THE REFORMED
REFORMATION

REV. PROF. JAMES I, GOOD, D. D„ IX. D.

tf 'or- the fpMHdSkg 'if 'a College imfffigffsfimyll

•YAHJE-waniVEiasinnf- ILHBIBAmr

DIVINITY SCHOOL
TROWBRIDGE LIBRARY

GIFT OF
WILLISTON WALKER

£X&L~*~>^ S&LJO

Ol^^a&<7T5^^«/ii^^^-

/St^h^t^

A?L

l4 istJt^ y?&€,1s

J J^rL

The
Reformed Reformation

BY

REV. PROF. JAMES I. GOOD, D. D., LL. D.

Professor of Reformed Church History in
Central Theological Seminary-

Author of "Famous Reformers of the Reformed and Presbyterian
Churches," "Famous Women of the Reformed Church," "Famous
Missionaries of the Reformed Church," Famous Places of the
Reformed Churches," Origin and History of the Reformed Church
of Germany," History of the Reformed Church of Switzerland
since the Reformation," "History of the Reformed Church in the
United States," etc.

THE HEIDELBERG PRESS
1916

Entered, according to the Act of Congress, in the year 1916
by Rev. Jambs I. Good, D. D., LL. D.
In the office of the Librarian of Congress at Washington

PRESS OF BBRGBR BROTHERS
PHILADELPHIA

PREFACE
This work has been published to meet a desire by some
of the ministers of the Reformed Church for more material
on the Reformed side of the Reformation, which they might
use in the observance of the Quarto-centenary of the Reforma
tion. We therefore give less space to the Lutheran side of
the Reformation; especially as the material on that side of
the Reformation is more abundant, and besides the Lutherans,
to their credit be it said, have been exploiting Luther more
than the Reformed have been doing for Zwingli or Calvin.
Where we have treated of both sides of the Reformation, we
have tried to give the Lutheran side fairly, but we have given
the facts as they stand today. We have no desire to mini
mize Luther, but to give him all due credit for the greatness
of his work. But Luther is not the whole of the Reformation
and the Reformed should receive their fair recognition. We
have also endeavored to utilize the latest discoveries in the
history of the Reformation and also the latest publications of,
and on, that period. This has placed somethings in a new
light. The Reformed and Presbyterian Churches are especially
interested in all this, as they have come directly from Zwingli
through Calvin. And we trust that they will find this work
helpful for the observance of this Anniversary. We only
regret the shortness of time that we have had, in which to
prepare it so as to get it out before 191 7. And we regret
our inability, on account of the war, to get to Zurich so as
to get hold of more of the original sources, though our own
large library on the Reformed Church of Switzerland has
given much. That this book may have a share, however small,
in making this Anniversary a great inspiration and blessing
to our Churches is the wish of the author.
James I. Good.

CONTENTS BOOK I
Who Was The First Reformer? page
Chapter I. Prof. James Lefevre of France  1
Chapter II. Who was the First Reformer, Luther or Zwingli ? . . 30
Chapter III. Harmony of the Lutheran and Reformed Refor
mations  69
Chapter IV. The Historical Development of Zwingli's Early
Theology  91

BOOK II
The Contribution of The Reformed to The Spirit of Protestantism
Chapter I. The Unfinished Lutheran Reformation and Its Signi
ficance to the Reformed  105
Chapter II. The Contribution of Zwingli to the Spirit of the
Reformation  124
Chapter III. The Contribution of the Reformed to the Spirit of
Protestantism  134

APPENDIX  .144

The
Reformed Reformation

BOOK I
Who was the First Reformer?
INTRODUCTORY.
The question who was the first Reformer is an old one.
There has been a long debate between the Lutherans and the
Reformed as to which of the Reformers was the first, Luther
or Zwingli. This question seems a very simple one, but the
answer is not by any means so simple, as we shall see. But
first of all one thing is becoming prominent in the later re
searches about the history of the Reformation and that is,
that before either Luther or Zwingli, there was another who
was earlier, Prof. James Lefevre, of France. The tendency
of modern research about the Reformation has been to go
beyond the Reformers, back to their teachers as the sources of
the Reformation. And of these on the Reformed side two
stand out prominently, Prof. James Lefevre, of France, and
Prof. Thomas Wyttenbach, of Basle.

