This is a paper I recently submitted on the Marburg Colloquy. This meeting, primarily between Zwingli and Luther, is perhaps the most significant meeting of the early Reformers and shows both the passion for God’s truth and the human personality present in the Reformers. Space constraints limited me from a more thorough treatment but I hope this might serve as a helpful introduction to anyone unfamiliar with the events at Marburg. Please forgive any strange formatting; copy-and-paste from Word to my blog software sometimes produces odd results.

—-

HISTORICAL CONTEXT

The immediate historical roots of the Marburg Colloquy of 1529 can be traced back at least as far as The Diet of Worms in 1521. There the German monk Martin Luther stood trial before the Catholic Church for his radical ideas regarding the abuses of the Catholic Church and her departure theologically from the teaching of scripture. Luther, a native of Saxony, had begun his educational life with an eye toward the practice of law at the university at Erfurt at the forceful behest of his father Hans. However, caught in a dreadful thunderstorm in 1505 the twenty-one year old jurist in training appealed to St. Anne to spare his life from the storm with promise that if so spared he would become a monk. True to his word, once the storm abated Luther relocated the short distance from his previous place of study to the house of the Augustinian Eremite order, also in Erfurt. This monastic order bore the name of the illustrious Augustine of Hippo and took their obligation to their namesake seriously. In the folds of Augustinian Eremite order Luther was exposed to Plato and the church fathers and enjoyed a robust humanist education. However, no personality had a greater influence on Luther than the namesake of his order and it was from Augustine that Luther learned his greatest lesson: a commitment to the Bible as the supreme authority for life and faith. In 1507 Luther took his priestly orders and was eventually assigned to teach in the university in Wittenburg in 1511. Later in life Luther reflected on his life as a monk as one that was torturous under the weight of his attempts to earn a right standing before God. Luther was liberated from this labored existence by an epiphany arising from his meditation on Romans 1:17. Luther concluded that the “righteousness that comes by faith” should be understood as God’s imputation of an alien righteousness to the sinner on the basis of faith and not works. Luther’s recounting of this momentous change is his thought has become legendary: “At this I felt myself straightway born afresh and to have entered through the open gates into paradise itself.”[1] Luther’s thought continued to develop on a path divergent to the dogma of the Catholic church, expressing itself outwardly most famously on October 31, 1517 when he nailed 95 theses as an invitation to disputation on the subject of indulgences on the castle church doors in Wittenburg.[2] This act, along with a letter of protest sent to the Albrecht of Brandenburg set Luther on a course of confrontation with the Catholic Church culminating in a papal bull, Exsurge Domine, issued by Leo X in 1520 which condemned Luther as a heretic[3] and the Edict of Worms in May 26, 1521 which forbid the teaching and spread of Luther’s ideas.[4] Despite the best efforts of the papacy Lutheranism spread throughout the European world, resulting in increasing conflicts between political units loyal to the Catholic Church and those who embraced what became known historically as Protestantism. In 1526 the first Diet of Speyer effectively suspended the enforcement of the Edict of Worms as the Roman Catholic Emperor Charles V attempted to bolster support for his cause against the French and Ottoman Empire amongst the German princes, rulers over the lands most influenced by Lutheranism.[5] However, under pressures generated by Pope Adrian VI[6] the freedoms granted in 1526 dissolved as the second Diet of Speyer in 1529 re-imposed the Edict of Worms.[7]

Sensing a swelling of Catholic power that might ultimately lead to armed conflict with the Protestants Philip, Landgrave of Hesse, began to work at uniting the princes and free cities of the German empire who sympathized with the Protestant movement.[8] Philip, later to become known as The Magnanimous, had converted to Protestantism in the summer of 1524 after a meticulous study of the Church Fathers, Church History, and – most importantly – the Bible.[9] After winning over John of Saxony and other German princes from the north and east Philip began to envision a powerful alliance that would leave Protestant sympathizing political states unassailable and thus providing freedom for the development of their own churches and schools.[10] In order to accomplish this largely political goal Philip saw that he must first unite the theological fronts of the burgeoning Protestant movement personified in Martin Luther and the Swiss Reformer Huldrych Zwingli of Zurich[11].

