07052 - Zwingli's Distinctive Doctrines

§52. Zwingli’s Distinctive Doctrines.

Zwingli’s doctrines are laid down chiefly in his two Confessions to Charles V. and Francis 1. (§51), his Commentarius de vera et falsa religione (1525), and his sermon De Providentia Dei (1530). Of secondary doctrinal importance are the Explanation of his Articles and Conclusions (1523); his Shepherd (a sort of pastoral theology); several tracts and letters on the Lord’s Supper, on Baptism and re-Baptism; and his Commentaries on Genesis, Exodus, the Gospels, the Romans, and Corinthians (edited, from his lectures and sermons, by Leo Judä, Megander, and others).

Zwingli’s theological system contains, in germ, the main features of the Reformed Creed, as distinct from the Lutheran, and must be here briefly considered.

1. Zwingli begins with the objective (or formal) principle of Protestantism, namely, the exclusive and absolute authority of the Bible in all matters of Christian faith and practice. The Reformed Confessions do the same; while the Lutheran Confessions start with the subjective (or material) principle of justification by faith alone, and make this ’the article of the standing and falling Church.’ This difference, however, is more a matter of logical order and relative importance. Word and faith are inseparable, and proceed from the same Holy Spirit. In both denominations a living faith in Christ is the first and last principle. Without this faith the Bible may be esteemed as the best book, but not as the inspired word of God and rule of faith.

2. Zwingli teaches the doctrine of unconditional election or predestination to salvation (constitutio de beandis, as he defines it), and finds in it the ultimate ground of our justification and salvation; faith being only the organ of appropriation. God is the infinite being of beings, in whom and through whom all other beings exist; the supreme cause, including as dependent organs the finite or middle causes; the infinite and only good (Luke 18:18), and every thing else is good (Genesis 1:31) only through and in him. It is a fundamental canon that God by his providence, or perpetual and unchangeable rule and administration, [SeeNote #728] controls and disposes all events, the will and the action; otherwise he would not be omnipotent and omnipresent. There can be no accident. The fall, with its consequences, likewise comes under his foreknowledge and fore-ordination, which can be as little separated as intellect and will. But God’s agency in respect to sin is free from sin, since he is not bound by law, and has no bad motive or affection; so the magistrate may take a man’s life without committing murder. [SeeNote #729] But only those who hear the Gospel and reject it in unbelief are foreordained to eternal punishment. Of those without the reach of Christian doctrine we can not judge, as we know not their relation to election. There may be and are elect persons among the heathen; and the fate of Socrates and Seneca is no doubt better than that of many popes.

Zwingli, however, dwells mainly on the positive aspect of God’s providence-the election to salvation. Election is free and independent. It embraces also infants before they have any faith. It does not follow faith, but precedes it. Faith is itself the work of free grace and the sign and fruit of election (Romans 8:29-30; Acts 13:48). We are elected in order that we may believe in Christ and bring forth the fruits of holiness. Faith is trust and confidence in Christ, the union of the soul with him, and full of good works. Hence it is preposterous to charge this doctrine with dangerous tendency to carnal security and immorality. [SeeNote #730] This is substantially Zwingli’s doctrine, as he preached it during the Conference in Marburg (1529), and taught it in his book on Providence [SeeNote #731] It was afterwards more fully and clearly developed by the powerful intellect of Calvin, [SeeNote #732] who made it the prominent pillar of his theology and impressed it upon the majority of the Reformed Confessions, although several of them simply teach a free election to salvation, without saying a word of the decree of reprobation. On this subject, however, as previously stated, there was no controversy among the early Reformers. They were all Augustinians. Luther heard Zwingli’s sermon on Providence in Marburg, and made no objection to it, except that he quoted Greek and Hebrew in the pulpit. He had expressed himself much more strongly on the subject in his famous book against Erasmus (1525). There was, however, this difference, that Luther, like Augustine, from his denial of the freedom of the human will, was driven to the doctrine of absolute predestination, as a logical consequence; while Zwingli, and still more Calvin, started from the absolute sovereignty of God, and inferred from it the dependence of the human will; yet all of them were controlled by their strong sense of sin and free grace much more than by speculative principles. The Lutheran Church afterwards dropped the theological inference in part-namely, the decree of reprobation-and taught instead the universality of the offer of saving grace; but she retained the anthropological premise of total depravity and inability, and also the doctrine of a free election of the saints, or predestination to salvation; and this after all is the chief point in the Calvinistic system, and the only one which is made the subject of popular instruction. In the Lutheran Church, morever, the election theory is moderated by the sacramental principle of baptismal regeneration (as was the case with Augustine), while in the Reformed Church the doctrine of election controls and modifies the sacramental principle, so that the efficacy of baptism is made to depend upon the preceding election.