CHAPTER I.
PROF. JAMES LEFEVRE.
In the study of the Reformers, historical research has
been going back of the Reformers themselves to the study of
their antecedents. And so a new phase of the Reformation
has opened up. The value of these earlier men has so grown
that one of them' now looms up as the first Reformer, Prof.
James Lefevre of Paris. Prof. Doumergue, who has written
the latest and most elaborate biography of Calvin, makes
Lefevre not only a forerunner of the Reformers as has been
previously supposed, but he makes Lefevre to be himself a
Reformer. The old controversy whether Luther or Zwingli
was the first Reformer passes away, for Lefevre was before
either of them. And as Lefevre founded the Reformed
Church of France, the Reformed would seem to have the
advantage in priority. Lefevre was truly a Reformer, for
he aimed as did all the Reformers, at a reformation of the
Catholic Church.
Hitherto he has appeared as a sort of a shadowy form,
hovering about the beginning of the Reformation. But it has
been becoming more clearly evident that he was one of the
greatest, if not the greatest scholar just before the Reforma
tion. Baird says : "To Lefevre belongs the honor of restoring
letters to France." His eulogist, Scaevola de Saint-Marthe,
has not exaggerated his merit, when, placing him in the front
rank of the learned men whom he celebrates, he likens the
Picard doctor:
"To a new sun rising from the Belgian coast to dissipate
the fogs and darkness investing his native land and pour upon
its youth the full beams of a purer learning. Lefevre confined
his attention to no single branch of learning. He was equally
proficient in mathematics, in astronomy, in Biblical literature
and criticism. Brilliant attainments in so many departments
were commended yet more to the admiration of beholders by
a modest and unassuming deportment, by morals above re-

2 THE REFORMED REFORMATION
proach and by a disinterested nature in which there was no
taint of avarice."
When Erasmus could say, "Among the thousands of the
learned men of France, there is only one Lefevre," we can
begin to realize the position that he held in the learned world.
Reuchlin, one of his cotemporaries, wrote to him (1513),
"Thou art the most philosophical of the philosophers." In
15 17, Erasmus declared that "Lefevre was a man so pious,
so good, so learned, having rendered such great service to
learning and literature that he merited never to grow old."
This last wish of Erasmus came as nearly being fulfilled as
possible. Lefevre grew old until he became a centenarian,
according to Doumergue. Compared with him Erasmus and
Reuchlin, the two great humanists of that day, were as boys,
for he was old enough to be their grandfather. Lefevre was
teaching humanism before Erasmus ever knew humanism.
But his greatest glory was that he was the first to dethrone
the scholastic theology of the Catholic Church which had come
down from the middle ages. And this he did before Luther.
Beza calls him "one of the noblest of men of earth, if one con
siders his learning, his piety, his generosity. For he was the
one who by living voice and very learned writmgs had placed
again in the university of Paris, mathematics and the true
logic of Aristotle in place of the sophistry which before had
reigned." Beza hails him as :
"The man who boldly began the revival of the pure re
ligion of Jesus Christ; that just as in ancient times the school
of Isocrates sent forth the best orators, so from the lecture
room of the doctor of Etaples (Lefevre) issued many of the
best men of the age and of the Church."
And so it develops that this man, who has hovered around
the early history of the Reformation as a phantom, was a far
greater force than has hitherto been supposed' It used to be
said that "Erasmus laid the egg of the Reformation and
Luther hatched it." But now it appears that Lefevre laid the
egg of the Reformation even before Erasmus and that the
Reformers hatched it. For he seems to have been the father
of all the great Reformers of the first generation except
Melancthon, who was especially influenced by his relative,