Zwingli, born in 1484[12], was the product of a family of prosperous farmers from eastern Switzerland and received his education in Basel, Bern, and Vienna[13] – the latter of which was known as a center for humanist studies.[14] While in Basel Zwingli met[15] and became an ardent admirer of Erasmus[16] who encouraged further humanistic studies. According to Zwingli he owed no debt to Luther, having experienced a kind of conversion to Christ and developing a commitment to the authority of Scripture in 1516 – a date prior to any public knowledge of Luther’s teaching.[17] Zwingli’s career took him from a parish in Glarus to Einsideln and ultimately to Zurich where he became People’s Priest at the great minster.[18] There Zwingli began preaching systematically through the New Testament, beginning with Matthew, and developed his theology according to the principle of sola scriptura – “by Scripture alone.”[19] By November 1522 Zwingli was prepared to resign his position as People’s Priest (an office appointed by the Roman Bishop) having evidenced a number of characteristics that revealed his Protestant position such as preaching against punishing those who did not fast at Lent, advocating clerical marriage (Zwingli himself was married in 1522), and attacking medieval Catholic Church practices like praying to saints, the selling and buying of indulgences, holy pilgrimages, and the veneration of the Virgin Mary.[20]

THEOLOGICAL DIFFERENCES BETWEEN ZWINGLI & LUTHER

The two Reformers had mutually obtained a great deal of prominence through both their preaching and the distribution of their writings. Despite holding a number of doctrines in common the two men differed greatly (and with great emotional heat) on the subject of the Lord’s Supper. Both Luther and Zwingli rejected the doctrine of transubstantiation (the idea that upon consecration by a priest the elements of the Mass actually become the body and blood of Jesus). Here their similarities ended. Luther’s understanding of the Eucharist was that although the elements of the Supper do not actually become the body and blood of Christ in a literal sense there was in fact a true presence of Christ in the elements and he taught that Christ’s body and blood were present in the sacrament “in and under the bread and wine.”[21] For his part, Zwingli took the position that the Lord’s supper was intended to be a memorial to the substitutionary death of Christ and thus the elements of the Lord’s Supper did not transform at any point but rather remained bread and wine which functioned as reminders of Christ’s sacrificed flesh and blood.[22]

In the years leading up to the Marburg Colloquy the two reformers battled one another in print, each publishing multiple public polemical writings aimed at discrediting the other. In 1525 Zwingli issued On True and False Religion, in which he described Luther’s position as “opposed by all sense and reason and understanding and by faith itself”[23] followed in 1526 by On the Lord’s Supper[24], a popular worked designed to introduce his memorialist position to a broader audience. Not to be outdone, Luther took up his pen in order to refute what he understood to be Zwingli’s great error and simultaneously advocate his own position on the nature of the Lord’s Supper. He responded with That These Words of Christ ‘This Is My Body’ Still Stand Firm against the Fanatics.[25] Perhaps in an attempt to calm the escalating rhetoric Zwingli then published Friendly Exposition of the Eucharist Affair to – Not against – Martin Luther.[26] Further polemical publications continued from both men. Luther, true to form, spared no vitriol in challenging Zwingli in the public arena. In 1528 he wrote:

“Whoever will take a warning, let him beware of Zwingli and shun his books as the prince of hell’s poison. For the man is completely perverted and has entirely lost Christ. Other sacramentarians settle on one error, but this man never publishes a book without spewing out new errors, more and more all the time.”[27]

Zwingli, not to be outdone, described Luther’s abilities in the area of theology as akin to “a sow in a flower garden.”[28] As a result the months leading up to the Colloquy at Marburg presented little that would encourage a hopeful realization of Philip’s vision of a unified Protestantism to face a marshaling Catholicism.