3. The most original and prominent doctrine of Zwingli is that of the sacraments, and especially of the Lord’s Supper.

He adopts the general definition that the sacrament is the visible sign of an invisible grace, but draws a sharp distinction between the sacramental sign (signum ) and the thing signified (res sacramenti ), and allows no necessary and internal connection between them. The baptism by water may take place without the baptism of the Spirit (as in the case of Ananias and Simon Magus), and the baptism by the Spirit, or regeneration, without the baptism by water (for the apostles received only John’s baptism; the penitent thief was not baptized at all, and Cornelius was baptized after regeneration). Communion with Christ is not confined to the Lord’s Supper, neither do all who partake of this ordinance really commune with Christ. The Spirit of God is free and independent of all outward ceremonies and observances. As to the effect of the sacraments, Zwingli rejects the whole scholastic theory of the opus operatum, and makes faith the necessary medium of sacramental efficacy. He differs here not only from the Romish, but also from the Lutheran theory. He regards the sacraments only as signs and seals, and not strictly as means or instrumentalities of grace, except in so far as they strengthen it. They do not originate and confer grace, but presuppose it, and set it forth to our senses, and confirm it to our faith. As circumcision sealed the righteousness of the faith of Abraham, which he had before in a state of uncircumcision (Romans 4:11), so baptism seals the remission of sin by the cleansing blood of Christ, and our incorporation in Christ by faith, which is produced by the Holy Spirit. In infant baptism (which he strongly defended against the Anabaptists, not indeed as necessary to salvation, but as proper and expedient), we have the divine promise which extends to the offspring, and the profession of the faith of the parents with their pledge to bring up their children in the same. The Lord’s Supper signifies and seals the fact that Christ died for us and shed his blood for our sins, that he is ours and we are his, and that we are partakers of all his benefits. Zwingli compares the sacrament also to a wedding-ring which seals the marriage union.

He fully admits, however, that the sacraments are divinely instituted and necessary for our twofold constitution; that they are significant and efficacious, not empty, signs; that they aid and strengthen our faith (’auxilium opemque adferunt fidei ’), and so far confer spiritual blessing through the medium of appropriating faith. In this wider sense they may be called means of grace. He also gives them the character of public testimonies, by which we openly profess our faith before God and the world, pledge our obedience to him, and express our gratitude for mercies received. Hence the name eucharist, or gratiarum actio.

Concerning the Lord’s Supper, Zwingli teaches, in opposition to the Romish mass, that it is a commemoration, not a repetition, of the atoning sacrifice of Christ, who offered himself once for all time, and can not be offered by any other; that bread and wine signify or represent, but are not really, the broken body and shed blood of our Lord; that he is present only according to his divine nature and by his Spirit to the eye of faith (fidei contemplatione ), but not according to his human nature, which is in heaven at the right hand of God, and can not be present every where or in many places at the same time; that to eat his flesh and to drink his blood is a spiritual manducation, or the same as to believe in him (John vi.), and no physical manducation by mouth and teeth, which, even if it were possible, would be useless and unworthy and would establish two ways of salvation-one by faith, the other by literal eating in the sacrament; finally, that the blessing of the ordinance consists in a renewed application of the benefits of the atonement by the worthy or believing communicants, while the unworthy receive only the outward signs to their own judgment.

He therefore rejects every form of a local or corporeal presence, whether by transubstantiation, impanation, or consubstantiation, as contrary to the Bible, to the nature of faith, and to sound reason. He supports the figurative interpretation of the words of institution [SeeNote #733] by a large number of passages, where Christ is said to be the door, the lamb, the rock, the vine, etc.; also by such passages as Genesis 41:26-27(the seven good kine are seven years), Matthew 13:31-31(the field is the world; the tares are the children of the wicked one; the reapers are the angels), and especially Luke 22:20; 1 Corinthians 11:25(the cup is the New Testament in my blood). He proves the local absence of Christ’s body by the fact of his ascension to heaven, his future visible return to judgment, and by such passages as, ’I go to prepare a place for you;’ ’The poor you have always with you, but me you have not always;’ ’I go to my Father;’ ’The heaven must receive him until the times of restitution of all things.’ He also points out the inconsistency of Luther in maintaining the literal presence of Christ in the sacrament, and yet refusing the adoration; for wherever Christ is he must be adored.

I add his last words on the subject from the Confession sent to King Francis 1. shortly before his death: ’We believe that Christ is truly present in the Lord’s Supper; yea, we believe that there is no communion without the presence of Christ. [SeeNote #734] This is the proof: "Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them" (Matthew 18:20). How much more is he present where the whole congregation is assembled to his honor! But that his body is literally eaten is far from the truth and the nature of faith. It is contrary to the truth, because he himself says: ’I am no more in the world" (John 17:11), and ’The flesh profiteth nothing" (John 6:63), that is to eat, as the Jews then believed and the Papists still believe. It is contrary to the nature of faith (I mean the holy and true faith), because faith embraces love, fear of God, and reverence, which abhor such carnal and gross eating, as much as any one would shrink from eating his beloved son. . . . We believe that the true body of Christ is eaten in the communion in a sacramental and spiritual manner by the religions, believing, and pious heart (as also St. Chrysostom taught). And this is in brief the substance of what we maintain in this controversy, and what not we, but the truth itself teaches.’ To this he adds the communion service, which he introduced in Zurich, that his Majesty may see how devoutly the sacrament is celebrated there in accordance with the institution of Christ. This service is much more liturgical than the later Calvinistic formulas, and includes the ’Gloria in Excelsis,’ the Apostles’ Creed, and responses.

