MARBURG, COLLOQUY OF by Rudolf Collin and Ulrich Funk, magistrates from One of the most important religious issues about Zu¨rich, and Felix Frei from Basel. Luther and Me- which MARTIN LUTHER (1483–1546) and HULDRYCH lanchthon did not arrive until September 30. Even ZWINGLI (1484–1531) presented differing convictions later, arriving October 2, were Osiander, Brenz, and was the bodily presence of Christ in the Eucharist MICHAEL AGRICOLA (1509–1557) who represented the (praesentia realis). In 1525 this theological contro- territories of Southern Germany, with Agricola sub- versy erupted into outright hostilities. In order to re- stituting for Urbanus Rhegius, who had fallen ill. They solve them, reformers, primarily from Suebia and the all took up quarters in the landgrave’s castle at Mar- Upper Rhine regions, advanced the idea of a theolog- burg. ical conference. Instrumental in bringing it about was On 1 October the discussions began. Zwingli was Philip, Landgrave of Hesse (1504–1567), who wished paired with Melanchthon and Luther with Oecolam- to unite the Protestant estates of the empire in a padius for initial talks. Some progress was made con- political alliance; this project appeared endangered by cerning peripheral questions. The core of the dissent, conflicting theological views. His first attempts to the nature of Christ’s presence in the Eucharist, be- arrange a meeting in 1528 and 1529 were unsuccess- came the topic of the main discussions of 2 and 3 October, which took place in the landgrave’s private ful. After the Second Imperial Diet held at SPEYER in March and April of 1529 he tried again. On 22 April, chambers with the prince himself and some distin- guished guests attending. Johann Feige, the land- the very day the Diet was closed, he urged the elector grave’s chancellor, gave the welcome address at 6:00 of Saxony and the imperial cities of Straßburg, Nu¨rn- A.M. on 2 October, thus formally opening the confer- berg, and Ulm to intensify their combined efforts to ence. Luther, Melanchthon, Zwingli, and Oecolampa- reach an agreement. He was afraid that those estates dius, to whom above all the success was entrusted, sat that upheld the old faith might succeed in undermining at the table facing each other. Luther pointed out a the mutual unterstanding of the Protestants by means number of errors of belief that he had observed in the of theological quarrels over the nature of Christ’s teachings of the others and advanced his own convic- presence in the Eucharist. The obstacles were great: tion concerning the topical issue of the Eucharist. His Luther disclaimed any common interest between reli- opponents responded, denying vigorously the pres- gion and politics, PHILIPP MELANCHTHON (1497–1560) ence of Christ’s body in the sacrament. Luther again warned that Zwingli’s followers, who constituted a quoted the decisive passages from the Bible, which he powerful pressure group, might open an even greater had written with chalk on the table: “Hoc est corpus rift in the church and threaten peace within the empire. meum” (this is my body). There followed a lively It was the elector of Saxony who urged Luther and debate, rather quickly leading to stalmate. Well- Melanchthon to attend the meeting and, having se- known arguments taken from relevant literature were cured their agreement, commissioned theologians of exchanged, but no new aspects put forward. the University of Wittenberg to draft the so-called There were three main questions that dominated the Articles of Schwabach to serve as a basis for the talks. discussion. First of all, there was the correct under- The foremost advocate of the conference continued standing of Jesus’s words spoken at the Last Supper, to be Landgrave Philip. On 1, July 1529, he signed the which Luther considered of paramount importance. letter of invitation, which was to be sent to Luther, Then there was the question of whether it seemed Zwingli, JOHANNAS OECOLAMPADIUS (1482–1531), Jo- possible that Christ’s body should be present in hannes Sturm, ANDREAS OSIANDER (1498–1552), JO- heaven as well as in the sacrament. Finally, relevant HANNES BRENZ (1499–1570) and - apparently at some patristic writings were examined. In the end there later date-Urbanus Rhegius (1489–1591). The confer- evolved a somewhat better unterstanding in several ence was scheduled at Marburg on 29 September aspects, but no common ground was achieved con- 1529, and would begin the following day. To secure a cerning the basic issue. When the landgrave insisted positive outcome, these discussions were