EVENTS OF THE COLLOQUY

On October 1st, 1529 the parties of Zwingli and Luther gathered to Philip’s castle in Marburg[29] for the Colloquy that the host hoped would usher in a new day of fellowship within Protestantism. The Colloquy was to be held over the course of four days organized into four sessions in the presences of Philip, Duke Ulrich of Württemberg, and delegates sent from other participating territories alongside as many as 60 guests. [30] The roster of disputing parties reads like a who’s-who of the Reformation: Johannes Oecalampadius, Huldrich Zwingli, Martin Bucer, Caspar Hedio, Martin Luther, Justus Jonas, Philip Melanchthon, Andreas Osiander, Stephan Agricola, Johannes Brenz.[31]

Both the Swiss and German parties initially took rooms in nearby inns for their lodging during the duration of the Colloquy but, perhaps thinking physical proximity might encourage brotherly conduct, Philip brought the disputants into the castle in which the actual meetings would take place.[32] During the initial dialog Zwingli and Luther were split up and assigned initial meetings with agents from the opposing camp. Thus Luther and Oecolampadius were paired and sent to begin talks while Zwingli and Melanchthon were similarly squirreled away to initiate this critically important discussion.[33] This paired discussion continued to the time for dining after which only Zwingli and Melanchthon resumed after the meal. Reportedly, Zwingli found Melanchthon to be so elusive in answering himself that the Swiss Reformer took up pen and paper to record what the German scholar spoke and determined to only reply to Melanchthon in writing.[34] The following day the principal parties were to engage in formal talks alongside their respective parties. Luther famously took chalk and wrote out on a velvet cloth Hoc est corpus meum (“This is my body”) in order to keep his primary proof text before his eyes at all time during the disputation.[35] For his part, Zwingli appealed to John 6:63 (“The flesh is of no avail”) as the clearest indication that Christ never intended for His people to believe that they consumed his flesh in the taking of the Lord’s Supper.[36] The discussion continued along those lines until adjourning for the night, being resumed the following morning. Luther’s camp maintained that regardless of any rationalistic arguments to the contrary Christ’s body and blood is indeed present in the elements of the Lord’s Table although the bread and wine do not actually become physically the body and blood of Christ. Luther dogmatically and theatrically clung to “this is my body.” His position was that Christ, in His divine nature, could remain omnipresent, drawing on Christ’s ability to pass through locked doors after His resurrection as evidence.[37] Indeed, for Luther, that God is all powerful indicates that He can accomplish all He desires and is not bound to our conception; thus, even if a human cannot normally be in multiple places at one time, a human could do just that if God so wills.[38] The Swiss counter with Christ’s words “This is my body” should be taken to mean “This signifies my body” and that the doctrine of the ascension of Christ (along with His human body) into Heaven meant that Christ could not be in both places (Heaven and the Table) at the same time.[39] To this latter point Luther replied, “…I have nothing to do with mathematical proofs. As soon as the words of consecration are pronounced over the bread, the body is there…”[40] For Zwingli this refutation was far too close to the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation and thus accused Luther of “reestablishing popery.”[41] The historian can only imagine what level of passionate indignation this accusation by the Swiss Reformer provoked within the heart of the German monk who had stood trial at Worms.

