Marburg and after

Marburg and after

Marburg and after The famous confrontation of Luther and Zwingli in the castle hall of Marburg was brought about for political and personal reasons by Philip of Hesse. An account of this remarkable figure and of his client neighbour,

Ulrich of Wiirttemberg, must be deferred to a later chapter.1 In any case a Lutheran-Zwinglian disputation had been suggested before2 and had its parallel in more than one meeting with the Anabaptists. Now, even after the successful outcome of the Berne meeting, Zurich remained very much alone, able to maintain its independence but needing help, most obviously from the south German cities, for further advance.

This was realised acutely by Strassburg and by a number of its Zwinglianinclined counterparts. In his sermon at Berne, Bucer had called for a measure of acceptance of varieties of opinion and practice among evangelicals provided the Bible remained the sole basis of faith. On this premise, neighbourly love might enhance the value of discussion and bring about the internal harmony which was his constant purpose. Differences about the Last Supper need not prevent cooperation, a sentiment repugnant to Luther, who increasingly opposed much that Zwingli stood for, doctrinally and politically. Bucer,3 on the other hand, pliable and plausible, with a quick and subtle brain, was indefatigable in his efforts to arrange the compromise that never came.

Jacob Sturm, Strassburg's leading politician, supported him. At the Diet of Speier (1526) he had urged on Philip of Hesse the value of the potential help available from the south German cities,4 and Capito also pressed for cooperation based on mutual understanding. Could they not be Christians rather than Lutherans, Karlstadtians, Zwinglians and Oecolampadians ?5 Active and purposeful contributions to the discussion came from the industrious, if isolated, Schwenckfeld, the learned Bugen1 See below, 378-383.

2 Koehler, Z C L 11, 1-3.

3 H. Bornkamm, Martin Bucers Bedeutungfur die europaische Reformationsgeschichte (Giitersloh,

1952). SVR No. 169 - with bibliography (Bibliographia Bucerana).

4 Schubert, Bekenntnisbildung 8; H. Virck, Politische Correspondenz der Stadt Strassburg im

Zeitalter der Reformation (Strasburg, 1882) 1, 264-8.

5 Koehler, Z & L 1, 831.

Marburg and after hagen and the near-Zwinglian Brenz. If the leaders were immovable, their followers were not unwilling to try for understanding.

There were more supporters of the Zwinglian concept of a spiritual acceptance of the body of Christ in the eucharistic bread than was easily apparent.1 This made the princes and politicians a little more ready to intervene when it became apparent that no agreement was likely if the theologians were left alone. Luther, indeed, insisted that there should be a clear division of functions; ministers of religion should preach the Gospel, be steadfast in prayer and learned in the Scriptures; but politics and temporal affairs were the business of the earthly prince whom God had set over them. This in his case was the smug John of Saxony, well content with his nicely ordered and obedient state and not willing to help to promote religious unity among the Protestants or lead the opposition to the Emperor. For Melanchthon there were but two sides, Lutherans and Catholics, between whom a measure of agreement might be hoped for. If they could be reasonable enough to see that there might be different ways of looking at divine truths, some divergence in dogma and ceremonial might be acceptable. He was much less conciliatory with the Zwinglians, and in some ways he was responsible for the widening breach between the principals.

In 1529 Philip of Hesse perceived that the situation called for action.

He was a sincere, if liberal, Christian, at least as much of a theologian as Henry VIII of England (whom he resembles in many respects), and concerned about religious affairs. He understood and appreciated the nature and implications of the eucharistic controversy and the extent to which politics, German politics in particular, were involved. He knew also that any discussion to be of value must be between theologians who were adept at technical terms, but he understood what they said, listened patiently on occasion and inclined to favour the Zwinglian view. He wanted common action combined with respect for differences of opinion. Why was it necessary that what the Bible left uncertain and mysterious should be forced into a particular statement of belief?

Early in 1528 Oecolampadius hinted to Zwingli that the Landgrave would welcome a discussion, and on 22 April a suggestion to this effect came directly from Philip's chancery.2 While undercover discussions continued, events in 1528 and 1529 made Protestant cooperation more than ever urgently necessary. England could be left out of any calculations since the train of events leading to the breach with Rome started in 1527. The King of France was at last prepared to come to terms with Charles V, and did so finally on 3 August 1529 at Cambrai, promising action against heretics. Pope Clement VII likewise accepted peace at Barcelona (29 June

1 Koehler, Z & L I, 822-7.

2 Koehler, Z C L 11, 14-15.

ZWINGLI 1529), leaving Florence once more to the Medici and acquiescing in the return of Maximilian Sforza to Milan. Charles publicly acknowledged that it was his duty to crush heresy, which for him meant Lutheranism.

'For there are many who,think ill of the Catholic faith and altogether depart from Christian belief and doctrine and it is highly pleasing to his

Imperial Majesty that a suitable medicine shall be prepared to deal with this dangerous plague.'* The Turkish armies still threatened Vienna, but the worst danger there was past although no one knew it at the time. Charles was at long last likely to be able to devote a little attention to Germany.

In March 1529 the German princes and representatives of the Imperial cities met at the second Diet of Speier and were required to consider the religious situation urgently. This involved directly the Lutherans, who three years previously had received at the same place a large measure of practical immunity since the enforcement of their outlawry as proclaimed at Worms had been postponed until after the meeting of a General

Council. The princes had been left free to act as seemed best to them. Now in 1529 the Recess of 11 April 1523 and the resolutions of July 1526 were quashed; the Edict of Worms against Luther and his followers was to come into effect. The result was the famous 'protest', a word often to be repeated later, when six princes2 and fourteen cities3 insisted that they would not be bound by a majority decision of the diet because 'in matters which concern God's honour and the salvation and eternal life of our souls every one must stand and give account for himself before God'. 'We hold your resolution null and not binding and we desire, in matters of religion

... so to live, govern and carry ourselves, in our governments as also with and among our subjects and kinsfolk as we trust to answer it before God

Almighty.'4

It was now apparent that the Emperor meant business and that the Roman mass might soon be heard once more in places from which it had been driven by the pure Gospel. Charles V in 1529 was very different from the youthful monarch who had confronted Luther at Worms. He was experienced and successful and the ally, some thought the master, of 1 J. du Mont, Corps Universe! Diplomatique T. iv, Partie ii (Amsterdam, 1726) 6 (No. 1).

2 John Frederick Elector of Saxony, Philip Landgrave of Hesse, George Margrave of Brandenburg-Anspach, George Prince of Anhalt, Ernest and Francis, Dukes of Brunswick-Liineburg.

3 Strassburg, Nuremberg, Weissenburg, Windsheim, Ulm, Lindau, Memmingen, Kempten,

Nordlingen, Heilbronn, Reutlingen, Isny - all south German and sympathisers with Zwinglianism - Constance and St Gall.

4 RTA VII, 1260-5, 1273-88, Kidd, 244-5, Naf, Vadian 11, 300-1. For a full and in places dramatic narrative of the Diet of Speier see J. Kiihn, Die Geschichte des Speyrer Reichstags,

1S29, SVR Jg. 47 No. 146 (Leipzig, 1929). Its significance was first made clear by Ranked/ partly translated by S. Austin, ed. R. A. Johnson, History of the Reformation in Germany

(London, 1905) esp. 552-62 misprinted 652). Cf. P. Joachimsen, Die Reformation als Epoche der deutschen Geschichte (Munich, 1951) 184-7.

Marburg and after the papacy. Now at last the moment had come when heresy could be eliminated, the might of the princes humbled, and alienated lands restored to the bishops and abbots who were their rightful owners.

A nucleus of Zwinglians in Zurich and north-east Switzerland, pockets of Anabaptists in some larger cities, Lutherans, Bucerians, and spiritualists could be eliminated piecemeal if Pope and Emperor worked together.

Luther, Melanchthon and Elector John of Saxony could not and would not provide a firm core of resistance. Luther's politics were negative; his prince should avoid entangling alliances, and he himself would not be involved in political and military enterprises. At the same time he was lumping together Zwingli, Karlstadt, Leo Jud and Oecolampadius as limbs of the devil, with Bucer as a fallen angel. There seemed to be a complete impasse.

Philip of Hesse, however, could put pressure on the Elector of Saxony and could use both political and religious arguments to secure support from Zurich. His mind was made up; he would arrange a meeting, however great the difficulties.1 The Elector of Saxony disliked an alliance because it might lead to counter-alliances and because Saxony was well able to defend itself without help and had no need to become involved; in any case the papists were no longer dangerous.2 And if Luther was reluctant to move, his close friend and adherent, Melanchthon, was willing to enter into a discussion, which had long been wanted by Oecolampadius of Basle. In April 1529, Saxony, Hesse, Strassburg and Ulm were reported to have made a secret defensive alliance, and this, combined with the conclusion of the Christian Alliance between Ferdinand of Austria and the Inner States,3 made an extension of the Zwinglian Christliche Burgrecht to include Strassburg the more attractive. This was important since Philip recognised the key position occupied by Strassburg, a city which John of Saxony disliked as not being Lutheran. Luther, likewise, perceived that the inclusion of Strassburg meant that the league might well be extended to include Ulm, Memmingen, Biberach, Nordlingen and other Swabian cities, which must mean a renewed call for some form of compromise, or at least for further discussions on doctrinal issues on which his mind was made up. The summer of 1529 was alive with rumours, meetings and conferences, in which Bucer, Capito and Oecolampadius were willingly involved. They included gatherings at Schmalkalden, Schleiz, Nuremberg,4 Rotach and, after the Marburg meeting, at Schwabach on 16-19

October. From Schwabach came another statement of the Lutheran 1 A preliminary discussion of some possible arrangements in December 1528 had culminated in Philip's announcement, ' I will arrange a meeting between Oecolampadius, Luther and their colleagues at my own charges even if it costs 6,000 gulden.' Koehler, Festgabe, 364, Z & L 11,

25.

