" The marble pillars and tesscnc f)f various colors of the palace at Susa came doubtless from Persia itself, where marble of various colors is found, especially in the province of Harna<lan, Susiana (Marco Polo, Ti-avels, p. 78. ed. Bohn; Chardin, !'<»/. iii, 280, 308, 358; and viii, 2.")3 ; P. della Valle, T'w////, W-. 250). The ,so-called mar- ble of Solomon's architectural works, which Josephus calls Xi^oQ XiVKvg, may thus have been limestone — ((() from near .Jerusalem ; (hi) from Lebanon (Jura lime- stone), identical with the material of the Sun Temple at
Baalbek ; or (c) white marble from Arabia or elsewhere (Josephus, A nt. viii, 3, 2 ; Diod. Sic. ii, 52 ; Pliny, //. K, xxxvi, 12; Jamieson, Mineralorjy, p. 41; Kiiumer, Pal. p. 28 ; Volney, Trav. ii, 241 ; Kitto, Phys. Geoyr. of Pal p. 73, 88 ; Kobinson, ii, 493 ; iii, 508 ; Stanley, .S'. and P. p. 307,424; Wellsted, Trai'. i, 42(5 ; ii, 143)." That this stone was not marble seems probable from the remark of Josephus, that whereas Solomon constructed his build- ings of ' white stone,' he caused the roads M'hich led to Jerusalem to be made of ' black stone,' probably the black basalt of the Hauran; and also from his account of the porticoes of Herod's temple, which he says were povokiioi Xei'KOTtjTijg fiapftapov (Josephus, Ant. 1. c., and War, v, 5, 1, 6 ; Kitto, ut sup. p. 74, 75, 80, 89). But whether the ' costly stone' employed in Solomon's build- ings was marble or not, it seems clear, from the expres- sions both of Scripture and Josephus, that some, at least, of the ' great stones,' whose weight can scarcely have been less than forty tons, must have come from Lebanoia (1 Kings V, 14-18; vii, 10; Josephus, Ant. viii, 2,9). There can be no doubt that Herod, both in the Temple and elsewhere, employed Parian or other marble. Ke- niains of marble columns still exist in abundance at Je- rusalem (Josephus, .4 nt. xv, 9, 4, 6, and 1 1 , 3, 5 ; Williams, Hofy City, ii, 330 ; Sandys, p. 1 90 ; Eobinson, i, SOI , 305)" (Smith). See Stoxe.
Marburg Bible is the name given to an edition of the holy Scriptures, published at Marburg (1712, 4to), under the care of Prof. Dr. Horch (with the aid of oth- ers, particularly of inspector Scheffer, in Berleburg). It contains the text of Luther's, corrected by compari- son with the original texts, and gives, iia the introduc- tions and in the headings, commentaries on the most important allegories and prophecies (by Cocceius). The most complete of these are the notes on Solomon's Song and the Apocalypse. It was highly prized by the the- ologians and INIystics of that time, and was the prede- cessor of the Mystic Berleburg Bible (1726-74, 8 vols. foL), hence it is sometimes called the little Mystic Bible. — Herzog, Real-Encyklopddie, ix, 13. See Berlebukg Bible.
Marburg Conference, a gathering of all the re- formed theological leaders, held at the city of Marburg, Oct. 3, 1529, and designed to bring about, if possible, an agreement between Luther and Zwingle and their ad- herents. The landgrave Philip of Hesse, one of the noblest princes of the Reformation days, believing that the dissensions in the Protestant camp should be allayed, directed all his energies towards the conciliation of the two reformed factions, caused bv a difference of opinion as to the proper observance of the eucharistic ceremony. With such a purpose in view, he invited the principal theologians of both parties to meet for the purpose of comparing their opinions in a friendly manner. INielanc- thon had already, iu 1529, at the Diet of Spires, de- clared his readiness to attend such a conference (Coi-p, Ref. i, 1050 and 1078), and even had gone so far as to declare that he attached no special importance to the differences concerning the Eucharist {Corp. PtfA, 1040). Philip of Hesse now applied to Zwingle (Zwingli 0pp. viii, 287), who also expressed his willingness to conic (Zwingli 0pp. viii, 6G2). Luther, however, at first strongly opposed the plan, fearing that it might result in more harm than good; but the landgrave persisting, Luther finally consented, and on Sept. 30, 1529, Luther, jNIelancthon, Cruciger, Jonas, IMykonius, and Mrnius, accompanied by the Saxon counsellor Eberhard, went to Marburg, where Philip had called the conference. The Swiss theologians had arrived the day before; among them, Zwingle, professor Rudolph Collin, G^co- lampadius, Sturm, Bucer, and Hedio. Osiander, Brenz, and Agricola arrived only on October 2. A number of other theologians and eminent persons from all parts of Germany were also present. After a private conference between Luther and G£colampadius, and Zwingle and ]Melancthon, the public debates commenced. " In the first place, several points were discussed touching the
MARBURY
•33
MARCELLINUS
divinity of Christ, original sin, baptism, the Word of God, etc., regarding; which tlie Wittenbergers suspected the orthodoxy of Zwingle. These were all secondary matters with Zwingle, in reference to which he dropped his unchurchly views, and declared his agreement with the views of the oecumenical councils. But in regard to the article of the Lord's Supper he was the more persistent. Appealing to John vi, 33, ' The flesh prof- iteth nothing,' he argued the absurdity of Luther's view" (Kurtz). Luther had insisted upon the literal interpretation of the expression. Hoc est corpus meum. Both parties disputed without arriving at any better appreciation of each other's views. "Agreement was out of the question. Zwingle, nevertheless, declared himself ready to maintain fraternal fellowship, but Lu- ther and his party rejected the offer. Luther said, 'Ihr habt einon andern geist denn wir.' " Still the conference, while failing in its main object, was not entirely fruit- less. " Luther found that his opponents did not hold as offensive views as he supposed, and the Swiss also that Luther's doctrine was not so gross and Capernaitic as they thought." Both parties engaged to refrain in future from publishing injurious pamphlets against each other as they had formerly done, and agreed " to ear- nestly pray God to lead them all to a right understand- ing of the truth." At the request of the landgrave, Luther drew up a series of fifteen articles (Articles of Marburg), containing the common fundamental prin- ciples of the Reformation, wliich were subscribed to by the Zwinglians. " In the first fourteen they declared unanimous consent to the cecumencical faith of the Church against the errors of papists and Anabaptists. In the fifteenth the Swiss conceded that the body and blood of Christ were present in the sacrament, but they could not agree to his corporeal pr-esence in the bread and tome" (Kurtz). The Articles of Marburg were sub- sequently used as a basis for the Confession of Augsburg (q. v.). See L. J. K. Schmitt, Das Relifjkmsgespirdch z. Marhuv(j (Marb. 1840) ; A. Ebrard, D. Gesch. d. Dogma's V. h. A bendmahle, ii, 2G8 ; Hassenkamp, Uessiche Kirchen- ffcsch. ii, 1, p. 35 sq. ; H. Heppe, D.fiinfzehn Marburger A rtikel (Cassel, 1847 and 1854) ; Krauth, The Conserva- tive Reformation (Philadel. 1871, 8vo), p. 355 sq., 427; Hagenbach, Hist, of Doctrines, ii, 309, 314; Gieseler, Eccles. Hist. (Harper's edit.), iv, 133; Kurtz, Ch. Hist, since the Reformation, p. 72 sq. ; Herzog, Real-Encyklo- jmdie, ix, 13 sq. (J. H. W.)