PROF. JAMES LEFEVRE 3
Reuchlin. For Lefevre influenced, either directly or indirectly,
Luther, Zwingli, Farel and Lasco; and of them Luther and
Farel directly. He therefore stands out as the leader of the
thinkers of the age before the Reformation and the father of
the Reformers. He might well be named the "Father of the
Reformation." Prof. James Lefevre was born, — ah, here comes the first
surprise. The view formerly held was that he was born
about 1455. But Doumergue places his birth about 1435 and
very ably defends it in his "Life of Calvin." This date would
make Lefevre a centenarian when he died. It would make him
an old man (over 70) before the Reformation broke out. In
deed his efforts in the Reformation were made at a time in
life when most men go into retirement. Yet at that age he
entered into the thick of the battle. He has been criticized
for not having done more for the Reformation; the wonder
was, that in view of his great age, he did so much.
Not only the time when he was born is significant, but also
the place. He was born at Etaples in Picardy in northeastern
France. His real name was Faber and he has come down to
us as Faber Stapulensis or Faber of Etaples. But he has been
known to us in English mainly as Lefevre. Now it was from
this very same district of Picardy that John Calvin later came.
Indeed the Picards were noted as original thinkers and lead
ers, for to Lefevre and Calvin can be added a third Reformer —
the great Reformer of philosophy in the Reformation — Peter
Ramus. And other leaders, as Roussel, the eloquent preacher
in the French Reformation; Olivetan, the great translator of
the Bible into French; Vatables, Calvin's teacher of Hebrew,
and Beda, the great opponent of Protestantism in the Reforma
tion at Paris, all came from this district of Picardy.
Lefevre went from Picardy to Paris for his education.
His great hindrance was the barbarous instruction he received,
both in Picardy and Paris. But all sorts of obstacles melted
away before his extraordinary mind. He struggled up into
knowledge "like one clambering up the Rigi mountain to
see the sun gilding the peaks of an Alpine range." But he
kept on climbing and so got to the top of his profession.
The materials of his early life in the century before the
Reformation are meagre. He not only studied at Paris but

4 THE REFORMED REFORMATION
improved himself by much travel, both in France and other
countries, indeed is said to have traveled as far as Asia.
About the year 1492 he took a journey to Italy. He visited
Florence, Rome and Venice, where he studied Platonism and
Aristotelianism and also the works of the mystics. In Italy
he came into contact with Picus of Mirandola, who by his
criticisms of the Romish Church, was one of the immediate
forerunners of the Reformation. He then became professor
of mathematics and philosophy in the college of Cardinal
Lemorne at Paris. There he was greatly beloved by his pupils
for his ability, piety, modesty and gentleness. But he was
known far beyond his lecture room by his Latin translations
of the Church Fathers and his Commentary on the Works of
Aristotle. One of the studies that most influenced him was
Greek. He first learned it from a fugitive from Sparta named
George Hieronymus; who, about the middle of the 15th cen
tury, had been driven westward by the Turkish invasion of
Constantinople. But though the details of his life in that early period are
lacking, its results were not. McCrie, one of the Church his
torians of Scotland, says "Lefevre merits the title of 'Father
of French Literature,' not so much for the books he pub
lished as for the intellectual stimulus he gave to that age
through his scholars. The greater part of the Frenchmen who
distinguished themselves in the first part of the sixteenth cen
tury were either trained under him or in some way indebted
to his instructions." That statement of McCrie's is borne out
by the fact that the most distinguished men of the early part
of the sixteenth century were his pupils. They were Bricon
net, later bishop of Meaux, one of the most influential church
men of his age; Vatable, one of the finest teachers of Hebrew
and later Calvin's teacher ; Roussel, the confessor of Margaret,
Queen of Navarre and sister of king Francis I of France,
and others. Perhaps most eminent among his pupils was
William Bude, who led king Francis I, who was the patron
of humanism, to establish royal lectures in Paris, so that in
struction might be given in Greek, Hebrew and mathematics,
wholly in the spirit of the renaissance. This was done with
such a zeal for the new learning of humanism as to rouse
the hostility of the Sorbonne at Paris. Out of these royal