2 Koehler, Z # L 11, 34-5.

3 See below, 354-5.

4 Gussmann, 1, i, 22.

ZWINGLI position which was not unconciliatory and was intended to wean Strassburg away from the Zwinglian camp. The content of these Schwabach articles was in fact agreed by Luther, Melanchthon and Jonas before their meeting with Zwingli, which is what gives them their importance.1 They also made it clear to the Hessian court that the Lutheran platform was solid and explicit. All the familiar points were reaffirmed - the orthodox

Nicean view of the Trinity, salvation by faith, the exclusive and absolute authority of the Bible, the recognition of the two sacraments of Baptism and Holy Communion, child baptism being wholly acceptable. Then came the matters with which the Zwinglians were likely to disagree - original sin was not, as Zwingli maintained, a weakness, a tendency to sin, a negative absence of goodness; it was real sin inherent in human nature.

Lutheran' consubstantiation' was again asserted, negatively and positively.2

Thus the Lutherans before Marburg were well prepared and knew where to draw the line in any talk of concessions.

Philip of Hesse, for his own part, was more determined than ever to find a theological basis which, as a minimum, would greatly extend his influence, help to restore Duke Ulrich to Wlirttemberg, and, as a maximum, would ensure Protestant domination of the German-speaking lands and the probability that the next Emperor would be Protestant.

Neither Zwingli nor Luther wanted a debate or expected any good to come of it. Nevertheless Philip of Hesse persisted, and it says much for his influence that the Marburg Conference took place at all. He provided the money, the meeting place, the security arrangements; and he sat through hours of debate in technical language which he had never been trained to understand. He very nearly succeeded in bringing about union.

Zwingli accepted the invitation in principle early in May,3 but made it clear that his political master was the Zurich Council, which must be kept informed, although he would come in any event.

The formal invitations to a conference at Marburg were issued by Philip of Hesse from Friedewald on i July 1529. They went to Zurich for Zwingli, to Basle for Oecolampadius, to Strassburg for Sturm, Osiander,

1 Koehler, Z & L 11, 46. The articles were printed in C. W. F. Walch, Monimenta Medii Aevi

(Gottingen, 1757-64) xvi, 66iff. WA, 30.3.86-91, cf. Schubert, Bekenntnisbildung 23; Die

Anfdnge der evangelischen Bekenntnisbildung bis iS2g/jo (Leipzig, 1928) 32-3; Th. Kolde,

Der Tag von Schleiz und die Entstehung der Schwabacher Artikel (Gotha, 1896); Koehler,

Festgabe 365. The Schwabach articles affected the form and content of the Marburg conference. They were later accepted by Saxony, Brunswick-Liineburg, Anhalt-Bernburg,

Nuremberg, Brandenburg-Anspach and the Counts of Mansfeld, but, significantly, not by Strassburg to which they were almost specifically directed, nor by Ulm, Memmingen, Lindau and Constance. Hauswirth, Philipp, 117.

2 Koehler Z & L 11, 47. Das Abendmahl 'sey nicht allein prot und wein, wie yzo der widerteyl furgibt'.. .'das sey wahrhaftigklich gegenwertig im prot und wein der ware leyb und plut christi laut der wort Cristi: das ist mein leyb, das ist mein plut.'

3 After receiving Philip of Hesse's letter of 22 April. Z x, 108-9, 117-18 (7 May).

Marburg and after Hedio and Bucer,1 and to Luther and Melanchthon. Luther, apparently, was told only that he would meet Oecolampadius, and learnt later that Zwingli would be there.2 He still thought that no good could come of such a meeting, and it was with difficulty that the Elector, who could not afford to alienate Philip of Hesse, secured on 23 June his agreement to be present.3 Luther regarded his sovereign's will as an order, obedience to constituted authority being an essential principle of his own teaching. He was in an uncompromising mood, refused to make any promises in advance, and agreed to attend mainly in order that his opponents should not seem to want peace and unity more than he did.

It was with Luther that the arrival date, Michaelmas Day, Wednesday 29 September, was fixed, and arrangements for his movements were left in the hands of the Saxon authorities. Basically Zwingli was more ready to attend than was Luther, and much more conscious of the political issues involved, but less happy about the journey to Marburg. To get there, he might have to cross Catholic controlled territory; there were

Swiss Catholics ready to capture him as a heretic, while in Germany he was liable to arrest as a 'Lutheran'. The route would necessarily lie through either Frankfurt or Strassburg. The latter could be reached by boat along the Rhine, but the 200 miles from thence meant a week on horseback through territory controlled by Duke Lewis of Zweibriicken, Philip's nephew, and then past St Goar into the lower county of Katzenelnbogen where the authority of Philip and Ulrich was operative.

This element of personal danger is worth stressing; Zwingli had refused to participate in the Baden conference because to do so meant a real hazard to his life and he had been able, possibly unwisely, to fall back on the refusal of the Zurich Council to permit his attendance. Marburg was different.4 The Baden conference was primarily religious, the Marburg

1 H. Virck, Politische Correspondenz der Stadt Strassburg im Zeitalter der Reformation (Strassburg, 1882) 1, 382, 384-5.

2 Schubert, Bekenntnisbildung, 15; Staehelin, Briefe 11, 335-7; Z x, 185-92, 205-6; Koehler,

Z & L 11, 50.

3 WA Br., 5, 101-5; Koehler, Rekonstruktion, 7.

4 There is a considerable literature connected with the Marburg conference; no biography of Luther fails to mention it. Koehler's fullest and latest views on Marburg are in Z & L 11,

1-163; he also wrote 'Zum Religionsgesprache von Marburg 1529': Festgabe fur Gerold

Meyer von Knonau (Zurich, 1913) 359-81, which summarises the more detailed narrative in Das Marburger Religionsgesprdch 1529, Versuch einer Rekonstruktion, SVRG 48 no. 148

(Leipzig, 1929), partly translated in D. J. Ziegler, Great debates of the Reformation (New York,

1969); Das Religionsgesprdch zu Marburg (Tubingen, 1929) (Sammlung gemeinverstandlicher

Vortrage und Schriften aus dem Gebiet der Theologie und Religionsgeschichte. 140). There are some useful pages in H. von Schubert, Bekenntnisbildung und Religionspolitik 1529-30

(1524-34). Untersuchungen und Texte (Gotha, 1910) and Beitrage zur Geschichte der evangelischen Bekenntnisund Bundnisbildung 1529/20, ZKG Bd 30. (Gotha, 1909) 271-351, and Biindnis und Bekenntnis 1529/30, SVR. 16. H. 48 (Leipzig, 1908) 1-35. G. May (hg.), Das

ZWINGLI conference much more political.1 In 1526 the Reformation had but recently been accepted in Zurich; in 1529 there was good hope of a Zurich-dominated Protestant Switzerland, expansionist and aggressive.

If only Berne had been invited and had accepted, this could have happened. Although it is now known that Zwingli was far from being supreme in his state, as Waldmann had been, his personal influence in 1529 was greater than at any time previously. It was partly because this was so that events took the turn they did. It is, however, possible to detect from the Zurich records rumblings of discontent with the regime there. There was some Protestant anti-clericalism as there had been Catholic anti-clericalism, a feeling that the ministers of religion were too powerful and that conformity meant rigidity. There was also a conservative Catholic underground movement, led by those who accepted, but regretted, the abolition of the mass and, with it, perhaps, respect for the patricians. In sixteenthcentury conditions, an opposition had to be silent, but it existed none the less. Zwingli therefore had continually to advertise his differences with Rome in order to hold his ground, and this above all on the central theme of the eucharist. Melanchthon seemed to be demonstrating that Lutherans could be turned into Catholics by concessions about inessentials, and that the gap between transubstantiation and Lutheran sacramental teaching was not unbridgeable. This could not be true of Zwingli's doctrine of the Last Supper. For Zwingli to give way on this would be not only to depart from the convictions of a decade, but also to break with his own supporters and introduce a fatal element of weakness into Zurich itself.

The preliminary negotiations were conducted in an atmosphere of almost melodramatic secrecy, with Ulrich Funk as Zwingli's messenger.

Precautions were taken to see that no one in Zurich knew of the impending departure of their chief minister: the Great Council was not informed, even Frau Zwingli did not know of her husband's intentions till the last moment. The composition of the Zwinglian party is interesting; their leader brought with him the scholarly printer-publisher Froschauer, a personal friend who could help with the expenses and knew what was at stake but was no theologian; Rudolf Collin whose learning in Hebrew and the Old Testament could be useful; and Funk, who understood better than his companions that it was political and strategic topics that were the essential background to the whole gathering. They left after nightfall on 3 September for Brugg. At Basle, on Sunday 5 September they were

Marburger Religionsgesprdch, 1529 (Texte zur Kirchenund Theologiegeschichte, hg. von

G. Ruhbach. 13. Giitersloh, 1970) has a short bibliography.

1 Hanna Kbditz, 'Die gesellschaftlichen Ursachen des Scheiterns des Marburger Religionsgesprachs vom 1. bis 4. Oktober 1529' in: Zeitschrift fur Geschichtswissenschaft, 2. i (1954)

37-70. This Marxist assessment is interesting but quite unacceptable.