Closely connected with the eucharistic controversy are certain christological differences concerning ubiquity and the communicatio idiomatum, which we have already discussed in the section on the Formula of Concord.

Zwingli’s doctrine of the Eucharist is unquestionably the simplest, clearest, and most intelligible theory. It removes the supernatural mystery from the ordinance, and presents no obstacles to the understanding. Exegetically, it is admissible, and advocated even by some of the ablest Lutheran scholars, who freely concede that the literal interpretation of the words of institution, to which Luther appealed first and last against the arguments of Zwingli, is impossible, or, if consistently carried out, must lead to the Romish dogma. [SeeNote #735] Philosophically and dogmatically, it labors under none of the difficulties of transubstantiation and consubstantiation, both of which imply the simultaneous multipresence of a corporeal substance, and a physical manducation of Christ’s crucified body and blood-in direct contradiction to the essential properties of a body, and the testimony of four of our senses. It has been adopted by the Arminians, and it extensively prevails at present even among orthodox Protestants of all denominations, especially in England and America. [SeeNote #736]

Zwingli is no doubt right in his protest against every form, however refined and subtle, of the old Capernaitic conception of a carnal presence and carnal appropriation (John 6:63). He is also right in his positive assertion that the holy communion is a commemoration of the all-sufficient sacrifice of Christ on the cross, and a spiritual feeding on Christ by faith. But he falls short of the whole truth; he does not do justice to the strong language of our Lord, especially in John 6:53-58, concerning the eating of the flesh of the Son of Man (whether this be referred directly or indirectly to the Lord’s Supper, or not). After all deduction of carnal misconceptions, there remains the mystery of a vital union of the believer with the whole Christ, including his humanity, viewed not, indeed, as material substance, but as a principle of life and power. This Calvin felt. Hence he endeavored to find a via media between Zwingli and Luther, and assumed, besides the admitted real presence of the Divine Lord, a dynamic presence and influence of his glorified and ever-living humanity, and an actual communication of its life-giving power (not the matter of the body and blood) by the Holy Ghost to the worthy communicant through the medium of faith-as the sun is in the heavens, and yet with his light and heat present on earth. This theory passed substantially into the most authoritative confessions of the sixteenth century, and must therefore be regarded as the orthodox doctrine of the Reformed Church. On three other points-namely, original sin, the salvation of infants, and the salvation of the heathen-Zwingli had peculiar views, which were in advance of his age, and gave great offense to some of his friends as well as to Luther, but were afterwards adopted by the Arminians.

4. The Reformation was born of an intense conviction of the sinfulness of man and the absolute need of a radical regeneration. Zwingli makes no exception, and describes the corruption and slavery of the natural man almost as strongly as Luther, although he never passed through such terrors of conscience as the monk in Erfurt, nor had he such hand-to-hand fights with the devil. [SeeNote #737] He derives sin from the fall of Adam, brought about by the instigation of the devil, and finds its essence in selfishness as opposed to the love of God. He goes beyond the Augustinian infralapsarianism, which seems to condition the eternal counsel of God by the first self-determination of man, and he boldly takes the supralapsarian position that God not only foresaw, but foreordained the fall, together with the redemption, that is, as a means to an end, or as the negative condition for the revelation of the plan of salvation. He fully admits the distinction between original or hereditary sin and actual transgression, but he describes the former as a moral disease, or natural defect, rather than punishable sin and guilt. [SeeNote #738] It is a miserable condition (conditio misera ). He compares it to the misfortune of one born in slavery. [SeeNote #739] But if not sin in the proper sense of the term, it is an inclination or propensity to sin (propensio ad peccandum ), and the fruitful germ of sin, which will surely develop itself in actual transgression. Thus the young wolf is a rapacious animal before he actually tears the sheep.

5. Zwingli was the first to emancipate the salvation of children dying in infancy from the supposed indispensable condition of water-baptism, and to extend it beyond the boundaries of the visible Church. This is a matter of very great interest, since the unbaptized children far outnumber the baptized, and constitute nearly one half of the race.

