deny this, unless he be Antichrist. I am greatly surprised, however, that he does not reflect that in the protocol of his conference with the Legate of the Apostolic See he promises to produce a certain jurist and theologian who says that there can be several sub- ordinate heads in whom there appears the character of a mystical or symbolical head, distinct from that of the real head. This will prove at once that besides Christ we must 15. A MEMORABLE FOURTH OP JULY. (FORENOON.) 139 look for anotlier head in the Church. Nor does his quota- tion from 1 Cor. 3 : "Is Christ divided ?" favor his side. For although Paul mentions Peter in that passage, still the blessed Jerome in his First Book against Jovinian, col. 18, spoke truly when he said: "One is chosen, in order that by the appointment of a head the occasion for a schism might be removed." He refers, to Peter, and clearly states that Peter has been appointed head of the Church. But we dismiss this; we merely wished to repel false conclusions that have been drawn from what we set forth. In the first place, he says in reply to my quotation from John 5 : "The Son can do nothing except what He seeth the Father do," that according to all the holy fathers there is here expressed the equality of the Father with the Son. But let the reverend father, please, read more attentively the Messed father who could not be flattered, Bernard, in his third book to Eugenius on Meditation. Speaking of the form of the Church, and maintaining that it exists by divine ■ right, he supports my argument in col. 7 : "We do not regard its form as vile because of its being here on earth ; it has its model in heaven. For not even 'the Son can do anything but what He sees the Father do,' especially since this was said to Him under the name of Moses : 'See that you do all after the pattern which wks shown thee on the mountain.' He that had seen it is he who said : 'I saw the holy city,' etc. And now I am faulted for having declared something to have been said by way of analogy.; for as yonder the seraphim and cherubim and all the rest are arranged in ranks down to the angels and archangels, with God as their one Head, so here, too, there are arranged in like manner under one Su- preme Pontiff the primates or patriarchs, the archbishops, the bishops, the presbyters, or abbots, and the rest." Then Ber- nard adds : "This is not to be regarded lightly that it has G-od for its Author and draws its origin from heaven." Who does not see that this ecclesiastical hierarchy, as Bernard views it, has been instituted by Christ, and that, as God is the Head in heaven, so the Supreme Pontiff is the head in the Church militant? However, in no way is he the head by 140 15. A MEMOBABLE FOTJRTH OF JULY. (FOEENOON.) exclusion of Christ, for he professes himself the Vicar of Christ. Now as to the little vulgar reasoning which he intro- duced when he said that the Church would be headless at the death of a Pope, unless we would say that Christ cedes His place to a living and takes the place only of a dead Pope, which would be ridiculous: that is an altogether facetious reasoning, which is hardly worthy of being repeated in such a serious matter and in the presence of such excellent men; for I said at the start that the head of which I speak is a symbolical head, in some respects differing essentially from the true and natural head. Nor does Christ, whose kingdom remains forever, and whose priesthood is everlasting, cede His place to the Pope or come in the Pope's place; for to Him is given all power in heaven and earth. Matt. 28. And on the death of the Pope the college of cardinals forthwith, as in the death of a bishop the chapter, holds those rights, until a new pontiff is elected. In the second place, as to the remark of the reverend father that Cyprian is speaking, not of the Eoman Pontiff, but of any bishop, I wonder very much whether the meaning of statements must not be learned from the reasons for making them, and whether Cyprian, in the passages which I quoted, is not chiding those who fell away from Cornelius, who certainly was the Eoman Pontiff. Let me therefore tell the reverend father that I am not satisfied with mere words, on which we usually feed sophists. I believe that what in his reply he quotes from Cyprian for his side will prove cumu- lative evidence for my contention. For as regards Cyprian's calling Cornelius brother, everybody knows that even the apostles were brethren; nevertheless Peter, and also his suc- cessor Cornelius, was the head, the apex and pinnacle, of the apostles, according to the statement of the blessed Dionysius in chap. 3 or 7 of his treatise on the Divine Names. What Cyprian has recorded about the election of bishops and about the Council of Nicea neither helps nor hinders the business we have now in hand; still less should Augustine, in his second book on the Baptism of Infants, chap. 2, be cited after Cyprian. For Augustine chastises the arrogance and bold- 15. A. MEMORABLE FOURTH OF JULY. (FORENOON.) 141 ness of those who push themselves into the ecclesiastical prelacies by ambition and pride; for they should not set themselves up in these positions nor force others to set them up, since every prelate should wait till he is called, even as Aaron did. In the third place, explaining a statement of Cyprian in his second epistle to Cornelius, he says that sacerdotal unity had its origin in the Eoman, not in the Eastern Church. At this point the reverend father failed to mention that Cyprian has in a preceding chapter called the Eoman church the chair of Peter and the principal church. But what his explanation amounts to is manifest to any one who looks to the very marrow of the words; for in a mere grammatical view of the words the reverend father understands Cyprian as speak- ing of the origin of sacerdotal unity as regards its inaugu- ration and start, while Cyprian, to be sure, wished to explain that origin as regards its transfer, subordination, and flowing into others, so that from the one Peter, as the head, the juris- diction was handed down to all the rest; otherwise he will not obtain one priest at all, not even at Jerusalem. I shall say nothing about the little gloss which he added concerning the Eastern Church; for that does not help him, since the blessed Jerome, writing from the East, in the beginning of his epistle, calls the Eastern Church heretical for the reason that it has to no purpose torn into shreds the garment of the Lord which was undivided, having been woven in one piece. Jerome says: "The foxes destroy the vine of Christ," re- ferring, no doubt, to that complaint of the bride in Can- ticles: "Take me the little foxes that spoil the vine." Let the reverend father, I pray, quit mentioning and insulting us with the Greeks and Orientals, who have become exiles from the Christian Church when they fell away from the Eoman Church. It is established, then, in what sense our inference: The Church is the root, therefore it is the mis- tress, must be taken; we do not speak of it as the root in point of time or actual beginning, but in point of transfer and leading position. In the fourth place, the reverend father strives to extri- 142 15. A MEMOHABLB FOTJETH OF JULY. (rOEBNOON.) cate himself from the words of Jerome and to escape them; for he grants indeed that the highest dignity may ■ be ac- corded the Supreme Pontiff, but this must be done by human right. But why does the blessed Jerome call Damasus the successor of the fisherman and wish to be associated with the chair of Peter ? He cites that divine saying in Matt. 16 and says : "I know that upon ihat Rock the Church is built." As Bernard reasons, this cannot be said of the other churches; and, alas ! to the greatest injury of Christians we have lived to see that the gates of hell did prevail against the church of Jerusalem, Antioeh, Alexandria, and, you may add, of Bohemia; but the inviolable truth of Christ has not per- mitted this to happen to the church that is built upon Peter. But those who are of the faith regard it as very true what Jerome says in the same epistle : " 'Where the carcass is, there will the eagles gather.' After a corrupt' offspring has wasted its paternal inheritance, the authority of the fathers, incorrupt in every point, is preserved among you alone." However, we have sufficiently established this principal point that the primacy belongs to the Eoman Church not by human, but by divine right. However, it is best to throw some light on the citations which the reverend father has made for his side from Jerome; first, in his epistle to Evagrius, where he says that the worth and ministry of the bishops of Pome, Eugubium, Constanti- nople, and Rhegium are the same. We knew this before the Theognis was bom that was to tell us this. Eor the papacy is not an order outside of the episcopate; hence in another place Jerome says that the apostles were equals, without, how- ever, depriving St. Peter of the primacy. Secondly, as re-, gards the urgent demand which the reverend father has made upon me, not to digress, — which, by the way, I am not in the habit of doing, — I wish to say that I have read the very canon from which he has quoted the 93d distinction. This leads me to the pointed question which the canonists and theologians discuss, viz., whether the order of the episcopate is distinguished by a special mark and has been added to the general priesthood. I shall not decide this question, because 15. A MEMOEABU: FOTJBTH OF JULY. (FORENOON.) 143 it is beside the subject, but, reserving the right to form a better opinion, I shall say that it seems clear to me that in the first Church there was no such confusion that a bishop was not distinguished from a priest, for the twelve apostles are superior to the seventy-two disciples. As witness for this assertion I quote the blessed Dionysius, who is older than Jerome and a hierarch in the primitive Church. In his book on the Hierarchy of the Church he places the episcopate and the Supreme Hierarch among the sacred orders, and tells how they are to be ordained. I agree with him, and hold that from the beginning of the Church the bishops were superior to the common priesthood. Thirdly, he has quoted a canon of the African council, dist. 99 of the first canon, where the council forbids calling the Roman bishop a uni- versal bishop, and he has also cited the prohibition of Christ in Luke 22 : "The secular princes rule," etc. I answer : The proud name of a universal bishop has indeed been forbidden, not as if there ever had been a time when the Roman Pope was not regarded as the first and supreme bishop by every true Christian, but because a bishop, particularly of Rome, is not the ordinary bishop of each and every church, but he is the first because otherwise the lower bishops would not be ac- corded their proper honor. But it is not wrong to call the Roman bishop the universal instead of the first bishop. More correct, however, it is, instead of calling him universal bishop, to call him the bishop of the Church universal, just as we call him the Vicar of Christ. The Lord's rebuke of the am- bitious quarreling of the apostles, which was of the kind we meet with among worldly people, does not destroy the su- premacy of the Roman Church ; but our Lord means to teach the lesson which St. Gregory was the first to recognize and practise when he declared that he had been placed at the head of the Roman Church, in order that he might regard him- self as the servant of servants. That their successors may become such we should endeavor to obtain for them from God by prayer, but we should not attack them with abuse. Here the session was adjourned to be opened again at two in the afternoon. Luther had spoken in a calm and dis- J44 15. A MBMOEABLE FOUBTH OF JULY. (FOBENOON.) passionate manner, and his audience had hung upon his lips, devouring his lucid presentation of the argiunents for his side. Eck had tried to outdo himself in oratorical effort; slowly, but surely, however, he had felt that the undisputed mastery which had so far belonged to him was slipping away from him. The green-eyed shavelings in his rear, of course, rolled their eyes in pious delight, and vigorously expressed their approval at the strong passages in Eck's speeches, and the overwhelming majority in the audience was still on Eck's side; but, owing to the irresistible force that lies in truth and sincerity, not a few men in the great crowd were be- ginning to feel the tugging at the roots of the heart which is the precursor of an inward change in sentiment and judg- ment. It was remarked after this first session that Brother Martin had spoken very acceptably, that he had a wonderful knowledge of the Holy Scriptures, and an excellent way of making them very plain to the people, and that he had com- plete command of his subject. It was acknowledged likewise that he had handled his subject, which was not only delicate, but odious, with consummate skill. And then the great flow of words that was at his command! It had been a real pleasure to listen to him. On the other hand, Eck had riot been able with all his skill and special effort to avoid two faults: at least twice he had lost his temper; his first reply to Luther was but the angry retort of a combatant who has felt the power of his opponent. Did not the pious Emser shed tears at that moment? Petty resentment was also ap- parent" throughout his review of Luther's citation from the fathers. This was a domain in which Eck believed himself master, and now there had appeared one who, while known not to bow slavishly to the fathers, showed that he under- stood them even better than Eck. It is a queer fact, which a close study of the protocol of this debate reveals, that Eck winced more under the patristic than under the Scriptural arguments of Luther. He was noticeably weak in his Scripture-proofs, while Luther massed his striking texts for a powerful charge upon his opponent. But that he would 16. A MEMOKABLE FOUBTH OF JTHY. (ATTEKNOON.) 145 have to consider himself defeated also by arguments from the fathers was an unbearable thought to Eck. Eek's second fault, however, was still more fatal. He was plainly unfair to Luther when he implied that Luther had learned his arguments by heart from the book he had pub- lished. Eck had preceded Luther ; how could the latter know in advance what he would have to say in reply to him? Again, it had been Eck who had introduced the thought of the headless Church ; when he saw what capital Luther could make of that thought, when Luther showed him to what that thought must lead, Eck with theatrical disgust and in- dignation declared the utterance of that thought an act of disrespect to such a noble audience. Last, not least, his whole interpretation of the citations from the fathers which Luther had introduced, partly in review of Eck's speech, partly to make his own point, abounds in sophisms, not only of the subtle kind, but also of the broadest and coarsest kind. One is astonished at some of the interpretations which he at- tempts, and one imagines he must have blushed when he uttered them. 16. A Memorable Fourth of July. (Afternoon.) Leading o£E in the discussion in the afternoon, Luther said: In my first rejoinder I showed from 1 Cor. 3, 4 that Paul has forbidden believers to choose Cephas or Paul or Apollos as their head. This the excellent Doctor has refuted in the following way : Although Paul mentions Peter in that place, still Jerome in his treatise against Jovinian has not incorrectly said: "One is chosen, because by the election of a head the occasion for schisms is removed." He clearly calls Peter the head that was appointed for the Church. Eck added: "But I shall let this pass." — I reply: I shall not let myself be forced by a minor testimony that has been introduced to give up a greater ; not even Jerome is so great that on his account I should drop Paul. Eor we have in DAU, LEIPZIG DEBATE. 10 146 16. A MEMOBABLE FOUKTH OF JULY. (AFTERNOON.) this text not a mere mention of Peter by Paul, ai my oppo- nent puts it in an effort to weaken the text, but with all his force Paul teaches and forbids anybody to say that he is of Peter. That is the reason why this chapter closes as follows : "All things are yours, whether Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, or the world, or life, or death. And ye are Christ's, and Christ is God's." (1 Cor. 3, 21 ff.) Hence the argument in my reply is not defeated yet, and if it is not met with stronger arguments, I shall confront all the past and future arguments of the Doctor with it. For the Word of God is above all the words of men. In reference to Jerome, I, too, say that I shall pass him by, because the passage, as the Doctor well noticed, is very ambiguous. In my second rejoinder I referred to John 5, 19 and said that Christ is speaking of His equality in power with the Pather. The Doctor, as we heard, asked me to read St. Ber- nard with better attention; for this father refers the pas- sage to the Church militant. I answer : I hold St. Bernard in honor and do not despise his opinion, but in a controversy we must go back to the true and proper meaning of Scrip- ture, which can stand the test in debate. But the holy fathers occasionally depart from the proper meaning in order to give their discourse greater fulness, and they do this for no criminal purpose. Now, it is plain, from what precedes and what follows the passage quoted, that Christ is speak- ing of His equality with the Father as regards omnipotence; for we read: "Therefore did the Jews persecute Jesus, be- cause He had done these things on the Sabbath-day. . . Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill Him, because He not only had broken the Sabbath, but said also that God was His Father, making Himself equal with God. Then answered Jesus and said unto them. Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of Himself, but what He seeth the Father do." It is manifest, then, that Bernard understands this word of Christ in another sense. In my third rejoinder, relating to what he has called my vulgar, ridiculous, and miserable argument, I said that even 16. A MISMOBABLE FOUBTH OF JCLY. (AFTEBNOON.) 147 without the Pope the Church has a head. He said in reply that my argument was not worthy of being advanced in so serious a matter before such great men. I answer : Let it be vulgar and ridiculous, if it only cannot be defeated ; for I do not see yet that it has been refuted. For I do not compre- hend, if the Church is not without a head for three or four months when a Pope has died, provided only that there are other bishops still living, why it cannot have a head even when there is no Pope at all. Por his allegation that the cardinals have the right to elect a new Pope, etc., only strengthens my argument, because it follows from this allega- tion that at a time like that of Jerome, when there were no cardinals, there cannot have been a Pope. In my fourth rejoinder, regarding the testimony of Cyprian, I said that he is speaking of any bishop. Eck re- plied that the text shows clearly that he spoke of the Eoman Pope Cornelius in opposition to the Novatians. I answer : I do not care whether he does; I have not this letter in my memory. But this I know that St. Cyprian in many letters is occupied only with showing that the head or bishop of each church is appointed by the vote of the people, aided by the advice of the neighboring bishops. Accordingly, if what the Doctor alleges regarding Cornelius in opposition to the iSTovatians is correct, I say, it is certain that he spoke of the head of the church at Eome, not of the Church universal. In like manner he refuted my argument that Cyprian always addresses Cornelius as his brother, never as his lord, as the bishops are doing nowadays, using a word that expresses a relation without its proper correlate, that is, they call a person lord who has no servants. He answered that even Peter had treated the apostles as brethren, and still was the head and the highest of the apostles, as Dionysius relates. I reply: If our excellent Doctor can prove that Peter ap- pointed a single one of the apostles, or a single one of the seventy disciples, or that he sent one of them on any mission, I grant all he claims and declare myself defeated. But if I shall prove that not even all the apostles could commission one single apostle, I pray that he will concede that Peter had 148 16- A MEMOEABLE FOUETH OF JULY. ( AFTEBNOON. ) no power over the rest of tlie apostles. It follows, then, that much less has the bishop who is the successor of Peter power over the bishops who are the successors of the apostles. Now, the clear text in Acts 1, 23 ff. states, that the Apostle Mat- thias could not be appointed by the entire council of the apostles and the disciples, but his commission had to come from heaven, even as all the others were chosen and ordained by Christ. Likewise, in chap. 13, 2, Paul and Barnabas were accepted for their work when the Holy Ghost had separated them. It is therefore a manifest error that Peter had power over the apostles. I grant indeed that the Apostle Peter was the first among the apostles, and that in point of honor the preference is to be given to him, but not in point of authority. They were all chosen in like manner, and were all given equal authority. In the same manner I hold that the Roman Pope is to be preferred before the rest as regards honor, however, not to the detriment of the equal power of the rest, and not as Pelagius says in his altogether useless decretal: "Where the greater renown is, there is the greater authority, and the rest necessarily have but one choice, namely, to obey." My fifth rejoinder, in which I cited Cyprian and the Council of ISTicea on the election of a bishop, our excellent Doctor has spurned with great words, and has said that this neither helps nor hinders our business. But that does not refute my argument. Accordingly, the decree of Nicea is still in force, or if it is not, and that decree was passed in opposition to the divine law, that council cannot have been an ecumenical one, but it must have been a miserable -devil's conclave. Likewise, it was a mere bluff when he stated that I should not have cited Augustine, and when he interpreted with a beautiful gloss Cyprian, whom Augustine has quoted, and said that Cyprian is only rebuking the ambition and pride of those who force their way into an office before they are called as Aaron was called. !Now the text states clearly that no bishop who is already installed in office is to usurp authority over the other bishops. Therefore my argument still stands. As regards my sixth rejoinder, the excellent Doctor vio- 16. A MEMOEABLE FOURTH OF JULY. (AFTERNOON;) 149 lently upbraids me, because, in citing tbe second testimony of Cyprian, I had omitted tbe words "the principal Church" ; besides, he ridicules my grammatical knowledge because I said that sacerdotal unity is derived from the chair of Peter. Accordingly, this new logician or philosopher explains this "origin" to mean the transfer of the office, the origin of subordinate positions and influence; "otherwise," says he to me, "he will not produce one priest, not even at Jeru- salem." I answer: No matter whether I omitted the words "the principal Church" or not; for the Roman Church can- not be called the principal Church in reference to the Eastern Church, as I have sufficiently shown. And as to his curious idea of the "origin of influence," I shall manage to despise that as easily as he invented it; and I do not find it difficult to produce one priest from Jerusalem, viz., Jesus Christ, who began the. Church, and from whom it sprang and came forth according to the prophecy in Is. 2, 3 : "Out of Zion shall go forth the Law, and the Word of the Lord from Jerusalem." Eck added the testimony of Jerome, who has declared that the Eastern Church is heretical and has torn into shreds the undivided garment of the Lord. I do not see what his object is in adducing this testimony. For he cannot claim that the entire Eastern Church has always been heretical. Nor can he deny that there have been heretics in the Latin Church, and yet it remained a Church. Hence he has made no point at all by bidding me be silent, and by ridiculing my argument regarding the Greek Church, saying that when these people fell away from the Roman Church, they forsook faith in Christ at the same time. I rather ask Doctor Eck in that vaunted Eckian modesty of his to spare so many thousands of saints in the Greek Church, which has existed hitherto, and, without doubt, will continue to exist. For Christ re- ceived for His possession and inheritance, not the center of the Roman country, but the ends of the earth, Ps. 2, 8. My answer to the seventh point, concerning the highest priest of whom Jerome speaks, he has called evasive, and to confirm his former claim, he raised the question why St. Jerome has called Damasus the successor of the fisher- 150 16- A MEMOEABLE FOURTH OF JXJLT. ( AFTEENOON. ) man, and desired to be associated with the chair of Peter, and why, citing the divine word in Matt. 16, 18, he said: "I know that the Church is built upon this Eock," which can- not be said, he claimed, of other churches. Then he bewailed the fall of the church at Jerusalem, Antioch, and Alexandria, and finally, of the church in Bohemia, and said that accord- ing to the testimony of Jerome the authority of the fathers had been preserved inviolate only with the Romans. In reply I request that the excellent Doctor cite the sayings of the fathers conscientiously, lest we appear sophists instead of theologians. For in the passage cited, Jerome calls every bishop the highest priest because he has been elevated from among the other priests. Hence the passage does not prop- erly refer to the Roman Pope. Again, the passage Matt. 16, 18 cannot be appropriated only by the Roman Church, as the words of Christ clearly show; for He says "My Church." No matter, then, what Church it is, it is built upon the Rock, and that applies not to the Roman Church only. Or if this word of Christ is not to be applied to other churches, the Roman Church stands alone, and in ■f;hat case cannot be the first. Hence the unity of the Church does not rest on the unity of the Roman supremacy, but on a much better foun- dation, as the apostle states in Eph. 4, 5, namely, on one faith, one Baptism, one Lord, — a truth which Cyprian in his let- ters has often expressed. Nor has the authority of the fathers been kept inviolate only among the Romans, except perhaps at the time when Jerome wrote. Yea, history has recorded the fact that Pope Liberius made concessions to the Arians, and Jerome, i)i his Famous Men, relates that Achatius, an Arian bishop at Caesarea and a pupil of the Arian Eusebius, by order of the Emperor Constantine appointed Eelix Pope of Rome. Refuting, in the eighth place, the testimony of Jerome in his letter to Evagrius, which I had adduced, he said that he had known that all bishops had the same dignity and office, and that they are still equal, but he claimed that the papacy is an order superior to the episcopate. But he did not refute my argument, because Jerome derives the superiority or in- 16. A MEMORABLE FOURTH OP JULY. (AFTERNOON.) 