Marburg and after joined by Oecolampadius and Rudolf Frey, and next day the six proceeded by boat to Strassburg.l There they received what was almost an official civic welcome, staying with the chief Cathedral preacher, Matthew Zell, whose wife later complained of having had to act for nearly a fortnight as cook and housemaid for nine preoccupied parsons. With their Strassburg supporters, Jacob

Sturm,2 Caspar Hedio, and Bucer, there were nearly two weeks of conferences, sermons and work in the Strassburg libraries. Zwingli also managed a brief meeting with Schwenckfeld.3 The general political situation was also reviewed and Zwingli was the better informed as a result.4 He again urged that evangelical disunity might mean that Ferdinand, with the help of Pope, Emperor and Spain, as well as a large fifth column of central Swiss, could swoop down on Zurich and from thence eliminate Protestantism in Switzerland and beyond. No reference was apparently made to the conspicuous absence of anyone from Berne, but the implications were obvious.

Fully in accord, the nine men, with arrangements already made about guides and escorts, left Strassburg on 17 September for Herrenstein,

Zweibrlicken, Meisenheim, St Goar, Giessen and Marburg, reached on 27 September, ten days riding, mostly through forests.5

The Saxon party was at the same time moving in greater comfort along the roads from Wittenberg through Torgau, Jena, Weimar, Erfurt and Gotha, arriving three days after the Swiss to receive an elaborate welcome at the castle. It was an impressive group, Luther, Melanchthon, Justus

Jonas, Friedrich Myconius, Caspar Cruciger from Leipzig, Georg Rorer, Osiander, Stephen Agricola, together with some others, including Brenz whom Luther had tried unsuccessfully to persuade to stay away. By now any suggestion of secrecy had been dispelled, and Marburg was full of curious and fashionable visitors, the equivalents of the modern journalists.

The language of debate was to be German for the benefit of the Prince and of Duke Ulrich of Wiirttemberg (Zwingli would have preferred

Latin), and there was to be a series of sermons in the castle chapel - the parallel is that of the modern press conference.

The first sermon which Zwingli preached at Marburg on 29 September 1529 in the presence of Philip of Hesse was in fact a vigorous and un1 A. Waldburger, Zwinglis Rene nach Marburg zum Gesprdch mit Luther, i$2g (Gorlitz/Ziirich,

1929), 3-5.

2 Vir minime mediocris according to Jonas (Rekonstruction 50). Sturm, who was the most influential Protestant in Strassburg, and in close contact with Zwingli, probably thought the same of Jonas.

3 Z vi ii, 254. Corpus Schivenckfeldianorum xiv, 96; xvm, 45-6.

4 Hauswirth, Philipp, 147-51; ZWA xi, 540-44; Z x, 300-1, 307-10; Z vi ii, 582-3. New information was available 'uss der rechten kunstkamer'.

5 EA4, ib, 380-1, 417-18; Zx, 3ii-i2;Koehler,Z6'Lii, 63 (correcting 26 September to 27).

ZWINGLI qualified statement of his views on predestination.1 More even than Luther, with whom he was in substantial agreement on this matter,2 and quite as emphatically as Calvin, he insisted upon the insignificance of human effort or will in the light of the purpose of God omnipotent, supreme goodness and truth.

It is a short treatise, but not easily summarised. Omnipotent God must also be omniscient, eternal, unchangeable. In his infallible wisdom, goodness, power and truth, every action is known beforehand; man is but God's instrument for good. There is no such thing as chance, luck or accident; man was created master of the world, endowed with understanding after the fall, body and soul in perpetual conflict, but with God's law available to show his will and purpose. Those who disobey do so by God's will and providence,3 and in their punishment and suffering for sin they demonstrate God's supreme righteousness.

God knew before he created the world and the first man that Adam would fall; indeed he created man in order that mankind might be saved through Christ upon the cross. Goodness can only be known and recognised if there is evil, just as no one would know the meaning of sweetness without experience of bitterness. With biblical texts and homely analogies the message is conveyed: God who cannot sin brings it about that man both can and does. Why this is so we may wonder, but need not enquire.

It is useless to argue, as the Schoolmen did, that God chooses when he perceives what man will do: on the contrary, the actions of all, even murder, are predetermined, as is the salvation of the elect and the damnation of the reprobate. There is no salvation by works, and God is gracious to whom he will. Faith, the gift of the Holy Spirit, is the first need and mark of the Christian, preceding baptism (in adults), invisible, incomprehensible. And election precedes faith, but when and how is not revealed.

Those who are elect necessarily do good works, but these may be done 1 The sermon was preached without notes. In a letter from Kassel of 25 January 1530 Philip asked for the text and received a small treatise representing as faithfully as might be what had been said in the pulpit. This was translated into German by Leo Jud, perhaps under Zwingli's supervision. Z x, 422 and n. 15. Z xi, 338 n. 10. Ad illustrissimum Cattorum principem Philippum, sermonis de providentia dei Anamnema (Zurich, Froschauer, 20 August 1530) S iv,

79-144. ZH 11, 81-250. A revised text will appear in Z vi iii (No. 166). For a commentary,

Wernle, 246-306.

2 Luther had set out his views in De servo arbitrio (December 1523) in answer to the 'Diatribe' of Erasmus, De liber0 arbitrio. It has been described as ' the greatest piece of theological writing' that ever came from Luther's pen. J. I. Packer and O. R. Johnston, Martin Luther on the bondage of the will (London, 1957) 40. WA 18, 6ooff.

3 'Providentia est perpetuum et immutabile rerum universarum regnum et administration

S iv, 84. For fuller treatment Baur 11, 712-13; Wernle 11, 249, 251-2; G. W. Locher, 'Die

Pradestinationslehre Huldrych Zwinglis', Theologische Zeitschrift 12 (1956), 526-48 and Grundziige der Theologie Huldrych Zwinglis in Vergleich mit derjenigen Martin Luthers und

Johannes Calvins. ZWA xn (1967) 470-509, 545-95, esp. 571-2. S. Rother, Die religiosen und geistigen Grundlagen der Politik Huldrych Zwinglis (Erlangen, 1956) 25-32, 118-24.

Marburg and after hypocritically by others, and of this only God may judge with certainty.

The utmost that we can say is that those who die in disbelief are almost surely damned. Perhaps we may hope that children dying very young are among the elect, but no more than this.

The treatise ends with a denunciation of appeals to chance, luck or any sure guidance by stars or dreams; for the elect, even their wicked actions have good consequences, which cannot be true of the rest of mankind.

God, perfect wisdom, must know everything, perfect power, must do everything. Even this statement to Philip, so uncompromising in its determinism, is itself something pre-ordained by God. Calvin, surely, was never more explicit than this. Years later Schwenckfeld went out of his way to refute it in detail.1

After a formal introductory speech by Chancellor Johann Feige at daybreak of Friday, i October, direct discussions started, Luther meeting

Oecolampadius, and Zwingli facing Melanchthon.2 It was a kind of explanatory meeting in which Zwingli's orthodoxy on such matters as the Trinity and the inspiration of the Bible were found to be acceptable. On the subject of the eucharist the cautious German insisted on the literal interpretation of hoc est corpus while also accepting the proposition that faith was essential. The problem of 'ubiquity' was also touched on,

Melanchthon conceding that Zwingli had St Augustine, but St Augustine alone of the Fathers, on his side.3 It was a friendly statement of alternative positions and no more, but the meeting was much more cordial than the later encounter between Luther and Bucer, the latter being greeted with the observation, 'You are from the Evil one.'4 There was little hope of concord between these two, the one so rigid, the other so flexible. Luther, as is almost too well known, was obstinate or determined from the first, chalking hoc est corpus meum on the table in front of him. In the sense that no argument would induce him to abandon his conviction of the bodily real presence of Christ in the eucharist, the outcome was a foregone conclusion; but in fact the Lutheran side may have been more shaken by the arguments they heard than seemed likely. During the opening discussion with Oecolampadius, Luther answered his opponent's insistence upon the limitation of Christ's ' glorified' body to its place in heaven until the day of judgement by appeals to 2 Corinthians 12. 2 and Ephesians 4. 10 (St Paul's vision of Christ), and by the view that place and time were limited human concepts, all places being one with God.

Bucer was not invited to the first direct conference of the leading 1 Corpus Schwenckfeldianorum xn, 882f, 935-41, 955-7.

2 Z vi ii, 507-9; May, 31-2; Schubert, Bekenntnisbildung, 56; Koehler, Z & L 11, 76-7; R.

Stupperich, Melanchthon (Berlin, i960) 64-5.

3 Koehler, Z & L 11, 82-3; Rekonstruktion 42; May, 32.

4 'Du bist des Teufels'. Koehler, Z & L II, 83; Rekonstruktion, 49; May, 40; Bornkamm, 21.