He teaches repeatedly that all elect children are saved whether baptized or not, whether of Christian or heathen parentage, not on the ground of their innocence (which would be Pelagian), but on the ground of Christ’s atonement. He is inclined to the belief that all children dying in infancy belong to the elect; their early death being a token of God’s mercy, and hence of their election. A part of the elect are led to salvation by a holy life, another part by an early death. The children of Christian parents belong to the Church, and it would be ’impious’ to condemn them. But from the parallel between the first and the second Adam, he infers that all children are saved from the ruin of sin, else what Paul says would not be true, that ’as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive’ (1 Corinthians 15:22). At all events, it is wrong to condemn the children of the heathen, both on account of the restoration of Christ and of the eternal election of God, which precedes faith, and produces faith in due time; hence the absence of faith in children is no ground for their condemnation. [SeeNote #740] As he believed in the salvation of many adult heathen, he had the less difficulty in believing that heathen children are saved; for they have not yet committed actual transgression, and of hereditary sin they have been redeemed by Christ. We have therefore much greater certainty of the salvation of departed infants than of any adults. This view was a bold step beyond the traditional orthodoxy. The Roman Catholic Church, in keeping with her doctrine of original sin and guilt, and the necessity of water-baptism for salvation (based upon Mark 16:16 and John 3:5), teaches the salvation of all baptized, and the condemnation of all unbaptized children; assigning the latter to the limbus infantum on the border of hell, where they suffer the mildest kind of punishment, namely, the negative penalty of loss (pœna damni or carentia beatificæ visionis ), but not the positive pain of feeling (pœna sensus ). [SeeNote #741] St. Augustine first clearly introduced this wholesale exclusion of all unbaptized infants from heaven-though Christ expressly says that to children emphatically belongs the kingdom of heaven. He ought consistently to have made the salvation of infants, like that of adults, depend upon their election; but the churchly and sacramental principle checked and moderated his predestination theory, and his Christian heart induced him to soften the frightful dogma as much as possible. [SeeNote #742] As he did not extend election beyond the boundaries of the Catholic Church (although he could not help seeing the significance of such holy outsiders as Melchizedek and Job under the old dispensation), he secured at least, by his high view of the regenerative efficacy of water-baptism, the salvation of all baptized infants dying in infancy. To harmonize this view with his system, he must have counted them all among the elect. The Lutheran Creed retains substantially the Catholic view of baptismal regeneration, and hence limits infant salvation to those who enjoy this means of grace; [SeeNote #743] allowing, however, some exceptions within the sphere of the Christian Church, and making the damnation of unbaptized infants as mild as the case will permit. [SeeNote #744] At present, however, there is scarcely a Lutheran divine of weight who would be willing to confine salvation to baptized infants. The Reformed Church teaches the salvation of all elect infants dying in infancy, whether baptized or not, and assumes that they are regenerated before their death, which, according to Calvinistic principles, is possible without water-baptism. [SeeNote #745] The second Scotch Confession, of 1580, expressly rejects, among other errors of popery,’ the cruel judgment against infants departing without the sacrament.’ [SeeNote #746] Beyond this the Confessions do not go, and leave the mysterious subject to private opinion. Some of the older and more rigid Calvinistic divines of the supralapsarian type carried the distinction between the elect and the reprobate into the infant world, though always securing salvation to the offspring of Christian parents, on the ground of inherited Church membership before and independent of the baptismal ratification; while others more wisely and charitably kept silence, or left the non-elect infants-if there are such, which nobody knows-to the uncovenanted mercies of God. But we may still go a step further, within the strict limits of the Reformed Creed, and maintain, as a pious opinion, that all departed infants belong to the number of the elect. Their early removal from a world of sin and temptation may be taken as an indication of God’s special favor. From this it would follow that the majority of the human race will be saved. The very doctrine of election, which is unlimitable and free of all ordinary means, at all events widens the possibility and strengthens the probability of general infant salvation; while those Churches which hold to the necessity of baptismal regeneration must either consistently exclude from heaven all unbaptized infants (even those of Christian Baptists and Quakers), or, yielding to the instinct of Christian charity, they must make exceptions so innumerable that these would become, in fact, the rule, and overthrow the principle altogether. In the seventeenth century the Arminians resumed the position of Zwingli, and with their mild theory of original sin (which they do not regard as responsible and punishable before and independent of actual transgression), they could consistently teach the general salvation of infants. The Methodists and Baptists adopted the same view. Even in the strictly Calvinistic churches it made steady progress, and is now silently or openly held by nearly all Reformed divines. [SeeNote #747]

Whether consistent or not, the doctrine of infant damnation is certainly cruel and revolting to every nobler and better feeling of our nature. It can not be charged upon the Bible except by logical inference from a few passages (John 3:5; Mark 16:16; Romans 5:12), which admit of a different interpretation. On the other hand, the general salvation of infants, though not expressly taught, is far more consistent with the love of God, the genius of Christianity, and the spirit and conduct of him who shed his precious blood for all ages of mankind, who held up little children to his own disciples as models of simplicity and trustfulness, and took them to his bosom, blessing them, and saying (unconditionally and before Christian baptism did exist), ’Of such is the kingdom of heaven,’ and ’Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall in nowise enter therein.’