151 feriority of bishops, not from divine right, but from custom and the influence of wealth. Therefore, I stick to Jerome. My ninth point related to the 93d distinction of the canon Legimus. He said in reply that he did not believe there was such a confusion in the early Church that a bishop was not distinguished from a priest. I reply: What is that to me? Let him wrangle with Jerome and the canons. But he cited Dionysius, who has numbered the episcopate with the holy orders. I wonder now why he did not prove from the same author the monarchy of the Roman Church, since that has such an influence on the order of the kingdom of Christ that without it the Church on earth would lose its similarity to the Church triumphant. A person who professes to write a constitution for the monarchy should have disposed of this matter, at least in its essential parts; but Dionysius defines nothing beyond the office of a bishop. In my tenth rejoinder I referred to the 99th distinction of the canon Primue, and said that it had been forbidden to call the Roman Pope the universal bishop. He said in reply that the prohibition did not say that the Roman Pope was not the first and highest bishop, but only that a bishop, es- pecially of the Roman Church, could not be the ordinary bishop of each and every congregation. I answer : Could any one conceive such a silly thought that one individual could preside over each and every church, so that it was necessary to forbid such great stupidity? Then he dropped, his refutation and offered a better interpretation, viz., that the Roman Pope is not the universal bishop, but the bishop of 'the Church universal. If I did not wish to spare him, I should overthrow also this answer of his. But I shall leave the decision to the judges and the auditors. Finally, in reference to the passage Luke 22, 26, where Christ says : "Ye shall not be so," he said that this passage rebukes ambition, but not the primacy. I reply: That is begging the question. He talks as if he had already proved that there must be a primacy. Besides, it is clear that the text does not only forbid ambition, but wanting to be above the rest. 152 16. A MEMOBABLE FOUETH OF JUIY. (AFTEBNOON. ) Ech : In reply to the rebuttal of the reverend father I say, first, that the persons who said that they were of Peter were not reproved by Paul for imagining that there was to be one of the apostles who was to occupy the first place, but because they regarded a peculiarity in a person. This is clearly in- dicated by the words "divisions" and "schism" (1 Cor. 1, 13. 10). And although Luther prefers Paul to Jerome, we shall have to believe, if we wish to be God-fearing men, that Jerome has correctly understood the meaning of Paul. For the meaning of the passage is not in doubt, viz., that a head was appointed for the Church in order to remove the occasion for schisms. That is suificient for any one who knows gram- mar. Of this study the reverend father has said in a dis- putation, that it is of greater value than other parts of philosophy and useful to the theologian. Secondly. ISTone but Arians have denied that Christ in John 5, 19 claims coequality with the Pather, nor does Ber- nard cite the passage in any other sense. But we decline the opinion of the reverend father that the holy fathers cited the Scriptures in order to expand their discourses, for of such vainglory we should not suspect them. In reference to the third point, that the Church is with- out a head when the Pope dies, I say that it has never been denied that Christ is the Head of the Church. Also the gloss to Cant. 5, 11 : "His head is as the most fine gold," states this. It says: "The Head, that is, Christ." But the Pope is His vicegerent. In the consistory a bishop and his substitute are regarded as one person. Hence it is not per- mitted to take an appeal from the substitute to the bishop. Regarding the cardinals, however, I said that now, after the Church has received its proper order, the choice of a Pope has been delegated to the cardinals by an order of Pope Nicholas. But I believe that there were cardinals at the time of Jerome, or Jerome could not have been a cardinal priest. Here Luther interjected: Jerome never was a cardinal. In the fourth place, regarding Cyprian. It is impossible, to be sure, that he should have restricted the words of the 16. A MEMORABLE FOURTH OF JULY. (AFTERNOON.) 153 lioly martyrs so as to make them apply only to the narrow confines of the district of Eome, because the JSTovatian bishops came to Eome from Numidia, a country of which Ptolemy and Strabo tell us that it lies on the other side of the Atlas Mountains. (Luther interjected: On this side.) But as to Cyprian's calling Cornelius "brother," I hold that that was the opinion of the party who collected Cyprian's writings, not of Cyprian himself. For, reading the epistles of the holy bishops, we find that it was far more common in those days to accord laudable and distinguished titles to persons than is done nowadays to the Roman Pope. We know this from Ambrose, Augustine, Hilary, and other fathers. For they address each other as "Most blessed," "Most holy," "Most beloved of God," etc. In reference to what I added, he claims that I am trying to digress, and drag in matters that are not to the point. With your leave I should like to say that it is a shame to a teacher to instruct others and not himself. He asks me to prove that Peter appointed a single apostle; but that is beside our object. For we do not inquire who it was that appointed this or that person, but who received from the Lord Jesus the supremacy over the rast. What he said next I utterly decline to admit, because he draws this conclusion: Peter could not appoint an apostle, therefore the successor of Peter cannot appoint a successor to an apostle, or exercise authority over him. His premise is true, out his conclusion is false, because the Pope now has that power and does ordain bishops. But the proper solution for this difficulty will probably be that the office of an apostle, being fundamental to the Church, embraces more than being a bishop. For that reason Leo X, the successor of the Apostle Peter, is not an apostle. It is, however, not sufficient to concede, as he does, that Peter was the first in the enimieration of the apostles and in point of honor, but not as regards his authority: in the first place, because the evangelists do not enumerate the apostles in like order, as can be seen from Chrysostom's gloss to Matt. 10. Secondly, his distinction between priority of honor and of authority contradicts directly the holy martyr Cyprian, who, in his treatise on the Simplicity of Prelates 154 16. A MEMOKABLE FOURTH OF JtJXY. ( AFTEENOON. ) {De TJnitate Ecclesiae) against Novatian, speaks of the wiles of the devil, and inveighs against those who, pretending to he ministers of righteousness, call the night day, perdition salvation, despair hope, and perfidy faith. Further on he says: "Although after His resurrection He gave equal authority to all the apostles and said: 'As My Father hath sent Me,' etc., nevertheless, in order to make unity plain to them. He so ordered the origin of this unity by His power that it had to take its beginning from one. The other dis- ciples were absolutely all that Peter was, endowed with an equal share of honor as well as of authority," — mark this well ! — "but the beginning was made from one, in order to show that the Church is one." Further on he says: "Who- ever does not preserve this unity does not keep the Law of God, nor faith in the Father and Son, nor does he obtain life and salvation." These are the remarkable words of Cyprian, who makes no distinction among the apostles as regards priority of honor and of authority. In regard to the fifth point, concerning^ the election of a bishop, I repeat what I said before, that we are not dis- cussing the method of electing a bishop, but rather the quality and importance of the person elected. The Council of ]Sricea is a council not to be despised, but as regards methods of acting and customs, the condition of the times, of persons and localities, may change these, as can be seen from many canons. In the sixth place, our highly honored Doctor attacks my logic, and says that I have invented a distinction between two kinds of origin. We have heard before that on this point Cyprian sides with Eck, who is not so gifted as to be able to invent new things, but merely interprets the old sayings of the saints, as far as he is able. But his admission that Christ is the Priest of all does not come up, first, to the meaning of Cyprian, next, to that of Jerome; for these fathers mean to say that Peter was appointed the first of the apostles, and that the authority of the other priests is derived from him; not, indeed, in such a way that he confers on 16. A MEMORABLE FOURTH OF JULY. (AFTERNOON.) 155 them inwardly what only Christ, the Head, can bestow, but by communicating to them ecclesiastical authority. In the seventh place, he misses in my arguments the Eckian modesty, because I have denounced the Greeks and Orientals as reprobates. I reply that for a long time the Greeks have not only been schismatics, but extreme heretics, as the great multitude of their errors and their stubborn claims enumerated in the Clementine chapter De Summa Trinitate, shows, such as their teaching concerning the Holy Ghost, confession, the spuriousness of three evangelists, and inniimerable other things. Still they have frequently ren- dered to the Roman Church a sort of feigned obedience, for instance, at the Florentine council in the days of Euge- nius IV. If those are correct who think that few of us will be saved, how much less, if any, will there be saved in Turkey ? — except that there may be a few monks with their , followers who continue their obedience to Rome. In the eighth place, the reverend father asks me to cite my authoritieg conscientiously. He need not worry. I wish I could cite them also from full knowledge. But no one can doubt that Jerome recognized Damasus as Pope. ISTor does anybody doubt that the Church universal is built upon the Rock. However, that this Rock is Peter and his successors I shall prove anon. He casts some reflection on the remark of Jerome: "The primeval authority is kept inviolate only among you," in- sinuating that even the Roman Popes have not been alto- gether without blemish. If he refers to the time of Jerome, the Popes preceding him were Liberius and Anastasius. I mention this because the minds of believers are rightly filled with admiration by observing that no Roman Pope, no matter how wicked and heretical he was, has ever, as. far as I know, decreed or ordained anything oiiicially that was contrary to the commandments of the Christian faith. For their persons, indeed, they have often erred, but when they undertook to render erroneous decisions, they were overtaken by the judgment of God, as happened to the Arian Leo, 156 16. A MEMORABLE FOURTH OP JULY. (AFTERNOON.) wkom Hilarion opposed, and to Anastasius (Can. Anastasius, loth dist.). In tlie nintli place, my remark about the 93d distinction of the canon Legimus the reverend father may not have understood. It never entered my mind to say that the papacy is an order above that of the episcopate; it is a dignity. When he says that I am at war with Jerome and the canons, I claim that I have declared my meaning. On this point I give the preference to the testimony of Dionysius, because he is the older. But since the reverend father indulges in oratorical reflections on Dionysius, asking why he did not describe the monarch of the Church, and did not get beyond the episcopate in his description, I can easily answer him. Dionysius studies the mysteries of the Church. Now, I de- nied that the papacy is an order; therefore the episcopate in the unanimous opinion of all occupies the first place. In the tenth place, he thinks nobody could be so silly as to believe that any person could be the regular bishop of each and every church. I have only to express my regret that there is an infinite multitude of such fools and of people who are striving after something peculiar. Let the reverend father read Alvarus on The Wail of the Churchy John de Turre Cremata in his Summa Ecclesiae, William Occam in his Bialogus, and he will meet with people who occasionally entertained this folly. As regards his attempt to overthrow my argument that the Pope were better called the bishop of the Church imiversal than the universal bishop, I have this to say, that I have repeated what St. Bernard has said, and what the Popes have made their practise. Bernard says in col. T of his second book De Oonsideratione ad Eugenium: "It is a mark of the peculiar episcopate of Peter," etc., and further on: "While each of the others has his church, to you is committed the one Church, the largest ship, spread throughout the world, and grown into the Church universal out of all the others." In the tenth rejoinder he also Says that it is not a suf- ficient explanation of Luke 22, 24 ff. what I have invented as its meaning. But I am not without authorities to sup- 17. A MEMORABLE FOURTH OF JULY. (EVENING.) 157 port me. I quote Eichard Armacanus in chap. 3, book 7, De Quaestionibus Armeniorum, who understand this passage as I have done, as St. Leo testifies. That this is the true meaning is shown by v. 26 : "He that is greatest among you," etc. Christ, then, presupposed that some one would be the greatest. But He did not indicate at that time who would be the greatest, but later, when He spoke to Peter of the devil having desired him and of His prayer for him, and when He told him to strengthen his brethren after he himself should be converted. It was then that He explained what it means to be the greatest.l''^) With this peroration of Eck the session was adjourned. We have reproduced the entire debate of this day, in order to give the reader as direct a view of the event as it is possible after the lapse of so many years. We shall have to restrict ourselves to a summary of the remainder of the discussion. The outstanding features of the debate so far have been the application of the Scriptural principle on the part of Luther, and the jealous care with which papists surround the primacy of their Pope, as if it were the article with which the Church either stands or falls. The futility of Eck's arguments as shown during this debate in behalf of the most cherished tenet of his Church is characteristic of all subsequent Catho- lic argument on this subject. 17. A Memorable Fourth of July. (Evening.) At the opening of the debate, Luther had expressed his pained surprise at observing the absence of certain persons whom he felt he might expect to see among his auditors. Luther's remarks had been so pointed — he had spoken of "inquisitors of heretical depravity" — ■ that his audience could hardly fail to understand that he was referring to John Tetzel; for this title of "inquisitor" Tetzel had assumed 176) XV, 904 — 929 ; Loescher, I. c, III, 330—350. 158 !"• A MEMOKABLE FOanTH OF JULY. (EVEI^ING.) after the publication of the JSTinety-five Theses. With in- quisitorial anger he had fulminated against Luther from the university at Frankfurt on the Oder, where he had obtained the degree of Doctor of Divinity. Another pointed reference to Tetzel occurred at the end . of the debate, twelve days later. In his closing address Dr. John Lange, the ex-Rector of the university, remarked that the debate might have had still greater weight if sick- ness had not prevented the preacher of the indulgences which had been discussed in the debate from entering the lists with his former courage.l''') But there is another reason that leads us to speak of Tetzel at this time. Froeschel, one of the chroniclers of the Leipzig Debate, relates the following incidents: ."This same monk Tetzel died during the debate while the [Dominican] monks [with whom Tetzel had found a sheltering domi- cile] were singing their Salve. At the [Paulinian convent-] church they [had begun the vesper liturgy and] were singing : 'Salve, Eegina misericordiae' ('Hail, Queen of Mercy'), and the sacristan was beginning to ring the first bell; when he rang the second time, Tetzel was in his last agony ; when the monks began to sing: 'Sub tuum praesidium confugimus, sancta Dei genetrix' ('Under thy shelter we take refuge, O holy mother of God'), and while the bells were ringing for the third time, Tetzel breathed his last. Then the monks hurried into their convent as though the hangman were after them with his whip. This happened exactly at six o'clock, and on the day when the blessed Dr. Martin .Luther began his disputation against the Pope. I have seen this my- self." 178) This account has impressed even such exact scholars as Hausrath 1^9) and Buchwaldji^") both of whom have given July 4 as the day of Tetzel's death. If the account is true, Luther must have been returning to his lodging and passed 177) Loescher, I. c, III, 584. 178) Hofmann, Johann Texel, p. 146. Hausrath, I. u., I, 275 f 179) !. c, I, 299. (Published 1905.) 180) Doktor Martin Luther, p. 149. (Published In 2. edit. 1913.) 17. A MEMOEAliLE FOURTH OF JULY. (EVENING.) 159 not far from Tetzel's hiding-place when the unfortunate man went to face his Maker and Judge. Froeschel, no doubt, was struck by this remarkable coincidence; for he fairly puts his finger on it when he writes: "Gleich um 6 Uhr, und an dem Tage, da Dr. Martinus Luther seliger an- gefangen hatte, wider den Papst zu disputieren." But re- cent research 1^1) has led Koestlinl^S) and Grisarl83) to reject July 4 as the date of Tetzel's death, and to substitute August 11. However, all historians are agreed that 1?etzel was ill at Leipzig during Luther's debate, and that he died at that city. Let us interrupt our review of the Leipzig Debate for a moment and learn a few facts about Tetzel. When Mil- titz came from Rome to Saxony to pacify Luther, he sum- moned Tetzel to meet him at Altenburg, which at that time was the Elector's residence. This summons Tetzel answered by the following letter, dated at Leipzig, Decem- ber 31, 1518 : — While your Honor could command me, you have urged me to come to Altenburg, where I am to hear something peculiar from you. I would not shun the labor of the journey and accommodate your Honor, if I could leave Leipzig without danger to my life. For Martin Luther, Augustinian, has so stirred up and aroused the mighty ones not only in all Germany, but also in the king- doms of Bohemia, Hungary, and Polonia, that I am safe nowhere. The said Luther was cited to Augsburg and in a conference, which took place there, he has blamed this whole trouble in which he is involved on me, and by publishing false statements has slan- dered and defamed me as a heretic, alleging that I have preached blasphemy and have deceived my most reverend fathers in God, the Archbishop of Mayence and Magdeburg and the Cardinal of the Holy See, by concealing from them my plans by I do not know what cunning. I have long ago forwarded my sermon to his Papal Holiness for inspection. As regards th6 blasphemy which, he alleges, I have uttered against the Holy Virgin, I have by word of mouth and in writing defended myself against that charge 181) By Clemen, in Studien u. Kritiken, 1901, 127, and by Paulus, in KathoUk, 1901, I, 560. 182) Martin Luther, I, 225. (Publislied in 5. edit, by Kawerau in 1903.) 183) Luther, I, 347. (Published 1916 — 17.) The Cath. Encycl., in the article on Tetzel, does not commit itself to any date. 160 17. A MEMOEABLE FOURTH OF JULY. (EVENING.) last year, as your Honor can see from the copies whicli I trans- mit herewith. Regardless of my defense, however, the said Martin shamelessly charges me again with having preached heresy and blasphemy, in order that he may excite implacable hatred against me in the minds of all men, and render me odious to them. I have sometimes seen them glower at me when I happened to be in the pulpit. Moreover, I have been warned by many brave and reliable persons to be on my guard unceasingly. For many of Martin's party have sworn to kill me. Hence, although I should like to see your Honor rather than an angel, I cannot come without putting my life in jeopardy. Your honor will, therefore, excuse me for God's sake and on account of my great fear. I have hitherto loved the holy Papal See at all times, and still love it as long as I live. I shall defend and protect its liberty and privi- leges, though, while Martin goes on with his object, I have these many years and especially now suffered much peril of body, fame, and fortune from the common people, from the clergy, and from others. I am assailed with infinite sorrows and injuries because of the Papal See. But I shall let this pass. Until the end of my life I shall shun no labor in the defense of the Papal See against its adversaries. Let your honor command me what to do, and I shall obey your order if I can do so without endangering my life.184) This letter reveals nothing but the craven heart of Tetzel ; for what he relates about a Lutheran conspiracy against him is the pure hallucination of a coward: his evil conscience made him see spooks. But this letter incidentally gives us an indication to what extent the leaven of Luther's Theses had been working among the people; for the ill will of the people had been expressed to Tetzel frequently enough. Miltitz, for the time being, accepted the excuse of Tetzel; but after he had reached the understanding with Luther that the latter would cease his polemics if his adversaries would do the same, Miltitz went to Leipzig. Here he summoned Tetzel to appear before him in the presence of the Provincial of the Dominican order, Hermann Eab, — the same gentle- man of whom we heard in previous chapters, — and fearfully upbraided Tetzel for his immoral conduct and for mal- feasance in office. Tetzel was charged with adultery, gam- bling with the indulgence funds, and extreme wastefulness. 184) XV, 714 ff. 17. A ilEMORABLE FOURTH OF JULY. (EVENl.NG.) 161 An old Naumburg chronicle relates that after his death two thousand florins were found which he had purloined from the revenues of his traffic, and that he had hoarded wealth to provide for his two illegitimate children. Miltitz charged him with being the author of "the tragedy" in Germany, and threatened to report him to the Pope, who would probably excommunicate him, and decide what else should be done to him. Now this man, so brazen and bold in former times, .lost all courage ; he wanted to quit the country, but did not know whither to turn. The shock which he had received was so great that he fell into hysteria and pined away in melancholy in the convent of the Dominicans at Leipzig. Luther had heard of the merciless chastisement which Miltitz had administered to Tetzel. On February 20 he wrote to Staupitz : — Miltitz lias summoned Tetzel and reprimanded him. He con- victed him of appropriating ninety gulden for his monthly salary, and of keeping a mounted servant and a carriage at the expense of the treasury. This Tetzel has now disappeared, and nobody knows whither he is gone, unless he is with his [Dominican] fathers.lSS) To Spalatin, however, Luther wrote February 12 : — I regret that Tetzel has been reduced to such misery, that his doings have been brought to light, and that his safety is in danger. If it could be done, I would much rather that his honor were preserved, after he has somewhat mended his conduct. I gain nothing by his shame, just as I lost nothing by his being honored. I cannot cease wondering that he was so bold as to squeeze so much money out of people that are quite poor — money enough to keep a bishop, yea, an apostle in state.186) When the news spread in Leipzig that Luther and Carl- stadt v.-ere coming to hold a public disputation there, and that indulgences would be one of the 'subjects to be discussed, Tetzel grew very angry. "The devil take him!" (Luther) he cried.18") On the day of the arrival of the Wittenbergers he was told by his friends — for he did not venture to show 185) XV, 2445 f. 186) XV, 2391. 187) Aurifaber, Tageb. I, 162 ; Loesclier, I. c. III, 969. DAUj LEIPZIG DEBATE. 11 162 17. A MEMORABLE FOUKTH OF JULY. (EVENING.) himself in public — that a small army had arrived from. Wit- tenberg, with Duke Barnim at their head, and all bearing weapons. His partly unbalanced mind at once interpreted this as a plot on his life, and he spent his days in paroxysms of fear. One day he was fearfully startled by an event which he interpreted as an ill omen: the monk Baumgaert- ner, whom we saw rudely interruQting a conversation of Proeschel and Dr. Metzler at the home of the printer Herbi- polis, had been seized with apoplexy and died soon after. He had quarreled with a nobleman from Wittenberg at the inn of "The Eosary" on Nicolaistrasse, and had talked himself into such blind fury that he collapsed in the midst of his argument. How little Tetzel had to fear from Luther was shown when Luther, who must have heard of his deplorable con- dition, wrote him a letter of consolation. The letter is not extant, but Luther remembered this incident twenty-sis years later and wrote in the Preface of the first collection of his Latin writings : — Tetzel had been thundered at and crushed with threatening words about the Pope's vengeance, so that he pined away and was finally carried off by the grief of his heart. When I learned this, I wrote him a, friendly letter before he died, and comforted him. I told him to be of good cheer and not to tremble when he thought of me. But perhaps he succumbed to his conscience and the anger of God.188) Luther assured Tetzel that the controversy concerning in- dulgences had not been started on his account. "This child," he said, "has a different father." Therefore Tetzel might cease troubling his mind with useless self-accusations, as if he were solely responsible for the disturbance that had come upon the Church, and as if all the ignominy and suffering to which he must now submit were only the due recompense for his great wrongs. Could a friend have cheered a person in despondency with greater kindness or more effectually ? 189) It is likely that this generous act of Luther took place during his sojourn at Leipzig in the days of the debate. For 188) XIV, 446. 189) Luthers Brief e, by De Wette and Seldemann, 6, 18. 17. A MEJtOEABLE FOUBTH Or JULY. (EVENING.) 163 Luther says that he wrote him "before Tetzel died." He would hear of the poor monl<;'s sad condition, and that he would receive no visitors, — it is possible, too, that the Do- minicans, Luther's fiercest enemies, would not admit him to Tetzel's cell, — and so he chose the medium of correspondence to assure him that he bore him no grudge. The accidental sojourn of Luther and Tetzel in the same city at this particular time is apt to invite reverent reflec- tions. How grossly had the huckster of papal indulgences vilified Luther! . At Berlin he had raved and said that in three weeks he would see Lilther burning on the pyre, and would send him to hell with a fool's cap.!"") !Now he was himself trembling in daily anticipation of the stake ! ISTot quite two years had passed since he had traversed Germany like a demigod, decked with all the paraphernalia of eccle- siastical greatness, surrounded with the pomp and glory of the papacy; the people had kissed his hand and thought themselves happy if they could but touch the hem of his garment. Now he was dying in concealment, virtually in prison, dreading the wrath of the master whom he had so faithfully served. Like a dog he had barked for his master with all his might; like a dog his master kicked him into the ditch when he had become useless. What an ending of a brilliant career ! But that career was conceived in iniquity and begotten in greed, and it ended properly thus. Returning to Lotther's house in the evening after the first day of debating, if Luther glanced in the direction of the Dominican cloister and remembered the life that was there ebbing out into the sea of eternity, what must his thoughts have been! God, Thou art righteous and just; but unto us belongs confusion of faces! 190) XXII, 1718. 164 18. EEMAINDER OF THE DEBATE OX THE PEIMACY. 