ZWINGLI protagonists at six o'clock on the morning of Saturday, 2 October. This was under the chairmanship of the Prince, with his Chancellor in attendance. Luther, Zwingli, Melanchthon and Oecolampadius exchanged views without any notes being taken by anyone: hence a certain difficulty about reconstructing the exact nature of the discussions. After these preliminary statements, the mornings and afternoons of the two whole days, Saturday and Sunday, were devoted to discussions of the central theme between the principals. Luther was not prepared for any departure from his position, elaborated in the Bekenntnis and embodied in the articles of Schwabach, that the Word brought the body of Christ into the bread. Reason and grammar did not apply - Christ's body was eaten; with the acceptance of this truth eternal life, the kingdom of heaven and forgiveness of sins were all involved. It was not for the servant to ask why he should obey an order but simply blindly to do what he was told.

Zwingli could not accept this approach: for him God was not hidden, absconditus, occultissimus: as Oecolampadius put it to Luther,c Where does it say in the Bible that we should close our eyes to its meaning, Herr

Doctor?'1 On the contrary, God's meaning was clear to the believer who would apply his whole powers, however humble his intellect, to the Bible.

' It is the oracles of the demons that are dark, not the words of Christ.'2 To this Luther answered that there were matters like the virginity of Mary which were not fully comprehensible or explicable intellectually, and the eucharist fell into this category. Nor was he prepared to enter into mathematical hair-splitting, for God was superior to any mathematician.3

If he were only to ask what is possible, what is certain, he would neither be baptised nor believe in Christ.4 'In faith', Luther insisted, 'we eat this body which was given for us; the mouth receives the body of Christ, for the soul believes the words as the body is eaten.'5 At this point Zwingli resumed his case for the eucharistic metaphor - Christ's words were not beyond human comprehension; quite the contrary. The body of Christ could not be brought through the word to the disbeliever, for faith was of the essence of participation. The word signified the will of God, no more than that: it was for the believer only that God was present, and not for the comfort of the body but of the spirit.

For Luther this was to make Christ's words words of straw, a'wax nose' which could be twisted into any shape: it was not human words that were spoken but divine ones; behind them was the power and command of 1 Koehler, Rekonstruktion, 13.

2 May, 34; Rekonstruktion, 14, 15.

3 Rekonstruktion, 9, 29, 100, 101.

4 'Possem non baptizari nee credere in Christum.. .quia sic nee.. .accipietis coenam, quia nescitis probitatem.' Rekonstruktion 64, 83; Z & L 11, 89, 91.

5 Rekonstruktion 15, 69.

Marburg and after Christ; hence, faith or no faith, believer or disbeliever, the body of Christ was there present.

This was dangerously like opus operatum, a simple, uncompromising repetition of the case set out in Vom Abendmahl Christi: Bekenntnis. Not unnaturally, Zwingli was both impatient and annoyed. There was a heated clash over 'the flesh profits nothing' verse of John 6. 63, which Luther refused to accept as effectively apposite but to which Zwingli returned triumphantly. So far from being bad dialectic,' the passage breaks your neck'. 'Don't be so sure. Necks are not so easily broken', was the often quoted retort, 'you're in Hesse here, not in Switzerland.'1 Shortly after, a nod from Philip indicated that the second discussion was no more fruitful than the first.

The afternoon session revolved on the same theme. Verbum prolatumy the pronunciation of a formula like 'open sesame' did not bring Christ:2 there was no manducatio corporalis; the concept of the body of Christ feeding the soul must be linked to the fact of the resurrection. It looked as if there was no way round, although Luther was prepared to regard the body of Christ as different from all human food, not consumed, not digested along with material provender but permeating the body, preparing it for the resurrection.

Later Zwingli tried to force the pace, again insisting that only the believer could hope to profit by the Last Supper. 'This is' was a way of saying 'this signifies', and any parallel with the bodily ascension of Christ was inadmissible. The afternoon ended where it had begun - for Luther the disbeliever received what the believer received, but to his damnation.

For Zwingli the disbeliever received nothing but plain baked bread. This was the point upon which the negotiations broke off: Luther was not prepared for logical argument - argumenta rationis - and, as it were, shut his ears. He would not distinguish here between the humanity and the divinity of Christ; he would have no trope or metaphor in the consecration words; if there was to be a technical term it was synecdoche, the bread being ' my body in the bread'. 'Have we got to have everything that you want ?' was

Zwingli's final Saturday fling.3

Luther was, in fact, in the unusual position of acting on the defensive.

The Prince of Hesse did not give him the comforting support to which he was accustomed at home. For a long while he had been laying down the law to admiring disciples; his intellect was closed on the eucharistic theme; he had made up his mind, he was not prepared to argue and he was taken aback by the massive logic and ability of his opponent. Zwingli,

1 'Der locus bricht euch den hals ab.' 'Riihmet nit zu sehr, die Halse brechen nicht also, Ihr seid in Hessen, nicht in Schweitz.' Koehler, 76. Z & L11, 95; Rekonstruktion, 19; May, 23, 36.

2 May, 44.

3 Koehler, 7. & L 11, 107; Rekonstruktion, 31; May, 38.

ZWINGLI equally, dared not compromise - to have accepted Luther's position, however modified, would have been to commit political suicide. Luther, unwillingly, grudgingly and without conviction, might perhaps have yielded something, but Zwingli required him to give way on an essential. This he could not do: the operative power of the word he could not abandon.

All the time the drift of the discussion had been moving in the direction of the concept of 'substance', since Zwingli was willing to concede that the body of Christ was present, really present, represented by the bread, for the believer. Further discussion turned upon the meaning and nature of'presence'. The body of Christ, ran the Zwinglian thesis, is a concrete thing (finitum) and therefore must have a place, a local presence,1 which Luther insisted was irrelevant. Christ was in heaven and in the sacrament.2

An Almighty God could make a body to be in two places at once, a proposition which Zwingli could not deny but turned with the observation that because something can be done it does not necessarily mean that it is done

- arguere a posse ad esse has no conclusive force.

The final stages dealt with passages from the Fathers and ended with the parties nearer together but not in agreement and with a slightly apologetic remark from Luther-'I am flesh and blood as well' and Zwingli seriously protesting his regard for his opponent.3 Luther at the end was prepared to concede that Christ's body 'there' need not be in one particular spot (localiter), and Oecolampadius was ready to grant that the real body of Christ was present in faith4 {per fidem), but the gap was not closed. No acceptable formula could be found.

As darkness descended on that fatal first Sunday evening in October, it was apparent they must agree to differ.5 Zwingli had not succeeded in obtaining the measure of recognition, tolerance and inter-communion for which he had hoped. Luther would not go even as far as this - he was not prepared to accept either the men of Strassburg or the Swiss as brothers6

1 Koehler, Rekonstruktion, 31; F. W. Schirrmacher, Briefe und Akten zu den Geschichte des

Religionsgesprdches zu Marburg (Halle, 1876), 15; May, 27, 28, 48. *Vos.. .Christi corpus localiter ponitis in coena! Dicitis enim: Der leib Christi muss da sein, da, da, ibi est certe adverbum loci.' There is considerable agreement among all the reporters on this passage.

2 Koehler, Z & L 11, 101.

3 Luther wrote on 1 June 1530 that Zwingli had said with tears in his eyes, * There is no one on earth with whom I would be more willingly in agreement than with those from Wittenberg.'

Osiander reported Zwingli as saying that there was no one in Italy or France whom he would more gladly see than Luther. WA Br. 5. 340; May, 29; Rekonstruktion, 37, 126.

4 Koehler Z & L 11, 113 'ibi per fidem esse verum corpus'.

5 Zwingli, in an informative letter to Vadian (20 October 1529, Z x, 316-18; Vad. Br. iv, 192) expressed his certainty that Luther had not proved his case.' Lutherus impudens et contumax, adperte est victus, sed apud prudentem iudicem et equum, quamvis interim clamaret, se esse invictum etc.'

6 The words' You have a different spirit from ours' (' so reymet sich unser gayst und Euer gayst nichts zusammen') were addressed to Bucer, not, as is sometimes said (e.g. J. Atkinson,

Marburg and after and fellow-members of a wider church. He was first over-confident, then abusive: he conceded nothing that mattered, and the Landgrave had failed.

There was, however, more gain than loss. The parties had discussed their differences earnestly and sincerely; they had ceased to call one another heretics, papalists and sectaries. Each side had accepted the three

Christian creeds with complete conviction and placed the same interpretation on them. They also accepted the verbal inspiration and indefeasible authority of the Bible. On 4 October the ten disputants set their hands to fifteen articles drafted by Luther.1 Fourteen of them were agreed; the Trinity in Unity, the Incarnation, the Resurrection and the two natures of Christ, Luther being relieved of the imputation of being Marcionite and Zwingli cleared of Nestorianism. There followed original sin, salvation, justification by faith, the recognition of good works as the natural and necessary outcome of justification, and the special importance of the sermon from a preacher who knew himself called by the Holy Spirit and was accepted by his congregation and fellow ministers. Baptism was a sign of the admission of an infant, through the faith of his parents, to the Christian community. Universal priesthood, a married clergy, the inapplicability of monastic vows, the divine sanction of secular governmental authority and the refusal of tradition where opposed to the Bible, were easily acceptable.