6. Salvation of adult heathen. This is a still darker problem. Before Zwingli it was the universal opinion that there can be no salvation outside of the visible Church (extra ecclesiam nulla satus ). Dante, the poet of mediæval Catholicism, assigns even Homer, Aristotle, Virgil, to hell, which bears the terrible inscription- ’Let those who enter in dismiss all hope.’ But the Swiss Reformer repeatedly expressed his conviction, to which he adhered to the last, that God had his elect among the Gentiles as well as the Jews, and that, together with the saints of the Old Testament from the redeemed Adam down to John the Baptist, we may expect to find in heaven also such sages as Socrates, Plato, Aristides, Pindar, Numa, Cato, Scipio, Seneca; in short, every good and holy man and faithful soul from the beginning of the world to the end. [SeeNote #748] For this liberality he was severely censured. The great and good Luther was horrified at the idea that even ’the godless Numa’ (!) should be saved, and thought that it falsified the whole gospel, without which there can be no salvation. [SeeNote #749]

Zwingli, notwithstanding his abhorrence of heathen idolatry and every relic of paganism in worship, retained, from his classical training in the school of Erasmus, a great admiration for the wisdom and the manly virtues of the ancient Greeks and Romans, and was somewhat unguarded in his mode of expression. But he had no idea of sending any one to heaven without the atonement, although he does not state when and how it was applied to those who died before the incarnation. In his mind the eternal election was inseparably connected with the plan of the Christian redemption. He probably assumed an unconscious Christianity among the better heathen, and a secret work of grace in their hearts, which enabled them to exercise a general faith in God and to strive after good works (comp. Romans 2:7; Romans 2:10; Romans 2:14-15). All truth, he says, proceeds from the Spirit of God. He might have appealed to Justin Martyr and other ancient fathers, who traced all that was true and good among the Greek philosophers and poets to the working of the Logos before his incarnation (John 1:5; John 1:10). [SeeNote #750]

During the period of rigorous scholastic orthodoxy which followed the Reformation in the Reformed and Lutheran Churches, Zwingli’s view could not be appreciated, and appeared as a dangerous heresy. In the seventeenth century the Romanists excluded the Protestants, the Lutherans the Calvinists, the Calvinists the Arminians, from the kingdom of heaven; how much more all those who never heard of Christ. This wholesale damnation of the vast majority of the human race should have stirred up a burning zeal for their conversion; and yet during that whole period of intense confessionalism and exclusive orthodoxism there was not a single Protestant missionary in the field except among the Indians in the wilderness of North America. [SeeNote #751] But in modern times Zwingli’s view has been revived and applauded as a noble testimony of his liberality, especially among evangelical divines in Germany, and partly in connection with a new theory of Hades and the middle state. This is not the place to discuss a point which, in the absence of clear Scripture authority, does not admit of symbolical statement. The future fate of the heathen is wisely involved in mystery, and it is unsafe and useless to speculate without the light of revelation about matters which lie beyond the reach of our observation and experience. But the Bible consigns no one to final damnation, except for rejecting Christ in unbelief, [SeeNote #752] and gives us at least a ray of hope by significant examples of faith from Melchizedek and Job down to the wise men from the East, and by a number of passages concerning the working of the Logos among the Gentiles (John 1:5, John 1:10; Romans 1:19; Romans 2:14-15; Romans 2:18-19; Acts 17:23; Acts 17:28; 1 Peter 3:19; 1 Peter 4:6). We certainly have no right to confine God’s election and saving grace to the limits of the visible Church. We are indeed bound to his ordinances and must submit to his terms of salvation; but God himself is free, and can save whomsoever and howsoever he pleases, and he is infinitely more anxious and ready to save than we can conceive.

Note #728 Zwingli defines providentia to be perpetuum et immutabile rerum universarum regnum et administratio.

Note #729 This illustration is used by Myconius in defending the Zwinglian view of Providence. See Schweizer, Centraldogmen, Vol. 1. p. 133. The illustration of Zwingli, Opp. IV. p. 112, concerning the adulterium Davidis and the taurus, is less happy.

