What Did Ulrich Zwingli Look Like?

The Internet has made it easy to discover what a person from the past looks like. Simply image search their name, and "poof!" there it is. I don't recall ever questioning or doubting what Ulrich Zwingli looked like. Famous people in the past often sat for a portrait.  However, I came across an interesting tidbit from secular historian Will Durant's massive volume on the Reformation. Durant says, 

"We have no portrait of him from life, but his contemporaries described him as a handsome, ruddy-faced, full-blooded man, with a melodious voice that captured his congregation."

Interesting. Google's A.I. makes the following admission:

While it's true that contemporary portraits from Zwingli's lifetime are scarce, we do have some depictions, primarily created after his death, notably prints by Conrad Meyer in the 17th century, based on earlier (though sometimes imagined) sources like Hans Asper, giving us recognizable images, even if their absolute accuracy is debated. So, you have to look for later engravings or paintings rather than immediate photos or sketches from the 1520s-30s.

If Google A.I. is correct, the popular on-line paintings of Zwingli seem to be based on the work of Conrad Meyer (1618-1689). He based it on work from the sixteenth century by Hans Asper which Meyer had in the form of a wood cut. Google A.I states "The woodcut is a reverse copy of an original oil-on-parchment painting created by Hans Asper in 1531, the same year Zwingli died." Below, here is Asper's rendering / woodcut and the painting created later by Conrad Meyer:

 Church historian Philp Schaff states, 

Zwingli was also a devoted pastor, cheerful, kind, hospitable and benevolent. He took great interest in young men, and helped them to an education. He was, as Bullinger says, a fine-looking man, of more than middle size, with a florid complexion, and an agreeable, melodious voice, which, though not strong, went to the heart. We have no portrait from his lifetime; he had no Lucas Kranach near him, like Luther; all his pictures are copies of the large oil painting of Hans Asper in the city library at Zurich, which was made after his death, and is rather hard and wooden.

This is simply a curiosity to me... that sometimes certainty on a detail from the past isn't all that certain when you do a deeper deconstructive dive. A fascinating web article takes a look at the way Zwingli was thought of after his death in the war of Kappel.  

[Zwingli's death in battle] was an image problem for Zurich, which had regained its strength after the War of Kappel. Therefore the Council of Zurich sponsored a magnificent edition of Zwingli’s complete work on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of his death... With these books, the people of Zurich wanted to prove that Zwingli’s teachings were still being followed and that his Reformation had thus been successful. This means that the Council reinterpreted Zwingli’s death: the man who died wasn’t a heretic but a martyr.

This is exactly what the dedication of this work tells us. It reads “To the Holy and Catholic Church of all believers, the beloved bride of our King and Priest Christ, and to all believing future generations, the vindication of Mister Huldrich Zwingli and his works through their publication by Rudolf Gwalther from Zurich.”

Gwalther had held the position as the highest official of the Zurich state church since 1575. He had a personal interest in Zwingli’s rehabilitation. He was married to Zwingli’s daughter Regula. His daughter was to marry the son of Heinrich Bullinger, his predecessor. The

Zurich state priesthood established itself as a closed caste.

The vignette of the dedication perfectly illustrates how Zurich wanted Zwingli to be perceived. It depicts Christ cleansing the church from the merchants.

Through his writings against the Anabaptists, Zwingli justified the actions of the Zurich Council against this group of Reformed who were not willing to accept the authority of the city council in matters of faith.

To this day, the historical image of Zwingli is obscured by various images that were created for various purposes. With dwindling numbers of churchgoers, a Reformed church has to present a tolerant founding father. The holy warrior Huldrych Zwingli no longer fits our age.

 

Ulrich Zwingli Denial the Canonicity of the Book of Revelation, Revisited

Did the early Protestant Reformer Ulrich Zwingli deny the canonicity of the book of Revelation? Apparently so.  An earlier Beggars All entry documented a quote demonstrating it. That quote is sometimes linked to this other Zwingli quote: 

"The Apocalypse has no savour of the mouth or mind of John. I can, if I so will, reject its testimonies."

This entry will not seek to argue otherwise: the evidence suggests Zwingli did deny the canonicity of the book of Revelation. Rather, the purpose is to take a closer look at this quote, correctly document it, and explore the context. This quote has complicated documentation. The reason is due to a seemingly inadvertent error in documentation from the nineteenth century. What were Zwingli's reasons for his rejection of Revelation in this context? We'll see he did not go deep into his reasons, but he did go on to positively interpret a passage in Revelation to refute Roman Catholics using the book.  

Documentation
The quote in the English form presented seems to come from the theologian William Barclay:

Zwingli unequivocally rejected it: "With the Apocalypse we have no concern, for it is not a biblical book.... The Apocalypse has no savour of the mouth or mind of John. I can, if I so will, reject its testimonies." (William Barclay, Many Witnesses, One Lord, 87).

For the second quote here under scrutiny, Barclay doesn't document it, but others do. Church historian Phillip Schaff writes: "In another place he says: "Apocal. liber non sapit os et ingenium Joannis." De clar. Verbi Dei, p. 310." Here's where the documentation gets complicated. Schaff cites "De clar. Verbi Dei, p. 310." I searched a lot for this source:  De claritate verbi Dei, or in English, Of the Clarity and Certainty of the Word of God.  A solid English translation is easily available, as are the original language sources (there does not appear to be multiple differing original langue versions (i.e. content) of this treatise like there are with some of Luther's writings).  However, I was directly looking for an old edition in which the quote appears on page 310. That does not seem to exist. I'm going to posit it doesn't exist. I suspect Dr. Schaff may have utilized an earlier secondary source without checking the reference

Zwingli, De clar. verbi dei, p. 310: Apocal. liber prorsus non sapit os et ingenium Joannis. Possum ergo testimonia citata si velim rejicere. The same author declares (Werke, II. 1, p. 169): Us Apocalypsi nemend wir kein Kundschafft an, denn es nit ein bibl. Buch ist.

I think this reference is erroneous. The reason why I say this is that the quote corresponds exactly to page 310 in Huldrici Zuinglii Opera, volumen primum. This volume does contain De claritate verbi Dei, but the quote is found in the later presented treatise Exposito et Confirmatio Articulorum Sive Conclusionum (1523). It makes sense to me that nineteenth century writers were typically relying on this standard collection of Zwingli's writings. I don't think the author intended to obfuscate the reference. It seems innocuous. If I'm correct, I've debunked a very old documentation error. 

The correct primary source therefore is the treatise Exposito et Confirmatio Articulorum Sive Conclusionum (1523). This is Zwingli's detailed explanation of his 67 Articles. These 67 Articles were presented as a public disputation against Roman Catholics in January 27, 1523. This explanatory treatise was presented July 14, 1523 (half a year later). The text in question is in regard to Article 20: "That God desires to give us all things in his name, whence it follows that outside of this life we need no mediator except himself." To my knowledge, no complete English translation of this treatise is available. 

The following are pictures of pages 310-311-312 from Huldrici Zuinglii Opera, volumen primum. I've included these multiple pages to present Zwingli's full use of Revelation. Also included is a complimentary Geran version. Rather than commission someone to do an extended English translation of these passages, am online translator was utilized. While these are not perfect, they do provide the gist of Zwingli's main points.   

Context

Rough English Translation from Google A.I.