18. The Remainder of the Debate on the Primacy. The debate on the primacy of the Pope was continued till Friday afternoon. Tuesday, July 5, Luther opened the morning session by insisting that in 1 Cor. 3 the undue pre- ferment of Peter is indeed declared unwarranted. Likewise in Gal. 2, 6 Paul speaks against undue authority that is ac- corded men. Everybody, he said, knows the origin of the rank of cardinals; such great titles the bishops had first given to each other, but not to the Roman bishop alone. Eck's assertion- that the Greeks are arch-heretics he declared extreme, and he showed resentment at Eck's frequent ref- erence to the Bohemians, which he considered uncalled for. ' Then he turned to the passage on which the whole debate turned, Matt. 16, 18, and showed that the Eock in this pas- sage is the faith which Peter professed, and which is com- mon to the entire Church. In this connection he cited Eph. 4, 5, and declared that the assertion of Richard Arma- candus is vain over and against these clear words, for if there is "one faith," none of the apostles could be above the other. In his reply Ech asserted that. Gal. 2, 6 would be perti- nently cited by Luther if the latter were defending Eck's position. As to Richard Armacandus, this writer had ever appealed to the authority of St. Leo. Matt. 16, he claimed, is directed against quarrelsomeness,^ and does not forbid the erection of a primacy. Speaking on the 18th verse in this chapter, he began to extol Peter, who had been made the monarch of the Church on that occasion, and cited the Glossa ordinaria (a much-used commentary in the medieval Church), Cyprian, Augustine, Jerome, Chrysostom, and Leo the Great, all of whom had interpreted the term "petra'' (rock) in this text as identical with Peter. Next, he re- ferred to the decrees of the Popes Anicetus, Marcellus, Julius, and Pelagius, which declared the same view. He added that the opposite teaching had been condemned as an error in the case of the Lyonese, Wyclif, Marsilius, and Hus. 18. REMAINDER OE THE DEBATE OX THE PRIMACY. 165 With a sneer he asked Luther to bear with him if he showed such resentment against the Bohemians, those enemies of the Church. Luther answered that he well understood Eck's intention : he wanted to make him appear the friend and patron of the Bohemians. He declared that he had no respect for schis- matics, even in a righteous cause. Nor had he been speaking of the Bohemians, but of the Greeks, among whom there were many saints who had never acknowledged the Pope. Moreover, there had been a Christian congregation at Rome twenty years before Peter arrived in that city. The decre^jals which Eck had cited he pronounced spurious, and said that they were never written by the old martyrs and teachers to whom they were ascribed. Sometimes a precedent in which a Roman bishop was involved had been made into a law, as when Epiphanius deposed the archbishop of Constantinople. Sayings of the fathers are no divine law; Augustine often speaks of faith as the rock that is intended in Matt. 16. But even if all the fathers were to declare Peter the rock, they could not overthrow such passages as 1 Cor. 3, 11 and 1 Pet. 2, 4. Peter cannot be the rock, because he fell, etc. As a curiosity, showing that the decretals of Anacletus are spurious, he cited the fact that in this document the asser- tion is made that the meaning of the word Cephas is "head." In conclusion, Luther declared once more that he was not the patron of the Bohemians; Eck might have his leave to write against them. This concluded the morning session. Tn the afternoon Luther continued to speak of the con- demned teachings of Wyclif and Hus, and said that there were among these teachings some that had a right Christian ring; for instance, that there is a Church universal, that it is not necessary for salvation to believe that the primacy of the Pope exists by divine right. Many of the old fathers had believed thus and had gone to heaven. At this statement of Luther Duke George was observed to lean forward, put his arm akimbo, and exclaim excitedly, "The pest take the man!" 166 IS. REMAISDEE OF THE DEBATE ON THE PKIMACY. Luther continued: There is but one thing that we have to believe, namely, what Scripture teaches. He warned Eck not to join the crowd of flatterers who extol the Pope. Gregory the Great, he said, had declined such flattery. As tp recent decrees of the Popes, he, held that these could not decide anything in this matter. Ech opened his rejoinder by declaring that Luther de- fended heretics. Luther promptly interrupted him, saying: "I protest pub- licly before you all that the excellent Doctor, in what he says, is shamefully lying about me." Ech, however, continued and claimed that he had con- clusively proved from Matt. 16, 18 the divine right of the primacy, and that he had cited the fathers only for the pur- pose of showing that- they had so understood the passage. In his "Eetractations'' Augustine regards Peter as the rock. By opposing all the fathers, Luther had become a Bohemian. He referred to the sermon which Luther had preached during the preceding week, and declared Luther's explanation of that text worthless. Luther, speaking of the handing over of the keys to Peter, had called attention to the fact that Christ had spoken in the future tense, as of something which He was going to do, but was not doing right then and there. As to the decretals which he had cited, Eck declared that they were valid because they had been embodied in the records of councils. He charged Luther with speaking con- temptuously about the Council of Constanz. Luther protested : "It is not true that I have spoken against the Council of Constanz." The Bohemians, however, Ech continued, would proclaim Luther their champion. Luther again protested: "That is a most shameful lie!" Ech proceeded: A doctrine which men have been at lili- erty to teach becomes heretical by a decision of the Pope and a council. He turned to the jurists and appealed to them not to admit the sole authority of the Scriptures, for then their Jus Canonicum, their civil code, would be put out of commission. As to Gregory the Great, he declared 18. BEMAINDER OF THE DEBATE ON THE PRIMACY. 167 that it was only politeness in this Pope that he would not make use of his right, but that there were passages in his writings in which he ascribed the plenitude of power only to the Pope. Thus ended the debate of the second day. On Wednesday morning, July 6, Luther, first, repelled the insinuation of Eck that he was a heretic, and that he was offending against the rules for conducting the debate. Xext, he insisted that the Eastern Church must necessarily be heretical if the primacy of the Pope is of divine right. Then he turned to Matt. 16, 18, and declared that Augustine finally had declined, in his "Retractations," to take Peter for the rock. Other fathers had declared the same. Peter had acted the hypocrite even after his conversion; therefore he could not be the Rock. He still maintained his assertion that the decretals of the first Popes are spurious, because they translate Cephas by "rock." The articles of Hus that were condemned by the Council of Constanz, such as, that there is only one Church, the Church of the elect, that the two natures in Christ are one Christ, that all that a person does is either good or evil, were correct. This shows, he said, that a council can err, but the Scriptures never. Gregory's remark regarding the Pope's plenitude of power Luther understood as applying only to the Western Church. Finally, he iirged once more that Christ is the only foun- dation of the Church, that Paul had not admitted the human authority of Peter in matters of faith, and denounced as vicious Eck's charge that he was a friend of the Bohemians. Eck replied that the Greeks had often been revealed as schismatics and heretics, and that Aquinas had written against their errors. The old councils, he said, ascribe the primacy to the Pope, and Augustine calls this "the ancient rule." This father had finally arrived at two opinions re- garding the meaning of Matt. 16, 18, but all the other fathers had interpreted the rock to mean Peter. Moreover, the pri- macy had been conferred on Peter also in John 21, 16, as Chrysostom and Gregory testify. Peter's hypocrisy he de- clared a venial sin. The term "Cephas" might mean "head." 168 18. REMAINDER OF THE DEBATE ON THE PRIMACY. He insisted that tte authority of the Council of Constanz must remain inviolate; the articles there condemned must not be regarded as supposedly or fictitiously false ': the visible Church and the elect are not identical; God and man, not deity and humanity, are one Christ, etc. After His ascen- sion Christ must have a 'vicegerent on earth, because the responsories in some churches declare this; and if this were not so, whence would the Augustinian monks derive their privileges ? Luther responded briefly that after three days' arguing his opponent had not yet established from Scripture the divine right of the papacy, except by a futile appeal to Matt. 16, 18, in regard to which passage he had not been able to prove that his interpretation of it was correct. He reserved the right to speak about the articles of Hus later. The session was adjourned till the next morning. On Thursday, July 7, Ech opened the discussion by com- plaining that Luther had bellowed his arguments at the learned gentlemen present like an ox. The divine right of the papacy, he declared, is established primarily from the passage Matt. 16, 18; this the fathers had believed; the councils had acknowledged it; at Constanz it had been maintained over against Hus. Luther now rose to thank Duke George for giving him permission in the previous session to make his last statement when the time for adjournment had already arrived. Con- tinuing in German, he said that he did not deny that human right of the papacy, and then proceeded with his argument in Latin, stating that the majority of the fathers do not understand the rock to signify Peter, while the rest are un- decided. The Asiatic bishops, Irenaeus and others, he said, had reprimanded the Pope, and the best of the Greek fathers had never been under the Pope; Gregory the Great had opposed the absolute primacy. In John 21, 16 no supremacy is conferred on Peter, at least, no such authority as the present Pope has, but he is merely exhorted for the love of Christ to do and to suffer all things in behalf of the Church. Now, where is there such a pope? Luther asked. He pro- 18. KEMAINDEK OF THE DEBATE ON THE PRIMACY. 169 ceeded to emphasize cordial love as the great duty inculcated in this text, and this love, he said, concerns all teachers. A wicked teacher, also a wicked Pope, must either mend his ways or be deposed. In conclusion, Luther expressed the wish that the order of mendicant friars might be abolished, because of the foolish opinions that these people hatched and disseminated among the people. "This is all I have to say in rebuttal of Eck's arguments," Luther declared; "and now I shall proceed to attack him with direct counter- arguments." Ech protested, but Duke George ruled that Luther should proceed. Against the assumed divine right of the Pope, Luther cited three texts: 1 Cor. 3, 5. 22: "What is Cephas? . . . Cephas is yours" ; Gal. 1, 17 f . : "Neither went I up to Jeru- salem to them that were apostles before me" ; Gal. 2, 6 : "But of those who seemed to be somewhat, (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth no man's person;) for they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me." Ech replied that 1 Cor. 3 must be interpreted according to the Olossa and Jerome; in Gal. 1 only this is stated, viz., that Paul was equal to Peter in the apostolate, but the gov- ernment of the Church must be regarded as an entirely different matter; for so the Council of Constanz had de- creed over and against Hus. He repeated his statement that the Popes had at times humbled themselves from good nature, and all teachers ought indeed to oe truly pious men. Never- theless, the term "feeding" in John 21, he declared, is inter- preted by the fathers to signify the government of the Church, and that passage does not make love a condition of feeding. Luther replied that he would first answer Eck's argu- ments, and then offer his own counter-arguments. The Roman bishops, he said, had often been consulted by others, but they could not have humbled themselves in the sense of submitting to others without renouncing the divine right of the papacy, if such a right existed. The interpretation of 170 18- REMAINDER OF THE DEBATE ON THE PRIMACY. the term "feeding" by the fathers must be examined by the rule of the Scriptures. Even Pope Paschalis, in the de- cretal regarding election, had admitted that John 21, 16 states a condition. And now Luther appealed once more to the text he had cited before and said the Olossa could not prove anything in this matter, and Jerome had mis- interpreted the text. As a matter of fact, Paul had sub- mitted to Peter's church government as little as to Peter's teaching. Uck said in reply that he must regard Luther as a heathen if he didjiot believe the infallibility of councils. His argu- ment became perceptibly weak, . and he merely puckered churlishly about trifles, saying that he could not make reply to the decretal regarding election because that decretal had not been quoted. As to Paul, he had indeed respected Peter as his head, because this is stated in the Epistle on the Ascension of the Apostles. Peter might be a secondary foun- dation, Christ being the first, just as there are twelve foun- dation stones mentioned in Eevelation. The debate was now closed for the day. On Friday, Jvine 8, in the morning session, Luther was the first speaker. He called attention to the fact that Eck had not been able to refute the passages cited against his position. He declared the distinction between the apostolate and the church government futile, and for the former, he said, Paul requires the obedience of faith. The unity of the Church could be preserved even without a visible head, just as in a republic. He added new proof-texts, such as 1 Cor. 12, 28, where church government is mentioned as a minor grace, and therefore cannot be that primacy for which a divine right is claimed. Furthermore, Acts 1, 26; 13, 2, which show that the new apostle Matthias was not ordained by Peter, as little as Paul and Barnabas. Likewise Gal. 2, 8. 9, which show that in the division of the mission terri- tory between Peter and Paul the larger (Jistrict had been given to Paul. Finally, he said, that if there may be twelve foundation stones in the Church, just &s in the foundation of the celestial city, the Pope cannot be the only foundation. 18. KEMAIXIIEB OF THE DEIiATIO 0.\ THE PRIJtACY. 171 Eel- replied: We must reconcile conflicting Scripture- passages by inventing distinctions: only in the choice of an apostle God had indeed been a respecter of persons. To cite 1 Cor. 12. against the primacy he declared quite unnecessary. He referred Rev. 21 only to the apostolate, not to the pri- macy. He asserted that Matthias and the other apostles had indeed been created bishops by Peter, for Christ had merely made them priests. For Peter he claimed' many distinctions above the other apostles; for instance, Peter had been the first speaker in Acts 1, 15, had rebuked Ananias, had estab- lished the church of Antioeh, etc. Gal. 2, 8, he declared, only states a fact, not a right. He closed his argument with the statement that he rested his case with Matt. 16, IS, and added that Peter had been named in the first place in Matt. 10, 2 and at the payment of the tribute in Matt. IT, 27 had been made equal with Christ, that Christ had pra.yed for his constancy, had said to him : "Follow thou Me," and that Peter alone had walked with Christ on the sea. "I must severely stress this point," he said; "in all the other points you will find me yielding." At the opening of the afternoon session Luther reminded his opponent that according to their agreement the debate on the present subject must be closed at this session ; ac- cordingly he would make only a brief reply. What Eck had adduced as preferences accorded Peter is also said of other apostles, or it does not relate to the primacy at all. The faith which Peter had professed in Matt. 16, 18, Luther said, has never ceased, but Peter at once ceased being a believer while the thief on the cross believed. Christ's command to Peter, "Follow thou Me," refers to Peter's suffering and death. To rebuke the striving for a primacy, Christ had placed a child in the midst of the disciples. Moreover, Luther said, he might cite the fact that Peter had received and accepted a commission from the other apostles, and had acted upon their instruction. Acts 8, 13 ; that James had been the directing genius in Acts 15. But he was willing to leave to Peter his primacy of honor, denying only his primacy of power. 172 18. KEMAINDER OF THE DEBATE ON THE PKIMACV. Eclc, Still trying to secure for the Pope superiority, said : Surely, there must have been some one to ordain the apostles ; for Christ did not do it. Bernard and other fathers had all seen indications of the primacy of Peter in the texts cited by him, and he would take his stand with them. Cyprian, too, understands by the faith of Peter the teaching of the Eoman Church. As to Peter's being sent by the other apostles, he was not sent as a subaltern, but in the same manner as the Father sent the Son. At the apostles' council, he said, Peter yielded to James on account of the latter's age. "With the fathers, he averred, he would defend not Peter's primacy of honor, but of power. Luther's reply was very brief: With Augustine, he said, he did not deny the Pope's authority over the bishops, but he could not agree with Bernard. Each one of the apostles had been a bishop, he said; for even of Judas it is said that his bishopric is to pass to another. Eck exclaimed that in the passage to which Luther re- ferred bishopric stands for apostolate.l^l) At this point the debate on the primacy of the Pope was closed. The secretaries, called notaries because their work had legal virtue, being sworn testimony, have performed their tasks with remarkable exactness and completeness, consider- ing that they were no stenographers. In a comparison of the two disputants the palm will readily be awarded to Luther. He knew his Bible; that was his chief asset in this debate; but he was also-'well versed in the writings of the church fathers and had studied church history with an open mind. Eck labored under a hopeless bias; he argues like a monomaniac who can in no wise rid himself of the notion that has possessed him. His illustrations are built up after the rule: Eeim' dich, oder ich fress' dich! His historical views are puerile: he actually believed the false decretals of the Eoman Popes to be authentic, and regarded the writings of Dionysius Areopagita and the miserable fic- 191) XV, 929. Loescher, !. t-.. Ill, 350—411; 528 — 538. 18. REMAINDER OF THE DEBATE ON THE PRIMACY. 173 tion of the Ascension of the Apostles as genuine; he held that there was in the primeval Church, immediately after the ascension of the Lord, a solemn sacramental act of ordi- nation for bishops and ministers such as the Roman Church of his day had instituted; he spoke of Cardinal Jerome, to the great amusement of Luther, etc. In Luther's argument can be discerned a wise reservation. This matter was new to him, and his Bible knowledge had not that fulness which is observed at a later period. He was careful not to claim more in the heat of 'the debate than he could fully maintain with a good conscience; but he held with unflinching firm- ness to what he had clearly understood. Wise, too, were the remarks by which he wished to save the human prerogatives of the papacy, the honor of the Council of Constanz, and last, not least, his refusal of Hussite fellowship. In all the windings of the debate he always came back to these essential points : Let the Pope keep his superiority as a human right, but let it be circumscribed ; let the Popes and prelates amend their ways ; but as to a divine right of the primacy, that does not exist, yea, it is repugnant to the mind of Christ and the true nature of the Church. These points Luther fully estab- lished. What did Eck gain for the papal monarchy, for the defense of which he rushed into the fray with such a blare of trumpets? At first he claimed for it the double primacy of dignity and power, afterwards he dropped the primacy of dignity because it might lead to pride, and with desperate sophistry clung to the primacy of power. In the last analysis the debate turned out to be a struggle for the formal prin- ciple of the Eeformation, whether Scripture is self-inter- preting and the sole principium cognoscendi, the sole norm of faith, or whether it is subject to the efforts of church fathers and church councils to fix its meaning. Duke George, whose characteristics we have tried to depict so often, deserves a word of commendation for his spirit of fairness during this debate. When he had made up his mind to have it, he also resolved that it should be a good debate. Though his personal bias was manifest plainly outside of the hall of debate, and once at least during 174 19. THE DEBATE ON PURGATORY. the debate, lie endeavored to have the debate conducted in an honest manner, and to have all due proprieties observed. Both disputants occasionally infringed upon the rules of the debate. Loescher has rightly, we think, remarked that credit is due to Duke George for haying permitted the debate at all, and has suggested that that was more than the Elector would have done. Though Frederic had so far proved him- self a wise and able protector of Luther, he was a very cautious and conservative man and it is indeed a question whether he would have consented to the debate being held at Wittenberg. In his Faith of Our Fathers Cardinal Gibbons treats in chap. IX of the Primacy of Peter, and in chap. X of the Supremacy of the Popes. When one, after reading the old protocol of the Leipzig Debate, takes up this modem apolo- getic for the Roman faith, one is struck with the identity of the old and the new argument. The Cardinal is an Eccius 1-edivivus, Eck come to life again. Therefore, the old argu- ments of Dr. Martin are stjll very useful arguments. 19. The Debate on Purgatory. In his ninth thesis Luther had assumed, with the scho- lastic theology of the times, that there is a purgatory, but had claimed that it is not settled whether the souls in purga- tory are certain of their future salvation, and whether divine grace is effecting a reformation in them. This subject was taken up toward the end of the session on Friday afternoon. ' Ech opened the debate with the assertion that all merit of a person ceases with this life, therefore no reformation or improvement can take place in purgatory. He cited for proof Jer. 24, 14 and 2 Cor. 5, 10, buttressing these passages with four quotations from Jerome, Ambrose, and Augustine. Luther replied that Scripture does not mention purga- tory, and the passages cited can be understood in a better sense, likewise the fathers that had been adduced. ISTone of them, by the way, had mentioned purgatory directly. 19. THE DEBATE ON PUEGATOEY. j^75 Ech insisted that Paul states everybody will receive according- to that which he has done in the body, and Jerome says plainly that no merits can be earned after death. As to the claim that Scripture does not mention purgatory, that he declared a well-lmown error of the Greeks. Luther admitted that a Scripture-proof for purgatory is attempted by means of 2 Mace. 12, but it is not convincing because the books of the Maccabees are not canonical. What the fathers cited by Eck really say is that no one earns any- thing for himself in heaven or hell. Eclc asserted the canonicity of the books of the Maccabees on the strength of testimonies from Augustine and Ivo, and claimed that the testimonies which he had adduced from the fathers referred indeed to purgatory. In his rejoinder Luther called attention to the fact that the Hebrew canon does not contain the books of the Macca- bees, and that Jerome has not admitted them as parts of the Old Testament ; Augustine's testimony, however, he claimed, says no more than that the Roman Church has accepted these writings. He confessed that he had no certain knowledge of the state of purgatory and was willing to be instructed. Here the session of Friday afternoon was adjourned. It was reported that many in the audience had become offended at Luther's statement that the schismatic Greeks are saved. Saturday morning, July 9, Eck continued his argument. He spoke of prayers for the dead which Augustine has recom- mended, and declared that the canon of the Roman Church must be esteemed more highly than that of the Jewish. Scripture-passages establishing purgatory he declared to be the following : Ps. 66, 12 : "We went through fire and througk water"; Ps. 17, 3: "Thou hast tried me"; Eecl. 4, 14: "Out of prison he eometh to reign" ; Matt. 5, 26 : "Till thou hast. paid the uttermost farthing" ; and especially, 1 Cor. 3, 15 : "He himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire." He tried to. score a point against Luther by demanding to know how Luther could admit at all that there is a purgatory if he 176 19- THE DEBATE 0,\ PUEGATORY. could cite no Scripture for it. To show what happens in death, Eck cited Eccl. 11, 3 : "If the tree fall toward the south of toward the north, in the place where the tree falleth, there it shall be" ; Gal. 6, 10 : "As we have opportunity, let us do good" ; John 9, 4 : "The night cometh when no man can work" ; Ps. 104, 23 : "Man goeth forth unto his work until the evening." He also cited a passage from Augustine and the special prayer for the departed from Bernard. That the souls in purgatory are certain of their salvation he tried to prove from Eev. 5, 13, where the creatures under the earth are said to sing praises to God, and from the prayer in the canon of the mass: "Lord, remember Thy servants who are sleeping in peace." Luther replied that he was not disputing purgatory, but the unfounded hypotheses of theologians and scholastics re- garding the state of the souls in purgatory which preachers were discussing from their pulpits as if they were articles of faith. The passages from Ps. 66 and 17 and Eccl. 4, he declared, do not relate to this life, while the fathers are not agreed on the meaning of the passage from Matt. 5, and 1 Cor. 3 treats of the future judgment and temporal afflic- tions. As to the canonical books, he would adhere to the view of Jerome. Passages like those from Gal. 6 and John 9, he said, do not treat of purgatory, but of the coming judg- ment, while the reference to Ps. 104 was declared an incon- clusive deduction. In the afternoon session Luther continued to explain his meaning, stating that the ancient fathers and the Holy Scriptures had not thought of purgatoiy at all, hence their words could not be adduced in this discussion. The creatures in Eev. 5, he said, were the dead, and their songs were such as people raise to God in their tribulations. The canon of the mass to which Eck had appealed was also adduced by Luther, because it speaks of the bodies of the departed rest- ing in their graves, and of their souls longing for peace and recreation. He declared that while he did not ascribe any merit to the souls in purgatory, still he claimed that they 19. THE DEBATE ON PUBGATORY. 