CHAPTER X.

THE CONFERENCE AT MARBURG.

While the Catholics were filled with the most violent enmity against the evangelical party, and dark clouds were gathering over the heads of the Protestants, because of the decided expression of the emperor's will, it was a matter for the very deepest regret that a deep gulf was opened in the midst of the evangelical party, which grew wider and wider in the course of time. This was the rupture between the Lutherans and the Reformed, to use the names familiar now. We have already become acquainted with the restless, stormy spirit of Dr. Carlstadt, whom Melanchthon called the wicked A B C, on account of the initials of the three names, Andrew Bodenstein Carlstadt. Among other errors, he also denied the bodily presence of Christ in the sacrament, and explained the words of institution in so forced a manner, that Luther was doubtful whether he should consider him in earnest, or think that God had hardened and blinded him. Luther simply adhered to the words of Christ, however much, as he confesses himself, he was spurred by his reason to deviate from the words. "But I am a prisoner," he says, "and cannot escape; the text is too powerful, and will not permit its meaning to be changed by words." Melanchthon also strictly held, that the body and blood of Christ are truly and essentially present in the Lord's Supper.

Because Carlstadt would not return to Wittenberg, he was obliged to leave the country. But soon after he solicited Luther's intercession, who willingly complied. He returned to Saxony in the year 1525. Luther baptized his son, and his wife and Melanchthon acted as sponsors. But in the year 1527, Luther already expressed himself unfavorably of the man, who still adhered to his ridiculous explanation of the words of the Lord's Supper. Carlstadt now left Saxony, and in 1528 came to Basle, where he was appointed preacher and professor. He soon disappeared in the back-ground, when another, ULRICH ZWINGLI, the Swiss reformer, appeared with his unsatisfactory exposition of the words of the supper, according to which the words "This _is_ my body," were said to mean "This _signifies_ my body." Although he labored with great success in Switzerland, he yet bore some resemblance to Dr. Carlstadt, in his stormy proceedings, for he destroyed the images, bells, organs, and the like. Zwingli took Carlstadt's side against Luther. John Oecolampadius, professor and pastor in Basle, and a friend of Melanchthon's youth, united with him in the same unsatisfactory view of the Lord's Supper.

Luther was greatly grieved at these innovations, and attacked them with terrible earnestness. He called the Swiss _Sacramentarians_. We shall not introduce those matters, which more properly belong to the Life of Luther. Adhering to his declaration: "Thus it is written," he laid powerful blows upon the Sacramentarians, who replied in equally violent and biting publications. Although Melanchthon had not mingled in the strife up to the present time, he yet stood on Luther's side. He too felt himself bound by the express words of the Bible. Even from Spire, as early as the year 1529, he had written to his otherwise dearly beloved friend Oecolampadius concerning this matter: "It is very painful to me that discord should have arisen in this matter, ordained by Christ himself to establish an indissoluble love. Never has anxiety for any matter disturbed my heart more than my anxiety in this. And I have not only myself considered what might be said for and against this matter, but I have also examined the opinions of the ancients. For I should not like to stand up as the author or defender of any new dogma in the Church. After having thus weighed what seemed to be best established on both sides, I will express my sentiments, with your permission, but I cannot agree with your opinion." He then reviews the objections of opponents. One of these objections was, that the _absent_ body of Christ could not be present. In answer to this he says: "I know that there is a promise of Christ; 'I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world;' and other ones similar to this, in which it is not necessary to separate his humanity from his divinity; and therefore I am of the opinion that this sacrament is a testimony of the true presence.... That opinion, that Christ has taken possession of a part of heaven in such a manner that he is shut up in it as in a prison, is one altogether unworthy of a Christian." Such an important question should not be judged by the rules of geometry, but by the word of God. He also says, that the most distinguished Fathers of the Church explain the sacrament like those of the Evangelical party. In the conclusion of his letter he yet presents a variety of considerations. "I observe," he says, "that your cause relies upon the assistance of the understanding and subtleties, and that you are not only employing public but secret arts also, to attract attention; and I doubt whether these will further your cause more than public ones. I am well aware of your own modesty; therefore I consider it necessary to remind you to reflect, that even shrewd and prudent persons may sometimes fall, and it is particularly dangerous to rely upon our own reason in spiritual matters." Melanchthon gave up all thoughts of a conference concerning this matter.

However, this plan, entertained by another individual also, was soon to be realized. The Landgrave PHILIP of Hesse saw what incalculable mischief would follow a division of the Germans and the Swiss. He regarded the matter from a political point of view, because a party, divided in itself, could not accomplish that which it might do when united. But he also appreciated the religious aspect of the question. It was soon discovered to which side he leaned in this dispute. Be this as it may, the Landgrave considered it advisable to arrange a conference at Marburg between the Germans and the Swiss. Although the doctrine of the Lord's Supper was the principal point of difference, there were yet besides this a number of other differences. Although Melanchthon had suggested the idea of such a conference to Oecolampadius, he now dissuaded from it, when the Landgrave wished such an one to take place. With Luther he believed that the conference would not be productive of good.

But finally both parties consented. The day after Michaelmas, the Wittenbergians, Luther, Melanchthon and Jonas, arrived in Marburg, after Zwingli, Oecolampadius, Bucer and Hedio, had already arrived. Andrew Osiander, of Nuremberg, Brenz of Hall, and Stephen Agricola of Augsburg, arrived after this. Jonas cannot sufficiently extol the gracious, friendly, even princely reception, they met with. Although it had at first been arranged that they should lodge in the city, the Landgrave now received them into his palace. Jonas remarks: "This has been done in these forests, not only in honor of learning, but of the true God and Christ, whom we preach. Would to God that everything might be decided to the honor of Christ!"