Note #730 As a matter of history, it is an undeniable fact that the strongest predestinarians (whether Augustinians or Calvinists or Puritans) have been the most earnest, energetic, and persevering Christians. Edward Zeller (a cool philosopher and critic of the Tübingen school) clearly explains this connection in his book on the Theological System of Zwingli, pp. 17-19: ’Gerade die Lehre von der Erwählung, der man so oft vorgeworfen hat, dass sie die sittliche Kraft lähme, dass sie zu Trägheit and Sorglosigheit hinführe, gerade diese Lehre ist es, aus welcher der Reformirte jene rücksichts- und zweifellose, bis zur Härte und Leidenschaftlichkeit durchgreifende praktische Energie schöpft, wie wir sie an den Helden dieses Glaubens, einem Zwingli, einem Calvin, einem Farel, einem Knox, einem Cromwell, bewundern, welche ihn vor den Zweifeln und Anfechtungen bewahrt, die dem weicheren, tiefer mit sich selbst beschäftigten Gemüth so viel zu schaffen machen, von denen selbst der grosse deutsche Glaubensheld Luther noch in späten Jahren heimgesucht wurde. Die wesentliche religiöse Bedeutung dieser Lehre, ihre Bedeutung für das innere Leben der Gläubigen, liegt nicht in der Ueberzeuzung von der Unbedingtheit des göttlichen Wirkens als solchen, sondern in dem Glauben an seine Unbedingtheit in seiner Richtung auf dieses bestimmte Subjektin jener persönlichen Gewissheit der Erwählung, welche den Unterschied der reformirten Erwählungslehre von der augustinischen ausmacht, und eben darauf beruht es auch, dass die theoretisch ganz richtigen Konsequenzen des Prädestinatianismus in Beziehung auf die Nutzlosigkeit und Gleichgültigkeit des eigenen Thuns den Reformirten nicht blos nicht stören, sondern gar nicht für ihn vorhanden sind. Was er in den Sätzen von der ewigen Vorherbestimmung aller Dinge, von dem unwandelbaren Rathschluss der Erwählung und der Verwerfung, für sich selbst findet, das ist nur die unzweifelhafte Gewissheit, persönlich zum Dienst Gottes berufen zu sein, und vermöge dieser Berufung in allen seinen Angelegenheiten unter dem unmittelbarsten Schutz Gottes zu stehen, als Werkzeug Gottes zu handeln, der Seligkeit gewiss zu sein. Die Heilsgewissheit ist hier von der sittlich religiösen Anforderung nicht getrennt, der Einzelne hat das Bewusstsein seiner Berufung nur in seinem Glauben, und den Glauben nur in der Kräftigkeit seines gottbeseelten Willens, er ist sich nicht seiner Erwählung zur Seligkeit ohne alle weitere Bestimmung, sondern wesentlich nur seiner Erwählung zu der Seligkeit des christlichen Lebens bewusst; die Erwählung ist hier nur die Unterlage für das praktische Verhalten des Frommen, der Mensch verzichtet nur desshalb im Dogma auf die Kraft und Freiheit seines Willens, um sie für das wirkliche Leben und Handeln von der Gottheit, an die er sich ihrer entäussert hat, als eine absolute, als die Kraft des göttlichen Geistes, als die unerschütterliche Selbstgewissheit des Erwählten zurückzuerhalten. ’

Note #731

Zwingli, being requested by Philip of Hesse (Jan. 25, 1530) to send him a copy of his sermon, which he had preached without manuscript, reproduced the substance of it, and sent it to him, Aug. 20, 1530. under the title, Ad illustrissimum Cattorum principem Philippum sermonis de Providentia Dei anamnema. Opera IV. pp. 79-144. See a full extract in Schweizer’s Centraldogmen, Vol. 1. pp. 102 sqq. Ebrard makes too little account of this tract.

Note #732 In the later editions of his Institutes ; for in the first edition he confines himself to a very brief and indefinite statement of this doctrine.

Note #733 That is, of the verbal copula esti,est =significat, not of touto(Carlstadt), nor sôma= figura corporis (Œcolampadius, on the ground that Christ probably did not use the verb at all in the original Aramaic). Zwingli was always inclined to a tropical interpretation, and averse to the notion of a carnal presence, but was led to his exegesis in 1522 by a tract of Honius (Hoen), a lawyer of Holland, De eucharistia, which taught him in qua voce tropus lateret. See Ebrard, Vol. II. p. 97. His controversy with Luther began when he wrote a letter to Matth. Alber, at Reutlingen, Nov. 16, 1524.

Note #734

’Christum credimus vere esse in cœna, immo non credimus esse Domini cœnam nisi Christus adsit. ’ Niemeyer, p. 71.

Note #735 See above, p. 327.

Note #736

Dr. Hodge, e.g., does not rise above the Zwinglian view. He denies that Christ is present in any other way than spiritually, and that believers receive any other benefit than ’the sacrificial virtue and effects of the death of Christ on the cross,’ which he maintains was received already by the saints of the Old Testament and the disciples at the first Supper, before the glorified body of Christ had any existence. ’The efficacy of this sacrament, as a means of grace, is not in the signs, nor in the service, nor in the minister, nor in the word, but in the attending influence of the Holy Spirit.’-System. Theol. Vol. III. pp. 646, 647, 650.

Note #737

Dorner (in his History of German Theology, p. 287) says that Zwingli retained from his humanistic culture a certain disposition to ’an aesthetic consideration of sin,’ i.e., to see in it something disgraceful, unworthy, bestial rather than diabolical.

Note #738

Defectus naturalis, or, as he often calls it in his Swiss-German,a Brest, i.e. Gebrechen. ’Die Erbsünd, ’ he says in his book on Baptism,’ ist nüts (nichts ) anders weder (als ) der Brest von Adam her. . . . Wir verstond (verstehen ) durch das Wort Brest einen Mangel, den einer ohn sin Schuld von der Geburt her hat oder sust (sonst ) von Zufällen. ’ He distinguishes it from Laster and Frevel, vice and crime. He explains his view more fully in his tract De peccato originali ad Urbanum Regium, 1526, and also in his Confession to Charles V., 1530.

Note #739

’Peccatum originale non proprie peccatum est, non enim est facinus contra legem. Morbus igitur est proprie et conditio. ’Fidei Ratio ad Carol. V.Cap. IV. (Niemeyer, p. 20).

