LUTHSB
444
LUTHSB
to touch or by intrigue undermine the authority of
the Roman Church and that of your hoUness"
(De Wette, op. cit., I, 234). Two days later (5
March) he wntes to Spalatin: "It was never my in-
tention to revolt from the Ronuui Apostolic chair"
(De Wette, op. cit., 1, 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, op.cit., I, 239). A month before this (20
Feb.) he thanks Scheurl for sending him the foul
"Dialogue of JuUus and St. Peter", a most poisonous
attack on the papacy, saying he is sorely tempted to
issue it in the vernacular to the public (De Wette, op.
dt., I, 230). "To prove Luther's consistency — ^to
vindicate his conduct at all points, as faultless both in
veracity and courage — under those circumstances,
may be left to m3rth-making simpletons " (Bayne, op.
cit^I, 457).
The I^ipzig disputation was an important factor in fixing the alignment of both disputants, and forcing Luther's theolo^cal evolution. It was an outgrowth of the "Obelisci" and " Asterisci", which was taken up l^ Carlstadt during Luther's absence at Heidel- berg in 1518. It was precipitated by the latter, and certainly not solicited or sought after by Eck. Every obstacle was placed in the way of its taking place, onlv to be bruished aside. The Bishops of Merseburg and Brandenbiu^ issued their official mhibitions; the theological faculty of the Leipzig University sent a letter of protest to Luther not to m^dle in an affai r that was purely Carbtadt's, and another to Duke Georee to prohibit it (Seidemann, "Leipziger Disputation ', Dresden and Leipzig, 1843, 126). Scheurl, then an intimate of Luther's, tried to dissuade him from the meeting; Eck, in terms pacific and dignified, replied to Caristadt's offensive, and Luthers pugnacious letters, in fruitless endeavour to avert all public con- troversy either in print or lecture (Loscher, op. cit., II, 64r-65); Luther himself, pledged and forbidden all public discourse or print, oeg^d Duke Frederick to make an endeavour to bring about the meeting (De Wette, op. cit., I, 175) at the same time that he perBonally appealed to Duke Geoi^e for permission to allow it, and this in spite of the fact that he had al- readv given the theses against Eck to the public. In the face of such indent pressure Eck could not fail to accept the challenge. Even at this stage Eck and Carlstadt were to 1^ the accredited coml^tants, and the formal admission of Luther into the disputation was only determined upon when the disputants were actually at Leipzig.
The disputation on Eck's twelve, subsequently thirteen, theses, was opened with much parade and ceremony on 27 June, and the university atUa being too small, was conducted at the Pleissenburg Castle. The wordy battle was between Carlstadt and Eck on the subject of Divine grace and human free will. As is well known, it ended in the former's hiuniliating dis- comfiture. Luther and Eck's discussion, 4 July, was on pApal supremacy. The former, though gifted with a brilliant readiness of speech, lacked — and his warm- est admirers admit it — the quiet composure, curbed Belf-restraint, and imruffled temper of a good dispu- tant. The result was that the imperturbable serenity and unerring confidence of Eck had an exasperating effect on him. He was " querulous and censorious ' , "arbitrary and bitter" (Mosellanus), which hardly contributed to the advantage of his cause, either in aigumentation or with his hearers. Papal supremacy was denied by him, because it found no warrant in Holy Writ or in Divine right. Eck's comments on the "pestilential " errors of Wiclif and Hus condenmed by the Council of Constance was met by the reply, that, 80 far as the position of the Hussites was concerned, thare were among them many who were " very Chris- tian and evangelical ". Eck took his antagonist to /aedt forp)sic'\ng the individual in a position to under-
stand the Bible better than the popes, councils, doc-
tors, and universities, and in pressing his argument
closer, assenting that the condemned Bohemians would
not hesitate to hail him as their patron, elicited the
ungentle remonstrance "that is a shameless lie". Eck,
undisturbed and with the instinct of the trained de-
bater, drove his antagonist still further, until he finall v
admitted the fallibuity of an oecumenical council,
upon which he closed the discussion with the laconic
rema^: "If you believe a legitimately assembled
council can err and has erred, then you are to me as a
heathen and pubUcan" (Kostlin-Kawcrau, op. cit., I,
243-60). This was 15 July. Luther returned sullen
and crestfallen to Wittenberg, from what had proved
to him an inglorious tournament (De Wette, op. cit., I,
284-89; 290-306; "Lutheri 0pp. Lat.; Eri.", Ill, 487;
Scheurl. "Briefbuch", II, Potsdam, 1867, 92).
The disastrous outcome of the disputation (Mauren- brecher, "Gesch. der Kath. Reform", Nordlingen, 1880, 171; Kohler, "Denifles Luther 9) drove him to reckless, desperate measures. He did not scruple, at this stage, to league himself with the most radical elements of national humanism and freeboot- ing knighthood, who in their revolutionarv propa- ganda hailed him as a most valuable ally. His com- rades in arms now were Ulrich von Hutten and Franz von Sickingen, with the motley horde of satellites usually found in the train of such leadership. With Melanchthon, himself a humanist, as an intermediary, a secret correspondence was opened with Hutten (De Wette, I, 451)^ and to all appearances Sickingen was directly or indirectly in frequent communication (op. cit., I, 451, 460). Hutten, though a man of un- common talent and literary brilliancy, was^ never- theless, a moral degenerate, without conscience or character (Maurenbrecher, "Geschichte der katho- lisch. Reformation", 199; Menzel, "Neuere Gesch. der Deutschen", II, Breslau, 1826, 255; Paulsen, " Gesch. des gelehrten Unterrichts ", Leipzig, 1885, 51 ; Vorreiter. "Luthers Ringen mit den anti-christl. Prindp. aer Revolution ", Halle, 1860, 55) . Sickingen. the prmce of condoUierif was a sordid mercenarv ana political marplot, whose daring deeds and murderous atrocities form a part of German legendary lore. With his three impregnable fastnesses, Ebemburg, Land- stuhl, and Hohenburg, with their adventurous sol- diery, fleet-footed cavabry, and primed artillery, " who took to robbery as to a trade and considered it rather an honour to be likened to wolves" (Cambridge Hist., II, 154), a menace to the very empire, he was a most useful adjunct. With Luther they had little in com- mon, for Doth were impervious to all religious impulses, unless it was their deadly hatred of the pope, and the confiscation of church property and land (op. cit., 155). The disaffection among the knights was par- ticularlv acute. The flourishing condition of industry made the agrarian interests of the small landowners suffer; the new methods of warfare diminished their political importance; the adoption of the Roman law while it strengthened the territorial lords, threatened to reduce the lower nobility to a condition of serfdom. A change, even though it involved revolution, was desired, and Luther and his movement were welcomed as the psychological man $md cause. Hutten offered his pen, a^ofmidabte weapon: Sickingen his fortress, a haven of safety; the tormer assured him of the enthusiastic support of the national humanists, the latter "bade him stand firm and offered to encircle him with . . . swords" (Bayne, op.cit., II, 59). The attack would be made on the ecclesiastical princes, as opposed to Lutheran doctrines and knightly privileges. In the meantime Luther was saturating himself with published and unpublished humanistic anti-clerical literature so effectually that his passionate hatred of Rome and the pope, his genesis of Antichrist, his contemptuous scorn for his theological opponents, his effusive professions of patriotism, his acquisition of
