The Conference at Marburg.
The Senate of Zurich had positively refused to allow Zwingle to go to Marburg,
lest any harm should befall him.
But he felt that his presence at the Conference was necessary for the welfare
of the Church, and that he must go.
Accordingly he prepared for his journey, and started during the night, with only
one friend to accompany him—Rodolph.
Colin, the Greek professor.
He left the following note for the Senate, If I leave without informing you,
it is not because I despise your authority, most wise lords, but because,
knowing the love you bear towards me, I foresee that your anxiety will oppose my
going.
They arrived safely at Baal, where they were joined by Oecolampadius, and at
Strasbourg, where they were joined by Busser, Hideo, and Stern.
The company reached Marburg on September 29, Luther and his friends on the 30th.
Both parties were courteously received by Philip, and entertained in the castle at
his own table.
The Landgrave, not ignorant of the bitter feelings which the late controversy had
produced between the chiefs of the parties, wisely proposed, that previously
to the public conference, the theologians should have a private interview for the
purpose of paving the way to reconciliation and unity.
Knowing the tempers of the men, he directed Luther to confer with
Oecolampadius, and Melanchthon with Swingle.
But so many accusations as to false doctrine were brought against the Swiss by
the Saxon divines, that little progress was made towards unity, and the main
question became more complicated.
The public disputation was accordingly appointed for the following day,
October 2, 1529.
The general conference was held in an inner apartment of the castle,
in the presence of the Landgrave and his principal ministers, political and
religious, the deputies of Saxony, Zürich, Strasbourg and Ball, and of a few
learned foreigners.
A table was placed for the four theologians Luther, Swingle, Melanchthon,
and Oecolampadius.
As they approached, Luther, taking a piece of chalk, steadily wrote on the velvet
cover of the table, in large letters, Hoc ester corpus mum dash, this is my
body.
He wished to have these words continually before him, that his confidence might not
fail, and that his adversaries might be confounded.
Yes, said he, these are the words of Christ, and from this rock no adversary
shall dislodge me.
All parties having assembled, the chancellor of Hesse opened the conference.
He explained its object, and exhorted the disputants to a Christian moderation,
and the reestablishment of unity.
Then Luther, instead of proceeding at once to the question of the Eucharist,
insisted on a previous understanding concerning other articles of faith,
such as the divinity of Christ, original sin, justification by faith,
etc., etc.
The Saxon divines professed to regard the Swiss as unsound on these and other
subjects.
What Luther's object could be, in seeking to widen the field of debate,
we pretend not to say, but the Swiss replied that their writings bore
sufficient evidence, that on all these points there was no difference between
them.
The landgrave, to whom belonged the direction of the meeting, signified his
assent, and Luther was compelled to give up his project, but he was evidently angry
and ill at ease in his own mind, and said, I protest that I differ from my
adversaries with regard to the doctrine of the Lord's Supper, and that I shall always
differ from them.
Christ said, This is my body.
Let them show me that a body is not a body.
I reject reason, common sense, carnal arguments, and mathematical proofs.
God is above mathematics.
We have the word of God, we must adore and perform it.
Such was the commencement of this celebrated debate.
The impetuous headstrong Saxon, had written his text on the velvet,
and was now pointing to it, and saying, No consideration shall ever induce me to
depart from the literal meaning of these words, and I shall not listen either to
sense or reason, with the words of God before me.
And all this was done and said, be it observed, before the deliberations
were so much as opened, or a single argument had been advanced.
This declaration, coupled with the notorious obstinacy of its author,
was enough to crush every hope of a satisfactory termination to the
conference.
But the Swiss, notwithstanding Luther's high-handed style, did not decline the
argument.
They no doubt knew his measure, cared little for his arrogant assertions,
and probably never counted on his conversion.
It cannot be denied, said Oecholampadius mildly, that there are figures of speech
in the word of God, as John is Elias, the rock was Christ, I am the vine.
Luther admitted that there were figures in the Bible, but he denied that this last
expression was figurative.
Oecholampadius then reminded Luther at the Blessed Lord's says in John 6,
It is the Spirit that quickneth, the flesh profiteth nothing.
Now Christ who said to the people of Capernaum, The flesh profiteth nothing,
rejected by these words, the oral mangication of the body.
Therefore he did not establish it at the institution of the supper.
I deny, retorted Luther vehemently, the second of these propositions.