PROF. JAMES LEFEVRE 5
lectures grew later the College of France.
Lefevre's class room was the place where the seeds of
the Reformation were very early sown. Out of it came Will
iam Farel, the fiery herald of Protestantism and the co-laborer
of Calvin; Louis de Berquin, who was the first in France to
give his life as a martyr to the new faith, and others. Re
formers of other lands came into contact with Lefevre when
they visited Paris, as Lasco of Poland. In fact, all the early
Reformers of France grew out of his class room or through
his influence. But perhaps greatest of all, as Beza says, was
his attack on tfie scholastic theology that had ruled the uni
versities. He denounced it as barbarism. His conflict with it
and victory over it were the stepping stones to the
Reformation. In 1509 occurred an event destined to be epochal in his
life. Though still professor, he went to live with bishop
Briconnet in the great monastery at St. Germain de Pres in
Paris. There he lived as abbot for thirteen years. This close
connection with Briconnet, who had been his principal pupil,
brought him into close contact with the court of France;
especially as later, Roussel, another of his pupils, became con
fessor of Queen Margaret. It was through Lefevre that
Queen Margaret, the "Esther of the French court," was con
verted to Evangelical views. Her brother, King Francis I,
was favorable to humanism and hated alike the bigotry of
the monks and the tyranny of the priests. It was owing to
this close relationship of Lefevre to the French court, that he
did not pay his life as a forfeit for his Evangelical views.
Nothing but the royal protection ever permitted him to die
a natural death in the midst of so much persecution as
Protestantism suffered in France during his life.
The other important result of his entrance into this monas
tery was due to its large and important library. There he
turned to study and especially to the study of the Bible; for
the cloister library gave him much material. And this study
of the Bible made him a Reformer. Though at least fifty
years of age and probably seventy (according to Doumergue)
he began to set aside profane studies and to search the Bible.
The result of this was the publication of his first work on this
subject — the Psalms, "Quintuplex Psalterium."

6 THE REFORMED REFORMATION
To show his importance, let us institute a comparison.
One of the epoch-making events of the Reformation was the
publication of the New Testament in Greek by Erasmus in
1 516. Its great importance is shown by the fact that before
its publication, scholars, if they wanted to get hold of the
original Greek of the New Testament, had no way but to go
to the Church Fathers and pick out here and there a verse
of the New Testament. The Latin language had become the
sacred language of the Catholic Church and this so com
pletely, that it had crushed out the Greek. When therefore
Erasmus' New Testament appeared, it did not take long for
the Reformers to see the difference between it and the Romish
Church of their day. Erasmus therefore very worthily ac
quired great fame from this publication. But pause a moment.
Before Erasmus did so great a thing, Lefevre had long been
at work on an effort just as important. As early as 1509,
seven years before Erasmus had published his New Testament,
Lefevre published the Psalms, which was only the beginning
of his great work of Bible publication, far more extensive and
influential than Erasmus, as we shall see. This work on the
Psalms was in Latin. It contained five versions of the Psalms :
1. The Roman translation. 2. The Second Roman version —
the Gallican. 3. The translation from the Hebrew hy the
early Church Father, Jerome. 4. The translation before
Jerome. 5. Lefevre's own translation, with a critical and exe
getical commentary. He published this work in order that
students of the Bible might get new light and a deeper insight
into the meaning of that sacred book by a comparison of the
translations. Now in doing this he began to depart from a great doc
trine of the Catholics that the Vulgate was the sacred
translation. But more significant than this is a remark that
he makes in the book. In its preface he says "that all his
studies in human knowledge (and he had been at them for
perhaps a half a 'century) were only as darkness compared
with the brilliant light revealed by the study of the Scrip
tures." He compared this study of divine things "to the
exhalation" of a perfume to whose sweetness the world has no
equal." Thus somewhere about the time that Luther was
making his first discovery of a Bible at Erfurt, Lefevre had

