Bullinger on the Assumption of Mary, Revisited

This is a follow up to my previous post about Heinrich Bullinger and the Assumption of Mary. 

Previously I argued that Protestant Reformer Heinrich Bullinger appears to go from being certain about Mary's Assumption (as early as 1539) to being agnostic on Mary's Assumption later in his life (by at least 1552). Why bother with such tedium? I do so to demonstrate that Rome's defenders don't always go that deep into history as they so often claim.  Sure, they'll point out that Heinrich Bullinger made a strong statement affirming the Assumption of Mary. What they might not mention is that he made statements after it in which he said that it's dangerous to explore where Scripture is silent. For instance,

"The most learned theologians say that one cannot assert anything on the matter of the death or the assumption of the virgin. To wish to unearth or clarify certain facts on which scripture is silent is not without its dangers. Let us content ourselves with believing that the Virgin Mary is indeed active in heaven and has received every beatitude after her departing" (Latin text, Translation, Thurian, p.197).

Did Bullinger believe in the Assumption? It appears he at least did in 1539. He plainly states though in later writings that one cannot know Mary was Assumed into heaven. I see a development in Bullinger here. The entire sixteenth century church was bathed in Mariology, so it would not be surprising to discover that Heinrich Bullinger didn't necessarily repudiate every aspect of it immediately. It would not be surprising as well to discover that as church history progressed from the Reformation, the bath water of Mariology gradually disappears, and I would argue, this is indeed what happened. Bullinger never totally escaped from medieval Mariology, but his comments on the Assumption when placed in their historical context show that he may have been on his way.

Bullinger's Sermon, De beata virgine Maria: Proof for Believing in the Assumption? 
In going through this tedium, I found one author claiming that Bullinger believed in Mary's Assumption later in his life, oddly enough, based on the testimony of Eusebius. If this is so, it would indicate my argument isn't valid, because here would be Bullinger in the late 1550's affirming the Assumption. The author states,

These comments above are based on this passage from Bullinger's sermon De beata virgine Maria. Along with the Latin text, I have William Tappolet's German translation of this passage from Das Marienlob der Reformatoren: Martin Luther, Johannes Calvin, Huldrych Zwingli, Heinrich Bullinger, p. 292-293. As I suspected, Bullinger is not using Eusebius to claim he again was certain on the Assumption of Mary. Bullinger states that Eusebius wrote a chronicle up to the year 48 A.D., but this diligent historian doesn't really get into what happened to Mary other than saying Mary had been taken up to her Son in heaven. He then mentions papal decrees condemning apocryphal literature that delve into Mary's Assumption. He then says to avoid the arguments about the Assumption from the Disputations of Antonius (Besutius?) and that it's useless to argue where Scripture is silent. The aspect of Mary's final end to keep in view is that she now lives in heaven with Christ. The theme of not delving into where Scripture is silent is exactly what his other later quotes say.

Here is Tappolet's text:

Eusebius, der Bischof von Cäsarea, der - bis ans Wunder grenzend - der fleißigste Forscher des ganzen Altertums war, erwähnt in seiner Chronik zum Jahre 48 nach Christi Geburt, dem 15. nach dem Tod des Herrn, ganz wenig und sagt: die Jungfrau Maria, die Mutter Jesu Christi, wird zum Sohn in den Himmel aufgenommen, wie manche schreiben, daß ihnen geoffenbart worden sei. Dies sagt jener, der in der Kirchengeschichte davon nichts erwähnt. Es ist deshalb nicht verwunderlich, daß in den päpstlichen Dekreten (Distinct. 15. Cap. „ Sancta") der Bericht vom Heimgang der heiligen Maria verurteilt und unter die apokryphen Schriften gezählt wird, wie auch jener Bericht, der über die Geburt des Heilandes, die heilige Maria und die Hebamme des Heilandes etc. herausgegeben wurde. Daher mahnen wir auch, daß jene, die die Disputation des Antonius in seiner Geschichte (Tit. 6, Cap. 3) über den Heimgang Mariens mit Verstand lesen, und alle lernen mögen, wie un fruchtbar und gefährlich es ist, neugierig zu forschen und darüber reden zu wollen, was uns in der Heiligen Schrift vorenthalten ist. Es möge uns genügen, schlicht und einfach zu glauben und zu bekennen, daß die Jungfrau Maria, die liebe Mutter unseres Herrn Jesus Christus, durch die Gnade und das Blut ihres eigenen Sohnes ganz geheiligt und durch die Gabe des Heiligen Geists überreich beschenkt und allen Frauen vorgezogen, und endlich, wie von den Engeln selber, von allen Geschlechtern wahrhaft selig gepriesen, jetzt lücklichmit Christus im Himmel lebe und daß sie ewige Jungfrau genannt werde und auch sei und bleibe, nämlich Gottesgebärerin, deren Andenken unter den Gläubigen in der Kirche stetig und festlich, jedoch fromm und nicht abergläubisch sein soll.

Here is the Latin text:

The Latin text doesn't say anything different than Tappolet's German: Eusebius Caesariensis episcopus, omnis uetustatis, ad miraculum usque, omnium diligentissimus indagator, in Chronicus suis, sub anno a' natiuitate Domine 48. qui nimirum erat 15. a morte Domini annus, paucula annotans, Maria virgo, inquit, Iesu Christi mater, ad filium in ccelum assumitur, ut quidam fuisse fibi reuelatum scribunt.


Addendum: What Did Eusebius Say?
In the Chronicon of Eusebius, there is a disputed passage that reads, "Mary the Virgin the mother of Jesus, was taken up into heaven as some write that it has been revealed to them." The Catholic Encyclopedia notes the passage is spurious:

"There is no certain tradition as to the year of Mary's death. Baronius in his Annals relies on a passage in the Chronicon of Eusebius for his assumption that Mary died A.D. 48. It is now believed that the passage of the Chronicon is a later interpolation."

Bullinger on Mary's Assumption: It is Dangerous to Explore Where Scripture is Silent

This is a follow-up to my earlier entry on Bullinger's Mariology. 