Finally, they bring out two verses from the Apocalypse. The second is Rev. 7:8 [5:8], where it is written: When the Lamb had taken the book, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, having harps and golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints, and they sing a new song. Here the pontiffs shout in ovation: Do you not hear the saints here offering our prayers to God and praying for us? I answer: Were angels then made divine after this life? For it is the duty of angels to offer our prayers to God, as you also teach. Angels are sent to serve men; divine ones are not sent. Therefore angels are not divine. The minor proposition is clear since the contrary cannot be proved from the Scriptures. But that angels are sent, as the major proposition has, is clear from Scripture Heb. 1:11. and in many other places. It follows, then, that the offering of the twenty-four elders is not an offering of our prayers, unless you wish to understand it by the holy saints who are still on earth; but you are not accustomed to do so: for in this way many arguments with which you contend in vain would fall. It remains for you, therefore, that the twenty-four elders offer their prayers to God for us; but I will now prove that the aforesaid words have no meaning. The book of Revelation, as Jerome testifies, was not numbered among the canonical books by the ancients; besides, it was written by no teacher of the evangelist John, but by some other bishop of Ephesians; and this book does not at all reflect the genius and mouth of the Apostle. I could therefore reject the testimonies cited, if I wished; but there is no need. Let the Revelation remain in its place! But the words adduced here do not have the meaning which you are trying to wring out. That John, whoever he was, wished to outline in obscene words the redemption of Christ; then his doctrine which the Father revealed to us through him; the calling of all Jews and Gentiles, the glory and majesty of Christ, the joys of the blessed, the punishments and signs which God will inflict on us. Therefore, between these ineffable joy of the gods and the reverent adoration he introduces under the person of the twenty-four elders, who indicate their adoration by visible signs of crystal vessels, which were full of odors, demonstrating by a certain similarity taken from human uses, that the praises of the gods are as pleasing to God as odors are to us. This adoration of the gods (which I understand to be nothing else but the milky contemplation of the face of God, in which they are all absorbed) the same John expressed in another figure, namely in these words: And when the living creatures give glory and honor and blessing to him who sits on the throne, who lives forever and ever, the twenty-four elders fall down before him who sits on the throne, and worship him who lives forever and ever, and cast their crowns before the throne, saying: You are worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and be praised. Here it becomes clear that John wished to foreshadow that indescribable joy taken from the courts of princes, and the familiarity of the divine with God, under a certain similitude. For the human mind does not comprehend heavenly things, unless foreshadowed by certain earthly things. Therefore, there are no harps or bowls or crowns or such minute and frivolous things in heaven; but since these are used among us in the greatest joys, John meets our weakness with these things, foreshadowing to us in a certain way the joy and happiness of the divine, which no mortal can express in its entirety. The prayers of the saints, therefore, here are nothing else than that adoration of the twenty-four elders with which they adore God for all eternity. For in the greatest tranquility, security and peace, and in the contemplation of the face of God, the friends of God continually rejoice and are nourished, and with the greatest gratitude they sing praises. Then προσευχαὶ (which word John uses here) signifies in Greek, according to the testimony of Suida, the union of man with God, but the conversation of the human mind with God; we interpret it as prayer or supplication. The prayer of the saints, therefore, is a certain pleasing and joyful adoration, by which they look up to God, praise and adore him, as the following words declare. For after the prayers of the saints follows: And they sing a new song to God, saying: You are worthy to take the book and open its seals, because you were killed and redeemed us through your blood. In proper and eloquent words he explains what the prayers of the saints are, namely praise and thanksgiving. action by which they pursue the lamb Christ. 

Another place is Apocalypse. VIII 3, 4. But nothing will be accomplished by these words of the pontiffs, even if they were correctly interpreted, except that the angels of God offer our prayers to God. For here too they use saints in their custom for gods. The sense would therefore be to offer the prayers of the gods to God, from which sense a certain new error creeps in. But I have no reproach here; the interpreter is at fault, who added the word de, which corrupts the whole sentence. For he says: That he might offer them from the prayers of the saints, etc. If you examine them rightly, they do not have de. The words can be explained thus: And another angel came and stood at the altar, having a golden censer, and many incenses were given to him that he might offer them to the prayers of the saints; soon: And the smoke of the censers ascended with (not from) the prayers of the saints out of the hand of the angel before God. Again, the splendor of the courtly apparel, treated with a likeness, overshadows the praises of the gods. For when the twenty-four elders thus worshipped and poured out certain pleasing prayers: the angel accompanied the incense added. Then Augustine Homily 6. on the Apocalypse makes Christ from the angel, teaching that all our vows, all our prayers are offered to God and made acceptable through Christ, who offered himself for us a pleasing and sweet-smelling odor to God. Let the pious here observe the error of those who teach and defend the intercession of the gods; and not only the error, but also the malice and deceit, with which they have dared to twist the divine Scriptures to their own lust. Nor is there anything for anyone to fear, even if they continue to twist other places besides those cited: for the scripture will be safe enough, which they bring out either twisted or diminished. This is a solid foundation, that God alone is to be adored, that God alone is to be invoked, that from this one we must hope, which not even Satan can shake off.

There is also a complimentary German text of Zwingli's detailed explanation of his 67 Articles from 1523 (Article 20) found in Sämtliche Werke, Volume 2 208-209-210-211. This text reads:

Rough English Translation from Google AI:

Finally, they refer to two places from the Apocalypse, that is, from the Book of Revelation.

The first is from Revelation 5: When the Lamb had taken the book, the four beasts and the twenty-four old men fell down before the Lamb, each holding a harp and a golden cup or vessel similar to a drinking glass What florins were full of fragrance or taste,” what adornment are the beds of the saints? Here they say: Do you hear that the saints offer up our prayer to God? Or that they intercede for us? Answer: Are they then made to be angels after this time? (The angels' office is to present our prayer to God, as you say). Must you say: No! For the angels are sent to minister to men, and men who have died are not sent to do so; for there is no knowledge of this in Scripture, but much about the ministry of the angels in Hebrews 1 and elsewhere. Thus it follows that the offering of the 24th of the ages is not a presentation of our prayer, or else You must name the saints here for the devout Christians, but that is not correct; for thus many arguments or proofs against this approach fall short. It also remains that you say: "The 24 ancient worshipers, God grant their prayers for us," which is not at all the meaning of Scripture, as I intend to demonstrate, but firstly, that this book of Apocalypse is not among the ancients.

The sacred books are listed, as Jerome indicates. Secondly, it is not attributed to a truly learned John the Evangelist, but to a John who is also a bishop in Ephesus; for it has no taste of the heart and spirit of John. For what reasons I might well reject the teachings presented to me, where I thought they might trouble me; but there is no need for that. Remain apocalyptic, however it may be, but this place does not have the meaning that you could possibly deduce from it. This John, with hidden words, intended to paint the redemptive Christ, his teachings which God has revealed to us through Him, the calling of all Jews and heathens, the glory and honor of Christ, the joy of the blessed, and some punishments and signs that God will send upon us. And among other hidden things, he indicated the joy and chaste worship of the blessed (under the 24th ancient meaning; who worshiped them with visible signs of crystalline vessels, which are full of fragrant aromas), suggesting that they are as pleasing to God now, dwelling with Him, as a fragrant aroma is to us at this time. Such adoration of the blessed, which I cannot understand otherwise, neither the joyful contemplation of the face of God, in which they are completely fed and swallowed up, was depicted by John in a different way in the 4th chapter [Rev. 4.97], as follows: When the animals had worshipped God, etc., the 24 ancient ones fell down before the one who sat on the throne, and worshiped the living one for eternity, and cast their Schappel or Krentz for the throne, speaking: Lord, you are worthy that honor should be bestowed upon you, etc. In these words one hears that this John wanted to express the joy and conviviality of the blessed in the form of a great manor, on which one needs such ornaments; not that there is such bad joy in heaven as we can understand, but that he met the lesser of our understanding according to his measure. Thus, the prayers of the saints are called nothing other than the enthronement that the ancients offered to the eternal God for eternity, in that they eternally rejoice in peace and friendship in the presence of God and the world, indeed, are eternally grateful for such grace. This word is also called "orationes" by the Greeks, proseuchai [προσευχαί], which is nothing other than what Suidas speaks of, neither a union of God and man, nor a dialogue of our mind with God; this is what we call a "prayer"; but more will come from this later. That this word, the prayer of the saints, should thus be taken for the thankful, joyful adoration of the blessed, is indicated by the following words, which follow after him, when he speaks in a concluding passage or conclusion: What are the tastes of the prayers of the blessed, and singing a new song, saying: You are worthy to take the book and its seals open to us; for you were slain and bought us from all the world, etc. He then expresses in his own words what the prayers are, namely a praise of the blessed, which they have offered to the lamb Christ.