By Sunday the 3rd the discussions had grown no closer to resolution; indeed unity looked to be more impossible than at any other point. Luther, after being prompted by the chancellor to reach some kind of mutual understanding, invited the Swiss to abandon their position and embrace his. Upon their refusal Luther said, “I abandon you to God’s judgment and pray that He will enlighten you.” Oecolampadius replied simply, “We will do the same.”[42] At this point the emotions of the Colloquy overcame Zwingli who burst into tears.[43] The conference was thus apparently ended with no hope of uniting the two parties. Just before the groups departed a final meeting was held in which Zwingli appealed to the gathered theologians to remember that they were brethren in the faith and that, while divided on secondary points, they embraced a mutual understanding of salvation by faith. Upon hearing this Philip implored the gathered parties to recognize each other as brothers. In response Zwingli strode across the room to offer his hand in fellowship to Luther. In an act that has now become legendary Luther refused the extended hand, saying, “You have a different spirit from ours.”[44] Eventually some degree of conciliatory spirit over took both parties. Luther and the rest of his party, still refusing to acknowledge the Swiss as brethren in the faith, extended his hand to the Swiss in an offer of “peace and charity.”[45] Luther offered thanks to Oecolampadius “for giving me your views not with bitterness but friendship” then turned to Zwingli in order to say “Mister Zwingli despite your anger I think you as well. I apologize if I have been harsh to you. I am only human. I really wish the issue could have been resolved to our mutual satisfaction.” In reply Zwingli said, “Doctor Luther I ask you to forgive my anger. I have always wanted your friendship and still do.”[46]

FRUIT OF THE COLLOQUY

Desirous of harvesting what unity he could from the meeting Philip appealed to the Reformers for a statement of agreement on the issues in which they found agreement. Luther prepared 15 articles, 14 of which were affirmed by both parties. The 15th, on the subject of the Lords Supper, expressed a mutual rejection of the mass but stated, “At present we are not agreed as to whether the true body and blood [of Christ] are bodily present in the bread and wine.”[47]

The accord reached at Marburg between the two Reformers was short lived. Zwingli wrote at a later date to Philip that “Lutheranism will lie as heavy upon us as popery.”[48] Zwingli also wrote to Jerome Vadin a recollection of Marburg in which he declared, “…if ever anyone was beaten it was the foolish and obstinate Luther.”[49] Luther was no less dismissive of the Swiss, telling his friend Nicholas Gerbel,

“…we ought to have charity and peace even with our foes… we plainly told the, that unless they grow wiser on this point they may indeed have our charity, but cannot by us be considered as brothers and members of Christ.”[50]

When Zwingli died a short time thereafter at the Battle of Kappel Luther was coldly dismissive. “Those who take the sword,” said Luther, “will also perish with it.”[51]

CONCLUSION

From the Colloquy of Marburg history takes a lesson regarding the importance of both standing for the revealed truth content of Christian doctrine as well as the necessity of remaining humble on the secondary issues of the Christian faith. There is an admirable tenacity in the respective commitment to truth present in both Luther and Zwingli. So too there is an off putting belligerence that produced unprofitable rhetoric and escalating vitriol that escalated controversy between the two dominant fronts of the Reformation unnecessarily. It appears reasonable to see within the events of Marburg in October of 1529 the birth of later Protestant denominations. Here is the genesis of successive generations of believers who, while seeing a great deal of accord with other Christians, find a disagreement so bitter that fellowship is ultimately fatally undermined. These historically descendant Christians would do well to take a lesson from Marburg that encourages both a resolute obedience to revealed truth and conscience but also a perspective that remembers to treat those who mutually hold the Gospel as brethren, even when there is difference in matters of secondary importance.

BIGLIOGRAPHY

Bromiley, G.W., ed. Zwingli and Bullinger. The Library of Christian Classics: Icthus Edition. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, n.d.

D’Aubigne, Jean Henri Merle. For God and His People: Ulrich Zwingli and The Swiss Reformation. Edited by Mark Sidwell. Translated by Henry White. Greenville, South Carolina: BJU Press, 2000.

Foster, Frank Hugh. “The Historical Significance Of The “Marburg Colloquy” (1529), And Its Bearing Upon The New Departure.” Bibliotheca Sacra 44, no. 174 (Apr 1887): 363-369.

Hill, Jonathan. Zondervan Handbook to the History of Christianity. Oxford, UK: Lion Publishing, 2006.

