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.

Zwingli’s’ Mariology: On Mary “Full of Grace”

Because he stands in the shadows of Luther and Calvin, Zwingli (1484-1531) gets overlooked often. His writings can be difficult to track down. One can go to the local bookstore and get a Calvin or Luther bio or anthology, but you’ll do a lot searching to actually get a Zwingli book. When you do read Zwingli, it becomes apparent that he was not on par with either Luther or Calvin.

I’ve always wanted to read Zwingli discussing his Mariology. For the most part, the only people who seem to “care” about Zwingli’s Mariology are Roman Catholics. And really, they probably aren’t interested in actually reading and researching Zwingli. Rather, his writings are used for polemical purposes- to show that an early Reformer had particular beliefs about the Virgin Mary. It does appear that Zwingli did have some similar beliefs about Mary to those found in Roman Catholicism. This is a subject that I plan on exploring. I'd like to see for myself how Zwingli understood the role of Mary. I refuse to be spoon fed Zwingli quotes from Catholic apologetics- for I doubt most of the pop Catholic apologetic writers have actually read Zwingli on this subject.

Well, here's a present from me to the Catholic apologetics community. I did finally track down a piece from Zwingli on Mary. It is a section from the “Sermon on Mary, The Pure Mother of God”. Zwingli preached the sermon in Zurich in the autumn of 1522. In it, you will find Zwingli saying all sorts of things about Mary. He calls her "pure" and "holy", a "spotless virgin" etc. Note though, Zwingli’s explanation of the Greek word "kecharitomene". Zwingli understands the word to mean “favorable”.

“When the angel came in unto Mary, he greeted her with these words: " Hail, thou art full of grace! The Lord is with thee, blessed art thou among women." Here it is to be noticed that this word "full of grace" is, translated from the Greek word "kecharitomene," which means beloved, or filled with grace, highly favored, whereby we understand that the word “full of grace " should not be taken to mean that she was from herself full of grace, but that all the grace with which she was so rich and full was from God. For to be full of grace is nothing else than to be highly favored of God and to be chosen before all other women. For grace is only the favor of God. So if I should say that God has given much grace to men, I should say nothing else than God has been very favorable to men and done loving things for them. Therefore is the pure Mary full of grace from God, as she herself sings: "He hath done to me great things." She says not: "I am great from mine own grace," but " the Almighty hath done to me great things." For immediately afterward she adds: "He hath regarded the lowliness of His handmaiden, for behold from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed." [Source: Guy Carelton Lee (ed.), The World’s Orators (New York: GP Putnum’s Sons, 1900, 95-96).

Bibliographic Tedium on the Reformers and Perpetual Virginity

Over on the CARM boards there have been a few threads specific to the Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin on Mary’s perpetual virginity. For instance, a person called Opus Dei” submits the following:

After hearing so many people talk about Protestantism, I've come to a conclusion. Martin Luther would call many of these denominations heretical institutions. I think he would even be disgusted at some of these obvious flaws in theology. Calvin might even be upset. The basis for my conclusion is that all of the main three reformers, Zwingli, Calvin, and Luther all supported the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary, how many protestants uphold this?” [source]

And the proof:

Luther: "It is an article of faith that Mary is the Mother of the Lord and still a virgin." Works of Luther, Vol. II, 319-320 Volume 6, 510

Calvin: "There have been certain 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 a folly this is!Sermon on Matthew 1:22-25, Published 1562

Zwingli: "I firmly believe that Mary, according to the words of the gospel as a pure virgin brought forth for us the sone of God and in childbirth and after childbirth, forever remained a pure, intact Virgin.Zwingli Opera, Volume I, 424 [source]

Leaving aside the main argument for another day (for it is a flawed argument- as if it actually matters what the Reformers thought about Mary's perpetual virginity!), I’d like to explore the proof offered. For the Luther quote, the bibliographic citation given is “Works of Luther, Vol. II, 319-320 Volume 6, 510.” This reference to neither of the English editions Luther’s Works (The earlier Philadelphia edition, or the standard 55 volume Concordia set).

Others in cyber space reference the quote as “Weimer's The Works of Luther, English translation by Pelikan, Concordia, St. Louis, v. 11, pp. 319-320; v. 6. p. 510”. Weimar is the German translation- Pelikan had nothing to do with it. So, in this reference, the German and English translations are cited together, combined to give a big inaccurate reference. This site documents it, “It is an article of faith that Mary is Mother of the Lord and still a virgin. (Weimarer Ausgabe 11:319-320)”. That last one may actually be accurate.