177 must receive an increase in grace which cannot occur with- out a removal of sin. Ech replied that Augustine speaks distinctly of souls in purgatory, and declares that they cannot obtain any further merit there. For the remission of venial sins, he said, no new grace is necessary. As to Jerome, he had not denied in any of his writings that the books of the Maccabees are canonical. The Council of Florence had testified that purga- tory is founded in Scripture; ergo, Matt. 5 must relate to purgatory because in hell no one can pay anything. 1 Cor. 3, too, treats of purgatory, because it speaks of chaff that is to be burned. The expression "falling to the south" in Eccl. 11 must signify blessedness in purgatory, which a person enters in the moment of death if he ever enters it. The creatures under the earth can only be those in hell or purgatory; for in the latter place the souls are singing praises. The peace and recreation for which the canon of the mass prays that it be granted the departed can only refer to their final deliverance. Luther concluded this debate by declaring his inability to see how sins can be removed without grace being increased to a person at the same time. He appealed to Rom. 7, 24 f. that grace alone delivers from the body of sin, not punish- ment, and declared that also venial sins contaminate a person. The term "till," he said, does not signify a ter- minus in Matt. 5, just as little as the same term in Matt. 1, 25 signifies the termination of the virginity of Mary. He held that it is proper to pray for one even when we know that he is increasing in grace. His former writings concerning the condition of souls in purgatory Luther declared to be mere hypotheses that had been elaborated in his ignorance. The time for adjournment had now arrived, and as no more time could be allowed for the discussion of this sub- ject, Luther in the next session handed in a written state- ment to the notaries, in which he declared that if "being under' the earth" in Rev. 5 signifies purgatory, then "being under the water" in the same passage must signify another DAD, LEIPZIG DEBATE. 12 178 20. THE DEBATE ON INDULGENCES. peculiar place. That the bodies of the departed are resting in peace is clearly stated in Ps. 16, 9, but this state is predi- cated of the entire person, because, having departed, the soul no longer operates on the body. Eck also entered a written" statement in the protocol: Eom. 7 refers to mortal sins ; the term "till" in Matt. 1 is not easily explained; however, the perpetual virginity of Mary is established from other passages, while this cannot be done in regard to the matter of which Matt. 5 speaks. Luther's statement that the soul obtains peace because of the body he declared a change of position on Luther's part; how can the souls in purgatory, said he, have rest when they certainly have enough to do? The remainder of his state- ment contains repetitions of his former assertions; he in- serts them only for the purpose of saying the last word. 192) This part of the Leipzig Debate is probably the least satisfactory. Luther is plainly embarrassed; it is .difficult to determine his actual belief regarding purgatory at this time. His arguments at times have but the stringency of ad hominem arguments. Still they effected this much that the flimsy evidences which Eck produced for purgatory were all rendered insecure and the majority entirely blasted. The present discussion of this subject is but the lifting of the cover by a hand that is still somewhat timid; later dis- cussions laid bare in its entire enormity the utter baseless- ness of Rome's claim that there is a purgatory, and that her priests are entrusted with the practical management of it. 20. The Debate on Indulgences. Monday, July 11, the debate was begun on Luther's eleventh thesis concerning indulgences. Eclc took the lead, and protested that in this matter the decision of the Pope must be followed absolutely. For three hundred years, he said, indulgences had been regarded as 192) XV, 1008 — 1042 ; Loescher, I. c. III, 411 — 438 ; 538 — 542. 20. THE BEBATE OX TXDULGEXCES. 179 efficacious, and the couueils of Vienna, Paris, and Constanz had declared them so ; Gerson had esteemed them highly, yea, even Gregory the Great ; the entire Church had accepted them as valid for the year of jubilee, and the entire Church cannot err; many kings had secured indulgence during the crusades. Now, since indulgences represent satisfaptions ren- dered for sin, they must be meritorious. Luther replied that he only considered it folly to call in- dulgences a treasure and blessing of Christians; for true Christians are not benefited at all by them. That it is possible for the majority of teachers to err, he claimed had been shown during the Arian controversy. Councils and Popes had not spoken alike regarding indulgences, and had directed bad Christians to make use of them. The reference to Pope Gregory he declared to be without foundation. The indulgence of the year of jubilee had originated with Pope Boniface, who had been the author of much evil. The indul- gences for participation in the crusades had been permitted by the providence of God as a punishment for men's folly. Indulgences, he declared, do not take the place of satisfac- tions, but hinder satisfactions. Lastly, he stated his belief that Popes are fallible. In his reply Ech dilated on the improvement which, he claimed, had taken place in Luther's views of indulgences. He declared himself largely in agreement with Luther, but maintained still that indulgences are useful; not that they take the place of the remission^ of sins, but they remove temporal punishments which a person must suffer either in this life or in purgatory. The purchase of indulgences, he said, does not prevent good works, but stimulates the exercise of them. This he understood to be the meaning of the coun- cils and Popes, and these must be obeyed. If Gregory had not said about indulgences what had been quoted, Eck claimed, there was nevertheless a very persistent report that he had said it. Finally, he asserted that the Pope renders satisfaction for punishments due for sins by applying the indulgences, which he takes from the treasury of the Church, which treasury contains all the merits of Christ. As a Scrip- 180 20. THE DEBA.TE ON IKDLTLGENCES. ture-proof for this view lie cited most ineptly Is. 61, 1. The indulgences granted in the year of jubilee had been approved, he said, by the entire Church, and for that reason they ought to be highly esteemed. Nor ought the crusades be depre- ciated. Thomas, Albertus Magnus, and many other saints had endorsed these indulgences. The protocol at this place does not state distinctly whether the next argument was delivered in the morning or in the afternoon session; the latter is more likely. Luther was the speaker. He argued that the punishments which are remitted by indulgences are such church penalties as the confessor may impose : fasts, prayers, etc. ; for so the text of the bulls by which indulgences are proclaimed, states. Now, unless a person is a lazy Christian, he will be apt to fast and pray too much rather than not enough. We must not believe absolutely what holy men say, but test it by Scripture. He could not see, he said, how indulgences could benefit a person in the agony of death. Only such acts can be truly acts of satisfaction by which a recompense or real satisfaction is rendered. Christ has declared, he said, that the prophecy in Is. 61 has been fulfilled by His coming; therefore this text cannot be adduced as proof for the satis- faction which we are rendering. The unanimous opinion of many people who rush for the indulgences that are pro- claimed in a year of jubilee proves nothing, because these people are ignorant. There exists, he said, no decision of councils or Popes that indulgences are necessary, and the merits of Christ, which are pure grace and truth, ought not to be mixed up with the indulgences. Ech's reply to this argument was extremely weak. Even when it is only penances or church fines that are remitted, they are not remitted in so far as they are good works. It is better, he said, that the confessor sends his penitent parishioner to purgatory with a little punishment than to hell with a grievous one; in this way strength is made per- fect in weakness. In matters of faith it is indeed necessary, he claimed, that we regard the authority of men. He closed with the assertion, which put him back on his old ground. 21. THE DEBATE ON REPENTANCE. 181 that the person receiving an indulgence thereby renders satisfaction for sin, because the Pope confers on him from the treasure of Christ's merit something that is meritorious. "I commit all," he concluded, "to the judgment of those who are interested, and if I have said anything amiss, I am ready to make corrections." "So do I," Luther added.193) It was not necessary for Luther to reply to the last argu- ments of Eck. Prom the start Eck had shown an inclination to lean to Luther on this matter. That is what his ingenious discovery means that Luther's views had undergone a change for the better. In this way he wished to cover up his retreat. Opposition to indulgences was becoming popular, and Eck was unhappy if he was not popular. The apparent leniency in Luther's argumentation on this subject I am inclined to regard as a wise pastoral policy on the part of Luther: he wished to help the growing sentiment against indulgences to grow into an intelligent conviction, and prevent it from turning into a turbulent revolt of the carnal mind against the discipline of the Church. He wished to deepen reflec- tion rather than arouse passion; hence the unmistakably accommodating kindliness that pervades this part of his arguments. 21. The Debate on Repentance. On Tuesday, July 12, the subject of repentance was taken up for discussion, in particular the question whether re- pentance must spring from the love of God. Eck attacked Luther's third thesis, asserting that the be- ginning of repentance lies in the fear of punishment, and that this is an adequate beginning, because this had been the method adopted by John' the Baptist when he came preaching repentance, and because the prodigal son had thus been converted. As a further proof he cited Ps. 89, 31 — 33, adding that the sinner must begin from the bottom, from 19.?) XV, 1042 — 1064 ; Loescher, I. c. III, 438 — 455 ; 543—545. 182 21. THE DEBATE ON EEPE.NTANCE. fear, and ascend gradually to the love of God. Fear, he said, represents the medicine, but love represents health, as Augustine, Chrysostom, Greg-ory the Great, Origen, and other fathers have taught. Luther replied that the full sense of Scripture is attained only by a comprehensive study of all passages that relate to a subject. He admitted that the threats of the Law must be proclaimed when a person preaches repentance, and sin must be magnified. But this does not start salutary repentance, which is effected only by grace. Grace gives man a love for the Word of God and His blessing; whenever this does not take place, the sinner keeps hugging his sin amidst the terrors of repentance and becomes a hypocrite. Free will is no aid to repentance. The repentance of the prodigal son began when he remembered his father's love and his former home. Mere punishment converts no man. Is. 1, 5 f . ; Jer. 5, 3. Christ, he said, converted Zacchaeus and Magdalene by love. The ascent from fear to love he declared to be merely the development of a human sentiment. Not this ascent, but the grace of God converts the sinner; this grace it is, too, that implants in the heart of man the true fear of God, which must be kept distinct from man's fear of punishment. Eel: admitted that repentance comes by si kind of inspira- tion and by the bestowal of grace ; however, he claimed that love is not the first thing that God communicates to man; it is something else. We must not, he said, demand of men that they be angels, but must be satisfied if they are only afraid of punishment. With this argument the forenoon session was closed. Eel- continued in the afternoon, claiming that the re- pentance of the prodigal had begun with fear, when he realized that he had to feed with hogs, and could not even have the husks that were given them; or when he began to think of his father's hired men. It was then that the thought of repentance was suggested to him ; but, Eck re- marked, he would not claim that actual repentance had then 21. THE DEBATE 0.\ IiEPE>;TA?sCE. 183 begun. Tlie preaching of repentance whicli John and others began with proclaiming the threats of the Law certainly must produce an efPect, he said. Christ began the conver- sion of Paul by uttering a threat to him. Servile fear, he claimed, is also a fear of God; yea, it is the beginning of wisdom, as Augustine and Bede teach. That is also what Christ inculcates. Matt. 10, when He says : "Fear Him who is able to destroy the soul." There must surely be a mean, he said, between sin and love, and that is the fear of punish- ment, which gradually ceases while love enters in. Luther replied that nobody is ever disposed to repentance by the fear of punishment. The threats of the Law only produce hatred, which is itself a sin that must be driven out by love. It was grace, he said, that drew the prodigal son; otherwise he would have died rather than go back to his father. The conversion of Paul he declared an extraordinary event; still he would side with Augustine and believe that even in this conversion love had been the drawing power. When grace becomes joined to the fear of the heart, that fear becomes a good fear; and so Augustine and Gregory view this matter. In Matt. 10 the Lord is speaking of filial love, but this embraces grace. There is no middle ground, he said, between sin and grace. If £ck thought that there was something to criticize in his preaching of repentance, he invited him to write against it. In his brief concluding remarks Ech developed the thought that fear must precede and make room for love. 19^) This part of the debate is the most enjoyable, instructive, and incisive discussion of fundamental Christian truths. In his lucid distinctions and illustrations in this section, Luther is far superior to the Pelagian Eck. Eck's assumption of a middle ground is a makeshift to which he resorts when he is compelled to give up his original position, that repentance means being afraid of the threatening God. The argument from grace was so powerful that he could not maintain his ground, and hence began to shift. But he did not really 194) XV, 1064 — 1086; Loescher, I.e., Ill, 455 — 471; 545 — 548. 184 22. DEBATE OX ABSOLUTION AND SATISFACTIONS. surrender his position: when he declared at the end that fear must pave the way for love, he is back at his starting- point. If fear is able to accomplish that for man, it is fear that has converted him. Though Luther does not emphasize the element of faith in this discussion, it is plainly faith, and nothing else than faith, that he describes when he speaks of the entering in of grace into the heart of the sinner. The penitent thoughts of the prodigal which he points out are thoughts of a heart that trustingly embraces the grace which pardons guilt. Excellent, too, is the characterization of the difEerence between servile and filial fear. In this discussion Luther plainly moves in his own peculiar domain, while Eck sinks into the sands of scholasticism. 22. The Debate on Priestly Absolution and Satisfactions for Sin. In his fourth and fifth theses Luther had proposed to dis- cuss the act by which a priest in the confessional absolves a penitent and imposes certain exercises on him, which are called satisfactions. This discussion began in the afternoon session of July' 13. Eclc tried to prove that a priest can absolve from sin, but not from the punishment of sin. Even after a person's sins have been forgiven, he argued, the righteousness of God de- mands that satisfaction be rendered by the penitent for the wrong which he has confessed, and which has been forgiven him. He cited Augustine and Ambrose, who have said that the punishment for sin is removed by acts of restoration or sg,tisfaction. According to the teaching of Scripture, he said, the fall of Adam is punished in men even after they have received forgiveness. David had thus submitted to the duty of rendering satisfaction, 2 Sam. 24, 14. Either man must punish himself, or God must punish him. These exer- cises of satisfaction are rendered not only to the Church, but to God, as Cyprian, Augustine, and Gregory have ex- pressly stated. There are certain cases in which the re- 22. DEBATE ON ABS0.1.UTI0N AND SATISFACTIONS. 185 mission of punisliment has been reserved to the Pope and the prelates; this has been done in order to maintain the distinction between the higher and the lower clergy, and the jurisdiction which each is authorized to exercise, or there would be no difference between a village priest and a prelate or Pope. Luther replied that if his opponent would name the real punishment for inherited sin, he would have to name death and diseases, which neither priest nor Pope could remit. David's punishment, for instance, could not be remitted. It is true that a person must judge himself, according to 1 Cor. 11, or God will punish him. No man can give us a dispensation from these effects of the Fall. What Augus- tine and Cyprian, whom the opponent had quoted, had ac- tually said was not what Eck tried to make them say; the former had spoken of the crosses and tribulation of the God- fearing, while the latter referred to the sufferings of mar- tyrs, neither of which could be remitted by the Pope. The Church might impose certain punishments and cancel them again, but these were not punishments which God had ordered imposed. As to cases coming up in the confessional that were reserved for the Pope, these had most likely been the cause why vrickedness had' increased, particularly among the great men of the world. It would have been better if the old rule of church-discipline were still in vogue, which had been followed imtil the Council of Nicea. He asserted that a bishop and a priest had the same authority in the sight of God, and the higher clergy ought not to create re- served cases in order to save the consciences of men. According to the agreement into which the disputants had entered at the beginning of the debate, the discussion should have stopped here. But in the morning session of Thursday, July 14, Eck took up his argument once more and said: Eternal punishment is changed into temporal punish- ment by the satisfactions which the Church imposes. This is the better way. Nothing is accomplished by allowing a sinner to pass out of the confessional without making him do anything. That has been the view of Augustine and 186 22. DEBATE OK" ABSOLUTION AXD SATISFACTIONS. Ambrose, lie claimed. He advised Ljither not to draw such •distinctions between various kinds of punishments as he had ■done; for in other cases he had manifested such aversion to distinctions. The fundamental idea in the satisfactions im- posed by the Church, he declared, is this: God does not punish a second time what has been punished previously; -accordingly, by submitting to the satisfactions a person es- capes the punishment which God otherwise would hare to infliet on him. Also Bede, he said, had declared that satis- factions are rendered to God. A moderate use of the power to establish reserved cases he considered useful ; the prelates must have something peculiarly assigned to them, otherwise all order would cease. And if we are able to render satis- faction to God by our prayers and good works, the same effect could be obtained by means of indulgences taken from the treasury of the Church. If Luther, he said, refused to be- lieve this, he might consider himself excommunicated. Ifot only this speech, but also the wilful attempt which Eck had made to prolong the debate contrary to the agree- ment, aroused Luther's indignation. He called Eck's re- marks silly. He charged him with having changed the point of controversy, and with failing to reply to Scriptural argu- ments. Eck, he said, impressed him as a man who is fleeing from the Scriptures as the devil scampers off when he be- holds a crucifix. With these words Luther sat down. Once more Eck seized the floor and remarked that the impatient monk was speaking scurrilous things, and was making a show of giving the Scriptures the preference over the fathers, just as if he were an oracle. He reiterated his former assertion that God remembers the punishment due man for his sin even when He remits that sin. The punish- ments which Luther had mentioned as growing out of Adam's fall he called natural punishments, while they were now dis- cussing personal punishments. This was his parting shot.i95) The debate between Luther and Eck closed about eight in the morning. Luther and the majority of the Wittenbergers 195) XV, 1086 — 1101 ; Loescher, I. c, III, 471—483 ; 548—551. 22. DEBATE OX ABSOLUTION AM) SATISFACTIONS. 18T prepared for their return to Wittenberg so(3n after the close of Luther's part of the debate. They had been absent from home nearly a month, and their regular work necessitated their speedy return. Besides, Luther had arranged to meet Staupitz at Grimma after his debate. The conclusion of the entire debate according to agreement was to come now be- tween Eck and Carlstadt, and for this all arrangements had been made between Luther and his colleague. Therefore Luther, ilelanchthon, and a number of others of their party- left the same day for "Wittenberg. Forthwith the shout went up in Leipzig that they had fled and had confessed them- selves defeated; they had also ignominiously forsaken Carl- stadt. It is not difficult to guess the inventors of this story. How little truth there was in it was shown soon after by the joint report which Luther and Carlstadt drew up about the debate. On the day before his departure from Wittenberg Luther had issued a cutting reply to Hoogstraten, the inquisitor for that part of Germany. In a publication of April 7, which he dedicated to Pope Leo, Hoogstraten had reviewed the trial of Reuchlin, which had been concluded in Hoogstraten's inquisitorial court at Cologne. In this publication Hoog- straten had denounced Luther as a "manifest patron" of Reuchlin, and, referring to Luther's published views on the primacy of the Pope, which he declared contradictory to the Holy Scriptures and to the Council of Nicea, had called upoa the Pope to take measures against Luther's criminal teach- ings. Of this publication Luther was informed during his debate with Eck. Combined with the wily arguments of Eck, this violent attack of the inquisitor looked like a concerted effort between the prosecutor and the executioner to put an end to Luther's activity. Luther sketched the untenable reasoning and tlje sanguinary utterance of Hoogstraten against him in a leaflet that he gave to the public in the form of a placard. It showed the world what Rome was seeking to achieve by sterner means if its ends could not be accomplished by this gentle debate at Leipzig. 188 23. THE CONCLUSION OF THE DEBATE. 23. The Conclusion of the Debate. At eight in the morning on Thursday, July 14, Ech re- sumed his argument against Oarlstadt. In a boastful strain he asserted that the theses on free ■ndll which he had defended had not been overthrown by Carlstadt; he would now proceed to discuss his thirteenth thesis and show that natural man removes the obstacle to the operations of divine grace on the heart if he does what he can to comply with God's will. He would prove Carl- stadt's position to be untenable, viz., that natural man acting only with his natural powers cannot but sin. The debate on this subject occupied the entire day and can be summed up as follows: Eck maintained the prevalent view of scholas- ticism that natural man secures divine grace as a reward for his exertions to obtain it, by doing as much as is in his power to comply with the order of salvation. He cited Augustine, Chrysostom, Gregory of JSTyssa, and Bernard in his defense. His basic idea was that the will in man is the determining factor in man's actions. He limited his asser- tion somewhat by saying that he did not mean to declare man's exercise of his free will the principal cause of the re- moval of the obstacle to divine grace in the heart; he only claimed that this exercise of the will disposes man for the reception of grace; it induces man to give his assent to the divine offer of grace and to accept it. He found his view corroborated by Ezek. 18, 31, where God bids man make him- self a new heart. Predestination, he said, had nothing to do with this matter. Carlstadt challenged the appeal to Augus- tine by another quotation from the same father, in which he says that man, when he does what he can, or when he acts with his own powers, sins, and that grace alone removes the obstacle. He also rejected Eck's appeal to Bernard by citing the statement of this father that man's efforts to meet divine grace and his assent to the offer of grace are caused by God. He admitted that Gregory of N^yssa and Chrysostom had taught as Eck had represented, as also had Origen; but these fathers, he said, had not set forth pure doctrine at this 23. THE CONCI.USIO.N OF THE DEBATE. 189 point ; they had ascribed to man what must be ascribed to God as the principal cause. The text from Ezekiel, he said, only shows what we are to ask of God in prayer, for in chap. 36, 26 'the same prophet, speaking in the name of God, says that God will take away the stony heart. Ech argued that a distinction must be made between the natural activity of man in evil things and without God, and his activity in good things and with God. In the passage from Augustine which Carlstadt had quoted, he said, the father speaks of the former activity of man; as to the latter, however, that must evidently be classed with the meritorious actions of man. He deprecated the suspicion which Carlstadt had cast on Gregory and Chrysostom, while he admitted that the po- sition of Origen is questionable. He reiterated his claim that free will creates a disposition favorable to the accept- ance of grace, and thus removes the obstacle to grace, but he granted that the divine act of Justification by grace repre- sents the beginning of salvation. Carlstadt accepted the latter statement, and interpreted Eck's distinction as regards man's activity in evil or in good things to mean that man cannot perform any good action by himself, without the im- pulse and drawing of God, in which sense he accepted the definition. His final appeal he made to Phil. 2, 13. Seckendorf has pronounced this disputation subtile, and has betrayed impatience with it. He evidently regarded it as unprofitable. Loescher rightly maintains that the dis- cussion touched fundamental principles of Christianity, for it turned upon the question whether man can claim any merit for his acts before God. Eck affirmed this, declaring man the principal cause of his own good works, and accord- ing him the right to appeal to the record of his good works before God. This view Carlstadt opposed. The element of weakness in this part of the debate was the lack of definitions and relevant dictinctions ; the spiritual condition of the un- regenerate and the regenerate man should have been sharply delimited, and the purely passive condition of man in the former and his cooperation with divine grace by the powers conferred on him in regeneration for the new life would 190 23. TlIK OOXCLUSIOX OF THE DEBATE. have been brought out clearly and satisfactorily. But even with this lack of definiteness Carlstadt had the better of the argument. Eck felt the force of Carlstadt's reasoning; for in the progress of the debate he began to qualify uneasily the sweeping claims he had uttered at the beginning. The debate on Friday, July 15, in both sessions was a corollary to that . of the preceding day. The discussion turned on the question whether man is sinning even in his good works. Carlstadt aiRrmed this on the ground of Eccl. 7, 21 : "There is not a man on earth that doeth good and sinneth not." Ech argued that it is impossible to believe that Peter and Laurentius, while suffering martyrdom, were committing sin. He held, with Jerome and Augustine, that the text 'from Ecclesiastes must be understood relatively, viz., that the saints had been sinning before they were saints, or occasionally while they were saints, but they were not sinning when performing a good action. Carlstadt refused to admit any restriction on the plainly universal scope of the text he had quoted, and also found statements in Augustine and Jerome to favor his view. He appealed to Ps. 143, 20, where David in his regenerate state pleads with God not to enter intp judgment with him; to Ps. 80, 5, where Asaph asks God not to reject the prayer of the godly; to Ps. 116, 11, where a martyr says : "All men are liars." He said there is but one perfect, immaculate martyrdom, that of Jesus. Christ, and by His sinless martyrdom Christ had to atone for the deficiencies of the martyrdom of H^s followers. David's as- sertion of his innocence in Ps. 17, 3 he interpreted of mortal sins. Ech now admitted the universal force of Eccl. 7, 21, and was willing to apply it also to saints, but not to their every action. David's plea in Ps. 143, 20 he understood as a plea to be spared the application of the "rigid justice" of God ; in other places, he said, David .invites an examination of his conduct by the "pious justice" of God, according to which God rewards good works. The passage: "All men are liars" he interpreted to mean: "All men are vain and, perishable." The faint-heartedness of Christ in His last agony he claimed to be a proof that it is not sinful to be- 2o. THE CONCLUSION OF THE DEBATE. 