The other place is in the Apocalypse, chapter 8 [Rev. 8:37]. And so that we may briefly come to that, these same words are not relevant, even if they are well translated. For they could not bring anything else from it than that the angels of God answered our prayer; for they could not take the holy one otherwise for the blessed, as their custom is. And who then understands the meaning that the angels offer up the prayers of the blessed, which, however, would be a new one. But I do not advise you here; the fool is guilty and they are not; he has added a small Latin word "de"; that has distorted the whole meaning when he says: 'Ut daret de orationibus sanctorum etc.'. The actual meaning of the Greek words has "de" and sounds like this: And another angel came and stood by or above the altar, having a golden perfume vessel, and he was given many flavors or perfumes, which he added to the prayers of the blessed on the golden altar before the throne.And the fragrance of the sweetness arose with the prayers of the blessed from the hand of the angel before God. Here everyone notices well that John again says nothing other than: When the 24 elders had made their prayers, the angel (associated with Thura) also added a fragrant fragrance to them, etc. In addition, Augustine himself, in Apocalypsim Homelia 6 (whether they are true), makes Christ the reason that all our prayers are accepted by God through the Lord Christ; for he offered himself to God a fragrant fragrance for us. 

Conclusion
It seems obvious that Zwingli did not accept the canonicity of Revelation, and he did so very early in his Reformation career (1523). His reasoning appears to rest entirely on previous precedent in church history: particularly if canonicity rested on apostolic authorship, the centuries of doubts about who the writer of Revelation actually was played heavily in Zwingli's reasoning.  This differs from Luther's early rejection. Luther did utilize the precedent of church history but went beyond it to initially discrediting the consistency of its content with the rest of the New Testament (he later though came to accept the canonicity of Revelation). I suspect that Zwingli's rejection was not influenced by Luther, but rather by the Roman Catholic Desiderius Erasmus. Zwingli was extremely fond of Erasmus, and I think it would be ironic to discover that Zwingli's rejection was influenced by a Roman Catholic! In fairness to Rome's defenders, I have not located the exact comments from Erasmus questioning the authorship of Revelation. It's said multiple times on various webpages, but I've yet to come by the exact comments from Erasmus.

An interesting aspect of this context is that Zwingli does not simply reject Roman Catholic argumentation relying on Revelation to prove the intercessory prayers of the saints. Rather, the crude English translation above states, "Let the Revelation remain in its place!" He goes on to exegete the passages Rome's defenders were relying on. Zwingli concludes, "The prayers of the saints, therefore, here are nothing else than that adoration of the twenty-four elders with which they adore God for all eternity." While I'm not overly fond of Zwingli, I appreciate his efforts to positively interact with a text he did not think canonical. 

Zwingli: Hercules and Socrates are Redeemed and in Heaven?

What will be the eternal fate of non-Christian people? Rome's Council of Florence declared "those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart 'into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels.'” The statement seems straight-forward and direct.  Later though the Catechism of the Catholic Church "clarified" it by stating:

The Catholic Church recognizes in other religions that search, among shadows and images, for the God who is unknown yet near since he gives life and breath and all things and wants all men to be saved. Thus, the Church considers all goodness and truth found in these religions as "a preparation for the Gospel and given by him who enlightens all men that they may at length have life"(843).

The harmony of these statements has been so construed that one defender of Rome, Jimmy Akin of Catholic Answers, goes as far as saying even some atheists may even have a positive eternal fate:  "It’s also possible for a person to die in God’s friendship even if the person didn’t consciously know God during life."

I point out this issue within Rome to segue into a similar situation that occurred between some of the early Protestant Reformers. Shortly before his death, Huldrych Zwingli wrote a document entitled, A Short and Clear Exposition of the Christian Faith to the Christian King., 1531. In the chapter entitled "Everlasting Life" Zwingli presents a rebuttal to the notion of soul sleep. In conclusion he stated,

I believe, then, that the souls of the faithful fly to heaven as soon as they leave the body, come into the presence of God, and rejoice forever. Here, most pious King, if you govern the state entrusted to you by God as David, Hezekiah, and Josiah did, you may hope to see first God Himself in His very substance, in His nature and with all His endowments and powers, and to enjoy all these, not sparingly but in full measure, not with the cloying effect that generally accompanies satiety, but with that agreeable completeness which involves no surfeiting, just as the rivers, that flow unceasingly into the sea and flow back through the depths of the earth, bring no loathing to mankind, but rather gain and joy, ever watering, gladdening and fostering new germs of life. The good which we shall enjoy is infinite and the infinite cannot be exhausted; therefore no one can become surfeited with it, for it is ever now and yet the same. Then you may hope to see the whole company and assemblage of all the saints, the wise, the faithful, brave, and good who have lived since the world began. Here you will see the two Adams, the redeemed and the redeemer, Abel, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Judah, Moses, Joshua, Gideon, Samuel, Phineas, Elijah, Elisha, Isaiah, and the Virgin Mother of God of whom he prophesied, David, Hezekiah, Josiah, the Baptist, Peter, Paul; here too, Hercules, Theseus, Socrates, Aristides, Antigonus, Numa, Camillus, the Catos and Scipios; here Louis the Pious, and your predecessors, the Louis, Philips, Pepins, and all your ancestors who have gone hence in faith. In short there has not been a good man and will not be a holy heart or faithful soul from the beginning of the world to the end thereof that you will not see in heaven with God. And what can be imagined more glad, what more delightful, what, finally, more honorable than such a sight? To what can all our souls more justly bend all their strength than to the attainment of such a life? And may meantime the dreaming Catabaptists deservedly sleep in the regions below a sleep from which they will never wake. Their error comes from the fact that they do not know that with the Hebrews the word for sleeping is used for the word for dying, as is more frequently the case with Paul than there is any need of demonstrating at present.

Did you catch some of those who Zwingli says "fly to heaven as soon as they leave the body, come into the presence of God, and rejoice forever"? "Hercules, Theseus, Socrates, Aristides, Antigonus, Numa, Camillus, the Catos and Scipios..." Zwingli says, "there has not been a good man and will not be a holy heart or faithful soul from the beginning of the world to the end thereof that you will not see in heaven with God."

These words from Zwingli did not go unnoticed. Luther wrote about it towards the end of his life:

[A]fter Zwingli’s death a book came out which he is supposed to have written shortly before his death. It was entitled Exposition of the Christian Faith to the Christian King, etc., and was supposed to be better than all his previous books. That it had to be Zwingli’s was evident from his wild, confused language and from his previously held opinion [about the Lord’s Supper].

I have become very frightened about that book, not on my account but on his account. For, because he was able to write this after our agreement at Marburg, it is certain that in every respect he dealt with us with an insincere heart and tongue at Marburg. Therefore I had to despair (as I still must) of the salvation of his soul, if he died with such a disposition, regardless of the fact that his disciples and successors made him out to be a saint and martyr. O Lord God, this man a saint and martyr!