Over the years I've witnessed Rome's defenders saying that Protestant Reformer Heinrich Bullinger believed in the Assumption of Mary.  As far as I can determine, the most important evidence for this conclusion appears to be based on merely one Bullinger quote:

"Elijah was transported body and soul in a chariot of fire; he was not buried in any Church bearing his name, but mounted up to heaven, so that on the one hand we might know what immortality and recompense God prepares for his faithful prophets and for his most outstanding and incomparable creatures, and on the other hand in order to withdraw from men the possibility of venerating the human body of the saint. It is for this reason, we believe, that the pure and immaculate embodiment of the Mother of God, the Virgin Mary, the Temple of the Holy Spirit, that is to say her saintly body, was carried up into heaven by the angels."

This quote can be found in a variety of forms, documented (if at all!) in different ways. Often the quote is dated only a short time before Bullinger's death, in 1568, in which case, Bullinger held to Mary's Assumption for almost the entirety of his life. Rome's defenders often use snippets of information like this to provoke historical dissonance in dialog with Protestants: the Reformers believed in sola scriptura, yet believe x y or z about Mary... so why don't you?  In what follows, I'd like to demonstrate that Rome's defenders sometimes aren't up front with all the facts, and when those facts are presented, a different scenario may indeed be possible in regard to Bullinger and the Assumption of Mary.

Documentation
Sometimes the quote above is documented with a reference to Max Thurian's Mary, Mother of All Christians, 197-198. Thurian says in 1568 Bullinger wrote this comment on the Assumption of Mary. Thurian says he took the quote from Walter Tappolet, Das Marienlob der Reformatoren: Martin Luther, Johannes Calvin, Huldrych Zwingli, Heinrich Bullinger, p.327. This pdf (with the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur) cites the quote as "On Original Sin, 16 (1568)." This is actually a reference to the chapter in the primary source, De Origne Erroris, 16 from Bullinger. This documentation of the primary source may have originally come from Hilda Graef, Mary, A History of doctrine and Devotion, p. 15. She likewise notes 1568, and also that she took the quote from Tappolet. This tedium points to one conclusion: the quote, in whatever form one may find it, will probably lead back to Tappolet's, The Marian Praise of the Reformers.

Bullinger's Three Quotes on the Assumption of Mary: Developing to the Assumption?
I have a copy of Tappolet's book. It's more of an anthology of Marian quotes from the Reformers than an actual analysis of Reformation Mariology. Tappolet doesn't simply provide one quote from Bullinger on the Assumption of Mary, he provides three (p.327-328).  He provides quotes from three different dates, in this order: 1552, 1565, and 1568 (the last quote being that cited above). If one uses the quotes presented in this order, it appears that Bullinger went from uncertainty about Mary's Assumption to certainty. In 1552, Bullinger says we simply know that Mary is in Heaven, and "the Scriptures say nothing more" (The 1552 quote can be found here, Von der Verklärung Jesu Christi). In 1565, Bullinger alludes to the testimony of Ephiphanius on the uncertainty of Mary's death, and states, "It is quite dangerous to try to explore or explain for sure where the Scripture is silent!" (The 1565 quote can be found here , Epitome temporum). But then in 1568 he does an about face and states, "... we believe, that the pure and immaculate embodiment of the Mother of God, the Virgin Mary, the Temple of the Holy Spirit, that is to say her saintly body, was carried up into heaven by the angels." The quote is authentic (here is the page in the 1568 edition).

Something doesn't add up. If one looks closer at Tappolet's citations, he does preface the 1568 statement by saying, "The strangest testimony of Bullinger's on the question of Mary's Assumption is contained in Froschauer's 1568 edition of  De Origne Erroris Chapter 16" (p.328). Even Tappolet, the primary source for the quote realizes something isn't quite right. He then includes a few final comments of bibliographic tedium including the fact that the 1549 French edition of De Origne Erroris deleted Bullinger's Assumption comment. 1549? Wasn't De Origne Erroris written at the end of Bullinger's life in 1568? It wasn't. Bullinger composed this book much earlier (1529; it was the companion volume to a book he wrote in 1528). Bullinger was 25 when he originally wrote this book. He revised these two volumes into one volume in 1539. It is in this 1539 edition that the Marian statement in question appears to have originally been written (see page 45). I could not locate the quote it in the 1529 edition, nor do I know if he revised this book previous to the 1539 edition. So, the comment from Bullinger affirming Mary's Assumption precedes the two quotes in which he says one cannot affirm Mary's Assumption. In other words, the documentation points to Bullinger going from affirming the Assumption to being agnostic on the Assumption.

Conclusion
I've yet to come across one of Rome's defenders using the alleged 1568 Assumption quote in its historical lineage, either mentioning how something doesn't quite add up or placing it back in 1539 where it belongs. I've not come across one them saying, "Bullinger earlier affirmed Mary's assumption, but then appears to become agnostic on it." Sometimes, they will come close. Peter Stravinskas, a bit more careful states,

Zwingli's successor, Bullinger, once confessed that Mary's "sacrosanct body was borne by angels into heaven," although he declined to take a firm stand on either her bodily assumption or her immaculate conception. [Thomas O'Meara, Mary in Protestant and Catholic Theology (New York: Sheed and Ward, 1965), 178-179]. [source]

So according to Straviskas, Bullinger once confessed Mary's Assumption, but didn't take a firm stand on it. This is true, as far as it goes. Certainly Bullinger did plainly affirm the Assumption in 1539, but contrary to Stravinskas, this was indeed a strong stand in 1539. It appears that only later did he decline to take a firm stand. Stravinskas may have never bothered to read the quotes in historical order so ended up describing a confused Bullinger.