Heinze, Rudolph W. Reform and Conflict: From the Medieval World to the Wars of Religion, A.D. 1350-1648. Edited by John D. Woodbridge, David F. Wright and Tim Dowley. Vol. 4. The Baker History of the Church. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2003.

Luther, Martin. Martin Luther’s Basic Theological Writings. 2nd ed. Edited by Timothy F. Lull. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2005.

MacCulloch, Diarmaid. The Reformation. New York, New York: Viking Penguin, 2003.

“Marburg, Colloquy of.” Encyclopædia Britannica Online. http://search.eb.com/eb/ar ticle-9050767 (accessed August 11, 2010).

“Philip of Hesse.” Encyclopædia Britannica Online. http://search.eb.com/eb/article-9059666 (accessed August 11, 2010).

[1] Diarmaid MacCulloch, The Reformation (New York, New York: Viking Penguin, 2003), 1-2. 116.

[2] MacCulloch, 119.

[3] MacCulloch,124.

[4] Rudolph W. Heinze, Reform and Conflict: From the Medieval World to the Wars of Religion, A.D. 1350-1648, ed. John D. Woodbridge, David F. Wright and Tim Dowley, vol. 4, The Baker History of the Church (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2003), 96.

[5] Heinze, 108.

[6] Heinze, 107.

[7] Heinze, 108.

[8] MacCulloch, 166

[9] “Philip of Hesse,” Encyclopædia Britannica Online, http://search.eb.com/eb/article-9059666 (accessed August 11, 2010).

[10] Ibid.

[11] Frank Hugh Foster, “The Historical Significance Of The “Marburg Colloquy” (1529), And Its Bearing Upon The New Departure,” Bibliotheca Sacra 44, no. 174 (Apr 1887): page 363-369.

[12] Heinze, 121.

[13] MacCulloch, 133.

[14] Heinze, 122.

[15] MacCulloch, 133.

[16] MacCulloch, 133; Heinze, 122.

[17] MacCulloch, 133; Heinze, 123

[18] Heinze, 123.

[19] Ibid.

[20] Heinze, 124.

[21] Heinze, 126

[22] Jonathan Hill, Zondervan Handbook to the History of Christianity (Oxford, UK: Lion Publishing, 2006), 254-55.

[23] Heinze, 128

[24] G.W. Bromiley, ed., Zwingli and Bullinger, The Library of Christian Classics: Icthus Edition (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, n.d.), 176-238.

[25] Heinze, 128.

[26] Ibid.

[27] Martin Luther, Martin Luther’s Basic Theological Writings, 2nd ed., ed. Timothy F. Lull (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2005), 260.

[28] Heinze, 128.

[29] Ibid.

[30] “Marburg, Colloquy of” Encyclopædia Britannica Online, http://search.eb.com/eb/article-9059666 (accessed August 11, 2010).

[31] Luther, page 280

[32] D’Aubigne, 153-154

[33] Baker 128

[34] Jean Henri Merle D’Aubigne, For God and His People: Ulrich Zwingli and The Swiss Reformation, ed. Mark Sidwell, trans. Henry White (Greenville, South Carolina: BJU Press, 2000), page 156.

[35] Heinze, 129

[36] Heinze, 129; D’Augne, 157

[37] Luther, 265.

[38] Luther, 260.

[38] Luther, 261

[39] Baker 128-129; D’Aubigne, 156-162; DaMc 167-168.

[40] D’Aubigne, 161.

[41] Ibid.

[42] Ibid.

[43] D’Aubigne, 162.

[44] D’Aubigne, 163

[45] D’Aubigne, 165

[46] Heinze, 129

[47] “Marburg, Colloquy of”

[48] D’Aubigne, 167.

[49] Heinze, 129.

[50] Heinze, 130.

[51] Ibid.

Share this: Email

Print

Facebook

Twitter

Reddit