The sting was in the tail. Both sides repudiated transubstantiation, rejected the notion of the eucharist as a sacrifice for dead and living, and insisted upon the administration of the communion in both kinds. But for the Lutherans there was in the eucharist and for all recipients a real bodily presence of Christ, whereas for Zwingli, this presence, however real, was in the hearts of the believers only. The difference was wider than it might seem, an unbridgeable gap of highest import for the future.2

Martin Luther and the birth of Protestantism (London, 1968) 277) to Zwingli. The dialogue

(from Koehler, Rekonstruktion, 38, 129) is worth quoting:

BUCER. Ich bitte: Wollet Ihr mich als Bruder anerkennen oder glaubet Ihr, dass ich irre, auf das ich's verbessere ? Zeiget doch an, was Euch missfallt an unserer Lehre.

LUTHER. Ich bin Euer Herr nicht, Euer Richter nicht, Euer Lehrer auch nicht, so reimet sich unser Geist und Euer Geist nichts zusammen, sonder ist offenbar, dass wir nicht einerlei

Geist haben. Dann das kann nicht einerlei Geist sein, da man an einem Ort die Wort Christi einfeltigklich glaubt und am andern denselben Glauben tadelt, widerfichtet, liigstrafet und mit allerlei freveln Lasterworten antastet. Darum, wie ich [zu-] vor gesagt hab, befehlen wir Euch dem Urteil Gottes. Lehret, wie Ihrs vor Gott wolt verantwurten.

Koehler, Z & L 11, 112-13; Bornkamm, 21; ZKG, 77. (1966) 313-14; Staehelin, Briefe 11,

3731 WA 1, 30. 3. 96, 160-71; May, 67; Z vi ii, 521-3; Koehler, Buch^ 306-12. Three copies were signed, two of which have been preserved, one in Kassel, one in Zurich. WA 30. 3,

101-9.

2 Art. 15 has been frequently printed, e.g. Kidd, 254-5.

' Concerning the Supper of our Lord Jesus Christ we all believe and are convinced that it should be administered in both kinds according to the institution: that the mass is not a work

ZWINGLI There was no confessional alliance, and in spite of the efforts of both Philip and Zwingli there was no military alliance either - on 5 October signs of plague, the English' sweating sickness\ were apparent in Marburg, and the Landgrave hurriedly rode away.* Luther returned to Wittenberg, convinced that he had won, that he had shown his opponents to be foolish, stupid and humiliated. From a distance he could still think of Zwingli as basically an arrogant peasant, obstinately wrong.2

Each side, in fact, was passionately convinced of its own uprightness and objectivity; each had thought things out, had discovered the way of salvation for all Christians, and having got it exactly right, was not prepared for any dilution, obfuscation or compromise. Luther was convinced that Zwingli was a perfect example of the man overthrown by pride, vainglory and self esteem- 'by that sin fell the angels'. The breach in the papal fortress had been opened for him and having this advantage he merely weakened the attack by his perversity. His double-talk, his wild speculations, his association with and likeness to Karlstadt, prince of sectaries, his boasting of his classical knowledge, were signs that Satan had entered into possession of his soul. In fact, he was both ignorant and disrespectful, his translation of the Bible was either a copy of Luther's own or a perversion of it. He had mixed politics with religion and had succumbed through which any one may obtain grace for another whether living or dead, that the sacrament of the altar is the sacrament of the true body and blood of Christ and participation in it is in the highest degree necessary for every Christian. Likewise with regard to the use of the sacrament we agree that, like the Word, the sacrament has been handed to us by God's ordinance so that weak consciences may be led by the Holy Spirit to faith and enjoyment of the same.

* Likewise although we have not agreed at this moment whether the true body and blood of Christ be corporeally present in the bread and wine, none the less the one side should behave to the other with Christian charity as far as the conscience of each will allow, and both sides will fervently pray to Almighty God that he will confirm in us true understanding by his spirit.'

The Lutheran formula that Zwingli rejected ran: 'Wir bekennen, das auss vermog diser wort: "Das ist min lib, das ist mein blut" der lib und das blut Christi warhaftlich (hoc est) substantive et essentialiter, non autem quantitative vel qualitative vel localiter, im nachtmal gegenwertig sey und gegeben wird.' Koehler, Rekonstruktion, 131; A. W. Dieckhoff, Der

Schlussatz der Marburger Artikel und seine Bedeutung fiir die richtige Beurteilung des Verhdltnisses der Confessionskirchen zur einander (Rostock, 1872); H. A. van Bakel, Zwingli oder

Luther? ZKG 52 (1933) 237-62. H. v. Schubert, Die Anfdnge evangelischen Bekenntnisbildung bis 152 g130, SVRG 143 (Giitersloh, 1968).

1 Bullinger, Ref. 11, 232 implied that this caused the failure of the conference and that longer discussions would have been successful. There is no evidence to suggest that this was so.

Koehler, Festgabe, 370. Bullinger's narrative, while careful and interesting, is highly tendentious and has small evidential value. He was not present. F. Blanke, Der jfunge Bullinger

(Zurich, 1942), 84. S. Hausammann (AKG 77 (1966) insists with some justice that the agreement was only apparent - ' eine Scheinkonkordie'-which each side signed in good faith placing different interpretations on what they signed. By June 1530 Luther was speaking of a 'simulata concordia* WA Br. 5. 340.

2 WA 30. 3. 561; O. Farner, Das Zwinglibild Luthers (Tubingen, 1931), 18; J. Pelikan, Obedient

Rebels (New York, 1964), 141.

Marburg and after to the enticement of the former. Unless, by God's grace, Zwingli should see the error of his ways before he died, his false doctrine must lead him to damnation. In most of this Luther was wrong as well as uncharitable in his judgement, but both antagonists were honest and outspoken. They lived for three nights under the same roof, and the Swiss in fact made a better immediate impression than had seemed likely. This image was all too soon blurred over after they parted, but it was something that it had been there at all.

Unfortunate as all this is, the Marburg meeting was of decisive importance. There is much to suggest that after the personal interview each regarded the other more highly even if Luther probably did much later let drop unguarded remarks in conversation which were recalled without their qualifications and thus exaggerated. They respected one another the more after 1529, and Zwingli's life was soon to end abruptly. They had set their hands to a common paper and they ceased to speak of one another as heretics or papalists; they had stated their cases and the eucharistic controversy died down a little - the differences were temporary and the discussion could be re-opened. They agreed not to attack one another publicly without due notice, a provision not very well kept. Zwingli had shown that he was no mere' rationalist' but a man of deep faith and sincere conviction, one who could and did accept a real presence of Christ in the sacrament. Luther had come to Marburg convinced that his Swiss opponents were not only fanatics but also wild, quarrelsome barbarians. On the latter point, at any rate, he learnt that he was mistaken. Each side had spoken its mind frankly and completely, and each understood the other the better after it. There had been slight signs of real esteem and conciliation which, had Zwingli had more than two years to live, might have burgeoned into something of value. The Landgrave had indeed failed: there was no victor and no vanquished, but there was no united Protestant front either.1

Nor was there to be later when Zwingli's mantle fell on one who in 1529 was a law student on his way to Bourges - John Calvin.

Luther had lived all his life in the secure traditions of the absolutist state. The prince, now of his own religious convictions, was there to be obeyed willingly and without question.2 For the common people he had a kind of affectionate contempt: they were there to listen to their betters in church and state and do what the preacher and the government official told them. Democracy, the rule of 'Herr Omnes', was highly undesirable.

Zwingli, on the other hand, understood a society based on the intelligent cooperation with the people. In his youth in Toggenburg he had lived in a 1 Koehler, Marburg, 42. ZWA v (1930), 81-102, regards the long-term results of the Marburg meeting as impressive - the Wiirttemberg concord (1534), the Wittenberg concord (1536) and perhaps some 'oecumenical' movements derive from it.

2 Gussmann 1 i, 25 (and notes, 366, 368).

ZWINGLI community in which decisions were taken by the farmers and herdsmen meeting to voice their opinions, and in his manhood he had lived in a city where every artisan could, and did, participate in government through his gild. As a patriotic Confederate, Zwingli not only accepted representative government, Swiss sixteenth-century pattern, but hardly knew any other.

This meant that his case must be one that could be explained publicly and could be made intelligible to ordinary people. He had demonstrated that the Pope's religion was the false religion and that his own teaching was at once Bible founded and reasonable. His supporters understood the denial of transubstantiation; what they were not prepared to accept was any

Lutheran compromise: if their leader moved in this direction he would lose the indispensable support of a government which, with all its limitations, was 'popular'. Hence his dislike and avoidance of phrases whose meaning was obscure or uncertain. He knew that the Word could not fail him and that he understood it correctly. This was not the case with his

Lutheran opponents, and he would not accept any compromise solution.