Did Bullinger believe in the Assumption? It appears he did in 1539. He plainly states though in later writings that one cannot know Mary was Assumed into heaven. I see a development in Bullinger here. The entire sixteenth century church was bathed in Mariology, so it would not be surprising to discover that Heinrich Bullinger didn't necessarily repudiate every aspect of it immediately. It would not be surprising as well to discover that as church history progressed from the Reformation, the bath water of Mariology gradually disappears, and I would argue, this is indeed what happened. Perhaps Bullinger never totally escaped from medieval Mariology, but his comments on the Assumption when placed in their historical context show that he may have been on his way.

Addendum 4/25/16 (18:30 PM)
One other primary source that I haven't completely worked through yet is found here. The sermon appears to be from 1558, and note the summary of this author claiming that Bullinger believed in Mary's Assumption based on the testimony of Eusebius. I'm in the process of working through Tappolet on this sermon as well. According to Tappolet's translation, the section in question mentioning Eusebius is very similar in content from the 1565 quote above. On page 293 in Tappolet, once again  Bullinger's expresses a warning about it being dangerous to investigate or talk about what Scripture withholds. One should simply believe and confess Mary is heaven with Jesus Christ, not figure out how she arrived there. See this part of the sermon in Latin:

Tapploet's German translation reads,

...über den Heimgang Mariens mit Verstand lesen, und alle lernen mögen, wie unfruchtbar und gefährlich es ist, neugierig zu forschen und darüber reden zu wollen, was uns in der Heiligen Schrift vorenthalten ist Es möge uns genügen, schlicht und einfach zu glauben und zu bekennen, daß die Jungfrau Maria, die liebe Mutter unseres Herrn Jesus Christus, durch die Gnade und das Blut ihres eigenen Sohnes ganzgeheiligt und durch die Gabe des Heiligen Geistes überreich beschenkt und allen Frauen vorgezogen, und endlich, wie von den Engeln selber (p. 293).

That Tappolet doesn't include this in his section on Bullinger and Mary's Assumption (p.327-328) leads me to believe the author above interpreting Bullinger to be affirming the Assumption because of Eusebius is mistaken. Also that the author above omitted the warning passage in his synopsis leads me to conclude Bullinger may be being misinterpreted.  

Heinrich Bullinger's Mariology? (Part One)

In Roman Catholic apologetics, Heinrich Bullinger (1504-1575) is not primarily remembered for his historical Reformation role as Zwingli's successor, but rather, what he said about Mary. The irony is that it was probably a Protestant responsible for this.

Begin Excursion: Walter Tappolet, The Marian Praise of the Reformers
In 1962, German Protestant scholar, Walter Tappolet, produced a book highlighting Marian statements from 16th century Protestants: Das Marienlob der Reformatoren: Martin Luther, Johannes Calvin, Huldrych Zwingli, Heinrich Bullinger. The title of this book translates to "The Marian Praise of the Reformers." Bridget Heal suggests that Tappolet had an "ecumenical desire to develop some Marian devotion within twentieth-century Protestantism." If indeed that's what motivated him, he in essence failed to solidify Marian devotion in subsequent Protestantism. Here we are, many years past Tappolet's study, and Rome's Marian dogmas and emphasis are still the characteristics of... Rome. What he did succeed at was to produce an anthology of material that eventually trickled down to Rome's modern-day cyber-defenders. The statements from the Reformers about Mary compiled by Tappolet often serve this typical argument:

Protestants believe in sola scriptura. The Reformers believed in sola scriptura. The original Reformers believed in Roman Catholic Marian doctrines. Therefore, Protestants today should believe in Marian doctrines.

Rome's modern cyber-defenders are probably not using Tappolet's book. What they're usually relying on is some other source that used Tappolet's book and translated this or that statement into English from Tappolet's German. This explains why their documentation is often spurious. Tappolet relied on primary sources written in a variety of non-English languages. Most of Rome's modern cyber-defenders have little idea what these sources are or where to find them. When I first began looking into this issue years ago, the typical "The Reformers believed in Mary" webpage had ridiculous documentation. Not a whole lot has changed, especially in regard to the quotes attributed to Bullinger.

It's been easier to go through Luther's writings and Calvin's writings to demonstrate that in some instances the quotes are being used out of context. In some instances (particularly with Luther), some of the earlier things said about Mary were later repudiated. In some instances, what the Reformers held about Mary isn't even what today's defenders of Rome hold about Mary. But fundamentally, sola scriptura does not claim that all people reading the Bible will necessarily arrive at the same conclusions. What it ultimately claims is that there is one divine infallible source of God's special revelation. If the original Reformers maintained something about Mary, this doesn't mean that the successors of the Reformers will also. It's not the Reformers that are the sole infallible authority, it's the Scriptures. End excursion.

Heinrich Bullinger, Devoted to Mary? Wikipedia Thinks So.
Now back to Heinrich Bullinger. Bullinger is not known for spending extraordinary efforts to write treatises about Mary. Yet, isn't it odd that if one consults his entry in Wikipedia, one of the last sections of the entry contains a treatment of his "Marian views"? Someone tacked it on sometime after May 2008. That someone is anonymous because "Work submitted to Wikipedia can be edited, used, and redistributed—by anyone...". Of all the facts one should know from a basic overview of Bullinger, someone thinks his Marian views needed to be mentioned! My guess is that someone with a Roman Catholic agenda had a hand in adding this section.

The wiki article rightly mentions Bullinger's importance for his writing of the Second Helvitic Confession. But the Wiki article also states, "Mary is mentioned several times in the Second Helvetic Confession, which expounds Bullinger's mariology." So according to Wikipedia, the very act of mentioning Mary is expounding Marian views! For the record, the word "Mary" is mentioned twice (as part of the phrase "Virgin Mary" and "ever virgin Mary").  Mary is referred to only one other time as "Blessed Virgin." Here's the alleged exposition of Bullinger's Mariology from these three isolated statements in the Second Helvitic Confession:

3,3. For Scripture has delivered to us a manifest distinction of persons, the angel saying, among other things, to the Blessed Virgin, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God" (Luke 1:35).