There was a material eating of Christ's flesh, and there was a spiritual eating of
it.
It was the former, the material eating, of which Christ declared that it profiteth
nothing.
Oecholampadius hinted that this was in effect to surrender the argument.
It admitted that we were to eat spiritually, and if so, we did not eat
bodily, the material mangication being in that case useless.
We are not to ask of what use, replied Luther, everything that God
commands becomes spirit and life.
If it is by the Lord's order that we lift up a straw, in that very action we perform
a spiritual work.
We must pay attention to him who speaks, and not to what he says.
God speaks, then, worms, listen.
God commands, let the world obey.
And let us all fall down together, and humbly kiss the Word.
We may just notice in passing, that there is no ground for supposing that
the question of the Eucharist is referred to in John 6.
It was not even instituted for some time after this.
Incarnation, death, and ascension are the fundamental truths which the Lord is here
unfolding to the Jews, as the only means of eternal life and of all spiritual
blessings.
Himself the eternal life which was with the Father before all worlds, He took
flesh that He might not only reveal the Father, and be the perfect pattern of
obedience as man, but that He might die in grace for us, and settle the question of
sin forever, glorifying God absolutely, and at all cost, on the cross.
Except the corn of wheat, as He Himself taught us, fall into the ground and die,
it abides alone, dying it brings forth much fruit.
His death is not here regarded as an offering to God, as elsewhere often,
but the appropriation of it by the believer into His own being.
He only is life, yet this not in living, but in dying for us, that we might have it
in and with Him, the fruit of His redemption, eternal life as a present
thing but only fully seen in resurrection power, already verified and seen in Him,
ascended up as man, where He was before as God, by and by to be seen in us at the
last day, manifested with Him in glory.
Jesus, therefore, come down to earth, put to death, ascending again to heaven,
is the doctrine of this chapter.
As come down and put to death, He is the food of faith during His absence
on high.
For it is on His death we must feed, in order to dwell spiritually in Him and
He in us.
We now return to Marburg.
Zwingle, just at this moment, interfered in the discussion.
He pressed and greatly troubled the spirit of Luther by his reasoning from the
Scriptures, science, the senses, etc., but he took his stand first on the
ground of Scripture.
After quoting a number of passages in which the sign is described by the very
thing signified, he introduced the argument which had been started by
Oecolampadius in the morning, namely, John 6.
Concluding that, in consideration of our Lord's declaration, the flesh profiteth
nothing, we must explain the words of the Eucharist in a similar manner.
Luther, dash, when Christ says the flesh profiteth nothing, He speaks not of His
own flesh, but of ours.
Zwingle, dash, the soul is fed with the spirit and not with the flesh.
Luther, dash, it is with the mouth that we eat the body, the soul does not eat it,
we eat it spiritually with the soul.
Zwingle, dash, Christ's body is therefore a corporeal nourishment and not a
spiritual.
Luther, dash, you are captious.
Zwingle, dash, not so, but you utter contradictory things.
Luther, dash, if God should present me wild apples, I should eat them
spiritually.
In the Eucharist, the mouth receives the body of Christ and the soul believes His
words.
There was now great confusion and contradiction in the language of Luther,
as if the four words were to be taken neither figuratively nor literally,
and yet he seemed to teach that they were to be taken in both senses.
Zwingle thought that an absurdity had been reached, and that no good could be
attained by proceeding farther in this line of argument.
He maintained from a wider view of the Scriptures, that the bread and wine of the
Holy Eucharist are not the very body and blood of the Lord Jesus, but only the
representatives of that body and blood.
Luther was, however, by no means shaken.
This is my body, he repeated, pointing with his finger to the words written
before him.
This is my body, and the devil himself shall not drive me from that.
To seek to understand it is to fall away from the faith.
But although no favorable impression was produced on the mind of Luther,
many of the hearers were struck by the clearness and simplicity of Zwingle's
arguments, and many minds were opened to the truth on this important subject.
Francis Lambert, the principal theologian of Hesse, who had constantly professed the
Lutheran doctrine of the Eucharist, was amongst the most notable of the
converts.
He was the personal friend and a great admirer of Luther, but conscience moved
him to confess the truth.
When I came to this conference, he said, I desired to be as a sheet of
blank paper on which the finger of God might write His truth.
Now I see it is the Spirit that vivifies, the flesh profiteth nothing.
I believe with Oecolampadius and Zwingle.