Now the Zwingli reference is given as “Zwingli Opera, Volume I, 424.” In my understanding, this is a reference to Zwingli’s works from a Latin set. In print? No. The Catholic Encyclopedia notes:

"Zwingli's works were first collected and published by his son-in-law, Rudolf Gwalter, and entitled: "Opera D. H. Zwingli vigilantissimi Tigurinae ecclesiae Antistitis, partim quidem ab ipso Latine conscripta, partim vero e vernaculo sermone in Latinum translata: omnia novissime recognita, et multis adiectis, quae hactenus visa non sunt" (4 fol. vols., Zurich, 1545; reprinted, 1581). The first complete edition was edited by Melchior Schuler and Johannes Schulthess (8 vols., Zurich, 1828-42). Volumes VII and VIII, containing Zwingli's correspondence, are especially important. A new edition of his complete works prepared by Emil Egli (d. 1908), George Finsler, and Walther Kohler is appearing in the "Corpus Reformatorum", LXXXVIII (Berlin, 1905); three volumes I, II, and VII, have already (1912) appeared. "

Normally when I interact with someone on this topic, the person quoting this stuff becomes silent when ask for a little more bibliographic information. I do so to find out if the person putting forth the information has actually read Luther, Calvin, or Zwingli, or if the information is a cut-and-paste job taken from Catholic apologetic web sites. The person posting this stuff made some impressive claims:

“I didn't get them from a site, but from the actual material.”
“I didn't type all of any of their statements [sic]. Trust me that is the context. if you still don't agree, look up the material, I cited everything.”

So of course, I asked for some specifics:

I would like to take you up on looking up the actual material. Is the Luther reference to the earlier Philadelphia edition of Luther's Works, or the Concordia 55 volume edition of Luther's Works? Also, which Treatise is being cited? You should know, since you got the quote from the "actual material. Can you quote Zwingli on Mary's virginity and also supply a context? The key is the later request.

The answer given for the Luther quote:

“I'll have to dig it up, I got it in college and I'm currently in the process of moving, all of my books are boxed up, I'll let you know when I find them, I just wrote down the basic works cited for a paper I did for my church, for adult education on the faith.”

And the answer given for the Zwingli quote:

“Zwingli Opera, Volume 1 424."I firmly believe that Mary, according to the words of the gospel as a pure Virgin, brought forth for us the son of God and in childbirth and after childbirth forever remained a pure, intact virgin."I'd give you the rest of it but I'd have to dig it out of a box to do so, I'll look for it and get back to you, a couple others are waiting for it too.Note: Just to clearify [sic], I did not rip this from a website, I wrote an educational paper for an adult faith education class, and that was all I needed to put on the article, I'll look for the book after I move and unbox things. Should be in a couple of weeks or so."

It will be long couple of weeks. Now this takes guts, but then again, it’s the Internet, and anything goes. I strongly doubt I’ll get the bibliographic material I asked for. I only point out tedium like this to show that many times, people are putting forth information as if they’ve actually studied a subject, and made an informed decision. For most people though, it seems one makes a conclusion and then looks for information to support it. Such is the normal folly of the defenders of Rome.

Zwingli's Denial Of original Sin

I meant to get to this a while back- the shocking information brought forth by a Roman Catholic apologist that the Protestant Reformer, Ulrich Zwingli appears to have denied the doctrine of “original sin”. Doing any sort of research into the writings of Zwingli is difficult, simply because only a small portion of his writings are available- probably because Zwingli simply wasn’t as popular, nor as good of a writer (or theologian) as Luther and the other Reformers.
Like the other Reformers, Zwingli staunchly proclaimed God’s grace. Zwingli proclaimed that salvation is the consequence of God’s election, and that election is “in Christ”. In other words, Christ’s life and death secured the salvation of His people.