6,1. CHRIST IS TRUE GOD. We further believe and teach that the Son of God, our Lord Jesus Christ, was predestinated or foreordained from eternity by the Father to be the Savior of the world. And we believe that he was born, not only when he assumed flesh of the Virgin Mary, and not only before the foundation of the world was laid, but by the Father before all eternity in an inexpressible manner.

6,3. CHRIST IS TRUE MAN, HAVING REAL FLESH. We also believe and teach that the eternal Son of the eternal God was made the Son of man, from the seed of Abraham and David, not from the coitus of a man, as the Ebionites said, but was most chastely conceived by the Holy Spirit and born of the ever virgin Mary, as the evangelical history carefully explains to us (Matt., ch. 1). And Paul says: "he took not on him the nature of angels, but of the seed of Abraham." Also the apostle John says that woever does not believe that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh, is not of God. Therefore, the flesh of Christ was neither imaginary not brought from heaven, as Valentinus and Marcion wrongly imagined.

What do we actually learn about Bullinger's Mariology? The first thing that's apparent is he is not expounding on his Marian views, he's expounding on Jesus Christ, His incarnation, His deity, and His humanity. If one wanted to honestly expound on Bullinger's Mariology from this document, she's mentioned in passing with reference to her historical maternal role in the incarnation and the theological implications for the Deity and humanity of Christ. From these same statements, Here's how Wikipedia's explains how Bullinger's Mariology is "expounded":

Mary is mentioned several times in the Second Helvetic Confession, which expounds Bullinger's mariology. Chapter Three quotes the angel’s message to the Virgin Mary, " – the Holy Spirit will come over you " - as an indication of the existence of the Holy Spirit and the Trinity. The Latin text described Mary as diva, indicating her rank as a person, who dedicated herself to God. In Chapter Nine, the Virgin birth of Jesus is said to be conceived by the Holy Spirit and born without the participation of any man. The Second Helvetic Confession accepted the "Ever Virgin" notion from John Calvin, which spread throughout much of Europe with the approbation of this document in the above-mentioned countries [Chavannes 426].

The documentation given is so vague that it's meaningless. Is it a reference to Alexander Chavannes? Earnst Chavannes? Who knows? Wiki states, "The Latin text described Mary as diva, indicating her rank as a person." This is in reference to the word "blessed." Here's a link to the Latin translation. The Latin phrase used is "divam virginem." The Latin word "diva" is a noun meaning either blessed, saint or divine. Wiki says that the word indicates "rank as a person, who dedicated herself to God." Is this sense in which Bullinger is using the words divam virginem? Where is the expounding of Bullinger's view?  Is Bullinger using the word in the sense of title or a description? Where does Bullinger say Mary was of a higher rank of person who dedicated herself to God? Then the Wiki article points out that Bullinger "accepted the 'Ever Virgin' notion from John Calvin, which spread throughout much of Europe..." In actuality, the idea of Mary being "ever Virgin" was already "spread throughout much of Europe" before either Calvin or Bullinger came on the scene! Also, Calvin rarely mentioned Mary's perpetual virginity. Calvin's basic position is that the gospel writers did not wish to record what happened afterwards to Mary. His is a position of silence in regard to the state of Mary's virginity after the birth of Christ.

Bullinger on The Assumption According to Wikipedia
The Wikipedia entry then shifts gears, leaving the Second Helvetic Confession behind, stating,

Bullinger's 1539 polemical treatise against idolatry[2] expressed his belief that Mary's "sacrosanctum corpus" ("sacrosanct body") had been assumed into heaven by angels:

Hac causa credimus et Deiparae virginis Mariae purissimum thalamum et spiritus sancti templum, hoc est, sacrosanctum corpus ejus deportatum esse ab angelis in coelum.[3]

For this reason we believe that the Virgin Mary, Begetter of God, the most pure bed and temple of the Holy Spirit, that is, her most holy body, was carried to heaven by angels.

[2]De origine erroris libri duo (On the Origin of Error, Two Books)
[3]De origine erroris, Caput XVI (Chapter 16), p. 70
[4]The Thousand Faces of the Virgin Mary (1996), George H. Tavard, Liturgical Press, p. 109.

This notion that Bullinger held a lifelong adherence to Mary's Assumption has been floating around the internet for years. It's certainly true that George Tavard gives the Latin text in his book, The Thousand Faces of the Virgin Mary (The English translation cited by Wikipedia is Tavard's as well). He says though (incorrectly) that the comment is according to Bullinger's "friend and disciple Froschauer" from his book De origine erroris libri duo:

Here's where Walter Tappolet comes in. This quote, in whatever form one may find it in, probably originates from Das Marienlob der Reformatoren, p 327. Tappolet treats Bullinger on the Assumption on pages 326-327. He first presents a few Bullinger quotes which say that the Scriptures don't say anything about Mary's death or Assumption and that it's dangerous to explore where Scripture is silent. Tappolet then presents what he says is "the strangest testimony" of Bullinger on the Assumption ("Das seltsamste Zeugnis Builingers über die Frage von Mariens Himmelfahrt"). The quote is authentic (here is the page in the 1568 edition). The interesting thing about the quote is that it wasn't written for publication in 1568 towards the end of his life. Bullinger composed this book much earlier (1529; it was the companion volume to a book he wrote in 1528). Bullinger was 25 when he originally wrote this book. He revised these two volumes into one volume in 1539. It is in this 1539 edition that the Marian statement in question appears to have originally been written (see page 45). I could not locate the quote it in the 1529 edition, nor do I know if he revised this book previous to the 1539 edition. I would argue that the quote represents a development in Bullinger. The other quotes against a blatant adherence to the Assumption cited by Tappolet (from 1552 and 1565)  were penned later. Certainly Rome's defenders could have a strong case if Bullinger wrote this statement at the end of life, but the evidence suggests that he actually moved away from this radical Marian position.