191 come faint-liearted ; lienoe the weaknesses of martyrs must not be regarded as sin. Asaph's request he understood as a request that God would not deny him his prayer or delay his answer. Cavhtadt still maintained that Eccl. 7, 21 ap- plies not only to all men, but also to all works of every man. He held that when David or Job appeal to God to judge them according to their righteousness, they mean they are sin- cerely repenting of their sins and seeking God's pardon. He made a very impressive appeal to 1 John 1, 8 — 10. The fact that God rewards good works, he said, is no proof that those works are perfect. All weaknesses, also those of the martyrs, arise from the flesh, as Rom. 7 shows. The unceasing prayer of the saints for God's mercy, he claimed, shows that they put no confidence even in their good works, and that is also what the Church declares in one of the collects which are sung at the service : "We do not trust in our righteousness." If there were a good work in a person's life, that person could absolutely put his trust in that work. Is. 64, 6, however, and many expressions in Job, show that even the righteous acts of a righteous man give him no comfort; the godly man feels that he must abhor also his good^works in the presence of God. Is there not, he asked, a constant struggle in man between the flesh and the spirit? Ech now weakened per- ceptibly. Of course, he said, in order to be just to himself, man must always keep himself in a humble and penitent mood; he would also admit that venial sins may enter into some of the good works of the godly; but he claimed that God is not really angry at such weaknesses. He only differen- tiates the manifestation of His grace in such instances. The evil lust of which Paul complains he referred to sins com- mitted before, not after, baptism. When Job shudders at the sight of God's righteousness, he is thinking of God's "rigid justice" ; and Isaiah, he said, only declares that, measured against the righteousness of God, our own right- eousness is imperfect. So, too, in the collect to which Carl- stadt had referred, the Church merely warns against pre- sumption, but does not reject putting confidence in one's good works. He became apologetic in his concluding re- 192 23. THE CONCLUSION OF THE DEBATE. marks, asking to be pardoned if he had said anything amiss. Carlstadt replied briefly that Eck's statement, that our righteousness is imperfect in comparison with the righteous- ness of God, was the very point for which he was contending. He denied that the collect to which he had alluded is directed against presumption and claimed that it is a warning against self-confidence. What Paul says in Eom. 7 about evil lust, he said, is spoken by a baptized, or regenerate, person. Ech only made the weak rejoinder that these words of Paul are differently explained by various interpreters, and it were best not to appeal to them in an argument. Sin in this passage, he claimed, means punishment for sin.198) There remained now but one point still to be discussed, the nature of repentance, and this should have been the sub- ject for the debate on July 16. But Duke George had noti- fied the disputants that he could not entertain them any longer at the Pleissenburg, for he must prepare for the re- ception of a guest who was returning to his home from an important political meeting at Frankfort on the Main. At this famous imperial city of Germany the electors of the Empire had assembled about the time when Luther started from Wittenberg to attend the debate at Leipzig. They had come to elect the successor to Emperor Maximilian, and opened their diet on June 17. There was a fierce contest for the imperial crown between Francis I of France and Charles V; the latter was opposed by Rome, which tried to thwart his election in the last hour by proposing Elector Frederic of Saxony, the regent during the interregnum, as a compromise candidate, but was defeated by the wise humility of the Elector, who declared himself incompetent for the position, and, moreover, considered it his patriotic duty to favor Charles V as the logical candidate. On June 28 — Guizot says June 18 — the election of Charles V was effected. Thus an event of the greatest moment for the progress of the Reformation had taken place while truth and error had met at Leipzig in open conflict on fundamental questions of the Christian faith of the Reformation. 196) XT, 1101 — 1130 ; Loescher, I. v., Ill, 483 — 507 ; 551 — 556. 23. THE CONOLUSION OF THE DEBATE. 193 Accordingly, the debate was terminated July 16, in the afternoon. Dulre George had already left, and in his place Caesar von Pflug, Dr. John Kuchel, and George von Wide- bach presided at the closing session. The presence of the abbots of Pforta, Pegau, and Bosau, near Zeitz, also of the rector of the university, Wostenfeld, at the closing session was noted. When the debate began, John Lange had been Rector Magnificus of the university, and to him had been assigned the honorable fimction of delivering the closing address. He spoke an hour, and his oration was a eulogy on theological disputations. As an oratorical product it is inferior to the polished opening address of the artist Mosel- lanns, but it was delivered more acceptably. The personal references to the disputants are few and reveal an honest effort at impartiality. "Up, then, ye musicians," he cried at the end of his per- oration, "and for all that we have witnessed congratulate these great men; give your applause; break forth in joy. As you played to the honor of the Holy Spirit at the opening, so play again for the praise of God at the close." 1^^) Now the Cantor of St. Thomas struck up the magnificent strains of the Te Deum, Laudamus, after which the assembly dis- persed. Eck remained in Leipzig nine days longer, gather- ing laurels and enjoying himself after his fashion. He de- ported himself as the unquestioned victor; but there were men who questioned, and some who oi)enly denied, his vic- tory. They were few, it is true, but it meant much in papal Leipzig that there should be any who believed that the dis- putants from Wittenberg had won in the famous argument. Carlstadt returned directly to Wittenberg, and the crowd of visitors carried the news of the great things which they had seen and heard to many parts of Germany. For the rest of that year the correspondence of the learned men in Germany, Prance, and Italy is filled with references to the Leipzig Debate. 197) XV, 1130 — 1142 ; Loescher, I. c, III, 580 — 590. DAD, LEIPZIG DEBATE. 13 194 24. KEPORTS ABOUT THE DEBATE. What of tte judges that were to render a verdict on the debate? Before leaving, Luther had finally agreed that the protocol of the debate should be submitted to the universities of Erfurt and Paris, he reserving his right of appeal. Eck, in accepting the faculties of the two' universities, had stipu- lated that at Erfurt those members of the faculty who were Augustinians should be disqualified as judges. Luther, it will be remembered, was an Augustinian. Luther, on his part, demanded that at both universities none who were Dominicans or Franciscans could sit on the case. Besides, Luther stipulated an unusual condition: he wanted laymen to be admitted to this court, namely, the members of the two universities who were not theologians. The two universities were placed in a dilemma by this agreement. Erfurt was the first to reach a conclusion in the matter; it might be summed up in the famous dictiim of a later Pope: Non possumus. They declared that it was for many reasons neither wise, nor good, nor salutary, etc., but chiefiy, it was very inconvenient, that they should be asked to decide these strange and novel issues, and therefore they asked to be excused. The Erench university did not reply at all, but their endorsement of the papal bull of excommu- nication a year later has been interpreted by inference as a judgment of condemnation on Luther's and Carlstadt's part in the Leipzig Debate. 24. Reports about the Debate. Dr. Preserved Smith has reproduced a number of inter- esting accounts of the Debate at Leipzig that serve well to fill out the picture of the event which has been attempted in these pages. Eck wrote from Leipzig on July 1 to George Hauen and Erancis Burckhardt at Ingolstadt : — Greeting. Our friendship demands that I should give you news of myself. At first the strong, heating beer was bad for me. From Pfreimd to Gera I didn't have a single drink. At Leipzig 24. REPOKTS ABOUT THE DEBATE. 195 also the beer was bad for me, so I stopped drinking it for six days, and feel better. . . . Luther and Carlstadt entered in great state, with two hundred Wittenberg students, four doctors, three licentiates, many pro- fessors, and many Lutherans, Lang of Erfurt, the Vicar, impudent Egranus, the preacher of Goerlitz, the pastor of Ahnaberg, Bohe- mians, and Hussites sent from Prague, and many heretics, who give out that Luther is an able defender of the truth, not inferior to John Hus. . So far of Carlstadt; now of the other monster, Luther. (On the margin Eck wrote: "I have done Luther a good mischief, of which I will tell you orally.") At his arrival I heard that he did not want to debate, and I moved everything to get him to. We met in the presence of the ducal commissioners and of the university; I left everything to them; they wanted Luther to debate on the same conditions as Carlstadt, but he said much about instructions from his prince. I said to him I did not want the Elector as judge, though I did not exclude him; that he might choose a university, and if Germany were too small, he might take one abroad, in France or Spain. But he would not have any judge, and was therefore not admitted to debate; for, according to the ducal instructions, no one should debate who did not allow a judge. I desired at that time that the commissioners and university should give me a testimony of this, although many of them are Lutherans. Dr. Auerbach, the physician of the Arch- bishop of Mayence, and the doctor of the Counts of Mansfeld, and many others urged Luther on, as he would lose every one's favor if he would not allow any judge in the world. . . . Finally, we agreed to decide on a judge at the end of the debate, and in the mean time that it should (not) be allowed to have the debate printed. . . . The Wittenbergers are full of gall, rage, and poison, and arouse odium against me. The Town Council received so many threats from them, though none of them were definite, that on the same night they put a guard of thirty-four armed men in the next houses, so that if there was any disturbance, its authors might get what they deserved. People still put their hopes on Luther, but none whatever on Carlstadt. Luther was not allowed to preach at Leipzig, but the Duke of Pomerania, who is Eector of Wittenberg, at the sug- gestion of the monk, got him to preach on the Gospel for the day in the castle, which he. did. The whole sermon, delivered on June 29, was Bohemian. On the next morning, Sunday, at the desire of citizens and doctors, I preached and rebutted his hair- splitting errors. . .198) 198) Luther's Oorresp., I, 196 f. 196 24. KEPOETS ABOUT THE DEBATE. From the account given in the preceding chapters the misstatements of Eck in this letter can be corrected. Dr. Auerbach,199) to whom Eck refers in his letter, has written his impressions of the Debate in a letter to Spalatin, dated July 19 : — ... At Leipzig, in the castle, I attended the theological debate of Eck, Carlstadt, and Iiuther. Eck, the loud theologian, and Carlstadt disputed on free will. Martin Luther, a man famous for eloquence, divinity, and holiness of life, disputed with Eck on the power of the Pope, on purgatory, indulgences, and the power of priests to loose and bind, whether they all have it or not, and on some other obscure theological points. It is extra- ordinary how much holy theological learning was modestly dis- tilled by Martin. He seems to me a man worthy of immortality. He uttered nothing but what was sound and wholesome, omitting all heathen learning, and content only with the majestic Gospel and writings of the apostles. Some, infected either with unbe- coming legality or with malice, reviled him. He was like a harm- less sheep among wolves, and the more hostile they were to him, the greater and more holy was his learning. Did I not know that you were already favorable to him, I would write to you to commend him to the Elector; but there is no need of spurring one running of his own accord. . . .200) Melanchthon has given his impressions in a letter of July 21, addressed to John Oecolampadius at Augsburg : — . . . And to begin at the beginning, Eck last year published some notes called Oielisks on Luther's Theses on Indulgences, and he wrote too bitterly for me to quote anything from them. Carl- stadt picked out some of Eck's propositions in his Theses, which are published. Eck answered in an Apology, which was somewhat milder than the Ohelisks. Carlstadt confuted the Apology in a pamphlet; it was a tedious accusation expressed a^ length. Omit- ting details, it was determined to dispute on the chief point. The day was set. Eck, Carlstadt, and Luther came together at Leipzig. The subject of the debate was digested in a few propositions to 199) "Stromer von Auerbacli (1482 — November, 1542), famous as the first host of 'Auerbach's Keller' celebrated in Goethe's Faust, ma- triculated at Leipzig 1497, M. A. 1502, taught philosophy, Rector of the tJniversity 1508. Then he studied medicine, becoming M. D. in 1511, and in 1516 was made professor of pathology. In 1519 he married] and in 1524 became dean of the medical faculty. He was a friend of Erasmus and Reuchlin, and special physician to Albrecht of Mayence." (Pres. Smith.) 200) I. u., I, 199 f. 24. KEPOBTS ABOUT THE DEBATE. 197 make it more definite. I think you will agree that it is proper in a debate to have notaries take down the speeches, and to have their reports published, so that each may judge the merits of the debaters. But Eck first told the judges appointed by Duke George of Saxony, that Maecenas of humane letters, that he did not agree to this plan, for he thought that the nature of the debate precluded its being reported, for that the force of the debaters was increased by speaking ex tempore and would be de- decreased by the delay of writing, that while minds were stimu- lated by rapidity, they would be enervated by delay. But it seems to me that this is just what is to be desired. . . . You know how Nazianzen advises this, and how Erasmus does. (Fol- lows a description of the debate between Carlstadt and Eck on free will.) Then Martin descended into the arena; for up to this time it was uncertain whether he would debate, because he was not able to appoint judges in such a delicate matter, saving his right to appeal. However, when this was settled, he began to debate on the power of the Pope, and whether it could be considered as exist- ing jure divino. For he frankly confessed its existence de facto, and only disputed the divine right. As the dispute waxed some- what sharp, five days were spent on this point. Eck spoke bit- terly and discourteously, and tried every means to excite odium against Luther among the people. Eck's first argument was that the Church could not be without a head, since it was a corporate body, and, therefore, that the Pope was jure divino head of the Church. Then Martin said that Christ was the Head of the Church, which, being spiritual, needed no other, as is said in Col. 1, 18. Eck replied by citing several passages from Jerome and Cyprian, which, he thought, proved the divine right. But now certain passages in those writers whom he cited as sure supporters were quoted as showing that they were doubtful. He boasted the authority of Bernard's epistle to Eugenius, as if it were Achilles in his magic armor, although there are certain things in that very book which support Luther's position. More- over, who is so stupid as not to see what small authority Bernard could have had in this matter? From the Gospel Eck quoted the text, "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will found My Church." Luther interpreted that as a confession of faith; said that Peter represented the Church, and that the rock on which Christ founded the Church was Himself; and he proved this by the order of the words. Again, that text, "Feed My sheep," was said to Peter, alone and privately, as Luther alleged, after the like authority had been given to all the apostles, in the words, "Receive the Holy Spirit; and whose sins ye loose on earth shall be loosed unto them in heaven," etc. With these words, he 198 -^- EEPORTS ABOUT THE DEBATE. said, Christ showed what it was to feed the sheep, and what sort of man He wished the shepherd to be. Against this Eck urged the authority of the Council of Constanz, where Luther's propo- sition had been condemned as one of Hus's articles, and where it was said that it was necessary to salvation to believe the Roman Pontiff was universal. He advanced several reasons to show that a council could not err. Luther prudently replied that all the condemned articles should not be considered heretical, and he added more on the authority of a council, which it w6uld be tiresome to report here. Plainly, however, a council cannot found articles of faith. The audience did not care for this propo- sition, because it seemed as if Luther were resisting the authority of councils, whereas he desired nothing more devoutly than their authority. He was therefore accused of heresy, Hussite opinions, and crimes of that nature. Eck conceded that the authority of all apostles was equal, but that it did not follow that all bishops were equal. . After this they debated on the power of the Pope over souls in purgatory, and Eck took a new tack and began to prove from the text in Maccabees that purgatory existed. Luther, following Jerome, denied that Maccabees was authoritative. . . In Luther, now long familiarly known to me, I admire a lively talent, learning, and eloquence, and cannot help loving his sincere and entirely Christian mind. Greet our common friends. You know the Greek proverb, that there is much vain boasting in war. Wherefore do not believe all that is told you about the result of this debate.201) The conceit and boldness of Eck are revealed in a letter which he addressed to the Elector Erederic of Saxony on July 22 : — Serene, high-born Elector! My humble, ready service to your Grace, together with my poor prayers to God for you. Most gracious Lord! I humbly pray your Grace not to take it ill nor with displeasure that I have allowed myself to debate with your Grace's professors from Wittenberg, for I did not do it to hurt your Grace's university, but, on the contrary, am much inclined to serve your Grace, as one who is' renowned before other princes of the Empire for cherishing letters and learned men. But only for the sake of the truth of the holy faith have I debated, and because Dr. Carlstadt compelled me to by printing and publish- ing certain Conclusions with many words of contempt and revil- ing against me, although he had no cause to insult people thus. As to Dr. Luther, whom I pity because of the singular excesses 201) I. v., I, 200 ff. 24. REPORTS ABOUT THE DEBATE. 199 into whicli his fair genius has fallen in taking up this matter, I was compelled to answer, him because of his publication of a great deal of stuff from which, in my poor opinion, much error and scandal will arise. Your Grace may judge that he does not to this day in the least moderate his views, in that on a certain matter he denies and repudiates the opinion of the holy fathers Augustine, Ambrose, Jerome, Gregory, Leo, Cyprian, Chrysostom, and Bernard. It sounds evil for a Christian to presume to say that of his own wisdom he understands the sense of Holy Scrip- ture better than the holy fathers. It is also hard to hear him say, as he did in the debate, that many articles of John Hus and the Bohemians, condemned by the holy Council of Constanz, are most Christian and evangelic. It is easy to imagine what joy the heretics conceive on hearing such things. He also says that St. Peter did not have the primacy over the other apostles from Christ, and many other things. As a Christian prince your Grace may judge whether these and similar things may be allowed in Christianity. In my poor opinion they cannot be; wherefore, solely for the sake of the truth, I will withstand them where I can. Neither Dr. Luther nor any one else can say that he has re- ceived a pennyworth of his doctrine from our Holy Father, the Pope, or from the great heads of the Church. Yet I, although a poor parson, came here at my own expense to meet your Grace's professors, and am still ready, if Dr. Luther thinks he has not yet debated enough, to go with him to Cologne, Louvain, or Paris. For I know just what they will do. For when they proposed to me the University of Leipzig, they would have had it thought that they had refused to debate there, but that I compassed it with the prince and the university. Most gracious lord, I do not mean to reproach Dr. Luther with all this, nor do I write to injure him, but only to excuse myself to your Grace, who would otherwise hear untruths to my dishonor; and I also give your Grace occasion to consider what you owe to Christ, the Christian religion, the land, and the people. Long ago I desired to excuse myself to your Grace, and came to your Grace's court at Augs- burg six times, and I know not for what reason I was not allowed to come before your Grace. Although your Grace's professors departed with sundry threats to write much, I debated in such wise that it would be unnecessary to write anything. For we made an agreement to keep still until judgment shall have been given by the universities selected as umpires. Wherefore I left them free choice of all the universities which are in good repute in the whole of Christendom, to take which ones they liked. Well, let them write; I don't care much, only I wish they wrote with the seriousness demanded of the sub- ject, and not so frivolously, impertinently, and a;busively, espe- 200 24. REPOBTS ABOUT THE DEBATE. eially as I am sure your Grace has no pleasure in such words. What is written by theologians should be in such language that any one who reads it may understand that a theologian has written with the purpose of seeking the truth, and not like a groom who is only able to revile people. . . P. 8. — Most gracious lord, it has just occurred to me that in debating with Dr. Luther on the power of the Pope, I took away the ■ whole foundation of his argument. For his position is not novel, many mistaken persons have held it before. But if from mere suspicion he has conceived the opinion that some of your Grace's subjects have given me his recently printed book (as they have told Caesar Pflug that they think Dr. Peter Burck- hardt has done so ) , let me say that this is false, and that they do Dr. Burckhardt and the others wrong, for he has never men- tioned the matter to me, and I have not yet seen the book, un- less, as I thought, he read from it at the debate. But I know well enough from similiar writings what it contains. Your Grace would do a praiseworthy act to burn it on a bonfire.202) What was Eck's object in writing this intrusive letter? Partly, to inflame the Elector against Luther. The book to which he refers in his postscript, which, as is often the case, reveals the matter that was on his mind most, is Luther's Exposition of his Thirteenth Thesis on the Primacy of the Pope. But another motive of his was to intimidate both the Elector and the Wittenberg professors, and to forestall their exposing him in print. He calculated that he might fail in his first object; in that case he would be satisfied to succeed in the second. While the Wittenbergers kept silence, as he urged they should do, he intended to be busy in secret under- mining their influence, as the next letter will ' show. As it turned out, he failed in both objects. On July 24 Eck addressed the following letter to the in- quisitor for Germany, James Hoogstraten, at Colore : — I would not have you ignorant, reverend father, how I have hitherto withstood those rash men of Wittenberg who despise all the doctors of the last four hundred years, no matter how holy and wise, and who disseminate many false and erroneous ideas among the people, seducing and infecting them chiefly by means of words printed in German. 202) I. v., I, 202 £E. 24. KEPORTS ABOUT THE DEBATE. 