6388 THE GERMAN REFORMATION. A.D. 1517 τὸ 15380.
absent Christ. In the private conference with Zwingli, against whom he was strongly prejudiced, he is reported to have yielded the main point of dispute, as regards the literal interpretation of “This is my body,” and the literal handing of Christ’s body to his disciples, but added that he gave it to them “in a certain mysterious manner.”2 When Zwingli urged the ascension as an argument against the local presence, Melanchthon said, “Christ has ascended indeed, but in order to fill all things” (Eph. 4: 10). “Truly,” replied Zwingli, “with his power and might, but not with his body.” During the open debate on the following days, Melanchthon observed a significant silence, though twice asked by Luther to come to his aid when he felt exhausted. He made only a few remarks. He was, however, at that time, of one mind with Luther, and entirely under his power. He was as strongly opposed to an alliance with the Swiss and Strassburgers, influenced in part by political motives, being anxious to secure, if possible, the favor of Charles and Ferdinand.+*
Luther must have handled C&colampadius more severely ; for the latter, in coming from the conference room, whispered to Zwingli, “I am again in the hands of Dr. Eck” (as at the colloquy in Baden in 1526).
The general discussion took place on Saturday, the 2d of
1 ‘Corpus Reform.,’’ I. 1048 sqq. He says: ‘‘ Vos absentis Christi corpus tanquam in tragedia representari contenditis. Ego de Christo video exstare promissiones: ‘ Ego vobiscum usque ad consummationem seculi, et similes, ubi nihil est opus divellere ab humanitate divinitatem ; proinde de sentio, hoc sacramentum vere presentie testimonium esse quod cum ita sit, sentio in illa coena presentis corporis κοινωνίαν esse.” He does not enter into an interpretation of the words of institution.
2 Erichson, p. 20, from Strassburg reports.
8 “Tech habe mich miide gewaschen,’’ said Luther.
4 Bucer, in a letter to Blaurer in Constance, Oct. 18, 1529, charged Melanchthon especially with the obstinate refusal of brotherhood, and made him, even more than Luther, responsible for the failure of the Conference, adding, as a reason, that he was unwilling to lose the favor of the Emperor Charles and his brother Ferdinand. Baum, l.c., p. 463; Erichson, p. 45.
§ 108. THE MARBURG CONFERENCE CONTINUED. 689
October, in a large hall (which cannot now be identified with certainty).! The Landgrave in plain dress appeared with his _court as an eager listener, but not as an arbitrator, and was seated at a separate table. The official attendants on the Lutheran side were Luther (dressed as an Electoral courtier) and Melanchthon, behind them Jonas and Cruciger of Wittenberg, Myconius of Gotha, Osiander of Niirnberg, Stephen Agricola of Augsburg, Brentius of Hall in Swabia; on the Reformed side Zwingli and C&colampadius, and behind them Bucer and Hedio of Strassburg: all men of eminent talent, learning, and piety, and in the prime of manhood and usefulness. Luther and Zwingli were forty-six, Gicolampadius forty-seven, Bucer thirty-eight, Hedio thirty-five, Melanchthon thirty-two, the Landgrave only twenty-five years of age. Luther and Melanchthon, Zwingli and GEcolampadius, as the chief disputants, sat at a separate table, facing each other. Besides these representative theologians there were a number of invited guests, princes (including the exiled Duke Ulrich of Wirttemberg), noblemen, and scholars (among them Lambert of Avignon). Zwingli speaks of twenty-four, Brentius of fifty to sixty, hearers. Poor Carlstadt, who was then wandering about in Friesland, and forced to sell his Hebrew Bible for bread, had asked for an invitation, but was refused. Many others applied for admission, but were disappointed.? Zwingli advocated the greatest publicity and the employment of a recording secretary, but both requests were declined by Luther. Even the hearers were not allowed to make verbatim reports. Zwingli, who could not expect the Germans to understand his Swiss dialect, desired the
1 “Tn interiore hypocausto ad cubiculum Principis,” says Jonas (Seckendorf, II. 140). It was not the Rittersaal, but the reception-room in the new east wing of the castle, adjoining the bedroom of the Landgrave. The castle has undergone many changes.
2 Justus Jonas reports (‘‘ Corp. Ref.,’’ I. 1097, and Seckendorf, II. 140): “A Francofordia confluxerunt plerique, alii Rhenanis partibus, e Colonia, Argentina, Basilea, Helvetiis, etc., sed non sunt admissi in colloquium.”