The Protestant Reformers on Mary
Some of Bullinger's Marian quotes have been floating around cyber-space for years. Let's consider the following Bullinger statements from the anonymous web page, Behold Thy Mother: The Protestant Reformers on Mary. This webpage asserts: "The Reformers accepted almost every major Marian doctrine and considered these doctrines to be both scriptural and fundamental to the historic Christian Faith." That's a form of the exact argument I outline above. Here's how this webpage quotes Bullinger:

Heinrich Bullinger, Cranmer's brother-in-law, Zwingli's successor said:

'In Mary everything is extraordinary and all the more glorious as it has sprung from pure faith and burning love of God.' She is 'the most unique and the noblest member' of the Christian community . . .'The Virgin Mary . . . completely sanctified by the grace and blood of her only Son and abundantly endowed by the gift of the Holy Spirit and preferred to all . . . now lives happily with Christ in heaven and is called and remains ever-Virgin and Mother of God.'

{In Hilda Graef, Mary: A history of Doctrine and Devotion, combined ed. of vols. 1 and 2, London: Sheed and Ward, 1965, vol.2, pp.14-5}

"What pre-eminence in the eyes of God the Virgin Mary had on account of her piety, her faith, her purity, her saintliness and all her virtues, so that she can hardly be compared with any of the other saints, but should by rights be rather elevated above all of them..."; "...And if she who was wholly pure from her birth did not disdain to be purified, that is to say to receive the blessing of purification, is this not all the more reason why those who fall under the yoke of the law by reason of their real impurity should observe the same?"; "...we believe, that the pure and immaculate embodiment of the Mother of God, the Virgin Mary, the Temple of the Holy Spirit, that is to say her saintly body, was carried up into heaven by the angels..." (cited in Thurian, page 89, 197, 198)

 Let's work through these quotes and see how they stand up to scrutiny.

1. 'In Mary everything is extraordinary and all the more glorious as it has sprung from pure faith and burning love of God.' She is 'the most unique and the noblest member' of the Christian community . . . 'The Virgin Mary . . . completely sanctified by the grace and blood of her only Son and abundantly endowed by the gift of the Holy Spirit and preferred to all . . . now lives happily with Christ in heaven and is called and remains ever-Virgin and Mother of God.' {In Hilda Graef, Mary: A history of Doctrine and Devotion, combined ed. of vols. 1 and 2, London: Sheed and Ward, 1965, vol.2, pp.14-5}

I have the source cited. Hilda Graef says, "Bullinger's Mariology is nearer to Catholic beliefs than that of the other Reformers" (p.14). That's a tacit admission from this Roman Catholic writer that the Reformers are not on the exact page as Rome. Graef also notes her source for these quotes: William Tappolet. He was utilized because she says of Bullinger's actual writings, "the original work being inaccessible to me" (p.14). In other words, Graef doesn't give any references to actual contextual sources for these quotes. The quote being cited above is actually on page 15, not page 14. It turns out, it isn't one quote, it's three.  Here's how Graef cites Bullinger:

He defends Mary's perpetual virginity, including the virginity in partu and inveighs against the false Christians (Scheinchristen) who defraud her of her rightful praise: "In Mary everything is extraordinary and all the more glorious as it has sprung from pure faith and burning love of God."1 She is "the most unique and the noblest member" of the Christian community, not, however, its head or mistress.2 He will not pronounce either on her Immaculate Conception or her bodily Assumption: "Let it suffice us", he says, "simply to believe and confess that the Virgin Mary... completely sanctified by the grace and blood of her only Son and abundantly endowed by the gift of the Holy Spirit and preferred to all... now lives happily with Christ in heaven and is called and remains ever-Virgin and Mother of God... ."3

Note some of the words left out by Rome's anonymous defender. Bullinger is cited saying, "She is 'the most unique and the noblest member' of the Christian community," but Graef continues the sentence with, "not, however, its head or mistress." Why was this left out?  Then notice Rome's defender leaves out "He will not pronounce either on her Immaculate Conception or her bodily Assumption," and picks up the quote with "The Virgin Mary"! After these Bullinger snippets, Graef goes on to say, "But despite his sincere veneration for her, Bullinger rejects her invocation and mediation, though this does not mean that he is hostile to her, else he would also be an enemy of Christ." So the aspects of Bullinger that speak against Rome's Mary are left out. Why?

2. "What pre-eminence in the eyes of God the Virgin Mary had on account of her piety, her faith, her purity, her saintliness and all her virtues, so that she can hardly be compared with any of the other saints, but should by rights be rather elevated above all of them..."; "...And if she who was wholly pure from her birth did not disdain to be purified, that is to say to receive the blessing of purification, is this not all the more reason why those who fall under the yoke of the law by reason of their real impurity should observe the same?"; "...we believe, that the pure and immaculate embodiment of the Mother of God, the Virgin Mary, the Temple of the Holy Spirit, that is to say her saintly body, was carried up into heaven by the angels..." (cited in Thurian, page 89, 197, 198)

The reference here is to Max Thurian. The book being cited is Mary: Mother of the Lord Figure of the Church (1963), or perhaps Mary, Mother of All Christians. Thurian was an ecumenical Protestant at the writing of this book and not long thereafter went on to become Roman Catholic. Of Reformation Mariology, Thurian states, "One should not normally embark on this subject until one has read the magnificent book Das Marienlob der Reformatoren of W. TAPPOLET" (pp. 196-197). Like the previous quote, this offering consists of multiple quotes put together. Except for the quotes from page 89 (see ** below), all the quotes Thurian uses are from Tappolet. Like Graef, Thurian does not give any references to actual contextual sources for these quotes.  Here's what Thurian says on pages 89, 196-197:

Bullinger, the balanced Reformer, wrote: "What pre-eminence in the eyes of God the Virgin Mary had on account of her piety, her faith, her purity, her saintliness and all her virtues, so that she can hardly be compared with any of the other saints, but should by rights be rather elevated above all of them, appears very clearly in the first chapters of the gospels of St. Matthew and St. Luke, and particularly in her "Magnificat." ... If Mary really is the Mother of the Lord, as the blessed Elizabeth, filled with the Holy Spirit, so explicitly named her, then it is altogether just that she should be named by the Fathers of the Church "theotokos," that is to say Mother of God (Gottesgebarerin or Muttergottes). Nestorius denied that in the most infamous manner. All the same, if women of the Old Testament like Sarah, Rebecca, Leah, Rachel, Deborah, Hannah, Abigail, Esther, Susannah, Judith and others were notable and excellent women how much more notable and worthy of praise is she who surpasses with distinction all women, the blessed Virgin Mother! ' [Translation of G. DUMEIGE, The Catholic Faith, L'Orante, Paris 1961, p. 191.]**

In connection with the purification according to the Law of Mary in the Temple, Bullinger, the successor of Zwingli, wrote: "And if she who was wholly pure from her birth did not disdain to be purified, that is to say to receive the blessing of purification, is this not all the more reason why those who fall under the yoke of the law by reason of their real impurity should observe the same" (ibid., p. 282).

