Page:Luther's correspondence and other contemporary letters 1507-1521.djvu/205

 commend him to the elector, but there is no need of spurring one running of his own accord. . ..

163. MELANCHTHON TO JOHN OECOLAMPADIUS AT

AUGSBURG. Corpus Reformatorum, L 87. Wittenberg, July 21, 1519.

John Hussgen (Hausschein-Oecolampadius; 1482-1531), a friend of Zwingli and leader in the Swiss Reformation. He studied at Heilbronn and Bologna, and in 1499 took up theology at Heidelberg, winning his M.A. in 1503. In 15 13 he matriculated at Tiibingen, where he studied Greek with Melanchthon. 1 515-8 he was at Basle helping Erasmus edit the New Testament. From 1518 to 1520 he was at Augs- burg; in 1520 he entered a monastery to escape the religious contro- versy, but in 1522 emerged and became the Evangelical pastor of Basle. He took a prominent part in the Marburg Colloquy of 1529. Realencyclop'ddie.

. . . And to begin at the beginning, Eck last year pub- lished some notes called Obelisks on Luther's Theses on In- dulgences, and he wrote too bitterly for me to quote anything from them. Carlstadt picked out some of Eck's propositions in his Theses, which are published. Eck answered in an Apology, which was somewhat milder than the Obelisks. Carlstadt confuted the Apology in a pamphlet; it was a tedi- ous accusation expressed at length. Omitting details, it was determined to dispute on the chief point. The day was set. Eck, Carlstadt and Luther came together at Leipsic. The subject of the debate was digested in a few propositions to 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 ap- pointed 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 decreased by the delay of writing, that while minds were stimulated 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 ad- vises this, and how Erasmus does. [Follows a description of the debate between Carlstadt and Eck on free will.]

�� �