In 1529 he believed he could win over the Lutherans by argument, and then a united Protestant Switzerland would join forces with a Germany converted to his cause. He was sure he had convinced the Prince of Hesse who, as he wrote to Vadian,1 now agreed to the free circulation of Zwinglian literature and the undisturbed preaching of its adherents. It was not by concession that the reformed churches would survive. And to maintain his position in Zurich, as also in Berne and Schaffhausen, against the Catholic sympathisers, he must reject any formula which could be misinterpreted.2

Zwingli returned with all speed to Zurich, which he reached on 19 October, while Luther with his friends reported to the Elector of Saxony what had happened. Philip of Hesse still hoped that Lutherans and Zwinglians, whom he continued to recognise and employ with almost ostentatious impartiality, could agree on political objectives if not on doctrine. He would gladly have taken Zwingli into his service3 and he remained his friend. While the wordy disputes were continuing at Marburg,

Vienna was being besieged, unsuccessfully as it proved, by the Turkish armies of Suleiman I, and Ferdinand, on behalf of the Emperor, was trying frantically to raise money and men to resist the onslaught. As soon, however, as the Turkish tide began to ebb, the German Lutherans had reason to fear a renewal of the attempt to enforce the Edict of Worms. For their own security they now needed external support. Zwingli was more convinced than ever after the Marburg meeting that Pope and Emperor were in close partnership, even that Charles V was hoodwinked by his

1 Z x, 316-18; ZWA xiii, 293.

2 Koehler, Festgabe, 372.

3 Z x, 329 n. 1.

Marburg and after associate.1 Earlier, Zwingli had been willing to cooperate with an Emperor from whom guaranteed security and justice might be expected, but this was no longer the case. The Habsburg menace was, in his view, so serious that all, Philip of Hesse with his allies, France, Venice, the south-German cities and the Christian Civic Union, should now close their ranks.

Victory could then be assured.

This was not easy to obtain without concessions. The south-German conference at Schwabach (16-19 October), with its restatement of the Lutheran position, did not secure the adhesion of Strassburg and its supporters.2 Philip of Hesse began to perceive that his plans for a broad

Protestant front under himself as leader were no more acceptable to some of his German associates than they were to Berne and that the evangelical forces were more divided than ever. None the less cooperation in face of probable Catholic aggression was indispensable, and in December there was another meeting at Schmalkalden3 of a group of princes (including the Elector of Saxony and the Landgrave of Hesse) and cities in an attempt to unite the Protestants. Again, this time partly because Bucer stood by the Zwinglian position, they parted without agreement, and renewed efforts at Biberach and Nuremberg were no more successful. The Swiss Protestant cities were not brought into the discussions, although delegates from Strassburg and Constance, members of the Christian Civic Union, were there. All that was achieved was a negative agreement that the Schwabach articles were not acceptable.4 There was no common front.

By this time it was becoming apparent that the Emperor himself was preparing to intervene. The summons to the Diet of Augsburg5 (AprilSeptember 1530) was accompanied by an invitation to the Protestants to state their case.6 This was enhanced at a much lower level by a challenge to debate 404 theses (or counter-theses) put forward by Eck.7 Statements of belief were hurriedly drafted by, or for, Constance, Memmingen, Heil1 Hauswirth, Philipp, 151.

2 Koehler, Z & L 11, 164-9. See above 319-20.

3 Schubert, Bekenninisbildung, 117-37.

4 Koehler Z & L 11, 177-80.

5 K. Brandi, Kaiser Karl V.z (Munich, 1941) 261-72; C. E. Forstemann, Urkundenbuch zu der

Geschichte des Reichstages zu Augsburg im Jahre 1530 Bd. I (erster Abschnitt) (Halle, 1833);

Gussmann I. 1. 2; F. W. Schirrmacher, Briefe und Aden zu der Geschichte des Religionsgespraches zu Marburg, 1529 und des Reichstages zu Augsburg, is30 (Leipzig, 1876); K. Fuchs,

' Zur Politik der protestantischen Reichstande vor der Eroffnung des Augsburger Reichstags von 1530', Zeitschrift fur die Geschichte des Oberrheins, 118 (1970) 157-74.

6 The invitation had been ' to allay divisions, to leave all past errors to the judgement of our

Saviour, and further, to give a charitable hearing to every man's opinions, thoughts and notions, to weigh them carefully, to bring men to Christian truth and to dispose of everything that has not been rightly explained on both sides'. A slightly different version in Kidd,

258 (21 January 1530).

7 Z vi ii, 791 n. 6; Z x, 601; Baur 11, 646; Koehler Z & L 11, 181; K. Rischar, jfohann Eck, auf dem Reichstag zu Augsburg (Miinster, 1968) esp. 84-6. For a translation of the 404 theses see

S. M. Jackson (ed.), Papers of the American Society of Church History 2. II, 37-81 (New York,

1910).

PZI

ZWINGLI bronn, Ulm, Nu r emberg and the Elector of Saxony, all different and out o line with the Zwinglian case. It was Philip of Hesse who tried to promote

Protestant unity and to secure some kind of agreed statement which could be acceptable to the south German cities and to Zurich. In this he found some support from Strassburg, where Sturm was anxious to play down differences within the Protestant camp and to attempt to cover up the gap revealed at Marburg and widened at Schmalkalden. In March 1530 the 'Torgau articles' restated the Lutheran case and these were embodied by Melanchthon into the 'Confessio Augustana'.

The Strassburg party, led by Bucer, Capito and Sturm, worked out a compromise statement, neither fully Zwinglian nor precisely Lutheran, somewhat ambiguous and obscure, but reasonably comprehensive. This was formally accepted on 4 July 1530 by the cities of Constance, Lindau and Memmingen - hence the name, Tetrapolitana1 - and sent to Augsburg. Although it attracted some attention both then and later, it had been hurriedly compiled; Ulm, Heilbronn, Kempten, Isny and Biberach refused to be associated with it; and it was soon rejected by all parties.

Luther, Melanchthon, Oecolampadius, Zwingli, Basle, Zurich and the remaining south German cities all disowned it.2 The Lutheran case, composed by Melanchthon and revised by Luther himself, who, like Zwingli, was ready to appear in person at Augsburg but was excluded as an ' outlaw', was impressive. It was as moderate as it could be made, emphasised the divergences from the Zwinglians, and became almost the official

Lutheran creed.3 The Lutheran teaching on salvation by faith, marriage of priests, monastic vows, auricular confession and communion in two kinds is set out at length and, in a sense, for the last time. Other German cities sent in their own rather similar statements. Ulm, where Zwingli's friend Sam had once been so influential, was now completely in the Lutheran camp. But neither Philip of Hesse nor Zwingli was in the least prepared to concede defeat. The Landgrave had already, in April 1529, joined in an alliance with Electoral Saxony, Niirnberg, Strassburg and Ulm for the maintenance of their faith and was disappointed that Saxony was singularly reluctant to act. Both Luther and Melanchthon, back in 1 H. A. Niemeyer, Collectio confessionum in ecclesiis reformatis publicatarum (Leipzig, 1840)

74off; E. F. C. Miiller, Die Bekenntnisschriften der reformierten Kirche (Leipzig, 1903), 55-78;

Martin Bucers deutsche Schriften Bd. 3, hg. v. R. Stupperich (Giitersloh, 1969), 36-185.

2 E. Bizer, Studien zur Geschichte des Abendmahlstreits im 16. jfahrhundert (Darmstadt, 1962)

28-37; Gussmann 1 i, 44-6, with notes on 385-7; H. Eells, * Sacramental negotiations at the Diet of Augsburg 1530', Princeton Theological Review 23 (1925) 216-18; Koehler, Z & L II,

193-8, 208.

3 Kidd, 259-89. There are many reprints, e.g. Die unverdnderte Augsburgische Konfession, hg. v.

P. Tschackert (Leipzig, 1901); Die Bekenntnisschriften der evangelisch-lutherischen Kirche3

(Gottingen, 1956) 31-137. Charles refused to allow the Augsburg Confession to be printed or copied. Z xi, 279 n. 15.

Marburg and after Wittenberg, were increasingly unwilling to cooperate with Swiss' fanatics', and said so. And, too, they were opposed to armed combat; they wanted no compromise but no war either.1

For Philip the situation was different.2 Either he must maintain his independent position, politically as well as in religion, or he must submit.

He knew that the Emperor was being urged by Campeggio, the Papal legate, to eliminate heresy with fire and sword,3 and could hardly fail to perceive that the policy of the Catholic advisers of the Emperor was to divide Lutherans from Zwinglians and crush them in detail. Philip of Hesse and Zwingli were ready to fight; the Elector of Saxony and Luther were not. If Philip was to maintain his position in his own territory and support the rights of Ulrich of Wlirttemberg and those of his fellow Protestant princes, he needed above all the aid of the cities, including those of the Christian Civic Union, wealthy, well defended by their walls, advised by patricians of political experience and with soldiers of disciplined valour.

The Diet of Augsburg was opened by Charles in person who showed his faith by walking bare-headed in the hot June sun behind the Host through the streets of the Protestant city on the feast of Corpus Christi (16 June).

When he set up a mixed commission4 to comment on the Augsburg Confession and it was glaringly apparent that no account would be taken of Strassburg or Zurich, the Prince of Hesse, who was ready to accept both the Augsburg Confession and the Tetrapolitana,5 left in disgust6 on 6 August. A Catholic confutation of the Augsburg Confession added fuel to the flames.

Zwingli, disappointed at not being invited to Augsburg,7 was determined that his case should not remain unstated, the more so since Sturm and Oecolampadius urged him to write. He therefore composed his own Fidei

Ratio8 during the last days of June. The speed with which it was written is a measure of the deep sincerity and the intensity of conviction behind it.

In it he first declares his belief in God the Creator, perfect goodness, 1 R. Stupperich, Melanchthon (Berlin, i960), 70-1.