Bullinger wrote in 1565: "The most learned theologians say that one cannot assert anything on the matter of the death or the assumption of the virgin. To wish to unearth or clarify certain facts on which scripture is silent is not without its dangers. Let us content ourselves with believing that the Virgin Mary is indeed active in heaven and has received every beatitude after her." However, in 1568, he wrote on the same subject- "Elijah was transported body and soul in a chariot of fire; he was not buried in any Church bearing his name, but mounted up to heaven, so that on the one hand we might know what immortality and recompense God prepares for his faithful prophets and for his most outstanding and incomparable creatures, and on the other hand in order to withdraw from men the possibility of venerating the human body of the saint. It is for this reason, we believe, that the pure and immaculate embodiment of the Mother of God, the Virgin Mary, the Temple of the Holy Spirit, that is to say her saintly body, was carried up into heaven by the angels' (ibid., p. 327).

Once again we see information left out, Bullinger's 1565 comment that one should be silent on the Assumption. The more interesting part of this section from Thurian is Bullinger's 1568 apparent about face on Mary's Assumption, but as demonstrated above, the quote wasn't originally from 1568, but from 1539. Hilda Graef makes the same error:

In his work De engine erroris, 16 (1568), he even professes the belief that the body of the Virgin Mother of God has been taken up to heaven by the angels, because he does not think that Elijah can have been superior to her in this respect. As Tappolet points out, this sentence, still retained in the Dutch edition of 1602, was eliminated in the French edition of 1549 (Geneva).

Conclusion
In part two, I'm going to attempt to present a more balanced view of Bullinger's Mariology. It is the case that he held to notions about Mary that modern Protestants do not. However, he was not on the same page as Rome, both then and now. The goal is not to make Bullinger sound either Roman Catholic or Protestant, but to let him be who was.

It could very well be that Luther, Calvin, Zwingli and  Bullinger's views on Mary were as Rome's defenders claim. If they were, then so be it. The entire sixteenth century church was bathed in Mariology, so it would not be surprising to discover the Reformers didn't necessarily repudiate every aspect of it immediately. It would not be surprising as well to discover that as church history progressed from the Reformation, the bath water of Mariology gradually disappears, and I would argue, this is indeed what happened.

**Addendum
Thurian claims the citations on page 89 come from a "Translation of G. DUMEIGE, The Catholic Faith, L'Orante, Paris 1961, p. 191." This refers to the French version of this book, La foi catholique. I don't have this source to check, but these quotes are on pages 284 and 285 of Tappolet. I would not be surprised to find out that Thurian actually got these quotes from Tappolet rather than Dumeige.

Calvin: "There have been certain strange folk who have wished to suggest from this passage [Matt 1:25] that the Virgin Mary had other children..."

Add caption

This entry is a follow-up to: Tim Staples Says: Apologists Make Mistakes Too! There has been some interesting discussion on the blog entry recently posted by Mr. Staples about Calvin's view of Mary's perpetual virginity.

One point of interest was an obscure Calvin quote used by the Roman Catholic author Max Thurian, Mary: Mother of All Christians, pp. 39-40. His book was originally written in French in 1962. Thurian states:

Lastly Calvin's thought is made even more clear in a sermon on Matt. 1:22-25, which was published in 1562 in the shorthand notes of Denys Ragueneau: "There have been certain strange folk who have wished to suggest from this passage [Matt 1:25] that the Virgin Mary had other children than the Son of God, and that Joseph had then dwelt with her later; but what folly this is! for the gospel writer did not wish to record what happened afterwards; he simply wished to make clear Joseph's obedience and to show also that Joseph had been well and truly assured that it was God who had sent His angel to Mary. He had therefore never dwelt with her nor had he shared her company. There we see that he had never known her person for he was separated from his wife. He could marry another all the more because he could not enjoy the woman to whom he was betrothed; but he rather desired to forfeit his rights and abstain from marriage, being yet always married: he preferred, I say, to remain thus in the service of God rather than to consider what he might still feel that he could come to. He had forsaken everything in order that he might subject himself fully to the will of God.

And besides this, our Lord Jesus Christ is called the first-born. This is not because there was a second or a third, but because the gospel writer is paying regard to the precedence. Scripture speaks thus of naming the first-born whether or no there was any question of the second. Thus we see the intention of the Holy Spirit. This is why to lend ourselves to foolish subtleties would be to abuse Holy Scripture, which is, as St. Paul says, "to be used for our edification."(21)

(21) La Revue réformée 1956/4, pp. 63-64.

Documentation
If one checks Thurian's documentation for his Calvin quote, it doesn't appear to me that he actually utilized a primary source, but rather took his citation from La Revue réformée 1956/4, pp. 63-64. In other words, the Calvin quote in question that is presented in English came from the French, and was taken from a French journal. Where did the French journal get it? Did the journal article use the primary source? I don't know. Thurian says the sermon was published in 1562.  It's unclear to me when exactly the sermon was preached. T.H.L. Parker says Calvin began preaching on a Harmony of the Gospels in 1559 and did so until the end of his life, so it could very well have been 1562, but since the book was published in 1562, I would posit it was probably preached sometime between 1559-1561 (see Parker's chart here). One other interesting detail is that "Calvin left the publishing of his sermons to to others with the exception of four sermons which he revised and published..."