201 Recently we disputed at Leipzig, before an audience of learned men, who had come together from all parts, where (praise, honor, and glory be to God ! ) their reputation, even with the vulgar, was much diminished, and was completely destroyed with most learned men. You should have heard their rash assertions, how blind they were and bold to commit crimes. Luther denies that Peter was the prince of the apostles; he denies that obedience is owed to the Church by divine law, but only by human agreement, that is, by agreement of the Emperor. He denies that the Church was built on Peter. When I cited on this point Augustine, Jerome, Ambrose, Gregory, Cyprian, Chrys- ostom, Leo, Bernard, and Theophilus, he repudiated them all without blushing, and said that he alone would oppose all of them, relying only on the text that Christ was the foundation of the Church, and that other foundation can no man lay. I did away with this by citing Revelation 21, about the twelve founda- tions. Luther also defended the Greeks and schismatics, saying that they would be saved even if they are not under the obedience of the Pope. Of the articles of the Bohemians, he says that some of those condemned by the Council of Constanz are most Christian and evangelic ; by which rash error he frightened many, and alienated those who had previously supported him. Among other things I said to him : If the primacy of the Pope is merely a matter of human law and of the agreement of the faithful, where does he [Luther] get the dress he wears? Where does he get the power of preaching and of hearing confessions of his parishioners, etc.? He answered that he wished there were no mendicant orders, and many otKer scandalous and absurd things, as, that a council, consisting of men, could err, and that purgatory was not proved by the Bible, as you may see by read- ing our debate, which was taken down by faithful notaries. There were many of them ; besides the two doctors, there was their Vicar Lang, two licentiates in theology, a nephew of Reuch- lin, who assumes a good deal [Melanchthon had passed a note to Carlstadt during the debate, which Eek resented], three doctors of law, several professors who aided him privately and publicly even in the course of the debate. But I alone, with nothing but right on my side, withstood them. To brothers of your order I committed the carQ of copying the debate and sending it to you as soon as possible. Wherefore I pray you by him whom I serve, zealously to defend the faith as you long ago undertook to do. I do not wish you to involve yourself, or make either your person or your order odious, but . please aid me with your advice and learning. The Wittenbergers hesitated to debate; in fact, they sought excuses. Luther was 202 24. EEPOETS ABOUT THE DEBATE. at first unwilling to take as judge any university in the world. The most Christian Duke George of Saxony would not allow any dispute on articles of faith unless it should be referred for judg- ment to the masters of our faith. Luther was therefore forced and spurred on by his followers, for had he not debated and ad- mitted some judge, they would all have receded from him. When I then offered him his choice of all the universities, he chose Paris and Erfurt. As I know that your university has close relations with Paris, I beg you earnestly, for the sake of Christ'si faith, to write to your friends there, or even, if it seem good, to the whole uni- versity, that when the excellent Duke George shall write them and send the debate with a request for judgment, they may not decline, but should undertake it like champions, as we have both agreed to them as judges, and I think the matter is so plain that it will not need long discussion. . . . On the day of St. Peter, in the absence of the Duke, Luther delivered at court a sermon full of Hussite errors. Straightway on the day of the Visitation of the Virgin and the day after, I preached against his errors to a larger audience than I have ever had, and I stirred up in the people disgust for Lutheran errors, and I will do the same to-morrow when I bid Leipzig good-bye. . . .203) There are in this letter prevarications in the •form of mis- statements such as we noticed before. But there is also a dastardly feature in this particular letter: Eck is light- ing the funeral pyre for Luther by summoning the canonical hangman to his aid, and as one step towards that goal at- tempts to have the judges of the debate suborned. We have also a letter of the noble Amsdorf about the Leipzig Debate. It was written on August 1 : — It would be long and prolix to relate the order and procedure of the Leipzig debate; much more prolix and tedious to describe the same. For as often as I think of the said debate, I am moved and kindled, not, as God knows, for the love I bear Dr. Luther, but for that I bear the truth. I doubt not that truth is certain, unchangeable, .and eternal, though hated by all gross fellows. Even before this time I knew that what Eck and his supporters brought forth was falsehood. This is not remarkable, for Eck is entirely unversed in the Holy Scriptures. And, what is more, he does not even know as 203) I. c, I, 205 fE. . 24. KEPOBTS ABOUT THE DEBATE. 203 much sophistry as a man who wants to be thought so great a de- bater ought, for he boasts and claims to be a father and patron of sophistry. For I have smelled about a little, and understand the affair rightly (although I have neither reason nor discrimina- tion ) , namely, that Eck speaks all that is in his mind and memory without reason, judgment, or discrimination, although he can utter the words he has learned with great pomp and proper ges- ture. He does not seek the truth, but only to show oil his memory and to defend the teachers of his school. . . . That you may believe that what I say is true, hear a text of the Bible which, with the counsel of the inept and unlearned sophists of Leipzig, Eck cited and brought forward to defend papal indulgence. It stands in Is. 61, I: "The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me; therefore the Lord hath anointed Me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent Me to bind up the broken- hearted, to proclaim to the captives indulgence," that is, forgive- ness of sins. See, my dear Spalatin, this one word [indulgence], which these famous sophists of Leipzig found in the large Con- cordance to the Bible,204) they wrote for Eck with chalk upon a blackboard and sent to him the following day to support papal indulgences which have recently been invented for the sake of gain. For the prophet does not speak of the forgiveness of sin by indulgence, but of our Lord and Savior becoming a man. Just look at the unhappy, stupid sophists. But I am not surprised, for they know nothing. But I am surprised that Eck took the said text into the debate, and uttered it before so remarkable an assembly, and dictated it to the notaries. It is true, however, that Eck surpassed Dr. Carlstadt by far in memory and delivery, so that I was sorry that the thing had been begun, not because Eck won the victory, but because, had the speeches not been taken down in writing, our champions would have come off with great shame. For Eck argues and turns around in the Italian manner with nine or ten arguments, by which he does not seek to establish the truth, but only his own honor, just as all sophists, that is, all schoolmen, do. . . But the audience consider him the victor who shouts the loudest and has the last word, and for these reasons the men of Leipzig honor Eck as the victor. . I do not consider Eck equal to Luther either in doctrine or art, either in delivery or memory; I would as soon compare stones or mere filth to pure gold. . . .205) 204) The Latin Bible has "indulgentiam" where our Authorized version has "liberty" in this text. 205) I. c, I, 209 flf. 204 25. EXIT DK. ECK. The opinions here expressed are significant, not so much as revealing the impression which Luther had made at Leip- zig on thoughtful minds, as rather for the freedom with which prominent men are discussing matters which a gen- eration ago would be uttered only with bated breath between very intimate friends. This freedom of discussion is one of the immediate results of the Leipzig Debate. Dogmas that had been intrenched for centuries in positions of inconquer- able strength had all of a sudden become debatable subjects. To the Eoman autocrats these questioning, disputing, chal- lenging voices seemed a hideous discord, but a shoemaker in Kuemberg heard in them the melodies with which God's feathered chorus in meadow and field greets the dawn of a sunlit day. 25. Exit Dr. Eck. We shall now dismiss one of the characters that has figured so prominently, but also so ignobly, in this historical review. His eagerness had prompted, his versatility had enabled, and his audacity had braved him to send to the Saxon Elector unasked-for information regarding the Leipzig Debate, and to offer to the prince unsolicited advice what to do with the two heretics who, he said, were making his university in- famous. The Elector sent Eck's letter to Wittenberg, with a note, and it remains now to see in what manner Luther and Carlstadt disposed of Eck's letter. In a joint reply to the Elector, dated August 18, they say : — Moat serene, etc., etc. We have received your Grace's note with Dr. Eck's letter and noted the contents. Dr. Eck says he does not intend to slander us before your Grace, and yet labors with his sophistry and habitual loose talk to get your Grace, only on the strength of his letter and hasty judgment, to drive us out of the land. We are not surprised that he considers your Grace such a person as he dares address such a letter to. For we learn every day more clearly that Dr. Eck is and remains Dr. Eck, do what he will. May your Grace not take it ill that we have not given you 25. EXIT DB. ECK. 205 an account of this debate before. For we esteeJn it an unfortunate affair, carried on with mere hatred and envy, wherefore we did not wish to be the first of whom people could say (as Dr. Eck unnecessarily fears they will) that we desired with our glory to shame others. But as we are forced by Dr. Eck's letter, we pray that your Grace will hear the affair with kindly patience, al- though we are sorry to inflict so long and unprofitable a story on your Grace. But the affair will speak for itself, and show whether Dr. Eck, with all his boasting and protestation, is in- clined to serve or to hurt your Grace's university. In the first place, Dr. Eck complains that I, Andrew Carlstadt, published certain theses against him, with sarcasms and con- temptuous words, although he does not think that I have any right to insult people. I reply: Dr. Eck can esteem me as he likes, but it would have mightily become him, had he, along with his complaint, told how he attacked Dr. Luther, to revile and shame us and your Grace's university. His words would have been too much even for a bad woman, for in his poisonous Obelisks he reviled him as a Hussite, a heretic, a rebel, a shame- less brawler, a new prophet, and everything else he pleased, more than twenty times, as much as I, who was too moderate against his misconduct, eVer called him for the vindication of our honor. For I think Dr. Eck has much less right, not only to revile such a man, but to slander all of us, to the shame of your Grace's university, and so criminally to libel us without any ground or reason. And if the goad pricks Dr. Eck too hard, the said Obelisks are at hand, and we will publish them, which hitherto, to spare his honor, we have refrained from doing. We have de- served his great ingratitude by not paying him back in kind. And if necessary, we will also collect .on paper all the ugly, sharp, disagreeable words and gestures with which he made the defeat© a simple obstacle to the truth. . . . May God reward him for pitying me, Martin Luther. I would only like to hear what are the "singular excesses" for which he so mercilessly punishes me. But I can have nothing to do with him on articles of faith, except perhaps in that of penitence; as for my opinion on indulgences, purgatory, and the power of the Pope, I confess that, "according to his poor opinion" (as he truly says), I have made much scandal and offense, not for the com- mon people, but for the Pharisees and scribes, for whom also- Christ and all the apostles made offense. Truly, I cannot stop, doing this even now, whether it wins the "good opinion" of Dr. Eck. or not. He blames me shamelessly for denying the authority of all the' holy fathers at once, Augustine, Ambrose, Jerome, Gregory, Leo„ Chrysostom, etc., and for arrogating to myself alone the under- 206 25. EXIT DR. ECK. standing of Scripture. Thti^ it is fitting that a Doctor of Divinity should speak out roundly and forcibly before a, prince. Your Grace may note how much inclined Dr. Eck is to serve us, in daring cheerfully to write such things about us. Had he said that I had contradicted some fathers, he would have had a show of reason, but his own clear conscience knows that it is not true that I contradicted them all. Let me tell your Grace the exact truth: I did, indeed, set one doctor, with the text of the Bible, against another, whom Dr. Eck cited alone, naked and without the Bible, and I will not cease doing this my life long. That is •what Dr. Eck calls contradicting all the holy fathers, and says that it sounds badly in the new Eckian Christianity. . . . For I have said that when I had a clear text, I would stand by it, even if the exegesis of the teachers were contrary to the sense. St. i^ugustine often does this and teaches us to do it. For, as the lawyers say, we should put more faith" in one man who has the Bible for him, than in the Pope and a whole council without the Bible. From him, my dear friends. Dr. Eck and the men of Leipzig, conclude roundly that I have repudiated all teachers. What can one do with such false tongues and hearts? In like manner he has thrown up at me the Council of Constanz, and accuses me of contradicting it. I will answer this charge in due time, and show his false heart to the world. . . . (The rest of this letter is a long argument of ten pages on the power of the Pope and the other points which came up in the debate with Eck.) 206) Prom now on Eck becomes the embodiment of tbe Eoman opposition to the Reformation. He is, directly or indirectly, connected with every measure adopted by the Curia to crush the "rebellion and apostasy," as Leo XIII has called the Reformation. He is the counter-reformer be- fore the counter-reformation. His theological labors center about Luther and his work; take that away, and he is nothing. He became famous only as an antithesis, and maintains a precarious notoriety in encyclopedias to-day only as the great anti-Lutheran. He is the shrewdest, most persistent, and most relentless single enemy that Luther had. What the Catholic Church of to-day thinks of him, the fol- lowing estimate may serve to show : — The Disputation of Leipzig formed the turning-point in Bck's intellectual development and in his activity as a theologian. 206) I. c, I, 212 £f. XV, 1306 fE. 25. EXIT DR. ECK. 207 Thenceforth he is a prominent figure in the history of that period. With a clear insight into the meaning of Lutheranism, he was the first to champion the cause of Catholic teaching against Protestant error; and he became Luther's ablest opponent, skil- ful, untiring, and thoroughly equipped in theology. The rest of his life was spent in conflict with the Reformers in Germany and Switzerland. He defended the Catholic Church, its doctrines and its institutions, in his writings, in public debates, in his speeches at the diets, and in his diplomatic missions. . . . During the same year (1519) he published several essays attacking the tenets of Luther, and grew steadily in prominence as an- authority on theological questions. In 1520 he visited Rome to report on the condition of affairs in Germany and to secure the condemna- tion of Luther's heresy. He submitted his essay on the Primacy of Peter to Leo X, was appointed Prothonotary Apostolic, and was charged as papal legate, along with two other legates, Aleander and Caracciolo, to carry out in Germany the provision of the Bull Exsurge, Domine, which excommunicated Luther and condemned his 41 theses. The execution of this mandate was be- set with difiiculties on every side. Eck, through his Epistola ad Carolum V (1521), admonished Emperor Charles to enforce the papal ban. In the same year he went to Rome again, principally at the behest of the Bavarian dukes, for whom he acted as coun- selor in the ecclesiastical affairs, and made a third visit to Rome in 1523. . . In the mean time he combated Lutheranism by his letters and essays. Between the years 1522 and 1526 he published eight voluminous treatises against Luther. Through his influence the university of Ingolstadt retained its strictly Catholic atti- tude, and strenuously opposed the rising Protestant institutions. Eck had also a considerable share in organizing the "Catholic Federation," founded June 5, 1524, by the leaders in Church and State, for the purpose of safeguarding the ancient faith and en- forcing the Edict of Worms. . . . When the Protestants at the Diet of Augsburg in 1530 promulgated the Augsburg Confession, defining their religious views, Eck headed the Catholic champions upon whom the refutation of the articles in this confession de- volved. Together with Wimpina and Cochlaeus he represented the Catholic party at the conference (August 16) between Catholic and Lutheran theologians relative to the Gonfessio and its Con- futatio; and as a theologian he served on the subcommittee which canvassed the result of the conference. ... In the negotiations. relative to the Council of Trent, Eck was consulted by the Em- peror, Charles V, as well as by the Pope, Paul III, and was charged by the latter with preliminary work for the council. At the religious disputation in Worms ( 1540) , Eck again appearedl as the chief Catholic representative and debated with Melanch- 208 26. HAIL, DOCTOR MAETINUS ! then on the issues involved in the Augsburg Confession. The discussion was continued during the Diet of Ratishon (1541), to which, besides Eck, the emperor delegated as spokesmen on the Catholic side Julius Pflug and Gropper. Eck maintained clearly and decisively the Catholic position, and quite disapproved the Eatisbon Interim. He also went on a mission to England and the Netherlands in the interests of the Catholic cause. In 1529 the bishops of Denmark invited Eck and Cochlaeus to the discussion at Copenhagen; but neither appeared. Eck fully deserved the prominence gained by him during the struggle against Protes- tantism. . . .207) Eck is one of the names with which Grisar conjures. One of the strongest points he makes, when depicting Lu- ther's "violent language," is by grouping and massing the opinions which Luther has expressed about Eck. There are terrible things that Luther said about Eck. He viewed him as an emissary of the nether powers. He stood aghast at the extraordinary cunning, shrewdness, and duplicity em- ployed by this one man in his efforts to subvert the truth that was brought nearer to him than to any other Catholic theologian of his day. Eck seems to have studied Luther's writings as Voltaire studied the Bible, to pillory and blas- pheme them. He fought the young faith of the reborn Christianity — the only true renaissance — of his day with the strength and the malice of a demon. — Exit Ech. 26. Hail, Doctor Martinus! "In those days when a German professor made his prepa- rations for declaring before the whole world that the divine right of the papacy is an error, the secular papacy suffered a great political defeat," with these words Kolde 208) proposes to bring together in one view the imperial election at Frank- fort and Luther's debate at Leipzig. It is indeed a remark- able coincidence. The election of Charles V as Emperor of Germany thwarted for the time being all the greater political 207) Oathol. Encycl. V, 271 f. 208) I. c, I, 225. 26. HAIL, DOCTOR MARTINUS ! 209 plans of the Curia. The election was an assertion of the political independence of Germany. It did not secure com- plete liberty, but it served notice on Eome that the Germans were no longer willing to submit to the rule of priests in their secular afFairs, and to those extortionate practises "by which the money of German dupes was obtained for the sup- port of Roman luxury, licentiousness, and profligacy. Hausrath calls the debate "the theological battle of Leip- zig, which was destined to put an end to Italian despo- tism." 209) This remark, too, points to a political effect of Luther's spiritual duel. Is there any warrant for this view in the historical situation in Germany in 1519? As far as Luther is concerned, none. Luther's primary object at the Leipzig Debate was not the assertion of human rights or the achievement of political liberty; it cannot even be claimed to have been his secondary object. These aspirations were so far from his mind that in that very debate he professed himself ready to accept the supremacy of the Pope on grounds of tradition and custom, or as a human right. It is true that during the debate he pointed with indignation to the papal decretal which asserts for the Roman Pontiff not only spiritual, but also secular supremacy, and declared that he could not understand how men could stupidly bow to such baseless assertions of a , false oracle, and that, for such a long time. Nevertheless, the idea of making himself a national liberator, a seevdar hero of Germany, was far from him. The Humanists of Germany, it is true, had watched the course of Luther with absorbing interest ever since the publi- cation of the !N^inety-five Theses. They studied this memo- rable document at once with a view of ascertaining its political significance. Under leaders like Ulrich von Hutten and Francis von Sickingen the Humanists had begun to be politically active. The defeat of the tax for the Turkish war at the Diet of Augsburg is traced to their influence. These men began, too, to look upon Luther as their cham- 209) I. u., I. 297. DAU, LEIPZIG DEBATE. 14 210 26. HAIL, DOCTOE MARTINUS ! pion, and from their ranks there went up after ^the Leipzig' Debate the joyous acclaim: Hail, Doctor Martinus! For themselves, they had in their hearts cast aside all respect for ecclesiastical authority, and since that authority seemed backed by the Scriptures, also for God's Word; not a few of them were agnostics. But they knew what a power the Eoman Church exercised over the conscience of the common people by its pretension of having been vested with supreme authority by the Lord Himself. When Luther's arguments, therefore, had demolished the fictitious Biblical supports of this pretension, the Humanists saw at once that the super- stitious regard with which the common people had looked up to the papacy and the clergy was shattered, and Luther had made the peasants, the artisans, the merchants throughout Germany their allies. They entered into communication with Luther, and Lu- ther was suddenly made aware that he had secret supporters in unlooked-for quarters. But if he ever was led into a false belief by the overtures which he had received from these humanistic knights, the illusion was soon shaken off.^l") The Leipzig Debate was the Lord's battle fought with the Lord's ' weapons for the ends of the Lord. That the spiritual work of Luther affected the secular relations of the men of his time and of the centuries after him, no one who has studied the history of the Reformation will deny. But these secular effects of a spiritual cause are attendant upon the preaching- of God's Word in any age and locality. We might call them by-products of the Spiri,t. But small honor is accorded Lu- ther by efforts to secularize the importance of his work. It is possible to say many truthful things about Luther's love of his country, his patriotism, his practical wisdom in the every-day affairs of life, his love for learning and science, the impulse which he gave to education, art, the proper pur- suit of the trades and professions; but these things belong to Luther's shadow: the man himself is greater than these effects, good and precious though they are. 210) See Four Hundred Years, p. 316 ft. '2G. HAIL, DOCTOR MARTINUS ! 211 A truer estimate of Luther is seen in a little brochure -\vhich made its appearance towards the end of the year of the Leipzig Debate at Nuernberg. Its title was "Defense -and Christian Answer of an Honest Lover of Christian Truth" {Schutzred' und chnstliche Antwort eines ehrharen Liehhabers cJuistlicher Wahrheit). Its author was the city- clerk of Nuernberg, Lazarus Spengler. This brochure un- doubtedly grew out of the strivings for and against Luther which were common everywhere in Germany after the Leip- zig Debate. Not only the news which Luther's friends cir- culated regarding the event, but still more the incessant calumnies which his enemies were spreading about Luther after the debate, caused the people to make inquiries and to form opinions. These people the honest burgher of Nuern- berg wished to serve by his "Schutzred'." And now, what does he say? He, too, exclaims: Hail, Doctor Martinus! But his reasons are different. He holds that "Dr. Martin Luther's teaching should not be rejected as unchristian, but should rather be regarded as Christian." ■"I leave it," he says, "to the judgment of every reasonable and pious person to say whether Luther's teaching is not in accordance with Christian order and reason." What Spong- ier means by "reason" appears from the next clause : "I know for a certainty — though I do not consider myself a highly enlightened, scholarly, and accomplished person — that as long as I live there has been no teaching and preaching that has entered into my reason with such force as Luther's; nor have I learned more from anybody what meets my conception of Christian order than from Luther and those who follow him." He prays God for grace to order his life in accordance with this excellent instruction, for then he hopes to appear as a true Christian in God's sight, though he might he de- cried as a heretic by those who persecute Luther and his teaching. Ulrich von Hutten is said to have exclaimed when he heard of Luther's attack on the papacy: "These are great times to live in!" Speagler says the same thing: "I have 212 26. HAIL, DOCTOE MAETINUS ! heard from many excellent, scholarly persons in prominent positions, both in the clergy and in secular estates, that they have thanked God because they lived to hear Luther and his teaching." He declares: "In Doctor Luther God has raised up a Daniel from among the people to open our blind eyes, to chase away by means of the Holy Scriptures the scruples and errors of troubled consciences, and to show us the right, straight way to Christ, the only Eock of our salvation." This small brochure of a simple layman reveals in every sentence the glow and candor of a heart that has come to rest in its Bible and its Christ by Luther's teaching. The brochure had to be reprinted five times within one year.211) With Lazarus Spengler we join in the acclaim: Hail, Doctor Martinus! The period in Luther's life which we have reviewed shows us no perfect Luther. Luther never was perfect, but at this period he is more imperfect than at other times. There is timid groping and wavering observable in him. He has not found his true bearings. But he is walking in the right direction, and has his eye fixed on the eternal cynosure of truth and grace, the Redeemer and His Gospel. Hail, Doctor Martinus! 211) Kolde, I.e., I, 232 f. APPENDIX. I. Theses against the Scholastic Theology. Debated at Wittenberg, September 4, 1517. 1. To say that Augustine bas gone too far in what he has said against heretics amounts to saying that Augustine is a liar nearly all the time. — Against common assertions. 2. It also amounts to giving' the Pelagians and all heretics cause for triumph, yea, to conceding them the victory. 3. Moreover, it is tantamount to surrendering the authority of all teachers of the Church to ridicule. 4. Accordingly, it is the truth that man, having become a cor- rupt tree, can only will and do what is evil. 5. It is false that free desire is efficient in both directions (viz., towards the good- as well as the evil) ; yea, it is not free at all, but captive. — Against the common opinion. 6. It is false that the will can by nature regulate itself in accordance with the right dictate of reason. — Against Scotus and Gabriel. 7. On the contrary, without the grace of God the will neces- sarily produces an action that is out of harmony (with the right dictate of reason ) , and evil. 8. It does not follow, however, that the will is by nature evil, that is, that by nature it is of evil, as the Manicheans teach. 9. But the will is by nature and unavoidably of an evil and perverted quality. 10. It is admitted that the will is not free to turn toward any good that is proposed. — Against Scotus and Gabriel. 11. Nor is it in its power to will, or not to will, anything that is proposed. 