In this book he not only remains an enemy of the holy sacrament but also becomes a full-blown heathen. This is the marvelous improvement for which I had hoped. You can see what I mean: In somewhat different words he addresses the previously mentioned king thus: “There you will see in the same fellowship all holy, godly, wise, brave, honorable people, the redeemed and the Redeemer, Adam, Abel, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Judah, Moses, Joshua, Gideon, Samuel, Phinehas, Elijah, Elisha, also Isaiah and the Virgin Mother of God of whom he prophesied, David, Hezekiah, Josiah, the Baptist, Peter, and Paul; Hercules, Theseus, Socrates, Aristides, Antigonus, Numa, Camillus, the Catos and Scipios and all your ancestors who have departed in the faith,” etc.

This is written in his book which (as has been said) is supposed to be his most excellent and best book, produced just before his death. Tell me, any one of you who wants to be a Christian, what need is there of baptism, the sacrament, Christ, the gospel, or the prophets and Holy Scripture if such godless heathen, Socrates, Aristides, yes, the cruel Numa, who was the first to instigate every kind of idolatry at Rome by the devil’s revelation, as St. Augustine writes in the City of God, and Scipio the Epicurean, are saved and sanctified along with the patriarchs, prophets, and apostles in heaven, even though they knew nothing about God, Scripture, the gospel, Christ, baptism, the sacrament, or the Christian faith? What can such an author, preacher, and teacher believe about the Christian faith except that it is no better than any other faith and that everyone can be saved by his own faith, even an idolater and an Epicurean like Numa and Scipio? (LW 38:289-291).

Luther and Zwingli Had to Admit Mary's Perpetual Virginity Before the Marburg Colloquy?

The following comment was left on a previous blog entry:

James,Could you help me find a quote online that I am quite sure I read in a book about 30 years ago? At the Marburg Cooloquy where Luther and Zwingli argued about the Real Presence, before the fireworks began, both men had to prove they had an orthodox understanding of scripture by agreeing that Mary was a Perpetual Virgin despite the term "brother". I may not have it 100% correct but I think I am close. I have googled for it but to no avail. Are you familiar with this? Could you post it or email it? Thanks.

I don't recall ever hearing this before, but it sounded intriguing enough to look into. My suspicion is that the thirty-year old memory may refer to something from The Marburg Colloquy and the Marburg Articles (1529) [LW 38:3]. Luther came face to face with Zwingli in 1529 at Marburg.

In one of the reports of this meeting, a dialog between Oecolmapadius and Luther on the Lord's Supper is described. Oecolmapadius argues for a metaphorical interpretation of "This is my body," while Luther argues for a literal interpretation.  And then:

Zwingli begins to accuse Luther of prejudice because he [Luther] testifies that he is unwilling to abandon his view. In the same way Helvidius, with reference to the word “brother,” could prove [that Jesus had brothers], since it is clearly written “his brothers” [John 7:3]. We should compare one passage of Scripture with another. Therefore, if we do not have a passage which says, “This is the figure of my body,” we nevertheless have a passage which leads us away from bodily eating. For that reason [it follows] he did not give his body physically in the Supper. (LW 38:54)

Luther proves from Scripture against Helvidius that the word “brother” can be used for “cousin.” But it cannot be proved that “This is my body” is a trope. If God told me to eat a crabapple, I would eat spiritually. For wherever the word of God is, there is spiritual eating. Therefore, since he added the bodily eating by saying, “This is my body,” it is to be believed. By faith we eat this body which is given for us. The mouth receives the body of Christ, the soul believes the words that it is eating the body. (LW 38:55)

Here is another description:

Zwingli: It is prejudice if he does not want to give up his opinion. He is not willing to give it up unless a passage is cited which proves that “body” means “figure of my body.” This is the prejudice of heretics, for example, of Helvidius who denied that Jesus was the only son of Mary, because it cannot be proved from Scripture. It is necessary to compare one Scripture passage with another. Even if we do not have [a passage that says], “This is the figure of my body,” we do have [a passage] which leads us away from the bodily eating. It is the purpose of our meeting here to look at the passages, and we ought to consider the passage [in John 6] because it leads away from bodily eating. Hence it follows that in the Supper Christ did not give himself in bodily fashion. (LW 38:20)

Luther promised that they would lay aside all passions for the sake of God and the prince. What is lost, is lost. Let us hope for the future. Even if they cannot agree on everything, they might discuss at the close of the colloquy whether or not they can regard each other as brethren.—As to the argument of Helvidius: It can be proved from Scripture that the word “brother” may be used for “cousin.” But it cannot be proved that “This is my body” is a trope. What you call eating may do away with all eating; “flesh, flesh” means eating according to you. Form your own opinion, this has nothing to do with the matter itself; I would eat rotten apples or dried-up pears if God would place them before me. Where the word of God is, there is spiritual eating. Whenever God speaks to us, faith is required, and such faith means “eating.” If, however, he adds bodily eating, we are bound to obey. In faith we eat this body which is given for us. The mouth receives the body of Christ, the soul believes the words when eating the body. If I receive the body of Christ into my arms, this would be for the purpose of embracing it. You have your interpretation and mean well; but this is of no consequence. Furthermore, when you say that God does not propose to us anything incomprehensible, I could not admit this. [Consider] the virginity of Mary, the forgiveness of sins, and many similar matters. So also, “This is my body” [is incomprehensible]. “Thy path was through the great waters, yet thy footprints were unseen” [Psalm 77:19]. If we knew his ways, he who is marvelous would not be incomprehensible. (LW 38:21-22)

The Death of Zwingli, 1531

While preparing for a lecture, I came across the following:

http://www.ctlibrary.com/ch/1984/issue4/425.html

From the Archives: Zwingli's Death on the Battlefield of Kappel in 1531

Heinrich Bullinger succeeded Ulrich Zwingli as pastor of the Grossmünster after the latter’s death in the battle of Kappel in 1531. The following account of Zwingli’s death was written by Bullinger.

On the battlefield, not far from the line of attack, Mr. Ulrich Zwingli lay under the dead and wounded. While men were looting … he was still alive, lying on his back, with his hands together as if he was praying, and his eyes looking upwards to heaven. So some approached who did not know him and asked him, since he was so weak and close to death (for he had fallen in combat and was stricken with a mortal wound), whether a priest should be fetched to hear his confession. Thereat Zwingli shook his head, said nothing and looked up to heaven. Later they told him that if he was no longer able to speak or confess he should yet have the mother of God in his heart and call on the beloved saints to plead to God for grace on his behalf Again Zwingli shook his head and continued gazing straight up to heaven. At this the Catholics grew impatient, cursed him and said that he was one of the obstinate cantankerous heretics and should get what he deserved. Then Captain Fuckinger of Unterwalden appeared and in exasperation drew his sword and gave Zwingli a thrust from which he at once died. So the renowned Mr. Ulrich Zwingli, true minister and servant of the churches of Zurich, was found wounded on the battlefield along with his flock (with whom he remained until his death). There, because of his confession of the true faith in Christ, our only Saviour, the mediator and advocate of all believers, he was killed by a captain who was a pensioner, one of those against whom he had always preached so eloquently.

Next day, Thursday (12 October), at daybreak, the Five States fired their guns with great jubilation. They remained on the battlefield for all Thursday and Friday in accordance with the ancient custom among the Swiss that they should stay there for three days in case the enemy wanted to attack … Then they called on their followers to group forces on the Albis and sent for reinforcements from their cities and for support (which they much needed) from their allies in Valais and the south. On the same day the prisoners were invited to identify the dead while the Five States rejoiced in their success.

Above all there was tremendous joy when Zwingli’s body was found among the dead. All the morning crowds came up, everyone wanting to see Zwingli. The vituperation and insults hurled against him by many jealous people are beyond description. Mr. Bartholomew Stocker of Zug, himself a chaplain, told me after the war that he had been persuaded to see Zwingli in the company of Mr. Hansen Schonbrunner Senior who had formerly been a canon of the Fraumunster and then returned to Zug. Zwingli’s face was more like that of a living man than a corpse. Indeed he had exactly the same look as he had when preaching, which was remarkable, and Mr Schonbrunner could not keep back his tears and said ‘Had you but been of our faith I know what a stalwart Swiss you would have been. God forgive your sins.’ He then returned to Zug, having come for the sole purpose of seeing Zwingli and shortly afterwards he died.