2 See below 378-383, 391.

3 Gussmann, 1 i, 3.

4 Of 14 members, 7 Catholic, 7 Protestant, mostly clerics. J. Ficker, Die Konfutation des

Augsburgischen Bekenntnisses, ihre erste Gestalt und ihre Geschichte (Leipzig, 1891). s Koehler Z & L 11, 193-4.

6 H. Grundmann, ' Landgraf Philipp von Hessen auf dem Augsburger Reichstag 1530', in Aus den Reichstagsakten der 75. und 16. Jahrhunderts (Gottingen, 1958); also in SVR No. 176

Jg. 63 (Giitersloh, 1959) 6-87.

7 Z x, 525, 573 n. 7, 629, 633-4, 644; ZWA 5 (1931) 243; Gussmann 1 i, 30, and notes on 373-4.

Luther and Zwingli were not admitted; Erasmus deliberately absented himself. A discussion between the three in 1530 would indeed have been interesting.

8 Z vi ii, 753-784, 790-817 (in German in ZH Bd. XI (1948) 255-93); ZWA v, 242-58;

Baur 11, 6536°; F. Blanke, 'Zwinglis uFidei Ratio" (1530) Entstehung und Bedeutung', ARG

57 (1966) 96-102. It was translated into English by Thomas Cotsforde (STC 26138 (1543),

26139 (1548), 26140 (1555)).

I2"2

ZWINGLI truth, power, righteousness and wisdom, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, as set out in the Nicene and Athanasian creeds. Then he affirms the incarnation, Christ son of man, son of God for all eternity, with some emphasis on the completeness of his humanity save for his earthly sinlessness. It is all correct and adequate, the accepted teaching of atonement. Christ suffered as man, as God he forgave sins and, having gone so far along the commonplace track, very adroitly, Zwingli introduces his favourite device of alloeosis. In what sense was it that the son of God suffered for us, or the son of man forgave sins?1 With considerable acuteness he examines the implications of transfers of meaning in the Bible, as well as the difference between body and spirit, matter and mind. Christ, both God and man, suffered death only in his humanity, and from this, important deductions followed.

Zwingli, for example, was no longer, when he wrote in 1530, infralapsarian, for God could not be made dependent upon the action of his own creature, man; God therefore had created man, who would fall, God the son being ready, in time, to take on man's nature and thus redeem what

Adam lost.2 It is indispensable for any understanding of the thought of the age to remember that the direct descent of the human race from Adam was assumed as a certain historical fact with all the consequences that followed from it. For Zwingli, God, holy and merciful, could not be influenced or affected by human action; God being completely just, man must be punished after the fall; completely good, God sent his son in whom goodness and justice were reconciled by his unique sacrifice.3

Hence it followed, and here there was no conflict with the Confession of Augsburg, that Christ was the only mediator between God and man; justification by works was eliminated. Zwingli even went some way to meet his critics in his discussion of the implications of original sin for the many infants who died, sometimes unbaptised, within a few days or hours of birth. Earlier he had maintained that babies, sinning unconsciously, were not thereby condemned, but now, as at Marburg, although avoiding as far as possible the phrase 'original sin', which he obviously found difficult to do, he agreed that a weakness, an inescapable proneness to sin, was inborn; the fate of children of heathens, following necessarily the condition of their parents, was completely uncertain. Christian children, part of the visible church of Christ, had better hope.

This led somewhat abruptly to a brief discussion of the meaning of the invisible church/ known to God alone, and the visible, sensible church of all who professedly recognised Christ, this visible church including some,

1 I Peter 2. 21, John 3. 13. Z vi ii, 794.

2 For Zwingli's views on predestination see above, 324-5. Some of his ideas may well have been derived from Lactantius, 'the Christian Cicero', whom he much admired. ZWA xm (1971),

380.

3 Z vi, ii, 795-6.

* Z vi ii, 800-2.

Marburg and after like Judas, who were not numbered among the elect. Faith was the test: certainty of faith meant certainty of election. The visible church would necessarily include some who were unworthy, none knowing who these were, and the visible Church itself is composed of particular local churches like those of Rome, Augsburg and Lyons.

Then came the restatement, crisp and clear after the Marburg discussion, of the Zwinglian teaching on the sacraments. At this point the treatise takes on a highly 'spiritual' tone. Grace, forgiveness, consideration and help must come as God's gift directly to the spirit of the recipient.

It could not be brought (conferre, adferre, dispensare) by sensible means, not even by the wind or the word, still less by water, bread and wine or the oil of extreme unction. Spiritusfuit, qui tulity non sensibilia was the basis of Zwingli's confession,1 the dividing line which allied him, most unwillingly, with some sectaries and divided him from Catholics and Lutherans alike.

He knew the scholastic formulas as well as his opponents - to receive God's grace you must be prepared for it, and this either by self-preparation or by the Holy Spirit. If by preparing ourselves we qualify for grace, then there is no need for that special 'prevenient' grace predisposing to repentance; if we are prepared by the Holy Spirit without a sacrament, then the Holy Spirit brings grace before the sacrament. For Zwingli, the two sacraments of baptism and the eucharist were testimonies of grace already personally received. Thus, whereas for Catholics and Lutherans baptism brings grace, or grace accompanies the action, for Zwingli grace precedes baptism. For children, too, God's promise precedes the baptism of which it is a sign. It is necessary in order that others may know what has come to pass, that there should be a public acknowledgment of an accomplished fact. The sacraments do not, cannot, bring grace or anything else, they are the outward and visible signs of it. The sacraments were indeed honourable and valuable; the Word, brought to the objects, made them so,2 but this is all that happened.

Briefly brushing off the Anabaptists, and by implication accepting the imperial approval at Speier in April 1529 of their elimination, Zwingli states his own eucharistic convictions. 'I believe that in the holy communion the true body of Christ is present in the mind of the believer.'3

1 Z vi ii, 803; Koehler, Z & L 11, 201.

2 Zwingli yet again quotes St Augustine * accedit enim verbum ad elementum, et fit sacramentum\ MPL 35. c. 1840.

3 Z vi ii, 806. 'Credo, quod in sacra eucharistiae (hoc est: gratiarum actionis) coena verum

Christi corpus adsit fidei contemplatione... Sed quod Christi corpus per essentiam et realiter, hoc est: corpus ipsum naturale, in c^na aut adsit aut ore dentibusque nostris manducatur, quemadmodum papistae et quidam, qui ad ollas Egiiptiacas respectant, perhibent, id vero non tantum negamus, sed errorem esse, qui verbo dei adversatur, constanter adseveramus.'

The words 'fidei contemplatione'' seem to have been used here for the first time. Koehler

Z & L 11, 214, 216-17; z XI> 41-

ZWINGLI 'But that the actual, real body of Christ is present in the communion or is consumed by our mouth and teeth as is maintained by the papists and some who long for the flesh pots of Egypt,1 is something that we not only deny but we consistently maintain that it is an error and contrary to the Scriptures.' There was no change of substance, nor even was (as Luther maintained) the body of Christ objectively present: it was in the grateful conscious remembrance of his death that Christ was present for the believer.

The glorified body of the risen Christ, seated on God's right hand, the manhood of the Saviour, remained in heaven (the earth being thought of as the centre of the universe) and could not be brought down to earth to be eaten. Scripture taught this clearly enough; Christ in his divinity, being

God the Son, was everywhere at all times. The bread eaten at the Last Supper, like the Passover lamb, was symbolical only.2 The soul, being spiritual, could not be nourished by physical substance, and this (for Zwingli) obvious truth was reinforced by the circumstances of the Last

Supper itself. The disciples did not receive forgiveness of sins on that occasion, for, had this been so, then the suffering on the cross was in vain.

Similarly, it was Christ's earthly and human body that was then present; any other interpretation would imply, with the Marcionites, that Christ's passion was unreal if his body was not as other human bodies.

With many biblical citations and with confident claim of support from St Augustine and St Ambrose, with a reference to his own writings and to a new exposition by Oecolampadius3 which answered Melanchthon, Fidei ratio leaves this central theme as abruptly as it entered, without any suggestion of compromise on this issue with Lutherans or Catholics. That the Emperor ever saw the manifesto addressed to him is unlikely, but he and any other readers were not left in any doubt about the independence and the precision of the statement before them.

The remainder was equally straightforward but more acceptable if not conciliatory. Church ceremonial Zwingli manifestly disliked, but such traditional usages as were neither obviously superstitious nor contrary to the Bible could be tolerated until greater enlightenment4 prevailed. Then, without undue offence and making allowance for those weak in faith, they should be abolished. Jesus, he noted, had allowed Mary of Bethany to 1 i.e. Lutherans.

2 Z vi ii, 809-10.

3 Quid de eucharistia veteres turn Graeci, turn Latini senserint, Dialogus (Basle, 1530), replying to Melanchthon's Sentenciae veterum aliquot scriptorum de Coena Domini (Wittenberg, 1530), cf. E. Staehelin, Das theologische Lebenswerk Johannes Oekolampads (Leipzig, 1939), 6o8ff;

Koehler, Z & Lu, 204-7.

4 Z vi ii, 812: * donee Lucifer magis ac magis allucescat'. The implication seems to have been that the darkness of the Middle Ages was just then (1530) giving way before the dawn of a new era.