The Wittenberg doctors greatly lamented this defection, but turned it off by
exclaiming, Gallic fickleness.
What, replied the ex-Franciscan, formerly of Avignon, was St. Paul fickle
because he was converted from Pharisaism and have we ourselves been fickle in
abandoning the lost sects of potpourri?
Great agitation now prevailed in the hall, but the hour to adjourn had arrived,
and the disputants retired with the prince to dinner.
In the afternoon the conversation was resumed by Luther, who said, I believe
that Christ's body is in heaven, but I also believe that it is in the
sacrament.
It concerns me little whether that be against nature, provided that it is not
against faith.
Christ is substantially in the sacrament, such as He was born of the Virgin.
Ecolampadius, quoting 2 Corinthians 5, 16, said, We know not Jesus Christ after
the flesh.
After the flesh means, said Luther, in this passage, after our carnal
affections.
Then answer me this, Dr. Luther, said Zwingle, Christ ascended into heaven,
and if He is in heaven as regards His body, how can He be in the bread?
The word of God teaches us that He was in all things made like unto His brethren.
Hebrews 2, 17.
He therefore cannot be at the same instant on every one of the thousand altars at
which the Eucharist is being celebrated.
Were I desirous of reasoning thus, replied Luther, I would undertake to prove
that Jesus Christ had a wife, that He had black eyes, and lived in our good country
of Germany.
I care little about mathematics.
There is no question of mathematics here, said Zwingle, but of St. Paul who wrote to
the Philippians, that Christ took upon Him the form of a servant, and was made in the
likeness of men.
Finding himself in danger of being moved or drawn away from his original position,
he flew back to his four words, exclaiming, Most dear sirs, since my Lord
Jesus Christ says, Hoc est corpus meum, I believe that His body is really there.
Wearied with the inflexible obstinacy and unreasonableness of Luther, Zwingle moved
rapidly towards him, and striking the table, said to him, You maintain then,
doctor, that Christ's body is locally in the Eucharist, for you say, Christ's body
is there there there.
There is an adverb of place.
Christ's body is then of such a nature as to exist in a place.
If it is in a place it is in heaven, whence it follows that it is not in the
bread.
I repeat, replied Luther warmly, that I have nothing to do with
mathematical proofs.
As soon as the words of consecration are pronounced over the bread, the body is
there, however wicked be the priest who pronounces them.
Let the reader note this saying.
It is certainly blasphemy, though not intentionally so by this deluded man.
According to this dogma, the Lord, willing or not willing, must descend into
the idolatrous bread of the priest, however wicked he may be, the moment he
mutters the words of consecration.
This is potpourri in its most daring blasphemy.
The landgrave, perceiving that the discussion was growing hot, proposed a
brief recess.
As reason and fairness are all on one side, there is little interest in watching
the progress of the debate.
Zwingle and Oecolampadius had established their propositions by Scripture,
philosophy, and the testimony of the most ancient fathers, but all were met by the
one unvarying answer, this is my body.
And as if to insult and exasperate the Swiss divines, Luther seized the velvet
cover on which the words hoc est corpus meum were written, pulled it off the
table, held it up before their eyes, saying, See, see, this is our text,
you have not yet driven us from it, as you had boasted, and we care for no
other proofs.
After such an exhibition of weakness and folly, with the assumption of
infallibility, there was no hope of drawing Luther from his hold, and no good
reason for prolonging the conference.
The discussion, however, was resumed the following morning, but at the close of the
day the hostile parties were no nearer a reconciliation.
A severe epidemic, in the form of the sweating sickness, had broken out in
Germany about this time, and had reached Marburg during the conference,
and no doubt hastened its termination.
The ravages of the plague were frightful, all were filled with alarm and anxious to
leave the city.
Sirs, exclaimed the Landgrave, you cannot separate thus, can nothing more
be done to heal the breach must this one point of difference irreconcilably divide
the friends of the Reformation, is there no means, said the Chancellor,
of the theologians coming to an understanding, as the Landgrave so
sincerely desires.
I know of but one means for that, replied Luther, and this it is,
let our adversaries believe as we do.
We cannot, replied the Swiss.
Well then, said Luther, I abandon you to God's judgment, and pray that he will
enlighten you.
We will do the same, added Oecolampadius.
Swingle was silent, motionless, but deeply moved while these words were
passing.
At length his lively affections gave way, and he burst into tears in the presence of all.