Note #740

Fidei Ratio, Cap. V. (Niemeyer, p. 21):’Hinc constat, si in Christo secundo Adam vitæ restituimur, quemadmodum in primo Adam sumus morti traditi, quod temere damnamus Christianis parentibus natos pueros, imo gentium quoque pueros. Adam enim si perderere universum genus peccando potuit, et Christus moriendo non vivificavit et redemit universum genus a clade per istum data, jam non est par salus reddita per Christum, et perinde (quod absit! ) nec verum, "Sicut in Adam omnes moriuntur, ita in Christo omnes vitæ restituuntur. " Verum quomodocunque de gentilium infantibus statuendum sit, hoc certe adseveramus, propter virtutem salutis per Christum præstitæ, præter rem pronunciare qui eos æternæ maledictioni addicunt, cum propter dictam reparationis causam, tum propter electionem Dei liberam, quæ non sequitur fidem, sed fides electionem sequitur. ’ In another passage against the Catabaptists he says: ’Electi eligebantur antequam in utero conciperentur: mox igitur ut sunt, filii Dei sunt, etiamsi moriantur antequam credant aut ad fidem vocentur.Comp. Zeller, 1.c. p. 162.

Note #741

Thelimbus infantum is, so to speak, the nursery of hell, on the top floor and away from the fire, as Bellarmin says,in loco inferni altiori, ita ut ad eum ignis non perveniat. In a still higher region was the limbus patrum, the temporary abode of the saints of the Old Testament, but this was vacated at the descent of Christ into Hades, when those saints were freed from prison and translated into Paradise.

Note #742

’Parvulos non baptizatos in damnatione omnium lenissima futuros ’ (Contra Jul. lib. V. 100. 11); ’Infantes non baptizati lenissime quidem, sed tamen damnantur. Potest proinde recte dici, parvulos sine baptismo de corpore exeuntes in damnatione omnium mitissima futuros ’ (De pecc. mer. et rem. cap. 16). Pelagius was more liberal, and assumed a middle state of half-blessedness for unbaptized infants between the heaven of the baptized and the hell of the ungodly. See particulars in myChurch History,Vol. III. pp. 835 sqq.

Note #743

Conf. August. Art. IX.: ’Damnant Anabaptistas qui . . . affirmant pueros sine baptismo salvos fieri. ’In the German edition the last clause is omitted.

Note #744

Calovius (in theconsensus repetitus fidei vere Lutheranæ, 1655), in the name of the strict Lutherans, rejected the milder view of a merely privative punishment of unbaptized infants, as held by Calixtus (see Henke, Georg Calixtus, Vol. II. Pt. II. p. 295), but it was defended by others. Fr. Buddæus, one of the most liberal among the orthodox Lutherans, describes the condition of heathen infants as admodum tolerabilis, though they are exclusi a beatitudine (Instit. Theol. dogm. Lips. 1723, p. 631). Others leave the children to the mercy of God. See V. E. Löscher’s Auserlesene Sammlung der besten neueren Schriften vom Zustand der Seele nach dem Tode, 1735; republished by Hubert Becker, 1835.

Note #745

Westminster Conf. chap. 10. §3: ’Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit, who worketh when and where and how he pleaseth. So also are all other elect persons who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the word.’ The last sentence may be fairly interpreted as teaching the election and salvation of a portion of heathen adults.

Note #746

’Abhorremus et detestamur . . . crudele judicium contra infantes sine baptismo morientes, bapitismi absolutam quant asserit necessitatem. ’Niemeyer, pp. 357, 358.

Note #747

Dr. Hodge, the most orthodox Calvinistic divine of the age, very positively teaches (Syst. Theol. Vol. 1. p. 26) the salvation of all infants dying in infancy, and represents this as the ’common doctrine of evangelical Protestants.’ This may be true of the present generation, and we hope it is, though it is evidently inapplicable to the period of scholastic orthodoxy, both Lutheran and Calvinistic. He supports his view by three arguments: 1. The analogy between Adam and Christ (Romans 5:18-19, where we have no right to restrict the free gift of Christ upon all more than the Bible itself restricts it); 2. Christ’s conduct towards children; 3. The general nature of God to bless and to save, rather than to curse and destroy.

Note #748 His last and fullest utterance on this subject occurs towards the close of hisExpositio Chr. Fidei, where, speaking of eternal life, he thus addresses the French king: ’Deinde sperandum est tibi visurum esse sanctorum, prudentium, fidelium, canstantium, fortium, virtuosorum omnium, quicunque a condito mundo fuerunt, sodalitatem, cœtum et contubernium. Hic duos Adam, redemptum ac Redemptorem: hic Abelum, Enochum, Noam, Abrahamum, Isaacum, Jacobum, Judam, Mosen, Josuam, Gedeonem, Samuelem, Pinhen, Heliam, Heliseum, Isaiam, ac deiparam Virginem de qua ille præcinuit, Davidem, Ezekiam, Josiam, Baptistam, Petrum, Paulum: hic Herculem, Theseum, Socratem, Aristidem, Antigonum, Numam, Camillum, Catones, Scipiones: hic Ludovichum pium antecessoresque tuos Ludovicos, Philippos, Pipinnos, et quotquot in fide hinc migrarunt maiores tuos videbis.Et summatim, non fuit vir bonus, non erit mens sancta, non est fidelis anima, ab ipso mundi exordia usque ad eius consummationem, quem non sis isthic cum Deo visurus. Quo spectaculo quid lætius, quid amænius, quid denique honorificentius vel cogitari potent? Aut quo iustius omnes animi vires intendimus quam ad huiuscemodi vitæ lucrum?’ See Niemeyer, p. 61. Similar passages occur in his Epistles, Commentaries, and tract on Providence. Comp. Zeller, p. 163.