to abandon that a middle road should be found, the Lutherans the usual rules of academic disputation in favor of a presented the draft of an article of consensus and “friendly dialogue without formal arguments”; neither Melanchthon pointed to the writings of the fathers as a chairman nor a mediator was appointed. Landgrave a possible source of unanimity. There were Swiss Philip, eager to achieve visible success, offered his delegates, however, who steadfastly refused to com- best services to avoid conflict. promise on the question of the praesentia realis (real The representatives from the Helvetic Confedera- presence). tion and the city of Stra␤burg arrived two days early. Due mostly to the landgrave, a complete failure The theologians Zwingli, Oecolampadius, Sturm, was avoided. He prompted Luther to formulate fifteen MARTIN BUCER (1491–1551), and Hedio were joined articles, which stated, based on the Articles of 1 MARBURG, COLLOQUY OF Schwabach, what agreements had been reached. The hesitate to implement it in his primary goal of a controversial points of view of the Swiss and political alliance. The elector of Saxony, nevertheless, Straßburg delegates were referred to the future. Luther found reason to criticize the Articles of Marburg, avoided antagonizing his opponents in any way, and demanding instead universal adherence to the Articles finally his text was signed by all. Articles one through of Schwabach. With the Margrave of Brandenburg- fourteen contain the essence of common belief. In Ansbach joining forces, his attitude doomed further article fifteen Luther summarizes the common basis of discussions that took place at Schwabach and Schmal- Protestant teaching concerning the question of the kalden. Therefore, it would not appear justified to praesentia realis, and states, in a brief and concise overestimate the historic import of the Articles of manner, the remaining points of dissent only in the Marburg. The evolution of Protestant theology, how- end. Thus Luther succeeded in formulating a docu- ever, undoubtably owes much to them. The Confessio ment of basic understanding between the different Marpurgiana stands as a first attempt at unifying the groups on reformatory creed at a rather low level, but different Protestant factions and is to be considered a still clearly defining the border with the dogma of the notable landmark on the road toward the Confessio old church. Augustana. Modern literature offers no unanimous answer to the question of whether this is the concordia at- See also Helvetic Confession; Lord’s Supper tempted at the time. There can be no doubt that in a practical way a consensus was reached (H. References and Further Reading Bornkamm). Landgrave Philip of Hesse, the foster father of the conference, reaped from it the chance of Bezzenberger, Guenter. Was zu Marpurgh geschah, Eine Ein- once more presenting, on 4 October, his project of a fu¨hrung in die Geschichte des Marburger Religionsge- political alliance. It was thwarted by the outbreak of spra¨chs im Jahr 1529. Kassel: Fvang. Pressverband, 1979. Ko¨hler, Walther. Das Marburger Religionsgespra¨ch 1529: an epidemic on 5 October, which demanded a hasty Versuch einer Rekonstruktion. Leipzig: Eger & Sievers, departure from Marburg. 1929. In the end, the outcome of the Marburg talks seems Ko¨hler, Walther. Das Religionsgespra¨ch zu Marburg 1529. to have satisfied everyone. Each theological persua- Tu¨bingen: Mohr, 1929. sion believed itself to have carried the day, and some- May, Gerhard (ed.). Das Marburger Religionsgespra¨ch 1529. Gu¨tersloh: 2d ed., Mohr, 1999. how this is correct. Much of the previous religious May, Gerhard. “Marburger Religionsgespra¨ch”.InTheolo- excitement was diminished in importance, and the gische Realenzyklopa¨die XXII. Berlin, New York: Walter de personal contacts established allowed a more prag- Coruyter, 1992, 75–79. matic approach and reduced strife and stress. A foun- Schirrmacher, Friedrich Wilhelm, ed. Briefe und Acten zur dation for further endeavors was laid; Bucer, above Geschichte des Religionsgespra¨ches zu Marburg 1529. all, took advantage of it, working toward greater con- Gotha: 1876. Schmid, Alois. “Marburg, Colloquy of”.InThe Oxford Ency- sensus on the questions of how to understand and clopedia of the Reformation III Edited by Hans H. Hiller- celebrate the Lord’s Supper. The Concordia Wirtem- brand. New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996, bergensis of 1534 and the Concordia Wittenbergensis 2–4. of 1536 proved attainable. Landgrave Philip did not ALOIS SCHMID 2.