Later that day a crowd of wild young men collected, including pensioners and mercenaries, whom Zwingli had vigorously attacked and who were equally incensed against him. They considered dividing Zwingli’s body into five parts, sending one portion to each of the Five States. Others disagreed: who would want to carry round or send forward a heretic? He should be burnt. Some of the leaders, like Schultheiss Golder and Amman Doos, came forward, saying that a dead man should be left in peace. This was not the place for action of this sort. No one could tell how it was going to be settled—some talked about the need for luck, and so on. To this the noisy gang replied that they had discussed the matter fully and they wanted some action to be taken. So injustice triumphed, and when the leaders saw that there was nothing to be done they went off.

The crowd then spread it abroad throughout the camp that anyone who wanted to denounce Zwingli as a heretic and betrayer of a pious confederation, should come on to the battlefield. There, with great contempt, they set up a court of injustice on Zwingli which decided that his body should be quartered and the portions burnt. All this was carried into effect by the executioner from Lucerne with abundance of abuse; among other things he said that although some had asserted that Zwingli was a sick man he had in fact never seen a more healthy-looking body.

They threw into the fire the entrails of some pigs that had been slaughtered the previous night and then they turned over the embers so that the pigs offal was mixed with Zwingli’s ashes. This was done close to the high road to Scheuren.

Verdicts on Zwingli from scholars and ignorant alike were varied. All those who knew him were constant in their praises. Even so there were still more who were critical either because they really did not know him or, if they had known him a little, were determined to show their resentment and spoke ill of him.

Myconius, a contemporary historian, reported in 1536 his own version of Zwingli’s death at Kappel.

Three times Zwingli was thrown to the ground by the advancing forces but in each case he stood up again. On the fourth occasion a spear reached his chin and he fell to his knees saying, “They can kill the body but not the soul.” And after these words, he fell asleep in the Lord. After the battle, when our forces had withdrawn to a stronger position, the enemy had time to look for Zwingli’s body, both his presence and his death having been quickly reported. He was found judgment was passed on him, his body was quartered and burnt to ashes. Three days after the foes had gone away Zwingli’s friends came to see if any trace of him was left, and what a miracle! In the midst of the ashes lay his heart whole and undamaged.

Zwingli Believed in the Immaculate Conception?

Recently on the CARM boards someone stated, "Oddly, the father's of your Protestant heritage(i.e. Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli) all believed the teaching of the Immaculate Conception and it is only later Protestants that wandered from the truth." I've gone into detail on Luther's Mariology, and I've dabbled with the sparse comments Calvin made about Mary. But Zwingli hasn't been as easy study in regard to Mary.  His writings can be difficult to track down. A few years back there were barely any available, now at least there is The Works of Zwingli (7 Volumes), Logos Bible Software Edition.

While searching around, I found some interesting comments from Zwingli's Thought: New Perspectives By Gottfried Wilhelm Locher in regard to Zwingli and the immaculate conception. It says "There is no trace in Zwingli of the doctrine of the 'immaculate conception'..."

The page can be found on Google Books. Footnote #6 is quite interesting, particularly "Thus the holiness of Mary is serviced from that of Christ, and not the other way round." I'm curious as to which conception is in mind when the author states, "Mary was, at least at the moment of conception, wholly pure and free from original sin." With Luther, such a comment usually refers to the conception of Christ. I'm curious if this is the case with Zwingli as well.

Another book states, "Constantly as he insisted upon the certainty of the perpetual virginity of the mother of God he accepted neither her immaculate conception nor her assumption." Another book states, "The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception was disregarded by Zwingli..."

That the early Reformers were devoted to Mary (or held distinctive Roman Catholic beliefs later rejected by Protestants) has been a favorite argument of Roman Catholic apologetics. While the conclusions of the authors mentioned above are intriguing, they are not primary sources. A primary context needs to be exegeted. It does though make me wonder if the same thing is happening to Zwingli's Mariology as that which happened to Luther's Mariology: are Roman Catholic apologists reading history the way they want to, rather than actually tracking down the evidence to see what's there?

Reformation Overview: Zwingli and Calvin

I know this is pretty basic stuff, but I learned more about Zwingli here than I did in seminary, of what I recall.  [I still need to read more of James Swan's past articles on Zwingli.] We had to read so much on Luther and Calvin and other issues, that maybe I skipped the pages I was supposed to read on Zwingli.

I thought this was a pretty good overview of Zwingli and Calvin.  I either fell asleep in seminary when they talked about the execution of Felix Manz for his having himself re-baptized, or they spent so much time on Luther and Calvin, and the Arminian Anabaptists, that I did not know about that until I watched this video.

The first time I saw this (within the last 2-3 years), I was shocked that the Zurich city council executed Feliz Manz by drowning, just because he rejected his infant baptism and had himself re-baptized.  That is still amazing to me that they were that extreme back then.  I assume that Manz and the other students of Zwingli were more "Reformed" in their theology, in contrast to the more famous group of Anabaptists, who were very Arminian in theology and pacifists.



I was impressed with Zwingli copying by hand the NT Greek text of Erasmus for himself and his model of expository teaching and preaching (verse by verse, book by book).  It seems Calvin is more famous for that, because Zwingli was killed in the second battle of Kappel in 1531; and Calvin's sermons were all written down and later published.  It seems the other person who was the first to exemplify Expository Preaching was John Chrysostom in the late 300s to early 400s.

The dispute between Luther and Zwingli on the Lord's Supper is famous.  I was disappointed in the abrupt way it ends, without explaining that Luther wrote "this is My body" on the table in chalk, and the need for a little more elaboration on that issue.  Good to know that they agreed on 14 out of 15 points of doctrine against the Roman Catholic Church.



The Calvin overview was bare bones basic.  Since I have sought to study more on Calvin than what is here, I wish they had gone into more details on him, his life, and his theology; and I wish they would have given more context to the Servetus issue and his execution - that Calvin wrote letters to Servetus while he was in prison and Calvin pleaded with him to repent; and Calvin also asked the city council to not burn Servetus, but to execute him in a more swift and merciful way.  They did not listen to Calvin.

Addendum:
Oops; I forgot Part c of Zwingli and Calvin!



From what I have understood, Servetus denied that Jesus was the eternal Son of God, the Deity of Christ, and the Trinity, and had published several books not just denying these doctrines personally, but was spreading these heresies and seeking to win people to his views.  So, it seems Servetus thought Jesus was some kind of creature, "son of God", but not the eternal only unique Son, the Word, who existed from all eternity.

There are other sections of this "Reformation Overview" that was done by Ken Curtis of the Christian History Institute.

There are six parts.  Each part is around 30 minutes, but most of them are broken into 3 parts for the You Tube series, so they will all be around 8-10 minutes each.  Look around for the others there at the side bar of the YouTube site for the others.  It seems like an excellent series for a church for introducing the main historical issues and persons of the Reformation period.

1. John Wycliffe - part 1a - look for parts b and c
2.  Jan Huss - part 2a - look around for parts b and c
3. Martin Luther - part 3a - look around for parts b and c
4. Zwingli and Calvin - part 4a - look for b and c
5. The Anabaptists- part 5a - look for b and c
6. William Tyndale - part 6a - look for b and c

One can order the entire series on one DVD from Vision Video/Gateway Films here. 

The Works of Zwingli (7 Volumes), Logos Bible Software Edition

While he's typically given a significant place in Reformation history, Zwingli's writings have not achieved the same level of popularity as those by Luther and Calvin.  Certainly this is due to the fact that he was not as good a writer and his Reformation career spanned a shorter length of time than Luther and Calvin.