I tracked down the actual sermon. All the sources I checked mentioned that the person who took the shorthand notes on Calvin's sermons during this period, Denys Ragueneau, was a paid professional in this field, and his abilities surpassed earlier attempts to capture Calvin's sermons.

Context
Typical of Calvin on this issue, the subject matter of the entire sermon does not dwell on Mary, and even less on Joseph. The quote in question is more of a passing comment, or more of an an end-note (for lack of a better term) stuck right at the very end of the sermon:

The English Calvin translation from  Neville B. Cyer of Thurian pp. 38-39 is good, but leaves out some things:

And notably it is said that he did not know the Virgin until she had given birth to her first Son. By this the Evangelist means that Joseph had not taken her as his wife to live with her, but rather to obey God, and to fulfill his obligation to her. It was thus not for reasons of carnal love, nor for profit, nor for anything else that he took her as his wife; it was to obey God and to show that he accepted the grace proffered. This was a blessing, that he could not even fully appreciate. Here is what we must retain.

There have been certain strange folk who have wished to suggest from this passage  that the Virgin Mary had other children than the Son of God, and that Joseph had then dwelt with her later; but what folly this is! for the gospel writer did not wish to record what happened afterwards; he simply wished to make clear Joseph's obedience and to show also that Joseph had been well and truly assured that it was God who had sent His angel to Mary. He had therefore never dwelt with her nor had he shared her company. There we see that he had never known her person for he was separated from his wife. He could marry another all the more because he could not enjoy the woman to whom he was betrothed; but he rather desired to forfeit his rights and abstain from marriage, being yet always married: he preferred, I say, to remain thus in the service of God rather than to consider what he might still feel that he could come to. He had forsaken everything in order that he might subject himself fully to the will of God.

And besides this, our Lord Jesus Christ is called the first-born. This is not because there was a second or a third, but because the gospel writer is paying regard to the precedence. Scripture speaks thus of naming the first-born whether or no there was any question of the second. Thus we see the Holy Spirit's intention. To give ourselves over to subtle foolishness on this question would be to abuse the holy Scriptures, which is to be useful for our edification, as St Paul says. As for the rest, when men are so unstable and have such itching ears for new and appealing speculations, the devil must possess them as much as they harden themselves, so that they not be brought to the right path and thus trouble heaven and earth; rather, they must maintain their errors and dreams with a diabolical obstinacy. How much the more must we be sober to receive the doctrine that is given to us to accept the Redeemer who is sent to us from God his Father, and that we know his virtue so as to learn to hold ourselves fully in him.

Thus we bow down before the majesty of our good God.

Analysis
There are similarities between this comment and Calvin's earlier comments on Mary's virginity. In the well-known comments from Calvin's Commentaries, his basic point is that a necessary inference that Mary had other children cannot be made from the Biblical texts of Matthew 13:55 and 1:25, and it's “folly” to make a text say more than it does. In this sermon he likewise stresses that "Though some fantasies have been expressed that this passage is teaching that the virgin Mary had other children than Jesus and that Joseph lived with her afterwards, this is nonsense. The Evangelist had no interest in reciting what happened after."

There are some differences as well. When Calvin says, "And besides this, our Lord Jesus Christ is called the first-born. This is not because there was a second or a third, but because the gospel writer is paying regard to the precedence," Calvin's commentary says, "He is called first-born; but it is for the sole purpose of informing us that he was born of a virgin."

The sermon comments have some interesting details about Joseph. One thing to keep in mind is not reading into what Calvin is saying. For instance, when Calvin says, "He had therefore never dwelt with her nor had he shared her company," and "Joseph had not taken her as his wife to live with her," it would be inconsistent within the context to conclude Calvin is saying that Joseph and Mary never lived together, even after the birth of Jesus. Calvin is not speculating as to what happened afterwards based on this verse (that's his main point!).  It would be a contextual error then to think Calvin here means that Joseph was some sort of monk never dwelling with Mary. The point Calvin is making concerns the period of betrothal. See particularly Calvin's comments on Matthew 1:18-25 where Calvin says "before they came together" means "before they came to dwell together as husband and wife, and to make one home and family" and "The meaning will thus be, that the virgin had not yet been delivered by her parents into the hands of her husband, but still remained under their roof." See also Calvin's comments on Luke 2:1-7 and Luke 2:48-58.

Calvin never comes right out and says Mary was a perpetual virgin, as Roman Catholics understand it. Calvin quite explicitly denies that Mary took a vow of perpetual virginity in his commentary on Luke 1:34-38:

The conjecture which some have drawn from these words, that she had formed a vow of perpetual virginity, is unfounded and altogether absurd. She would, in that case, have committed treachery by allowing herself to be united to a husband, and have poured contempt on the holy covenant of marriage; which could not have been done without mockery of God. Although the Papists have exercised barbarous tyranny on this subject, yet they have never proceeded so far as to allow the wife to form a vow of continence at her own pleasure. Besides, it is an idle and unfounded supposition that a monastic life existed among the Jews.

We must reply, however, to another objection that the virgin refers to the future, and so declares that she will have no intercourse with a man. The probable and simple explanation is that the greatness or rather majesty of the subject made so powerful an impression on the virgin, that all her senses were bound and locked up in astonishment, when she is informed that the Son of God will be born, she imagines something unusual, and for that reason leaves conjugal intercourse out of view. Hence she breaks out in amazement, 'How shall this be?"

But if one reads between the lines of the sermon, it appears Calvin is saying Mary had no other children besides Jesus. Without any clear denial that Mary was not a perpetual virgin, and with comments that safeguard against the idea that Mary had other children- I think this is why so many writers have concluded Calvin held to the perpetual virginity of Mary- it's a conclusion from inference rather than a direct admission from Calvin. The problem with the conclusion is that it goes against Calvin's specific guidelines- to not speculate beyond what he thought the Scriptures stated. To be fair to Calvin is to allow him to say what he said, not what we want him to say. If one really wanted to give Calvin's opinion on this issue, it is to simply say that Calvin did not think it correct to speculate. This isn't the answer polemicists want to hear, but it is letting Calvin be Calvin.


