the "Studien und Kritiken," 1883, No. II., p. 400–413 (with facsimile). A list of older editions
in the "Corpus Reform.," XXVI. 113–118.
III. L. J. K. Schmitt: Das Religionsgespräch zu Marburg im J. 1529, Marb. 1840. J. Kradolfer: Das
Marb. Religiogsgesprach im J. 1529, Berlin, 1871. Schirrmacher: Briefe und Akten zur
Geschichte des Religions-gesprächs zu Marburg 1529 und des Reichstags zu Augsburg 1530
nach der Handschrift des Aurifaber, Gotha, 1876. M. Lenz: Zwingli und Landgraf Philipp, three
articles in Brieger’s "Zeitschrift fuer K. Gesch.," 1879 (pp. 28, 220, and 429). Oswald Schmidt:
in Herzog2, IX. (1881), 270–275. A. Erichson: Das Marburger Religionsgespräch i. J. 1529,
nach ungedruckten strassburger Urkunden, Strassb. 1880. (Based upon Hedio’s unpublished
Itinerarium ab Argentina Marpurgum super negotio Eucharistiae.) Frank H. Foster: The Historical
Significance of the Marburg Colloquy, and its Bearing upon the New Departure (of Andover],
in the "Bibliotheca Sacra," Oberlin, Ohio, April, 1887, p. 363–369.
IV. See also the respective sections in Hospinian, Löscher (Historia Motuum, I. 143 sqq.), Planck
(II. 515 sqq.), Marheineke, Hagenbach, Rommel (Phil. der Grossmuethige, I. 247 sqq., II. 219
sqq.), Hassencamp (Hessische K. G., II.), Merle D’Aubigné (bk. VIII. ch. VII.), Ebrard (Das
Dogma vom heil. Abendmahl, II. 268 sqq.), and in the biographies of Luther, e.g., Köstlin: M.
Luth. II. 127 sqq. (small biography, E. V. p. 391 sqq.), and of Zwingli, e.g., by Christoffel and
Mörikofer. Comp. also Ranke, III. 116 sqq.; Janssen, III. 149–154
The eucharistic controversy broke the political force of Protestantism, and gave new strength
to the Roman party, which achieved a decided victory in the Diet of Speier, April, 1529.
In this critical situation, the Elector of Saxony and the Landgrave of Hesse formed at Speier
"a secret agreement" with the cities of Nuernberg, Ulm, Strassburg and St. Gall, for mutual protection
(April 22, 1529). Strassburg and St. Gall sided with Zuerich on the eucharistic question.
The situation became more threatening during the summer. The Emperor made peace with
the Pope, June 29, and with France, July 19, pledging himself with his allies to extirpate the new
deadly heresy; and was on the way to Augsburg, where the fate of Protestantism was to be decided.
But while the nations of Europe aimed to emancipate themselves from the authority of the church
and the clergy, the religious element was more powerful,—the hierarchical in the Roman, the
evangelical in the Protestant party,—and overruled the political. This is the character of the sixteenth
century: it was still a churchly and theological age.
Luther and Melanchthon opposed every alliance with the Zwinglians; they would not
sacrifice a particle of their creed to any political advantage, being confident that the truth must
prevail in the end, without secular aid. Their attitude in this matter was narrow and impolitic, but
morally grand. In a letter to Elector John, March 6, 1530, Luther denied the right of resistance to
the Emperor, even if he were wrong and used force against the gospel. "According to the Scriptures,"
he says, "a Christian dare not resist the magistrate, right or wrong, but must suffer violence and
injustice, especially from the magistrate."^852
Luther, as soon as he heard of the agreement at Speier, persuaded the Elector to annul it.
"How can we unite with people who strive against God and the sacrament? This is the road to
damnation, for body and soul." Melanchthon advised his friends in Nuernberg to withdraw from
(^852) De Wette, III. 560.