It wasn't all that long ago here in cyberspace that tracking down anything of substance written by Zwingli in any language was futile, let alone English. Now Google books and a few other web sites have helpfully put up some of his works translated into English, most particularly,

The Latin Works and the Correspondence of Huldreich Zwingli, Volume 1

The Latin Works and the Correspondence of Huldreich Zwingli, Volume 2

There is also a third volume to this series, but as of the writing of this blog entry, it isn't available on Google Books. Even when I looked around for a used copy of volume 3, there were only a few I was able to track down. I spent a few minutes trying to determine the contents of Volume 3, and it appears to include at least an English translation of Zwingli's Commentary on True and false Religion. While this treatise isn't online, it still is available in print.

Logos software has recently made available these three volumes with a few others in their recent software package, The Works of Zwingli (7 Vols.). The other four volumes in this set are as follows:

Huldreich Zwingli: The Reformer of German Switzerland (available on Google Books).

Zwingli: The Christian Education of Youth (available on Google Books)

Life of Ulrich Zwingli, the Swiss Patriot and Reformer (available on Google Books)

'Christ Our Captain': An Introduction to Huldrych Zwingli by Jim West (not available on Google Books, but available for a very reasonable price here. The author's blog can be found here, as is his description of working with Logos on this package).

Logos wants $70 for this package, and if you're like me, you're wondering why you would want to spend $70   on 7 books when 5 of them are already readily available for free. I have a fairly large collection of Logos books, and I appreciate the digital format. But, I also appreciate not spending $70 on books I really don't need to spend $70 on. Jim West's book is affordable. The only part of this Logos package that's worth it is Volume 3 of the old Latin Works /Correspondence set. But here's the thing: I've jumped the gun in the past and bought a pricey old book because it wasn't available online, only to find that book free online maybe a few months later.  I won't admit how often I've done this, but let's just say it's been more than once. For me, this Logos Zwingli set just isn't worth it.

An Example of How Zwingli Only Helps Rome When Quoted Out of Context

Here's Protestant Reformer Ulrich Zwingli, coming to the aid of Roman Catholic apologetics, compliments of a Roman Catholic apologist:

It is also not generally known that Luther's celebrated translation of the Bible, famous for the formative influence it had on the German language, may not have been entirely original. The Swiss Reformer, Ulrich Zwingli, is quoted as having declared to Luther:

"You are unjust in putting forth the boastful claim of dragging the Bible from beneath the dusty benches of the schools. You forget that we have gained a knowledge of the Scriptures through the translations of others. You are very well aware, with all your blustering, that previously to your time there existed a host of scholars who, in biblical knowledge and philological attainments, were incomparably your superiors." [Alzog. III, 49, quoted in Patrick F. O'Hare, The Facts about Luther (pictured right) (Rockford, IL: Thomas A. Nelson Publishers, Inc., 1987), p. 191]

I've cut and pasted the above exactly as it's found here. This blog entry appears to be the work of Phillip Blosser. Blosser used the same Zwingli quote in his chapter, "Practical Problems with Sola Scriptura" as found in the book, Not By Scripture Alone (Santa Barbara, CA: Queenship Publishing Co., 1998). In this article, Blosser explains how previous to the Reformation there were ample translations of the Bible in German, and this points to the fact that pre-Reformation Catholicism had a high view of Scripture. Blosser then states,

"In fact, little about Luther’s celebrated translation may have been original. The Swiss Reformer, Ulrich Zwingli, is quoted as having declared to Luther: 'You are unjust in putting forth the boastful claim of dragging the Bible from beneath the dusty benches of the schools. You forget that we have gained a knowledge of the Scriptures through the translations of others. You are very well aware, with all your blustering, that previously to your time there existed a host of scholars who, in biblical knowledge and philological attainments, were incomparably your superiors.' "

I've gone into this quote before: "Little about Luther’s celebrated translation may have been original"...so says Philip Blosser. In this earlier entry I discussed Blosser's use of O'Hare, and pointed out the problems with his argumentation.  Blosser's argument here is that there were German Bibles in existence previous to Luther (true enough). The Zwingli quote is presented as icing on the cake, since Zwingli, a Protestant, appears to be stating this as well. Blosser goes a step further stating, "In fact, little about Luther’s celebrated translation may have been original." You see, Luther probably just did a medieval cut-and-paste from these earlier German translations, and even Zwingli knew it. In context though, Zwingli isn't referring to these earlier German translations of the Bible.

The Internet being what it is, I was able to locate an even larger context for Zwingli's remarks.

"When you make the boast that you were the first to lug forth the Bible from under the bench, you go, methinks, too far. If we examine who by their philological acquirements made it first known, we shall find it was, some years ago, Valla, and in our own times, Erasmus, the pious Reuchlin and Pettikan. Without their assistance, neither you nor others had effected what has now been done—I mean in so far as the work may be ascribed to man. But who dare boast himself? Is it not God alone who gives the increase? Are not Paul's words here in their place, 1 Cor. iii. 6, 7: 'I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase. So then neither is he that planteth anything, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase;' and 'Not unto us, O Lord, but unto thy name be the praise.' On the other hand, I shall gladly recognise your merits. Although there were not a few, my good Luther, who knew the sum and substance of true religion as well as yourself, yet none in all Israel dared to come forward to the fight, so terribly they feared that dreadful Goliath that stood opposed to them in his full panoply and power. Here, here you were the true David, anointed by the Lord for the work. Wherefore, all believing souls will never cease to sing with joy and gladness, 'Saul hath slain his thousands, but David his tens of thousands. Now, as for myself, dear Luther, I have ever reverenced my teachers as fathers. If, then, out of the fulness which God has granted to you, anything had flowed to me, why should I not acknowledge it? Why, above all, if I had learned the contents of the gospel from you, should not I confess it? But I shall candidly tell you how it is. There were many distinguished men, long before the name of Martin Luther became famous, who truly recognised in what the essence of religion consisted, and who were instructed by very different teachers from those whom you suppose. For in respect of myself, I testify before God that I learned the substance and chief contents of the gospel partly by the perusal of John and the writings of Augustine, and partly by the diligent study of the Epistles of Paul in the original Greek, which, with this hand, I copied out eleven years ago, (1516,) eight of which years you have been ruling like a king." [source]

Mark Edwards identifies the treatise this comes from. It's from a lengthy reply of Zwingli to Luther entitled That These Words of Christ "This is My Body Which is Given for You," Will Forever Retain Their Ancient, Single Meaning, and Martin Luther with His Latest Book has by no Means Proved or Established His Own and the Pope's View. The Biblical translating work that Zwingli referred to was more recent work, done by some who were not hook-line-and-sinker in step with Rome. He wasn't referring to all the older German translations. Zwingli was referring to "philological acquirements" that made Luther's Bible translation possible.

Zwingli Resources

Selected Works of Huldrich Zwingli, (1484-1531) The Reformer of German Switzerland, translated for the First Time from the Originals, ed. Samuel Macauley Jackson (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, 1901).

Selected works By Ulrich Zwingli translated for the First Time from the Originals, ed. Samuel Macauley Jackson (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, 1901).

The Latin works and the correspondence of Huldreich Zwingli, Volume 1 By Ulrich Zwingli, American Society of Church History

The Latin works and the correspondence of Huldreich Zwingli Volume 2 : together with selections from his German works (1912)

Zwingli and Bullinger By Geoffrey William Bromiley

Patrick Madrid on Zwingli's Bible and the Removal of the Apocrypha

Here's a tidbit from Patrick Madrid's book Answer Me This! (Indiana: Our Sunday Visitor, 2003) p.176.

The Catholic Church did not add [the Apocryphal books] at the Council of Trent. Rather, it was the early Protestant reformer Ulrich Zwingli who most notably deleted the Deuterocanonical books from his edition of the Bible.