Zwingli was similar to Luther in that he strongly opposed free will. His writing against free will actually appeared before Luther’s magnum opus, Bondage Of The Will. Opposing the Latin Vulgate translation of Genesis 8:21, Zwingli stated that the thoughts of the heart are evil- not that they tend toward evil. By “tending”some extracted the notion of “free will” from the text. Zwingli definitely saw man as enslaved to sin, being able to do nothing to achieve salvation.
Zwingli held the descendants of Adam are born spiritually dead because of Adam’s disobedience. Because of spiritual death, all the sons of Adam are powerless to do good any works. In order to do any good works, God’s gift of faith must first be given to a person. Zwingli says, “The source of works must be faith. If faith is present, the work is acceptable to God. If not, then whatever we do is full of perfidity and not only not acceptable to God but an abomination to Him” [Zwingli, An Exposition of The Faith, found in: Zwingli and Bullinger: The Library of Christian Classics, Volume XXIV (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1953), 270]. Zwingli is not saying that works done in a state of grace merit salvation. Rather, those who are saved by Christ’s righteousness imputed to them are those who demonstrate their faith by good works.

He also held to the traditional distinction between original sin and actual sin. Zwingli held that the disease in us as a result of Adam’s sin can be described as spiritual death, powerlessness to secure salvation, and self love. The actual sin that flows from this are the actual transgressions men do.

Zwingli was an ardent supporter of infant baptism, but not the Roman Catholic doctrine of infant baptism. He argued infant baptism must be understood as a “covenant sign,” not the cleansing away of original sin. Then came the Anabaptists who denied infant baptism, so when he debated them, he argued for the covenant sign and not that baptism washes away original sin.

In his argumentation, he explained original sin “...is a defect which of itself is not sinful in the one who has it” and “it cannot damn him, whatever the theologians say, until out of this defect he does something against the law of God. But he does not do anything against the law, until he knows the law” [Zwingli cited by W.P. Stephens, Zwingli: An Introduction To His Thought (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1992), 74]. In other words, infant baptism has no effect on original sin. While it is present in infants, baptism does nothing to erase it, simply because it doesn’t damn the child until that child actually does something sinful.

Melanchthon and Luther saw Zwingli’s view as a Pelagian for espousing this- and for actually allowing the possibility of that which he so vigorously opposed, free will. Zwingli thus got himself into a theological jam. Stephens notes that Zwingli struggled to provide a coherent answer:

“[Zwingli] gave a varied response to the question whether original sin damns us. We are sinners as we are descendants of a sinner. However, if we are sinners, we are enemies of God and therefore damned. But Zwingli qualifies this apparently clear statement by reference to Jacob who was beloved of God before he was born, so that original sin could not have damned him. He supports this with reference to the covenant with Abraham’s seed in Gen. 17:7, which includes the children of Christian parents. ‘If therefore, he promises that he will be a god to Abraham’s seed, that seed cannot have been damned because of original guilt.’ Besides these arguments which relate to election Zwingli also developed an argument relating to Christ’s work as making good the evil done by Adam, a point made in relation to Rom. 5:19-21. Zwingli applied this to the children of Christian parents, but held back from applying it to the whole human race” [Ibid, 74].

Stephens goes on to point out that Zwingli’s “mature position” was that original sin can do nothing but lead to actual sin. Only those who trust in Christ will not be damned. In other words, original sin will do nothing but eventually damn.

So what can be concluded of Zwingli’s “denial of original sin”? Technically, Zwingli did not deny original sin, but actually at points in his writing denied that the guilt of original sin could damn without an action. In other words, Zwingli held a contradiction, that is mankind is born with original sin, but that sin doesn’t damn until it surfaces and commits an infraction. Also it can be said that Zwingli vacillated on this point as his biographer above points out: “[Zwingli] gave a varied response to the question whether original sin damns us. We are sinners as we are descendants of a sinner. However, if we are sinners, we are enemies of God and therefore damned.” But even while at times affirming that original sin damns, his assertions lead to even more troubling theological points- that the elect are free from the damnation of original sin (even though he does admit that until the gift of faith is given, men remain in sin).

His biographer Rev. G.W. Bromiley points out, “…Zwingli failed to work out any fully developed or coherent theology of baptism. But with his definition of baptism as a covenant sign he did indicate the lines along which much profitable work was to be done by the later Reformed theologians” [Zwingli and Bullinger: The Library of Christian Classics, Volume XXIV, 270]. My own opinion would be that Luther and Melanchthon were correct in finding some Pelagianism in Zwingli’s working out original sin and actual sin. On the other hand, Zwingli’s denial of the Roman Catholic use of baptism to wash away original sin was a worthy endeavor, as was his work on linking baptism and covenant.