12. To say this is not to contradict Augustine's dictum: "Nothing is so in the power of the will as will itself." 13. It is quite absurd to conclude: Erring man can love a creature above everything ; therefore he can so love God. — Against Scotus and Gabriel. 14. It is not to be wondered at that he can govern himself according to the erring, but not according to the right, dictate of reason. 15. Yea, it is peculiar to him to be governed only in accordance with the erring, and not the right, dictate of reason. 214 I- THESES AGAIXST THE SCHOLASTIC THEOLOGY. 16. We ougM rather to draw this conclusion: Erring man ■can love the creature; therefore it is impossible for him to love God. 17. Man cannot by nature will that God be God; he would rather will that he be God, and that God be not God. 18. The phrase: Loving God above all things, is a fiction, just like the chimera.212) Against the almost universal opinion. 19. Nor is the argument valid which Sootus advances, by referring to a brave citizen who loves his country more than liimself. 20. An act friendly to God cannot be ascribed to nature, but must be ascribed to prevenient grace. — Against Gabriel. 21. In [man's] nature there are only acts of desire hostile to God. 22. Every act of desire against God is evil, and spiritual fornication. 23. Nor is it true that the act of desire can be corrected by the virtue of hope. — Against Gabriel. 24. For hope is not contrary to love, which alone seeks and ■wills what belongs to God. 25. Hope does not spring from merit, but from suffering, which annuls merit. — Against the customary view of many. 26. An act friendly to God is not the most perfect manner of doing what man can do, nor is it the most perfect way for quali- fying for [the reception of] the grace of God, or the way to turn to God and to approach Him. 27. But it is an act of a person whose conversion is already accomplished; in point of time and in its nature it is later than [the reception of] grace. 28. To say that in such passages as Zech. 1, 3: "Turn ye unto Me, and I will turn unto you" ; Jas. 4, 8 : "Draw nigh unto God, and He will draw nigh unto you"; Matt. 7, 7: "Seek, and ye shall find" ; Jer. 29, 13 : "Ye shall seek Me, and find Me" ; and in similar texts, one thing must be ascribed to nature and the other to grace, is nothing else than to set up the claim of the Pelagians. 29. The best and infallible preparation, and the only qualifica- tion for grace, is the eternal election and predestination of God. 30. On the part of man, however, nothing precedes grace except man's incapacity, yea, his rebellion against grace. 31. It is the emptiest fiction to say that the statement: An elect person cannot be damned, is true, if you separate (m sensu 212) The chimera was a fabulous monster, the fore part of which was a lion, wliile the torso was a goat, breathing Are, and tlie rear part, a dragon. I. THESES AQAtXST THE SCHOLASTIC THEOLOGY. 215 diviso) , but not, if you combine {in sensu composito), the con- cepts.213) — Against the scholastics. 32. Just as little truth is yielded by the statement: Election is necessary by a necessity of consequence, but not by a necessity of the consequent.214) 33. It is likewise false to say that, -when man does what he is able to do, he removes the obstacles to grace. — Against some. 34. To sum up, [human] nature has neither a right dictate of reason nor a good will. 35. It is not true that insurmountable ignorance entirely excuses a person [who has committed sin]. — Against all the scholastics. _ 36. For ignorance which knows nothing of God, nor of man, nor what are good works, is by its nature in all cases insur- mountable. 37. Nature even boasts and necessarily becomes uplifted [with pride] within over every good which in appearance and outwardly is good. 38. There is no moral virtue that is free from pride or melan- choly, that is, from sin. 39. We are, from beginning to end, not masters of our actions, but slaves. — Against the philosophers. 40. We are not justified by accomplishing righteous acts, but. we accomplish righteous acts after we have been justified. — Against the philosophers. 41. Nearly the entire Ethics of Aristotle is the worst enemy of grace. — Against the scholastics. 42. It is an error that Aristotle's opinion of l^appiness does not contradict Christian doctrine. — Against the Ethics. 43. It is an error to contend -that no one becomes a theologian without Aristotle. — Against the common talk. 44. Yea, no one becomes a theologian unless he becomes one without Aristotle. 45. To say that a theologian who is not a logician is a mon- strous heretic is a monstrous and heretical statement. — Against the common talk. 213) This scholastic quibble is tbus illustrated by Dr. Hoppe, in the St. Louis Edition of Luther's Works : "The statement : The sleep- ing person can wake, is correct in sensu diviso, that is, he can both sleep and wake, however, at different times. But it is wrong in sensu composito ; for a person sleeping cannot be awake at the same time. (XVIII, 22.) 214) A i^eeessity of consequence inecessitas conseguentiae) Is ex- pressed by the statement : Whatever God wills, must be accomplished. Hence, a person elected by God must necessarily be saved. A necessity of the consequent (necessitas consequentis) would be contained in the statement : This very person had to be elected. The statement would be false; for no such necessity exists, (Hoppe, I.e.) 216 I- THESES AGAINST THE SCHOLASTIC THEOLOGY. 46. It is in vain to invent a logic of faitli; this is a suppo- sition wliicli is brought about by avoiding correct terms and definitions. — Against the modern logicians. 47. In statements regarding divine matters no syllogism can stand. Against the Cardinal of Cambray ( Pierre d'Ailly ) . 48. However, it does not for that reason follow that the truth of the article of the Trinity contradicts syllogistic statements. • — Against the same and the Cardinal of Cambray. 49. If a syllogism regarding divine matters could stand, the article of the Trinity could be known, and would not have to be believed. 50. To sum up, all of Aristotle is related to theology as dark- ness to light. — Against the scholastics. , 51. There is strong reason for doubt whether the Latin fathers have the true understanding of Aristotle. 52. It would have been better for the Church if Porphyry with his Universalia, had never been born for theologians. 53. The current commentaries on Aristotle seem to assume as proved what is first to be proved. 54. In order that an act may be meritorious, it is necessary that grace be present, or its presence is vain. — Against Gabriel. 55. The grace of God is never present as an idle thing, but it is a living, active, and operative Spirit; and not even by the unlimited omnipotence of God can there be produced an act friendly to God, without the presence of the grace of God. — Against Gabriel. 56. God cannot accept any person without the justifying grace of God. — Against Occam. 57. This statement is dangerous: The Law commands that the fulfilment of the commandment take place in the grace of God. — Against the Cardinal and Gabriel. 58. From this statement it would follow that "to possess the grace of God" is a new demand beyond the Law. 59. It would follow from the same statement that the fulfil- ment of the Law can be accomplished without the grace of God. 60. It would likewise follow that the grace of God would become even more hateful than the Law. 61. We cannot draw this conclusion: The Law must be kept and fulfilled in the grace of God. — Against Gabriel. 62. Consequently, the person who is without the grace of God sins continually by not killing, not committing adultery, not stealing. 63. On the other hand, this follows: he sins by not fulfilling the Law spiritually. 64. A person does not kill, commit adultery, steal, spiritually, when he is free from anger or evil lust. I. THESKS AGAINST THE SCHOLASTIC THEOLOGY. 217 65. Without the grace of God it is impossible not to have anger or evil lust, so much so, that even under grace this is not suflScient for a perfect fulfilment of the Law. 66. Not to kill, not to commit adultery, etc., in very act and outwardly, is a righteousness of hypocrites. . 67. It is hy the grace of God that a person has no evil lust nor anger. 68. Accordingly, it is impossible, without the grace of God, to fulfil the Law in any manner. 69. Yea, by nature, without the grace of God, the Law is only the more grievously broken. 70. Although the Law is good, it necessarily becomes evil to the natural will [of man]. 71. The Law and the will [of man], without the grace of God, are two irreconcilable opposites. 72. What the Law wills the will [of man] in every instance does not will, unless the person, from fear or love, pretends that he wills. 73. The Law is a driver to the will, which is conquered only by "the Child that is born unto us," Is. 9, 6. 74. The Law makes sin exceedingly sinful, Rom. 7, 13 ; for it incites and withdraws the will from itself. 75. However, the grace of God makes the righteousness by Jesus Christ exceedingly righteous; for it causes a person not to find any pleasure in the Law. 76. Every work of the Law, without the grace of God, appears good outwardly, but inwardly it is sin. — Against the scholastics. 77. Without the grace of God the will is always turned away from, while the hand is turned toward, the Law of God. 78. The will which, without the grace of God, is turned toward the Law is so turned only in view of its own profit. 79. Cursed are all who work the works of the Law. 80. Blessed are all who work the works of grace. 81. The chapter "Falsfs" de poenit., diss. 5., if not misunder- stood, affirms that works without the grace of God are not good. 82. Not only the ceremonial law is that Law which is not good, or those commandments according to which we do not live ; — Against many teachers. 83. But also the very Ten Commandments, and everything that may be taught or prescribed within or without. 84. The good Law, and that in which we live, is the love of God, which by the Holy Spirit is shed abroad in our hearts. 85. The will of every man would rather, if it were possible, that there be no Law, and that he might be entirely free. 86. The will of every man hates to have a law laid upon him,, or wishes merely from self-love that a, law be imposed on him. 218 II- THESES FOE LUTHEE'S DEBATE AT HEIDELBERG. 87. Since the Law is good, the will [of man], which is hostile to it, cannot be good. 88. Hence it is plain and manifest that eveiy natural will is unrighteous and evil. 89. Grace is necessary as a mediator to reconcile the Law to the will. 90. The grace of God is bestowed for the purpose of directing the will, lest it err even in the love of God. — Against Gabriel. 91. It is not bestowed for the purpose of bringing about acts [of love] more frequently and more easily, but because, without it, no acts of love whatever are achieved. — Against Gabriel. 92. The argument cannot be refuted, viz., that love is super- fluous, if man, by nature, is able to perform an act friendly to God. — Against Gabriel. 93. It is a subtile evil to say that enjoying and using some- thing is the same act. — Against Occam. 94. Likewise, to say that the love of God can coexist even with violent love of a creature. 95. To love God is to hate oneself, and to know not anything besides God. 96. We are bound to conform our willing entirely to the will of God. — Against the Cardinal. 97. We must will, not only what God would have us will, but, in general, everything that God wills. (XVIII, 19 — 27.) II. Theses for Luther's Debate at Heidelberg, April 26, 1518. Theses op Theologicai, Import. Wholly distrusting myself, in accordance with the counsel of the Holy Ghost in Prov. 3, 5 : "Lean not unto thine own under- standing," I submit to all who wish to be present the following unusual propositions, iij order that it laay be made clear whether they have been properly or improperly drawn from the holy apostle Paul, that elect vessel and instrument of Christ, and from his faithful expositor, Augustine: — 1. The Law of God, the most salutary rule of life, cannot advance man to righteousness, but is rather a hindrance to him. 2. Much less can man be advanced to righteousness by such works as he does habitually and aided by the rule of his natural reason. 3. Although the works of men always shine and appear good, yet it is probable that they are mortal sins. 4. Although the works of God are always unseemly and appear poor, they are in reality of immortal merit. II. THESES FOR LUTIIEK'S DEBATE AT HEIDELBERG. 218 5. When we call such works of men as seem good mortal sins, we do not mean that they are crimes. 6. Works of God that are performed hy men do not represent merits in the sense that they are without sin. 7. The works of the righteous would be mortal sins, if the righteous themselves, in the true fear of God, did not so regard them. S. Much more are those works mortal sins which men do without the fear of God, in their wicked security. 9. To say that works done without Christ are dead works, but not mortal sins, seems a dangerous digression from the fear of God. 10. Yea, it is difficult to see how any work can be a dead work without being a noxious and mortal sin. 11. A person cannot avoid presumption nor cherish true hope unless in every work that he does he dread the judgment of condemnation. 12. Sins are truly venial in the sight of God when they are dreaded by men as mortal sins. 13. Free will after the fall is merely nominal, and when- a person does by his free will what is in his power, he commits mortal sin. 14. In regard to good works free will in man after the fall has a sort of passive ability, but in regard to evil works it operates always by an active ability. 15. Even in the state of innocence man could not continue by an active, but only by a passive ability, not to say anything about his being able to make progress in good works. 16. A person imagining that he can attain to grace by doing his part increases his sin and becomes doubly guilty. 17. To say this does not mean to consign men to despair, but to urge them on in their efforts to humble themselves and to seek the grace of Christ.— 18. It is certain that man must wholly despair of himself before he is capable of obtaining the grace of Christ. 19. Not he is properly called a theologian who imagines that he has comprehended the incomprehensible things of God by means of the things that are made; 20. But he who comprehends the visible and inferior things of God, as he views them when bearing the cross and in tribulation. 21. A theologian of glory calls evil good and good evil, but a theologian of the cross calls things by their proper name. 22. The wisdom which regards the invisible things of God as comprehensible by means of the creatures makes a person puffed up, blind, and hard. 23. The Law wo^ks wrath [shows the wrath of God], slays, curses, pronounces guilty, judges and condemns all those who are not in Christ. 220 II- THESES FOE LUTHEB'S DEBATE AT HEIDELBERG. 24. Still the aforementioned, wisdom is not evil, nor must a person flee from the Law; but without the theology of the cross these things are fearfully misused. 25. Not he is righteous who works vigorously, but he who, without works, abounds in faith in Christ. 26. The Law says : Do this; but it is never done. Grace says: Believe in Him, and all is done. 27. To speak correctly we should call that which Christ does something efficient, and what we do something effected, also that our works are pleasing to God because they are effected by grace " which works efficiently in us. 28. The love of God does not find, but works, in us what is worthy of being loved; the love of man springs from something which a person regards as worth loving. Theses op Philosophical Import. 29. He who would without danger pursue philosophy by study- ing Aristotle necessarily must first become a fool altogether in Christ. 30. As only a married person rightly employs the evil of carnal concupiscence, so no one but [one who has thus become] a fool, that is, a Christian, rightly studies philosophy. 31. It was easy for Aristotle to imagine that the world is eternal, because in his opinion the soul of man is mortal. 32. After assuming that there are as many substantial forms as there are composite objects, the further assumption should neces- sarily have been made that there are as many matters. 33. Nothing is produced by necessity from any object in the world, but all that is produced in a natural way is necessarily produced from matter. 34. If Aristotle had known the unlimited poWer of God, he would have asserted that it is impossible that matter could «xist by itself. 35. Aristotle holds that actually no object is infinite; but potentially and substantially all composite objects are so. 36. It is unbecoming in Aristotle to criticize and ridicule the philosophy of Plato's ideas, for it is better than his own. 37. In an ingenious manner Pythagoras contends for a numer- ical principle in matter, but there is greater geniality in Plato's communion of ideas. 38. Aristotle's contention against Parmenides's principle of "one" — if you will pardon a Christian for saying this — is a beating of the air. 39. Apparently positing something that is infinite in form, Anaxagoras is the best of philosophers, Aristotle notwithstanding. 40. In Aristotle's view privation, matter, form, movable things, immovable things, activity, ability, etc., seem to be identical. III. SITMMAKT OF OBELISKS AND ASTERISKS. 221 III. Summary of Eck's Obelisks and Luther's Asterisks. Introdtjction. — With a superior air Eck declares- that he ■will not enter into a learned discussion of Luther's Theses accord- ing to the rules of scholastic argument, and will not have recourse to any books, but will simply jot down his exceptions as they occur to him on the spur of the moment. (One asks involuntarily upon reading this statement: Why such a solemn preface to a merely casual performance of a literary man? Was the per- formance really casual Jind without design? Is not Eck addressing himself to an invisible audience with these words?) Luther was not deceived by this preamble; he regards it as the conceited utterance of a braggart. Glancing over the Obelisks, Luther notes at once that Eck has not been true to his lofty declaration at the start; for all his exceptions are based, not on Scripture, the orthodox fathers, or the creedal statements of the Church, but on the arbitrary definitions and dreams of the Schoolmen. Eck has found fault with Luther's first thesis: that daily repentance is a characteristic of the members of the kingdom of heaven. He argues that a person can be a member of that king- dom without going to confession and doing penance every day. This exception flowed either from ignorance or sophistry, and Luther reminds Eck that he is speaking of that repentance in which a sinner feels sorry for his sins and turns to Christ for forgiveness, not of the Roman Sacrament of Penitence, in which a person recounts his faults to a priest, and is then absolved and told what works of satisfaction he is to perform. Luther had, in his second thesis, declined the very error into which Eck had fallen. He challenges Eck to produce a single member of Christ's kingdom who does not practise daily repentance. 1. Obelisk. — In his third thesis Luther had declared the repentance of the heart worthless unless it is shown by manifest acts in the mortification of the flesh. Eck digs his first dagger into this statement, and argues that the heart is the seat of the will, which governs all actions as a king rules his kingdom ; hence, Christ regards the will or intention rather than the deed ; e. g., He praised the mite of the widow in preference to the munificence of the wealthy. Luther thinks this objection of his critic is a des- perate effort to say something when one has nothing to say. He asserts that he had not denied that the inward repentance is a great thing. It is great, very great. What Luther had denied is that such repentance can be in the heart without any- body's finding it out. It is idle, he says, to speak of the will by itself, aside from its practical manifestations. Moreover, we must not forget that man's will is depraved ; it rules in the heart like a harlot in her brothel. 222 III- SUMMARY OF OBELISKS AND ASTERISKS. 2. Obelisk. — This stabs Luther's fifth thesis: that the Pope- cannot and will not remit any penalties or fines except such as he or the canons, that is, the rules of the Church, have arbitrarily fixed for certain trespasses. This assertion Eck declared "plainly erroneous"; for the penalties and fines laid down in the peni- tential canons are either in addition to the penalties which God inflicts, — in that case they would prove a snare to the soul, - — or they are merely interpretations of the divine penalties. The- latter view Eck declares correct and charges Luther with not having seen this. But this view being correct, he argues that the Pope, by remitting the canonical fines, does indeed remit some- penalties for sins. Moreover, if Luther's view were correct, the Roman Sacrament of Penitence would be stripped of all dignity. Now, this sacrament rests on the Power of the Keys, that is, on the authority of the Church to remit or retain sins. Since this power is applied whenever people go to confession, there must be a necessary effect; for they are taking part in a sacrament of the New Testament, which always efl'ects what it signifies, and thereby difi'ers from the sacraments of the Old Testament. — Luther professes his astonishment at this discovery of a smart scholastic. He denies, however, that he has made, or thought of, any such distinction as Eck imagines, ins., between primary punishments, imposed by God, and secondary, or additional punishments, imposed by the Church and the Pope. He spurns the notion that God imposes any fines or penalties on a penitent sinner, and appeals to Scripture, which shows that God is satis- fied when the sinner has been brought to a point where he hates sin and condemns himself for having sinned. Therefore the- canons cannot interpret the penalties which God has fixed, for such penalties do not exist. Luther acknowledges that the Church imposes fines on the penitent, and thinks these should be borne out of reverence for the Ofiice of the Keys and as a salutary discipline to the unruly flesh. They are no snare to the conscience, except when a person imagines that by submitting to these penances he is atoning to God for his sins. But supposing even these canonical fines are felt as a burden or snare, is not the entire Law of God declared to be an unbearable yoke? However, Luthei; thinks it would perhaps be better if these penances were abolished because they are misinterpreted. Formerly — and here Luther reminds- Eck that he referred to this custom in his twelfth thesis — no- penances were imposed and executed after, but only before, abso- lution. But Luther does not wish to speak conclusively on this point; he has merely invited discussion of this matter. Eck's reference to the eflScacy of a sacrament Luther regards as a depreciation of the true power of a sacrament. Is this really something of moment to release people from a temporal church III. SUMMARY OF OBELISKS AND ASTERISKS. 223 fine? Did God ordain His sacraments for such a paltry purpose? But to entertain such a notion is not Eck's ■worst fault; he evi- dently thinks that sacraments are efficacious by the mere per- formance of certain prescribed acts. Luther tells Eek that at this point he has merely repeated the opinions of Peter Lombard and Hugo St. Victor, and has entirely forgotten his lofty promise in the preface. But he is wrong, together with his scholastic oracles : not the sacrament per se, but faith in the sacrament is what justifies. This faith must be present by divine grace when a person uses the sacrament, or his whole act becomes a farce and a delusion. What Eck teaches in this Obelisk is not Bohemian, but hellish poison. — As to the distinction between the sacra- ments of the Old and those of the New Testament, these differ not in point of efficacy, but as regards the object for which they were ordained. All the rites of the Old Testament must here be considered, such as the ordinances of days and feasts, of foods, clothing, fasts, etc. ; they were all designed as tests of obedience, and could not justify, while those of the New Testament convey the gift of that righteousness which Christ has procured. That is the reason, too, why they are fewer in number and easier of execution. Referring to Luther's sixth thesis: that the Pope cannot absolve from guilt except by declaring the person absolved by God, Eck had drawn this inference: Since the Pope cannot absolve from guilt, he must certainly release from punishment; for he surely releases from something. In reply Luther says that he had not inserted this thesis to express a belief of his own, but to draw out others, and that he intends to explain his view on this point more fully in his forthcoming Exposition of the Ninety-five Theses. Meanwhile he asks Eck to reflect in what a dilemma he has placed himself: he has argued that, to be eflScacious, the sacraments must release from punishment. But it is plain that in the sacrament God releases the sinner from guilt, and this is what the priest must declare. Eck, therefore, is the worst of all heretics if he sets aside this efficacy of the sacraments, and talks only of a remission of church fines. 3. Obelisk. — In his 10th and 11th thesis Luther had declared that the priests act wickedly when, in ministering to the dying, they commute the canonical penances for the pains of purgatory. Such teaching must be tares which the devil has sown among the wheat while men slept. Eck is horrified at this malicious slander of the priests and bishops. If, as Luther holds, the Pope absolves from guilt by declaring a person absolved by God, in other words, if the Pope only confirms what a higher power has decided, — though Eck considers this a, silly proceeding ! — why cannot the priests reserve for purgatory the penalties which the dying should 224 III- SUIIMABY OF OBELISKS AND ASTERISKS. have endured here? Coining a new word, Eck says, these purga- torial sufferings are not satisfactions, but satispassions for guilt. By this thoughtful teaching the priests have shown themselves very much awake ( to their pecuniary interests ? ) , much more so than Luther. Moreover, does not Luther know that, according to ecclesiastical law, persons who have died excommunicate may he absolved? Luther answers this criticism by reminding Eck that he is playing fast and loose with him: what he now calls silly he had before declared a pious act; for he had said that by pub- lishing the penitential canons the Pope had interpreted, or declared, the punishments which God imposes. Is the Pope not just as much above God by interpreting Him — as Eck had said — as he would be by repeating Him — as Luther had said ? And really, in his own heart and among theologians of his ilk Eck does put the Pope above God and deems himself quite orthodox for doing so; but when he debates with Luther, that which he otherwise holds as truth forthwith becomes a falsehood, because it suits Eck'a purpose to declare so. However, this is not to the point. The correct view is that the higher power has obligated itself to enforce the acts of the lower, for Christ has assured His disciples that what they bind or loose on earth shall be bound or loosed in heaven. Moreover, it is a common saying in the Church that, when ministering to the dying, every priest is to that person the Pope. Now, to the Pope has been reserved the right of plenary absolution. If the priest is equal to the Pope (in the hour of death, why does he not remit all punishment? Why does he reserve some for purgatory? The argument that divine equity does not permit this is invalid; for in that case the Pope would be doing what is contrary to divine equity. — Eck's new phrase "satispassion" makes Luther smile. He suggests a still better substitute: every peasant knows that a punishment can only be borne by willingness to submit to it. Hence willingness to suffer may be substituted for actual suffering, or satisvolition can be declared equivalent to satisfaction. Why not? As to the law regarding persons who have died excommunicate and yet . may be absolved, Eck has, in the first place, totally misunderstood the scope of this provision: it aims only at the wiping out of a temporal and civil blemish, the removal of ecclesiastical dis- honor. In the second place, it is puerile to argue that because a person who has died in disgrace with, the authorities of the Church can be restored to churchly honors, therefore the priests have the right to commute temporal for purgatorial punishments. Eck makes himself ridiculous by treating the remission of sins as identical with ecclesiastical restoration. 