The Argument From Tim Staples on Calvin and Perpetual Virginity
Mr Staples eventually changed his original blog entry. He originally stated:

This second myth is even more widespread. I have found it not only taught and published by many Catholics, but I even found one popular Calvinist apologist who has it up on his website as being true. And that is, John Calvin actually taught the Perpetual Virginity of Mary. He did not.
He revised it to:

This second myth is even more widespread, but I must qualify it. There can be no doubt that John Calvin, at least at some point in his career, believed in the Perpetual Virginity of Mary. But to place him on the same level of Luther, Zwingli and Wesley is misguided. It is not to paint the entire picture accurately.

Mr. Staples was right originally. There is no explicit teaching from John Calvin on Mary's perpetual virginity. What there is are statements from Calvin saying not to go beyond the text of scripture to speculate as to whether or not Mary had other children.  In regard to the revised statement, the "one point in his career" in which Calvin is said to have believed in Mary's perpetual virginity is the sermon published in 1562 discussed above.  The way Mr. Staples sees it is that this sermon is "earlier in his career" as compared to Calvin's final word on the matter in his Commentary published in 1563. According to T.H.L. Parker though, Calvin's commentary on the Synoptics was published in 1555. As I stated above, the sermon is probably from 1559-1561. It would appear to me that the commentary was before the sermon. Even if the Staples dating scenario is correct and Calvin vacillated on this question in the span of year at the end of his life- this seems like a stretch to me- certainly possible, but hardly likely. Calvin was a consistent theologian. Certainly there were changes in his thinking, but they typically were not saying one thing one year and the opposite the next.

On the other hand, Mr. Staples makes some interesting arguments that I'd like to contrast with some comments from Steve Hays :

...[I]f we read further in Calvin's commentary and head over to Luke 1:34, in volume 2 of this same work I mentioned above, he seems to deny what he had earlier accepted as true.

Luke 1:34 is the famous text where Mary, having heard God's invitation for her to become the Mother of God through the message of the Archangel Gabriel, asks the obvious question: "How shall this be since I know not man?" In other words, "How is this going to happen since I do not plan on having conjugal relations?" For more details on this and more, get my book!

Calvin's commentary on this text reads: “The conjecture which some have drawn from these words, that she had formed a vow of perpetual virginity, is unfounded and altogether absurd. She would, in that case, have committed treachery by allowing herself to be united to a husband, and have poured contempt on the holy covenant of marriage…”

Notice here, he not only denies this text could be used to prove Mary had a vow of Perpetual Virginity before her marriage to St. Joseph, but that this "would have poured contempt on the holy covenant of marriage." This would seem to deny the Perpetual Virginity of Mary itself as a possible consideration for Calvin, and it seems to be a change in Calvin's thinking on the matter.

So what may have informed this change? I argue, it may well have been his understanding of the "covenant" of marriage. Remember, John Calvin did not believe marriage to be a sacrament that is ratified as such at the altar of a church and then consummated on the wedding night. It was a "covenant" conditioned upon certin essential things, including the exchange of vows, a minister present, public witnesses, and the consummation. In his commentary on Eph. 5:28, for example, he says:

Marriage was appointed by God on the condition that the two should be one flesh; and that this unity may be the more sacred, he again recommends it to our notice by the consideration of Christ and his church.

The consummation, for Calvin, was essential to marriage. But even more, in his commentary on Eph. 5:31:

And they two shall be one flesh. They shall be one man, or, to use a common phrase, they shall constitute one person; which certainly would not hold true with regard to any other kind of relationship. All depends on this, that the wife was formed of the flesh and bones of her husband. Such is the union between us and Christ, who in some sort makes us partakers of his substance. 'We are bone of his bone, and flesh of his flesh,' (Ge 2:23;) not because, like ourselves, he has a human nature, but because, by the power of his Spirit, he makes us a part of his body, so that from him we derive our life.

If "all is dependent upon this," it is no wonder that Calvin (and this followers today) would eventually come to view the PVBVM as out of the question.

The Argument From Steve Hays
This same point Mr. Staples makes was alluded to recently by Steve Hays:

Finally, there's a substantive theological issue. If Mary and Joseph never consummated their marriage, then it was never a real marriage (by Jewish standards). In that event, Jesus is not the legal stepson of Joseph, in which case he can't trace his family tree through either the Matthean or Lucan genealogies.

I'm not exactly sure what Calvin would say about this argument in regard to Mary and Joseph. To be consistent, any sort of comment would be going beyond Calvin's stated opinion into the realm of speculation. In terms of sheer logic, the point Hays makes is cogent, and I would agree with him.

Hays also says,

It comes as no revelation that the Protestant Reformers agreed with the Latin Church and (some) church fathers on a number of issues. There's continuity as well as discontinuity. So it wouldn't be some great coup to discover points of agreement between Luther or Calvin with the Latin Church or some church fathers. That was never in dispute.  

Hays gets to the heart of the issue. What I've found is that the alleged Mariology of the Reformers has been used by the defenders of Rome to show that the Reformers practiced sola scriptura and held to distinctly Roman doctrines. Therefore, they argue a few different ways:

a) Romanism is biblical
b) Sola Scriptura is inconsistent (or all Protestants should agree as to what the Scriptura teaches)
c) To be consistent Protestants, following the direct opinions of the original Protestants is necessary.

Hays though points out what any good Protestant historian would say: within all periods of church history, there is continuity and discontinuity. It doesn't surprise me or embarrass me as a Protestant to discover Luther believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary. Nor does the view of Calvin that appears to affirm the notion of perpetual virginity between the lines while at the same time saying not to speculate beyond the Biblical text. When one closely scrutinizes the Mariology of the Reformers, one finds exactly what Hays says: there's continuity as well as discontinuity with the Reformers and earlier periods of church history as well as the period in which they lived.