"That my exposition," said he, "is that of St. Jerome, I prove by St. Jerome's own Epistle to Evagrius, in which he says, 'Every bishop, whether at Rome, or Eugubium, or Constantinople, or Rhegium, or Alexandria, or Tanis, has the same merit, and the same priesthood.'103 The power of riches, and the humiliation of poverty, constitute the only precedence or inferiority among bishops."
From the writings of the Fathers, Luther passed to the decrees of Councils which regard the bishop of Rome as only a first among equals.104
"We read," says he, "in the decree of the Council of Africa," "The bishop of the first see must not be called either prince of the the pontiffs, or sovereign pontiff, or any other similar name, but only bishop of the first see. Were the supremacy of the bishop of Rome of divine institution, would not these words be heretical?"
Eck replied by one of those subtile distinctions which were so familiar to him.
"The bishop of Rome, if you will so have it, is not universal bishop, but bishop of the universal church."105
Luther.—"I am quite willing to leave this reply unanswered: let our hearers judge for themselves."
"Assuredly," said he, afterwards, "the gloss is worthy of a theologian, and well fitted to satisfy a disputant thirsting for glory. My expensive sojourn in Leipsic has not been for nothing, since I have learned that the pope, though not indeed the universal bishop, is the bishop of the universal church."106.
Eck.—"Very well, I come to the essential point. The venerable doctor calls upon me to prove that the primacy of the church of Rome is of divine institution—I prove it by these words of Christ: 'Thou art Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church.' St. Augustine, in one of his epistles, has thus expounded the passage, 'Thou art Peter, and upon this rock, that is to say, on this Peter, I will build my Church.' It is true, Augustine has elsewhere said that, by this rock must be understood Christ himself, but he never retracted his former exposition."
Luther.—"If the reverend doctor would attack me, he should first reconcile these contrary statements of Augustine. It is undeniable that St. Augustine has again and again said that the rock was Christ, and he may perhaps have once said that it was Peter himself. But even should St. Augustine and all the Fathers say that the apostle is the rock of which Christ speaks, I would combat their view on the authority of an apostle, in other words, divine authority;107 for it is written, 'No other foundation can any man lay than that is laid, namely, Jesus Christ.'108 Peter himself calls Christ, 'the chief and corner stone on which we are built up a spiritual house.'"109
Eck.—"I am astonished at the humility and modesty with which the reverend doctor undertakes single-handed to combat so many distinguished Fathers, and to know better than sovereign pontiffs, councils, doctors, and universities.... It would, certainly, be astonishing that God should have concealed the truth from so many saints and martyrs ... and not revealed it until the advent of the reverend father!"
Luther.—"The Fathers are not against me. The distinguished doctors, St. Augustine, and St. Ambrose, speak as I do. 'Super isto articulo fidei, fundata est ecclesia,'110 says St. Ambrose, when explaining what must be understood by the rock on which the church is built. Let my opponent then bridle his tongue. To express himself as he does is to stir up strife, not to discuss like a true doctor."
Eck had not expected that his opponent would possess so much knowledge of the subject, and be able to disentangle himself from the labyrinth in which he tried to bewilder him. "The reverend doctor," said he, "has entered the lists after carefully studying his subject. Your highnesses will excuse me for not presenting them with such exact researches. I came to debate and not to make a book." Eck was astonished, but not beaten. Having no more arguments to give, he had recourse to a mean and despicable artifice, which, if it did not vanquish his opponent, would at least subject him to great embarrassment. If the charge of being a Bohemian, a heretic, a Hussite fastens upon Luther, he is vanquished, for the Bohemians were detested in the Church. The scene of discussion was not far from the frontiers of Bohemia. Saxony, which, immediately after the condemnation of John Huss by the Council of Constance, had been subjected to all the horrors of a long and ruinous war, was proud of the resistance which she had then given to the Hussites. The university of Leipsic had been founded to oppose their tenets, and the discussion was in presence of nobles, princes, and citizens, whose fathers had fallen in that celebrated struggle. To make out that Luther was at one with Huss was almost like giving him the finishing blow, and this was the stratagem to which the doctor of Ingolstadt had recourse. "From primitive times downwards," says he, "it was acknowledged by all good Christians, that the Church of Rome holds its primacy of Jesus Christ himself and not of man. I must confess, however, that the Bohemians, while obstinately defending their errors, attacked this doctrine. The venerable father must pardon me if I am an enemy of the Bohemians, because they are the enemies of the Church, and if the present discussion has reminded me of these heretics; for, ... according to my weak judgment, ... the conclusions to which the doctor has come are all in favour of their errors. It is even affirmed that the Hussites loudly boast of this."111
Eck had calculated well. All his partizans received the insinuation with acclamation, and an expression of applause was general throughout the audience. "These slanders," said the Reformer at a later period, "tickled their fancy much more agreeably than the discussion itself."
Luther.—"I love not a schism and I never shall. Since the Bohemians, of their own authority, separate from our unity, they do wrong even were divine authority decisive in favour of their doctrine; for at the head of all divine authority is charity and the unity of the Spirit."112
It was at the morning sitting, on the 5th July, that Luther thus expressed himself. Shortly after, the meeting adjourned for dinner. Luther felt uneasy. Had he not gone too far in thus condemning the Christians of Bohemia? Have they not maintained the doctrine which Luther is maintaining at this hour? He sees all the difficulty of the step before him. Will he declare against the Council which condemned John Huss, or will he abjure the grand idea of an universal Christian Church, an idea deeply imprinted on his mind? Resolute Luther hesitated not. "I must do my duty come what may." Accordingly, when the assembly again met at two o'clock, he rose and said firmly:—
"Certain of the tenets of John Huss and the Bohemians are perfectly orthodox. This much is certain. For instance, 'That there is only one universal church,' and again, 'That it is not necessary to salvation to believe the Roman Church superior to others.' Whether Wickliffe or Huss has said so I care not.... It is the truth."
This declaration of Luther produced an immense sensation in the audience. The abhorred names of Huss and Wickliffe pronounced with eulogium by a monk in the heart of a Catholic assembly!... A general murmur was heard. Duke George himself felt as much alarmed, as if he had actually seen the standard of civil war, which had so long desolated the states of his maternal ancestors, unfurled in Saxony. Unable to conceal his emotion, he struck his thigh, shook his head, and exclaimed, loud enough to be heard by the whole assembly, "The man is mad!"113 The whole audience was extremely excited. They rose to their feet, and every one kept talking to his neighbour. Those who had fallen asleep, awoke. Luther's opponents expressed their exultation, while his friends were greatly embarrassed. Several persons, who till then had listened to him with pleasure, began to doubt his orthodoxy. The impression produced upon the mind of the duke by this declaration was never effaced; from this moment he looked upon the Reformer with an unfavourable eye, and became his enemy.114
Luther was not intimidated by this explosion of disapprobation One of his leading arguments was, that the Greeks had never recognised the pope, and yet had never been declared heretics; that the Greek Church had subsisted, was subsisting, and