Melanchthon reported the proceedings of the conference to the Elector John of Saxony, and likewise to Duke Henry of Saxony. We follow his narrative, which gives us a clear view of this important meeting. At first, Luther conversed with Oecolampadius alone, and Melanchthon with Zwingli. It was stated that Zwingli was accused of teaching that Original Sin was not sin, and that Baptism did not secure to children forgiveness of Original Sin. That he declared concerning the Lord's Supper, that the body and blood of Christ are not truly in the sacrament. He is also said to teach that the Holy Ghost is not given through the Word and Sacrament, but without the word and sacrament. Further, it is asserted, that some do not teach correctly of the Divinity of Christ, and also spoke awkwardly of Justification before God. That they did not insist enough upon the doctrine of Faith. Zwingli hereupon declared that he always believed, and did still believe, that Christ is true God and man. That it is not his fault if others have taught improperly. They disputed a long time concerning original sin, and the means by which the Holy Ghost is communicated. Zwingli yielded this point.

On the 2d of October, the following day, they began the principal battle on the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper. The Landgrave and his chief counsellors attended this discussion. They disputed two days on this point of difference. Zwingli and Oecolampadius steadily maintained: 1. That Christ taught a spiritual eating of his body in John vi., and therefore we should only understand a spiritual eating in the Sacrament. 2. That a body cannot be present in many places at one and the same time. Christ possesses a true body, and is in heaven; therefore, he could not be in the Sacrament at the same time. Here they made a number of awkward assertions; _e. g._, God does not present such unintelligible matters to us, outward participation is useless. 3. Oecolampadius introduced quotations from Augustine, that Sacraments are mere signs, signifying something, even as the serpent in the wilderness signifies something. He thought it sufficient to be satisfied with a spiritual participation. Luther replied as the principal speaker. Concerning John vi., he declared that, although Christ is there speaking of spiritual eating, yet this is not opposed to bodily eating. He, too, taught a spiritual eating, but in the words of the institution an outward eating is ordained. The opposite party then referred to the words: "The flesh profiteth nothing." It was replied to them, that, as Christ above speaks of his flesh as giving life, the words quoted by them could not refer to his own flesh, but to our own carnal being and thoughts. But if we wish to explain it of Christ's flesh, we cannot draw any other conclusion from it than this, that the flesh of Christ, when received without faith, profiteth nothing. To the _second_ objection they replied, that our reason should not judge God's power and glory, whether one body is able to be present in many places or not. Melanchthon relates that their opponents steadfastly adhered to this objection. They said that even wicked priests could perform this great miracle. It was replied to them, that we ought not to regard the worthiness of the priests, but the commandment of God. Upon this they dropped their objection. To the _third_ objection, in which Oecolampadius declared "the Sacraments are signs, and therefore we ought to grant that they signify something; therefore we ought to acknowledge in the Lord's Supper that the body of the Lord is only _signified_, and not present," the other side replied, that we ought not to explain them in a manner different from that in which Christ had explained them. That the Sacraments are signs, should be understood thus, that they signify promises connected with them. Thus, the Lord's Supper signifies that the death of Christ has obtained satisfaction for our sins, and gives us the assurance of the forgiveness of sin. From this it does not follow as a matter of necessity that Christ's body is not present. Zwingli and Oecolampadius quoted many passages from the Fathers in corroboration of their views. Their opponents also presented many clear declarations of the Church Fathers to the Landgrave in writing, from which it appeared that the ancient Church taught the true presence of the body and blood of Christ in the Lord's Supper.

Such was the result of the conference at Marburg. Both parties adhered to their own opinions. The Swiss asked to be regarded as brethren. Luther refused, and declared this to be an evidence that they did not value their own cause very highly. Although they were satisfied with Luther's doctrines on all other points, they adhered to their own opinion of the Lord's Supper. It is true Melanchthon expresses a hope that they might change their opinion in this matter at some future day, but this hope was never realized.

The Conference lasted three days. Melanchthon had feared that their opponents would be far more violent, and expressed himself well satisfied with them in this respect. The Landgrave was also deeply interested in this discussion. It is said that he made the remark: "Now he would rather believe the simple words of Christ than the subtle thoughts of men." Although this conference effected some good in correcting many misapprehensions and errors, as well as for a while putting an end to the violent polemical writings, yet no union had been brought about in the matter of the Lord's Supper. The schism remained, and grew more incurable in future days. Meetings were again held in Rotach, Schwabach, Smalkald, and in Nuremberg, in the beginning of the year 1530, in order to bring about a union with the upper Germans. But they would not forsake their opinion, and the Elector, who believed Luther's doctrine, could not induce himself to enter into a league with his opponents. Besides this, the latter were so far removed from the Catholics in the doctrine of the Lord's Supper, that it was not to be hoped that they would be received when united. However, the Landgrave, whose purpose to unite the Reformed, especially the four upper German cities, with the Lutherans, had so far been frustrated, did not relinquish all hope of final success. He made repeated efforts. Thus a meeting was held in Schwabach in October, 1529. Luther had prepared seventeen articles, one of which expressed the true presence of the body and blood of Christ in the Sacrament. But they could not unite here, nor in the Conferences at Smalkald in November, and Nuremberg, in January, 1530.

Thus, while the Catholics were banded together to inflict deadly blows upon the Protestants, these were separated into two parties; and if we add the sects, into a number of parties. But now every eye was directed to the Diet of Augsburg, at which the cause of the Protestants was to be considered again. All were in anxious expectation to see what the Emperor would do. And on this occasion it was reserved for Melanchthon to produce a work which should not only excite attention in Augsburg, but which decided and secured the lawful position of the Evangelical Church. However, Melanchthon was not in the most joyous frame of mind at this time. He thus expresses this in a letter to Camerarius: "Not a day passes in which I do not wish that I might leave this world."