Marburg and after anoint his feet1 (John 12. 3). Images, reverenced and honoured in churches, were explicitly unbiblical and had long before been ejected where Reform penetrated in Switzerland: maintaining this position, he none the less repeated his personal appreciation of pictorial and statuary art when unconnected with undesirable proclivities. Just as there should be no images, so, too, no organ was needed in church, although, personally, Zwingli was both art-lover and talented musician.2

There was very little of the olive branch here, but there was more of it in the section dealing with preaching or prophesying. On the importance of the preacher, Lutherans and Zwinglians were agreed, and they were also both opposed to the radical assertion that any illiterate who felt so inspired could demand of right to occupy a pulpit. The exposition of the Word was a serious business, to be undertaken by the successors of the Old Testament prophets, trained and competent - unlike some of the mitred crook-bearing bishops of the old Church. Preaching preceded faith, which came from the Holy Spirit only and was not carried by the word, which could but prepare the worthy recipient. How otherwise was it possible to accept the notorious fact that some heard and were not convinced?3 The preacher should provide indispensable information, teach, console, serve, care for the sick and the poor, study and expound the Bible.

It was a full assignment, and one which Luther, as well as Zwingli and Oecolampadius, imposed upon himself.

Ministers of religion were neither above the government nor wholly subject to it. Here, too, he was more in harmony with the Augsburg Confession than with the Anabaptists, and very briefly but incisively he again faced the problem of the relations of Church and state.4 The righteousness and justice of God were the province of the magistrate, whose duty it was to see that these were upheld; if, however, a government was despotic and bad, it was none the less to be obeyed until such time as God made it abundantly and unmistakably apparent that the tyrant must be deposed - 'if a chance of liberty should come, take it.' (1 Cor. 7. 21.)

Finally, almost traditionally, Zwingli turned to memorare novissima, the Last Things, death, hell and judgement. Purgatory was, for him, as for 1 Zwingli thought (as did Bishop Fisher) that the three Marys, Mary of Bethany, Mary Magdalene and the third unidentified (Luke 7. 36-50; 8. 2) were identical.

2 'The devil cannot have all the best tunes' was part of his attitude. J. Schweizer, Reformierte

Abendmahlsgestaltung in der Schau Zwinglis (Basle, n.d.), deals with some of the liturgical effects of Zwingli's Eucharistic teaching - especially with Aktion oder Bruch des Nachtmahls

(1525).

3 z vi ii, 813-14.

4 For his earlier thought on the subject, see R. C. Walton, Zwingli* s Theocracy (Toronto, 1967);

Jacob Kreutzer, Zwinglis Lehre von der Obrigkeit, (Stuttgart, 1909) (Kirchenrechtliche

Abhandlungen hg. v. Dr Ulrich Stutz. 57. Heft); Oechsli, 3 and, most valuable, L. von

Muralt, 'Zum Problem der Theokratie bei Zwingli, Discordia Concors (Basle 1968) 11,

369-90; see above 119-121.

ZWINGLI Luther and the English church, 'a fond thing, vainly invented, and grounded upon no warranty of Scripture, but rather repugnant to the word of God'.1 Hence, indulgences and masses said for the repose of the souls of the departed were worthless. The torments of purgatory were figments of the imagination, dwelt upon by priests in order to extract money from the credulous. If by finite torment and suffering the guilt of man's evil deeds could be cleared, Christ's death was in vain and God's grace of no effect. What sort of Christians are they who fear this fire, which is, in any case, but smoke ?

But as to hell, where unbelievers, contumacious and wicked persons2 were punished by eternal flames,i not only do I believe in it, I know it to be true'. Those who, like the Anabaptists, thought in terms of anything less than eternity,3 were deceived and deceived others. It was a gloomy ending, but orthodox, as had been the beginning.

On this basis he was confident and ready to fight, over-confident, indeed, but more convinced than ever that he was God's instrument, that his teaching was that of God's word, that Rome could not and would not reform itself but that the Emperor might well be guided by God and come over to the side of reform. Politically it was pathetic - so far from being an eirenicon, it alienated still further Catholics, Lutherans and the Radicals.

Uncompromising in its rugged independence, it was, like so much of Zwingli's hurried writings, imperfect and inadequate. Fidei ratio could have been his Christianae religionis institution but it was neither complete nor conciliatory. It had no influence whatever on those to whom it was addressed, although Zwingli seriously hoped for the Emperor's conversion.

It came too late to influence either the Augsburg Confession or the Tetrapolitana, and Luther, who had been mollified somewhat by the personal encounter at Marburg, returned to his former attitude of adamantine hostility.4

From the Catholic side came a formal refutation5 written by Eck, but apart from this Fidei Ratio was ignored. Eck's reply insisted that Zwingli was no Christian but a Turk, a Tartar, a Hun, a Nebuchadnezer, Antio1 Article 22.

2 Z VI ii, 815: 'perfidi, contumaces ac perduelles'.

3 * Apokatastasis panton', lasting only until the day of judgement.

4 ' Ich bekenne fur mich, das ich den Zwingel fur einen unchristen halte mit aller seiner lere, denn er helt und leret kein stuck des Christlichen glaubens recht.' WA 26, 342. Melanchthon likewise regarded Zwingli as of unstable mind. Baur 11 668; WA Br. 5. 475. cf. O. Farner, Das

Zwinglibild Luthers (Tubingen, 1931); Geiser, 91; WA 30. 111, 561; WA 54, 141-67.

5 Repulsio articulorum Zwinglii Caesareae Maiestati oblatorum Johanne Eccio authore 1530 in Julio (Augsburg, 1530). Zwingli made an effective and telling reply, Ad illustrissimos Germaniae Principes Augustae congregatos, de convitiis Eccii epistoh, addressed significantly to the princes. S IV, 19-41; Baur 11, 676-85; W. Koehler, Der Augsburger Reichstag von 1530 und die

Schweiz SZG 3 (1953), 169-89. K. Rischar, Johann Eck auf dem Reichstag zu Augsburg 1530

(Miinster i.W., 1968) esp. 106-7.

Marburg and after chus and Heliodorus. In Zurich profanity was supreme; instead of churches they had stables. They had burnt the monastery at Ittingen, received heretics from Rottweil, and fought their fellow countrymen.

Zwingli was utterly divided from Luther, had been afraid to come to Baden, and had been the originator of Anabaptism.

Unaffected by all this, still serenely confident, Zwingli returned to politics and to unrealities. Having failed with Charles V, he would win over Francis I, and to do so he would sacrifice some of his earlier and most cherished convictions. He had only fifteen months to live after this manifesto of 1530, and in them he succeeded in undoing much, but not all, of what he had so far accomplished. When he left Marburg in October 1529,

Zwingli knew that the German Lutherans would and must go their own way. Hence, he now urged a defensive alliance on a basis of recognition of existing differences - the two ideologies could unite against the Emperor and Rome.1

The story of the relations between Luther and Zwingli is one of the saddest in the history of religion. Here were two utterly committed and devout Christian scholars, men of prayer, convinced of every facet of the revelation of God through his son and through the Word, preachers whose first duty it was to call men to repentance. Their faith was all sustaining and their convictions unshakable. Each, too, knew that the followers of the Pope had left the paths laid down for the church by Christ and the Apostles and that a return to the teaching of the scriptures was incumbent upon all.

Each was a minister of religion in the best sense, seeking neither gain nor personal glory, indefatigable in the defence and exposition of the faith.

Each served faithfully his temporal lord, whether a German Elector or a Swiss republic. To say that they parted company over the interpretation of four words is true but unhelpful. There could be but one way of eternal salvation through Christ and the forgiveness of the sins of the world which he embodied. To misunderstand his teaching was to imperil the soul. All eternity depended upon the choice of the right path; to be turned aside from it was to become as much the child of wrath and the son of perdition as the man who committed the unforgivable sin of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. No amount of temperance, justice, fortitude, mercy, helpfulness to others, prayer or works, could compensate. Faith was indispensable, God-given and not to be questioned, but it must be the true faith, certain and sure. The dispute at Marburg was much more than a 1 This was the position taken up by Philip of Hesse, who never explicitly accepted either the Lutheran or the Zwinglian sacramental teaching but who consistently tried to separate politics from dogma. Zwingli went along with this only in so far as the triumph of the evangelical faith was of supreme importance and politics must be used for this purpose. Gussmann

1 i, 60-2.

ZWINGLI dispute about words; the meaning of the Last Supper involved the whole Christian faith. The atheist, the agnostic and the non-Christian may see the disagreement as either meaningless or an intellectual debate about abstractions. To the sixteenth century it was a matter that affected every baptised person; confession of a true faith opened the door to eternal salvation; without it, the door was closed. That, in some measure, was why men were willing to die for their convictions and even to kill those whom they believed to be in the wrong.

There was indeed an element of vanity about both men. Their background, training and human purposes were different, and neither could think it possible that he might be mistaken. Each lacked humility, and their collision kept half the Christian world divided across the ages. The repercussions of the Marburg conference are felt in the twentieth century, for such is the power of history. Luther and Zwingli could not, in the world of 1529, have found harmony, whatever the good will. And it must be said thatitwasZwingli's resistance, warmly seconded byOecolampadius, that may have prevented an Anschluss with Rome which, as later events were to prove, could have been disastrous for religious and intellectual freedom.

↑ Back to top