Note #749

’Hoc si verum est, totum evangelium falsum est. ’ Luther denied the possibility of salvation outside of the Christian Church. In hisCatech. Major,Pars II. Art. III. (ed. Rechenb. p. 503, ed. Müller, p. 460), he says: ’Quicunque extra Christianitatem(ausser der Christenheit)sunt, sive Gentiles sive Turcæ sive Judæi aut falsi etiam Christiani et hypocritæ, quanquam unum tantum et verum Deum esse credant et invocent(ob sie gleich nur Einen wahrhaftigen Gott gläuben und anbeten),neque tamen certum habent, quo erga eos animatus sit animo, neque quidquam favoris aut gratiæ de Deo sibi polliceri audent et possunt, quamobremin perpetua manent ira et damnatione (darum sie im ewigen Zorn und Verdammniss bleiben).’

Note #750

Dr. Dorner, with his usual fairness and fine discrimination, vindicates Zwingli against misrepresentations (Gesch. d. Prot. Theol. p. 284): ’Man hat daraus eine Gleichgültigkeit gegen den historischen Christus und sein Werk erschliessen wollen, dass er [Zwingli ] auch von Heiden sagt: sie seien selig geworden; was die Heiden Weisheit nennen, das nennen die Christen Glauben. Allein er sieht in allem Wahren vor Christo mit manchen Kirchenvätern eine Wirkung und Offenbarung des Logos, ohne jedoch so weit zu gehen, mit Justin die Weisen des Alterthums, welche nach dem Logos gelebt haben, Christen zu nennen. Er sagt nur, sie seien nach dem Tode selig geworden, ähnlich wie auch die Kirche dasselbe von den Vätern des Alten Testaments annimmt. Er konnte dabei wohl diese Seligkeit als durch Christus gewirkt und erworben denken und hat dieselbe jedenfalls nur als in der Gemeinschaft mit Christus bestehend gedacht. Ist ihm doch durch den ewigen Rathschluss der Versöhnung Christus nicht bloss ewig gewiss, sondern auch gegenwärtig für alle Zeiten. So sind ihm jene Heiden doch selig nur durch Christus. Freilich das sagt er nicht, dass sie erst im Jenseits sich bekehren; auch erschneidet mit dem Diesseits die Bekehrung ab. Er lässt ihre im Diesseits bewährte Treue gegen das ihnen vom Logos anvertraute Pfund wahrer Erkentniss die Stelle des Glaubens vertreten. Aber es ist wohl kein Zweifel, dass er sie im Jenseits zur Erkentniss und Gemeinschaft Christi gelangend denkt. Bei den Frommen Alten Testaments fordert auch die Kirche zu ihrem Heil nicht eine bestimmtere Erkenntniss Christi im Diesseits, die sie höchstens den Propheten’ zuschreiben könnte. ’ Ebrard (in his History of the Dogma of the Lord’s Supper. Vol. II. p. 77) fully adopts Zwingli’s view: ’Jetzt wird ihm wohl Niemand mehr daraus ein Verbrechen machen. Wir wissen, dass Röm. ii. 7: "Denen, die in Beharrlickkeit des Gutesthuns nach unvergänglichem Wesen trachten ," ewiges Leben verheissen ist, wir wissen dass nur der positive Unglaube an das angebotene Heil weder hier noch dort vergeben wird, dass nur auf ihn die Strafe des ewigen Todes gesetzt ist; wir wissen, dass auf die erste Auferstehung der in Christo Entschlafenen noch eine zweite der ganzen übrigen Menschheit folgen soll, die alsdann gerichtet werden sollen nach ihren Werken, und dass im neuen Jerusalem selber die Blätter des Lebensbaumes dienen sollen zur Genesung der Heiden (Apok. 22. 2). Zwingli hat also an der Hand der heiligen Schrift das Heidenthum ebenso wie das Judenthum als an denstoicheiois tou kosmougehörig (Galatians 4:1-3) angesehen, und mit vollem Rechte einen Socrates neben einen Abraham gestellt. Ihm besteht die Seligkeit darin, dass das ganze Wunderwerk der göttlichen Weltpädagogik in seinen Früchten klar und herrlich vor den Blicken der erstaunten Seligen da liegt. ’

Note #751

John Eliot, the ’Apostle of the Indians,’ labored among the Indians in that polemical age. He died 1690, eighty-six years of age, at Roxbury, Massachusetts. David Brainerd (d. at Northampton, Mass., 1747) likewise labored among the Indians before any missionary zeal was kindled in the Protestant churches of Europe.

Note #752 John 3:18; John 3:36; John 12:48; Mark 16:16.