I wasn't aware Zwingli actually single-handily produced a translation of the Bible. I assume Mr. Madrid is referring to The Zürich Bible, which was a project Zwingli was involved with, though by no means the mastermind behind it (like Luther was his German Bible). Leo Jud is typically the man credited for the majority of the project. As far as I know, Zwingli wasn't responsible for any of the translation, though a preface is attributed to him with reservations.

Did the Zürich Bible delete the Apocrypha? No.

The first edition of the Swiss-German Bible was published in six volumes (Zurich, 1527-29), the fifth of which contains the Apocrypha. The title page of this volume states, "These are the books which are not reckoned as biblical by the ancients, nor are found among the Hebrews." A one-volume edition of the Zurich Bible, which appeared in 1530, contains the apocryphal books grouped together after the New Testament [source]

Roman Catholic apologist Gary Michuta says this about the Zürich Bible:

The Alsatian Zwinglite, Leo Jud, produced a translation of Scripture known as the Zurich Bible (1531). The Deuterocanon is included in an appendix titled "Apocryphi." Jud justifies his inclusion of the appendix so that those who read them and like them will not complain about their absence. He claims to have followed the Fathers in that they did not include the Deuterocanon among the Holy Scripture. However, Jud states,

... [Y]et they [the Deuterocanon] contain much which in no way contradicts the biblical writings, faith and love, and some things which are founded in God's word.

Completed in 1531, three years before the publication of Luther's bible, the Zurich Bible matches Luther's translation in contents and order. Another preface of the Zurich Bible, commonly ascribed to Zwingli, states that the Apocrypha is not highly esteemed, being less clear and accurate that the Protocanon, although the books contain much that is true and useful. Zwingli leaves it up to the reader to divide the good from the bad. Like Jud's preface, Zwingli states that the Apocrypha has been included in the Zurich Bible "so that no one may complain of lacking anything, and each may find what is to his taste.

-snip-

In the 1543 edition of the Latin Zurich Bible, the title of the Apocryphi appendix was changed to "Church Books" (Ecclesiastici Libri). The preface states:

Church Books which the Church always held to be holy books, worthy for the pious to read. Yet they were not given equal authority with the canonical writings. Our forefathers wanted them to be read in the churches, but not drawn on to confirm the authority of faith (articles of faith). So they were called apocrypha, a word which is not in every respect appropriate or suitable for them. They had no validity among the Hebrews, but were brought to light again among the Greeks." [Gary Michuta, Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger, p.257-258].

Romanist Charity Says: Zwingli was an Idiot

Ulrich Zwingli doesn't get as much coverage as some of his contemporaries. He wasn't as brilliant a writer as Luther, nor as great a theologian as Calvin. Up until the advent of Google books, it was actually difficult to track down a lot of Zwingli's writings. I had tracked down one or two books of small collections (in fact the book pictured is my copy), and even after reading them, I was never all that inspired to post or write much about anything he had written .

But, now with more of his writings available to the general public, here's what pops up:

Kinda like this idiot:

"In this matter of baptism - if I may be pardoned for saying it- I can only conclude that all the doctors have been in error from the time of the apostles.”

- Zwingli (idiot)

Zwingli [idiot] and Bullinger [fellow idiot], 1953, Geoffrey William Bromiley p. 130

Well, of course Luther said far worse about Zwingli, but I find it interesting that the particular gentleman who stated this is always ranting about Luther's alleged denial of good works or pursuit of holiness. In the same comment this Roman Catholic notes that Protestants use "slander, swill, sophistry and swinishness" so as to be faithful to Luther, and then a few lines later he calls Zwingli an idiot. So, whom is it exactly that isn't pursuing good works and holiness by using slander, swill, sophistry and swinishness?

As to Zwingli's statement, note the caution in which he uttered his statement:

In this matter of baptism—if I may be pardoned for saying it- I can only conclude that all the doctors have been in error from the time of the apostles. This is a serious and weighty assertion, and I make it with such reluctance that had I not been compelled to do so by contentious spirits I would have preferred to keep silence and simply to teach the truth. But it will be seen that the assertion is a true one: for all the doctors have ascribed to the water a power which it does not have and the holy apostles did not teach. They have also misunderstood the saying of Christ about water and the Holy Ghost in John 3. Our present task is to see what baptism really is. At many points we shall have to tread a different path from that taken either by ancient or more modern writers or by our own contemporaries. We shall be guided not by our own caprice but by the Word of God.

Now before one deems Zwingli an idiot 500 years later, shouldn't respect for history and pursuit of charity and personal holiness motivate a Roman Catholic to at least note Zwingli's caution and then explore his reasoning on the issue? Here's where he should've began- the very next paragraph-

When he took upon himself the curse of the Law, Jesus Christ, the very Son of God, deprived us of all external justification. Therefore no external thing can make us pure or righteous. That means that everything ceremonial, all outward pomp and circumstance, is now abolished, as Paul says in Hebrews 9: "This figure was for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices that could not make him that did the service perfect as pertaining to the conscience; which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washing, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation" etc. This reformation was accomplished by Christ, as we see in the following passage: but it would take too long to speak of that now. These verses tell us, however, that Christ abolished external things, so that we are not to hope in them or to look to them for justification. Certainly we are not to ascribe cleansing to the external things which are still left For if in the Old Testament they were only carnal and outward, not being able to cleanse us or to give us peace or to assure the conscience, how much less are they able to accomplish anything in Christ, in whom it is the Spirit alone that quickeneth.

-snip-

Before treating of baptism we must first indicate the meaning of the word sacrament. In our native tongue the word suggests something that has power to take away sin and to make us holy. (7) But this is a serious perversion. For only Jesus Christ and no external thing can take away the sins of us Christians and make us holy. And as a result of this misunderstanding there are some who cry out: "They are depriving us of the holy sacraments whereby our poor souls are comforted." But we have no desire to take away the sacraments but simply to use them rightly and not to pervert them. And they are perverted by those who ascribe to them a virtue which they do not possess. As used in this context the word sacrament means a covenant sign or pledge. If a man sews on a white cross, he proclaims that he is a Confederate. (8) And if he makes the pilgrimage to Nahenfels and gives God praise and thanksgiving for the victory vouchsafed to our forefathers, (g) he testifies that he is a Confederate indeed. Similarly the man who receives the mark of baptism is the one who is resolved to hear what God says to him, to learn the divine precepts and to live his life in accordance with them. And the man who in the remembrance or Supper gives thanks to God in the congregation testifies to the fact that from the very heart he rejoices in the death of Christ and thanks him for it. Of those who complain I ask only this: that they let the sacraments be real sacraments and do not describe them, as signs which actually are the things which they signify. For if they are the things which they signify they are no longer signs: for sign and thing signified cannot be the same thing.(10) Sacramenta—as even the papists maintain—are simply the signs of holy things. Baptism is a sign which pledges us to the Lord Jesus Christ. The remembrance shows us that Chris suffered death for our sake. Of these holy things they are the signs and pledges. You will find ample proof of this if you consider the pledge of circumcision and the thanksgiving of the paschal lamb.