4. Obelisk. — Eck. questions the statement in Luther's 13th thesis, that no law can reach a dead person. Luther replies that he is willing to wait until Eck jiroves the contrary. III. SUltMAKV OF OBELISKS AND ASTERISKS. 225 •1. Obelisk. — Luther had said in his 14th thesis that the consciousness of their imperfection malies men afraid to die. Eclc declares this statement silly, because a baptized child, blessed with the imputed righteousness of Christ, is less perfect in works of love than an adult, and yet death has no terrors for such a child. Therefore the question of a person's perfection or imper- fection has nothing to do with purgatory, which is related only to the sins for which no satisfaction had been rendered. — .Luther does not dispute the imputed righteousness of a child, "but he asks Eck to explain why David, an adult in the state of grace, prays: "Enter not into judgment with Thy servant; for in Thy sight no man living shall be justified," Ps. 143, 2. The dying child suffers less than an adult because it has not the adult's under- standing of what is happening in death. The dying agonies of an adult arise from his greater knowledge and experience. Eck's argument, if rightly worked out, really ought to yield a different conclusion, to wit : If a child whose works of love are small in number does not taste the bitterness of death, an i^dult in the state of grace, who has practised the law of love all his life, ought not to feel the terrors of death at all. As to the claim that a child is spiritually inferior to an adult, is that really so? Christ bids us become like these little ones if we wish to enter the kingdom of heaven. Matt. 18, 3. Eck is muddling the point at issue. Lastly, there is no necessity for demanding satisfactions to be rendered after death, because, as already stated, any priest ministering to a dying person has the power to pro- nounce plenary absolution, just as if he were the Pope. Yea, if a priest cannot be secured, the mere wish of the dying to have a priest attend him suffices to secure absolution for him. What satisfaction, then, remains to be rendered in purgatory? 6. Obexisk. — Luther had said in his 16th thesis that hell, purgatory, and heaven seemed to differ in the same way as despair, near despair, and happiness. Eck declares this "an impudent thesis." For after their separation from the body the friends of God, starting on their way to purgatory, know that they will be saved, however, as by fire, which will purify them. Moreover, it is likely that they associate with the angels. How, then, can they be visited with near despair, which is the lot only of the wicked? — How do they know that they will be saved? asks Luther. "Because Eck says so." But there are theologians who maintain that the souls in purgatory are detained till Judgment Day. Others confess that they do not know whether they will be saved or not. Their association with the angels is a mere assumption. It smells strongly after Aristotle. Eck has no knowledge of what despair is, which afflicts even godly persons in a state of grace. Still he talks like an oracle of the sun-god DAUj LEIPZIG DEBATE. jg 226 III. SUMMAEY OF OBELISKS AND ASTEEISKS. from a tripod. The theologians of the Roman Church teach that the pains of purgatory are nearly akin to those of hell. Now, the state in hell is a state of despair. . Therefore the state in purgatory must be a state of near despair. What Luther wished to have established by a discussion of his 16th thesis is, whether this, is so. 7. Obelisk. — Eck declares Luther's 17th thesis not unlike the preceding one. Luther had said that it seemed to him that love must increase in the souls in purgatory, in order that their horror may be lessened. Eck decrees: What the fall was to the angels, that death is to men. "In the place where the tree falleth, there shall it be," Eccl. 11,3, regardless of merit or demerit. — Luther asks Eck whether he wants to be laughed at for the constant self-contradictions in which he involves himself. The text which he quotes has been used by the Bohemian Picards to prove that there is no purgatory. To escape being classed with them, Eck refers it to death, which happens alike to all. What he really wants to prove by it is that in purgatory — which he strenuously maintains — there is no improvement of the spiritual . condition of souls. Now Gregory has maintained that venial sins are purged in purgatory. Eck himself has declared thai satisfactions are rendered in purgatory. How can he hold this view and yet decline the other, that there is an improvement going on in purgatorjr ? - If he is right in his first claim, that the souls in purgatory fill up the measure of their unfulfilled tasks on earth, he must accept the evident conclusion that these souls are constantly becoming better and their merits are increased. What Eck has said about the death of men being a counterpart of the fall of the angels he has from John of Damascus. But he has misapplied the saying. There are instances of souls that have returned to their bodies, as in the case of Lazarus. Where had they been in the interim? Was their death like the fall of the angels? In such mysterious matters men should be careful not to assume such cocksureness. 8. Obelisk. — This is directed against Luther's 18th thesis : that it cannot be proved either by sound reasoning or Scripture that the souls in purgatory are not working out merits and increasing in love. (Luther, of course, does not state his own belief in this thesis, but merely follows out to a just conclusion the teaching of the Schoolmen.) Eck finds in this thesis the same audacity as in the preceding. It is a perversion of the end of all teaching, of repentance, of everything. The souls are placed in purgatory, not to accumulate merit, but to expiate wrongs. Love, which is the fulfilment of the Law, is earned while a person is living, according to 2 Cor. 5, 10, which declares that every one shall be rewarded according to the things done in the III. SUMMARY OP OBELISKS A>;D ASTERISKS. 2'21 body; otherwise the apostle should have added: or in purga- tory. — Luther is disgusted ad nauseam with the endless rehash of scholastic opinions which Eck is serving him. Eck is so blind that he does not see that he is arguing on Luther's side. Luther has not stated as his own belief that there is an opportunity in purgatory for gaining rewards, but he argues that the scholastic theologians are bound to set up that claim, in order to justify the existence of purgatory. If this is perverting the end of their theology, Luther hopes that God will give him the grace to pervert not only the end, but also the beginning and middle of that theology. Eck"s reference to 2 Cor. 5, 10 Luther declares a plain perversion of the text, which relates to what is to happen at the final judgment, not in purgatory or at a person's death. 9. Obelisk. — Against a prevalent view Luther had asserted in his 19th thesis that there is no proof that the souls in purga- tory are certain of their future bliss, at least not all of them, even though all men should claim this to be a fact. Eck claims that he has already proved in previous remarks that this thesis is false. He adds that the souls in purgatory know more than we who are still in the flesh : they know that they are dead, that they are not in despair, that they are not in communion with God, hence, that they are in purgatory. Knowing all this, they know that they belong in the number of those who will be saved. ■ — "May the kind Jesus have mercy on you, Eck!" Luther exclaims; for he sees in this argument nothing but the stock-in-trade assertions of the Schoolmen, while Luther has asked for certain proof. Luther is willing to admit the possibility of a certainty of salvation in purgatory, but holds that it must be one of which the souls are not conscious. Their case, then, would resemble that of an afflicted person who grieves over his unbelief, because he cannot see and feel his faith, while an outsider readily perceives that the person is a believer, for unbelievers do not bewail their unbelief. 10. Obelisk. — In his 20th thesis, in which he draws the conclusion from the three preceding, Luther had explained what he understands by the plenary absolution of the Pope: he can absolve only from such penalties as he himself has imposed. Eck denies this, and again refers to the Power of the Keys which the priest employs in absolution. If Luther were right, this "noble sacrament of the New Law" would be a rather windy ordinance. — Luther sees in this iteration of a former argument of Eck the fidelity of a dog to his master: yhat the School- men have praised or condemned Eck must praise or condemn, even though he should have to repeat himself over and over again. And what a sorry honor does he vindicate for the Sacrament of Penitence! Its glory, according to Eck, consists in this, that 228 in. SUMMABY OF OBELISKS AND ASTEKISKS. it releases from a miserable church-flne, not, from the sense of guilt and the anger of God. Nor are these church-fines altogether remitted, else why should there be a purgatory? Alas! the ancient heathen used to cheer their dying in the hour of departure, but Christians are by their theologians filled with the most gloomy thoughts at the approach of death. 11. Obelisk. — Against Luther's 25th thesis, in which the authority of the Pope is said to be the same in kind as that which any bishop exercises in his diocese or any curate in his parish, Eck bursts forth with the cry : "A frivolous proposition ! It upsets the entire government of the Church and could be dis- proved with many arguments." — Luther perceivc^s that Eck has only been startled by Luther's seeming denial of the supremacy of the Pope, while all that Luther could possibly want to say in .this connection is, that the Pope in his way can do no more for souls in purgatory than a bishop or a parish priest in theirs: each can pray for them. ]^ck has pounced upon this thesis for the purpose of stirring up hatred against Luther, and has thus revealed his malicious heart. 12. Obelisk. — In his 26th thesis Luther had praised the practise of the Pope in commending the souls of the departed to the prayers of Christians, instead of exercising the Power of the Keys in their behalf. IJck charges Luther with ignorance of the meaning of 'the "suffrages," that is, of the intercessory prayers which Christians oiTer for one another, because Luther has not read the commentaries, which teach that the suffrages do not lessen, but increase. — Luther admits that this kind of suffrages has been a mystery to him; that is why he has sought enlightenment by publishing his theses and inviting a general discussion. ^ Neither does he understand Eck's words: "They do not lessen, but increase." Lessen what? Increase what? As to commentaries, he has read only Biel; but he has explained nothing to Luther; neither has Eck. But even if they did, would they not offend against a principle which Eck had uttered before, vi^., that a lesser authority cannot act as interpreter for a higher, in this case, for the Pope? 13. Orklisk. — This is directed against the 28th thesis of Luther, which Eck calls "bold, and apt to cause tumult, sedition, and schism in the Church of God, without increasing love." Luther wonders how this charge of Eck will increase love; for it cannot but produce enmity against Luther, because Luther has touched the greed of priests. Many before him have written about this and other evils in the Church, such as the sale of bishopries, the scandalous living of the Popes without causing revolutions and schisms; why must his paltry few theses have this effect? Is not Eck perhaps hired to say such malicious III. SUMMARY OF OBELISKS AND ASTERISKS. 229 things? Or has he, according to the Pytliagorean transmigration of souls, left his former body of an enlightened humanist and entered that of an obscurantist? In this Obelisk Eck had also pointed out that if, God does not hear the prayers for the dead, and the people become con- vinced of this, there will be an end of masses for the dead and of other usages. Luther's thesis, he held, must lead to such vicious conclusions. Luther replies that he cannot regard him as a theologian who denies that the hearing of prayers is a sovereign privilege of God, for the exercise of which he is not under anybody's control and answerable to no one. If Eck teaches the people otherwise, he is the worst destroyer of the Church that has so far arisen. But Luther declines the vicious character of his theses ; if there is anything vicious or poisonous in them, Eck has put that into the theses. Luther had merely cast up the query: Since prayers for the dead are not an exercise of that power, by which sins are remitted or retained, can they avail anything? For a prayer does not effect what the person offering it desires, but what He to whom it is addressed is willing to grant. Instead of helping to light up this difficulty, Eck has imputed a mean motive to Luther. 14. Obellsk. — Against Luther's 29th thesis Eck had cited Job 19,21: "Have pity upon me, have pity upon me, ye my friends; for the hand of God hath touched me." He claimed that in this passage we hear the cry of souls in purgatory who are yearning for reunion with God, but cannot attain it as long - as their fines remain unpaid. Luther replies ironically that he had often read the text in Job, but not until this holy Doctor Eck had explained it, had he had any idea that it contained the wail of souls in purgatory. He asks Eck to tell how he knows that the souls are yearning for reunion with God. If they are Christian souls, they know that they must submit to God's pleasure, and abide the times and seasons of His help. If they are in purgatory by God's will, they will not murmur and wail. Eck had related th? legend of Severinus,- who appeared to his uncle and had asked him to have the priest pray for him in order that he might be purified and enabled to leave purgatory. Luther had demolished belief in this goodly legend by his thesis. Luther suspends his judgment on the credibility of the legend, but says it has little value with him, as long as Scripture does not support the claim which this story is to bolster up. Eck had also cited the words of Augustine: "0 Lord, burn here, cut here, in order that Thou mayest spare me in eternity." Luther replies: As if I had denied anybody the right to pray for a cessation of punishment! But what if some one should 230 III- SUMMAKY OF OBELISKS AND ASTERISKS. desire the very punishments which another wishes to turn away from him by his prayer? 15. Obelisk. — Against Luther's 30th and 31st thesis Eck had declared that a person may perform a penance which the priest has imposed on him, and may secure a merit by the per- formance, while living in a mortal sin. Luther replies that a person living in a mortal sin cannot pray the Lord's Prayer without calling the wrath of God down upon himself. Instead of achieving something meritorious by reciting so many Paternosters, such a person only increases his guilt. Such a penitent may satisfy the Church by obeying the order of his confessor, but he does not satisfy God. Besides, penances should not be imposed when the confessor is sure in advance that the person cannot execute them; and on the dead no penances at all can be imposed; for they are not reached any more by the arm of a priest. 16. Obelisk. — In his 34th thesis Luther had declared that indulgences at best remove church-fines imposed by men. Eck objected that if this were so, the absolving priest could not say: "If there is anything deficient in the fine I have imposed, may the bitter suffering of Christ supply the defect," but would have to say: "May the Pope supply the defect"; moreover, the confessor would not be Christ's, but the Pope's representative. Luther points out that he has answered this charge before, and regrets that the precious sufl;ering of Christ should be used in the Sacrament of Penance to patch up defective penances of parishioners, when it was offered to God as an atoning sacrifice for all sins. He also points out that as Eck represents the act of absolution, there is really no forgiveness of sins at all, but a swapping of merits for demerits, a commercial transaction. 17. Obelisk. — In his 36th thesis Luther had said that a person who truly repents has forgiveness of sins and needs no indulgence. Eck had argued: , Suppose a dying person; he is truly penitent and receives the sacrament and the forgiveness of sins. If he were not penitent, the priest could not minister to him. Still this person does not receive a remission of his punishment; for if^he did, he would not have to go to purgatory. Luther replies that Eck has no conception what true repents^nce is, and is arguing all the time as if the point which he ought to prove is already established. 18. Obelisk. — In his 37th thesis Luther had rejected indul- gences as unnecessary for members, of the holy Christian Church, the communion of saints; for in this communion every member possesses all spiritual blessings that he needs. Eck admitted that this was a good thesis, but charged that Luther failed to III. SrilMARY OF OBELISKS A\D ASTEKISKS. 231 distinguish between various kinds of communion. There were, he said, also fraternities within the Church, and these Luther seemed to reject, as tlie Hussites had done. Accordingly, he claimed that his thesis was scattering Bohemian poison. . Luther repels the malicious insinuation in Eck's criticism, and complains bitterly of the evident purpose of Eck to cry him down as a heretic, and then reiterates his claim that fellowship with the invisible Church secures every spiritual privilege to a believer, and this fellowship is to be desired above fellowship in any sodality or fraternity within the visible Church, which in most eases serve quite unnecessary purposes. 19. Obelisk. — Eck denied what Luther had asserted in his 39th thesis : that it is difficult even for the greatest theologian to preach indulgence and repentance at the same time. Eck claimed that this is not difficult at all, because by repentance guilt is removed, but by indulgences the punishment of guilt is canceled. Luther replied that this would be true if scholastic teaching regarding indulgences were true, and reminds Eck again that he is taking for granted what he is to prove. ■20. Obelisk. — In his 42d thesis Luther had declared that it could not be the Pope's intention to pronounce the purchase of an indulgence better than practising charity. Eck had remarked that this would be true if Luther were speaking of earning a merit, but not if he meant to reject satisfactions to be rendered for sin. Luther denies again that there are two kinds of punishment for sin, one which God, and the other which the Church imposes. He charges Eck with begging the question at this point, as, in fact, he has been doing throughout his Obelisks. Next, he makes Eck's argument defeat itself. Eck had claimed that the purchase of an indulgence constituted no merit; it was merely the rendering of a satisfaction. Luther argues that "all things must work together for good to them that love God," hence also the indulgence, if it is worth anything at all. The scholastics,. he reminds Eck, had acknowledged that indulgences secure to the purchaser a merit. Xow, then, if rendering satisfaction for sin removes a punishment, and at the same time secures a merit, it is better than an indulgence. Again, if indulgences keep men from rendering satisfaction, they deprive man of a benefit he would secure if he were not tempted with an indulgence. Hence indulgences are harmful. 21. Obelisk. — This criticism, directed against Luther's 43d thesis, merely repeats the former objection, and is answered by Luther as before. 232 III- SUMMAEr OF OBELISKS AND ASTERISKS. 22. Obelisk. — Luther liad declared it a wicked procedure for a person to purchase an indulgence rather than help a suffering neighbor. Eck admitted that the neighbor must be helped, how- ever, when he is in extreme need. For this interpretation of the royal law of love Luther holds Eck up as a, mercenary and unloving character. Eck had, moreover, remarked that he might offer further criticism on these theses which seemed to him to smell after Bohemia, but he would only point out that Luther had offended against the respect due the Pope by criticizing a practise which the Pope had endorsed. Luther questions whether Eck is really representing the intention of the Pope correctly; if he is, it is a shame that God's law of charity should be virtually abrogated to give place to the ordinances of men. But he assumes that Eck is merely currying favor with the Curia and flattering the Pope as so many do. 23. — 31. Obelisk. — In these annotations Luther's 58th, 60th, 62d, 67th, 69th, 77th, 81st, 82d, and 92d theses are criticized. But the exceptions are mere repetitions and baseless cavil, of which Luther says at the conclusion of his rejoinders : "I am ashamed of such silly and stupid prattle." 215) 215) XVIII, 537—589. INDEX. Abelard, 12. Absolution, priestly, 184 — 6. Adelmann, Bernard, 8. 19. 25. Adolph, Bishop of Merseburg, 34.56. 113. Albert, Archbishop, 47. 83. Amsdorf. 1. 116. 202. Anhalt, Duke of, 44. Anselm of Canterbury, 12. Antichrist, 72. 105. Appeal from Pope to Pope, 43. Aquinas, 48 f . Aristotle, 13. 48. 105. Asterisks, 20. 24. 221. Auerbach, Dr., 196. Augsburg, 42. Augustinians, 194. Barnim, Duke, 116. 124. 128. 195. Baumgaertner, 162. Bayne, 73. Bernard of Clairvaux, 12. Bernhardi, Bartholoinew, 36. Biel, 14. Bohemians, 27. 110. 121. Bologna, 63. Burckhardt, Francis, 194. Cajetan, 42 — 4. 49. Capito, 42. Carlstadt, character of, 31 ff.; theses against Eck, 95; car- toon, 102; arrival at Leipzig, 115; debate with Eck, 116— 129. 188 — 192; estimate of, as a debater, 127 — 129. Let- ters : to Spalatin, 40. 41 ; to Eck, 40. 96 ff.; to Elector Frederic, 204. Charles V, election of, 192. 208. Church, Luther's view of, 106. Clajus, Nieasius, 34. Constanz, 93. 166. Cum postquam. Bull, 55. Decretals, 70. 105. Disputations : Bologna, 7 ; Vi- enna, 7f. ; Wittenberg, 15 f. 34; Heidelberg, 22. Dominicans, 64. 158 f. 194. Dresden, 48. Dungersheim; see Ochsenfart. Eck, early life, 2ff.; Obelisks, 19 f. ; Monomachy, 36. 41. 46; visits Luther, 43. 119; schedula, 58. 87 ; thirteenth thesis, 87; arrives at Leip- zig, 114; debates vpith Carl- stadt, 116—129. 188—192; debates with Luther, 131 — 157. 164 — 186; estimate of, as a debater, 127. 157. 172. 181. 183; the original coun- ter-reformer, 206 ; Catholic estimate of, 206 ; final esti- mate of, 208. Letters: to Carlstadt, 23.38; to Goede and Schlamau, 39 ; to Duke George, 46; to Luther, 66. 77 ; to University of Leip- zig, 114: to Gaspar and Polling, 88 ; to Hauen and Burckhardt, 194; to Elector Frederic, 198; to Hoog- straten, 200. Egranus, 20. 64. Emser, 48. 115. 116. 129. Epistolae obs. vir., 110 f. Erasmus, 8. 24. 86. 92. Erfurt, 15. 44. 45. 194. Extravagances, papal, 65. Eyb, Gabriel von, 18. 47. Fischer, canon, 70. Florentines, 70. Franciscans, 194. Frankfort on Oder, 23. Frederic, Elector, 44. 47. 58. 82. 86. 174. 198. 234 Free will, 87. 96. 121—4. 125—7. 188—92. Froeschel, 115. 130. 158. Fuggerism, 7. Caspar, Abbot, 88. George, Duke, 45.48.50.53.75. 78. 80. 112. 165. 168. 173. Gibbons, Cardinal, 174. Goede, Henning, 39. Greek Church, 136. 141. 155. 167. Grievances, German, 71. Grisar, 25. 208. Gruenenberg, Joh. 40. Gucnther, Francis, 15. Hales, Alex., 14. Hauen, George, 194. Hausrath, 17. 29. 61. 209. Heidelberg, 21. 22. 33. 34. 218. Henning, Matth., 55. Herbipolis, 130. Hoogstraten, 187. 200. Hutteu, 209. 211. Indulgences, 32. 43. 65. 178—81. Italy, 72. Jueterbogk, 86. Judges of debate, 117. 201. Kalkoflf, 49. Keys, power of, 107, 125. Kingdom of heaven, 41. Klein, Kilian, 10. Kolde, 29. 208. Landshut, 63. Lang, Joh., 15. 24. 48. 69. 81. 109. 116. Lange, Joh., 193. Leipzig, 44. 46. 51. 55. 57. 110. Leo X to Luther, 83. Link, 20. 50. 72. Loescher, 65. Lombard, Peter, 13. Lotther, 65. Loughlin, 119. Luther, about Eck, 20. 37 ; at Augsburg, 42. 71; appeal from Pope to Pope, 43; preaches at Dresden, 49 ; 12 theses against Eck, 64; his "insincerity," 73 ; against Eck's 13th thesis, 87. 104; open letter against Eck, 91; downhearted, 109; arrives at Leipzig, 115; preaches at Leipzig, 124; conduct at Leipzig, 130; debates with Eck, 131—157. 164—186; estimate of, as a debater, 172. 178.181.183; leaves Leipzig, 186; secular view of his work, 210. Letters: to Eck, 10. 22. 36. 45. 51. 66. 78; to Scheurl, 11.37.69; to Lang, 15. 69. 81. 109; to Link, 20. 51.72; to Egranus, 20.37; to Carlstadt, 44. 61; to Elector Frederic, 44. 58. 82. 204; to Spalatin, 45.48.51. 65.70.71.72.80.85. 104. 161; to Staupitz, 69.71.161; to Pirckheimer, 70 ; to Melanch- thon, 72; to Tetzel, 162; to Duke George, 77.79.80; to Miltitz, 85; to Hoogstraten, 187. Maximilian, Emperor, 68. 84. McGiflfert, 28. Melanchthon, 3. 32. 43. 104. 116. 124. 196. 201. Metzler, Dr., 130. Miltitz, 58. 68. 84. 159. Miritsch, Michael, 48. Mosellanus, 19. 120. Nicea, Council of, 108. Notaries of debate, 98. 117. Nuetzel, 18. Obelisks, 19. 24. 46. 221. Occam, 14. Ochsenfart, Dr., 20. 48. 86. 106. Oecolampadius, 196. 235 Paris, University of, 130. Paulinians at Leipzig, 130. Penitence, penance, repentance, 41. 58, 64. 95. 181—4. 184—7. Pflug, Caesar, 54. 57. 193. 200. Pircklieimer, 8. 25. 70. Pistoris, Dr. 120. Pleissenbiirg, 113. Polling, Joh., 88. Prierias, 51. Primacy of Pope, 60. 65. 70. 93. 100. 106. 131—53. 164^72. 200. Purgatory, 59. 64. 174 — 8. Eabe, 48. 81. Rhenanus, Beat., 63. St. Victor, Hugo and Robert, 12. Satisfactions for sins, 184 — 6. Scheurl, 1. 9. 11. 17. 69. Scblamau, Laur., 39. Scbolasticism, 11.213.218. Scotus, 14. Seidemann, 47. 111. Semipelagianism, 65. Sententiarii, 13. Serralonga, Urban von, 71. Sickingen, Francis von, 209. Silvester, Pope, 60. Sin, 95. Smith, Preserved, 32. 47. 194 ff. Spalatin, 34. 40. 41. 45. 48. 50. 65. 70. 71. 80. 85. 104. 161. 196. Spengler, Lazarus, 211. Spirit and letter, Augustine on, 41. Staupitz, 69.71. 161. Summenhardt, Dr., 3. 7. Tetzel, 84. 157—63. Theology, medieval, 11; at Wit- tenberg, 16. Theses, Ninety-five, 17. 44. 60. Treasure of Church, 65. Truchsess, Erhard von, 10. 18. Turks, Tax for war on, 70. 72. 209. Unigenitus, Bull, 30. 42. Vedder, 26. 68. 74. 101. Vienna, University of, 7. 53. 63. 98. War, Luther on, 73. Weiasestaedt, Prof., 48. Wertheim, Dietrich von, 56. Wiedemann, 9. 44. Wittenberg, University of, 10. 15.36.40.50.213. Wortwein, Joh., 40. Zasius, Dr., 4. 8. Zwingli, 63.