"Little about Luther’s celebrated translation may have been original"...so says Philip Blosser

It's interesting how one thing leads to another. I was reading Philosophical and Practical Problems with Sola Scriptura by Philip Blosser in the book, Not By Scripture Alone (Santa Barbara, CA: Queenship Publishing Co., 1998). In the article, Blosser explains how previous to the Reformation there were ample translations of the Bible in German, and this points to the fact that pre-Reformation Catholicism had a high view of Scripture. Blosser then states,

"In fact, little about Luther’s celebrated translation may have been original. The Swiss Reformer, Ulrich Zwingli, is quoted as having declared to Luther: 'You are unjust in putting forth the boastful claim of dragging the Bible from beneath the dusty benches of the schools. You forget that we have gained a knowledge of the Scriptures through the translations of others. You are very well aware, with all your blustering, that previously to your time there existed a host of scholars who, in biblical knowledge and philological attainments, were incomparably your superiors.' "

This type of comment and argument have a ring of truth, to an extent. There is a popular myth that in the library of the Augustinian cloister, Luther discovered a neglected, chained, dusty Bible. The myth then states it was not until Luther's German translation that the Bible was given back to the world. This myth became so popular, that versions of it actually appeared by the end of the sixteenth century in editions of Luther's Bible in a short biography on Luther, or in the introduction.

It is though possible, that this myth has some truth to it, and may have some insight into this comment from Zwingli. It is possible that Luther found a chained Bible in a university library while he was a young student. Luther's early biographer, Johannes Mathesius (a friend of Luther's), tells the story that the young Luther did have such an experience. Luther also mentions something like this story in a few Table Talk utterances. For a detailed study on this issue, see: Willem Jan Kooiman, Luther and the Bible (Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press, 1961). Given that the printing press was still relatively new, finding a chained Bible would not have been outrageous, but rather a sad practical necessity. Well, Zwingli speaks about the "Bible from beneath the dusty benches of the schools"- which may actually be something completely different than the chained Bible myth.

Roman Catholics have pounced on the different versions of this myth for a few hundred years. I probably would have passed by Blosser's comment had it not been for his documentation of the Zwingli quote:"Alzog. III, 49, quoted in Patrick F. O’Hare, The Facts about Luther (Rockford, IL: TAN [Thomas A. Nelson] Publishers, Inc., 1987), 191."

So, one thing leads to another. I looked up O"Hare's comment:

"To maintain that Luther knew not and could not find any Bibles except the one he was supposed to discover as librarian of his convent, is to brand him as a liar. It is interesting now to recall what Zwingle, the Swiss Reformer, who made many false boasts for himself, once said to Luther: "You are unjust in putting forth the boastful claim of dragging the Bible from beneath the dusty benches of the schools. You forget that we have gained a knowledge of the Scriptures through the translations of others. You are very well aware, with all your blustering, that previously to your time there existed a host of scholars who, in Biblical knowledge and philological attainments, were incomparably your superiors." (Alzog. Ill, 49.)"

Previous to this comment, O'Hare presents the same type of argument as Blosser, that there were German Bibles in existence previous to Luther. The Zwingli quote is icing on the cake since Zwingli, a Protestant, appears to be stating this as well. Blosser goes a step further stating, "In fact, little about Luther’s celebrated translation may have been original." You see, Luther probably just did a medieval cut-and-paste from these earlier German translations. Now, I'm getting more curious. I'd like to see the context of the Zwingli quote. Blosser may actually just be parroting something Father O'Hare mentioned earlier. O'Hare (citing Protestant writer Licentiate Braun) stated, "We recognized in [Luther's] translation of the Bible a masterpiece stamped with the Impress of originality — we may be happy now if it is not plainly called a 'plagiarism !'" [The Facts About Luther, ( p. 5 in the Tan Edition)].

So, one thing leads to another, now I start searching for the Zwingli quote. I did some quick searches, nothing in depth. I didn't come up with the context (yet), but I did find some interesting things. I found Alzog. III, 49 cited by Blosser and O'Hare as the source for the Zwingli quote. Now, Mr. Blosser doesn't explain what Alzog. III, 49 is, nor am I sure if O'Hare does either (a cursory search of The Facts About Luther retrieved little). But Google Books gave me the text from Johannes Baptist Alzog, "History of the Church," p. 49. Alzog states,

"Luther now had the effrontery to make the silly boast that he was the first to drag the Bible forth from beneath the dusty benches of the schools, an assumption which even Zwinglius some time later indignantly denied. "You are unjust," said he, "in putting forth this boastful claim; you forget that we have gained a knowledge of the Sacred Scriptures through the translations of others. To mention a few, there is Erasmus in our own day; Valla, a few years earlier; and the pious Reuchlin and Pelican, in the absence of whose labors, neither you nor others could have accomplished the great work. But I will be merciful, my dear Luther, although I should not; for the impudent boasting that pervades your books, your letters, and your discourses, merits the severest chastisement. You are very well aware, with all your blustering, that, previously to your time, there existed a host of scholars, who, in biblical knowledge and philological attainments, were incomparably your superiors."

First and importantly, note O'Hare gave a conflation of the quote (and Blosser never probably checked it). The earlier translation work of other's are explained by Zwingli as, "To mention a few, there is Erasmus in our own day; Valla, a few years earlier; and the pious Reuchlin and Pelican, in the absence of whose labors, neither you nor others could have accomplished the great work." These of course, were fairly recent people. The "work of others" Zwingli has in view are men like Reuchlin (no friend of Rome!) and Erasmus (a sometimes friend of Rome). Zwingli notes of the men, "in the absence of whose labors, neither you nor others could have accomplished the great work"...the great work of Luther's translation! This is a far cry from Blosser's assertion that Zwingli held, "little about Luther’s celebrated translation may have been original." Zwingli notes Luther built on the foundation laid by these earlier men, not that he plagiarized these men, or that he reinvented the wheel, so to speak.

Then Zwingli says, "But I will be merciful, my dear Luther, although I should not; for the impudent boasting that pervades your books, your letters, and your discourses, merits the severest chastisement." Indeed, Luther did frequently boast about his abilities as a theologian. Zwingli then states, "You are very well aware, with all your blustering, that, previously to your time, there existed a host of scholars, who, in biblical knowledge and philological attainments, were incomparably your superiors." Now this is true as well, there were men previous to Luther that surpassed him in theological and philological ability.

Do you see how the conflation of the Zwingli quote from O'Hare and Blosser puts a slightly different spin on his words? The Biblical translating work that Zwingli referred to was recent work, done by some who were not hook-line-and-sinker in step with Rome. He wasn't referring to all the older German translations (as brought up by both O'Hare and Blosser).

Well, there's more to look up, time allowing. There's Luther's "dusty bench quote" and context, which was also added into the citation by O'Hare, and possibly not actually said by Zwingli. Could it be, Alzog was simply repeating the popular myth, and adding it to Zwingli's words? Not having a richer context for Zwingli's quote leaves everything here somewhat speculative. As to the Luther quote, Carrie found a secondary source, that I was able to use to trace back to a treatise from Luther, though it probably is not from the writing Zwingli had in mind, but interesting nonetheless:

"My friends the theologians have spared themselves pains and labor; they leave the Bible in peace and read the Sentences. I should think that the Sentences ought to be the first study of young students in theology and the Bible ought to be the study for the doctors. But now it is turned around; the Bible come first, and is put aside when the bachelor's degree is reached, and the Sentences come last. They are attached forever to the doctorate, and that with such a solemn obligation that a man who is not a priest may indeed read may indeed the Bible, but the Sentences a priest must read. A married man, I observe, could be a Doctor of the Bible, but under no circumstances a Doctor of the Sentences. What good fortune can we expect if we act so perversely and in this way put the Bible, the holy Word of God, so far to the rear? Moreover the pope commands, with many severe words, that his laws are to be read and used in the schools and the courts, but little is said of the Gospel. Thus it is the custom that in the schools and the courts the Gospel lies idle in the dust under the bench, to the end that the pope's harmful laws may rule alone. [An Open Letter to The Christian Nobilityof the German Nation Concerning the Reform of the Christian Estate, 1520]"
One thing I'm fairly confident of, Philip Blosser may want to rethink using Patrick O'Hare as a source, and he may want to consider actually reading Luther and Zwingli rather than about Luther and Zwingli through the eyes of Father O'Hare. I'll keep this one in the oven for a few days, to work on it when I get the chance.