PROF. JAMES LEFEVRE 7
published the results of his study of the Bible. Lefevre was
thus the Aurora — the daybreak of the Reformation, of which
Wycklife had been the Morning Star.
And now comes a most interesting fact about this work
of Lefevre's. It has been hitherto supposed that Lefevre was
the father of the French Reformation, but it was not known
that he affected the early Lutheran Reformation. Luther began
his lectures on the Psalms at Wittenberg about 15 12. What was
the book that he used? It was none other than Lefevre'^
work on the Psalms, for Luther's copy of the work has been
found, containing his own notes in it. An attempt has been
made by German Church historians to make everything in the
Reformation to be indebted to Luther — that every other Refor
mation came from the German Reformation. The attempt has
been made to make Lefevre indebted to Luther. But this
recent discovery has turned the tables completely. Lefevre
was not indebted to Luther, but Luther to Lefevre and in
two ways. 1. He used this work, of Lefevre in his Lectures.
2. He used Lefevre's method of exegesis. Lefevre broke
the way for a better exegesis than the exaggerated allegorizing
method of the Catholics. Lefevre began to see that the Bible
must be interpreted by itself and not according to the Church
fathers or according to the allegorizing method in use before
that time, by which each text had to have at least four ways
of being interpreted: literal, allegorical, tropical, and analogi
cal. He made a beginning of this new method in his work on
the Psalms. True, it was only a beginning and he still was
largely affected by the old allegorizing method. For he alle
gorized the Psalms somewhat and made them refer to Christ.
Still he began the new method which he later improved. And
this method Luther began adopting.
Another interesting fact about this book of Lefevre's is
that a copy of it came into the library of Zwingli also. In
our days, it is true, the mere presence of a book in a man's
library does not count for much, because of. the multitude of
books that are published. But in those days, when books were
scarce and very expensive, the owner would not put his money
into a book unless he was really interested in it. The pres
ence of a book in a library counted for much more in those

8 THE REFORMED REFORMATION
days than it would now. Thus the presence of heretical books
in a man's library was^^i counted as proof positive that he
was heretical. RememL-sring this, the presence of this book
in Zwingli's library is significant. And what makes it more
significant is the fact that Zwingli wrote his own notes on it in
the pages of the book, showing that he studied it. And it
doubtless began affecting his method of exegesis as he revealed
it later by making the Bible its own interpreter.
If the year 1509 was an epochal one for Lefevre, the
year 15 12 was more significant and for two things: He pub
lished a new book and he got a new pupil.
The first was the publication of Lefevre's work on the
Pauline Epistles. This is important, for Doumergue calls it
"the first Protestant book," published five years before Luther's
theses. And for that reason, he calls Lefevre "the first of
the Reformers." The second great event for Lefevre was that he got a new
student in William Farel, one of the greatest of the Reformers
and the co-laborer of Calvin. Farel so frequently referred in
his writings to his association with Lefevre that these cast a
very interesting sidelight into Lefevre's relation to the Refor
mation. So Lefevre was not only the first Protestant, but he
also raised up the first great leader of French Protestantism,
Farel. William Farel was born at Gap and about 1509 went to
Paris to study. He graduated there in 1517 and left that
city in 1521 to follow Lefevre to Meaux. The descriptions
he has left reveal very vividly Lefevre's life. His first descrip
tion of Lefevre is as a strict Catholic when he first came to
know him. He says:
"Prof. James Lefevre bowed down lower before the
images than any other person I had seen in my life. He
would stay for an immense time on his knees, praying and
telling his beads before those images. And I would join him
in doing so. I was delighted to have found such a man, slave
as he was to the pope1 and believing those things (Farel was
at that time a strict papist, 'more papistic than the pope him
self,' he says) which are most detestable in popish idolatry."
But it was this same Lefevre who led Farel out of these
superstitions to Christ, Fqr Lefevre would frequently tell his

PROF. JAMES LEFEVRE 9
young disciple : "All things are gone wrong, dear William,
and sbme day God will make al' '""gs new. You may per
haps see it." That prophecy came true. Farel not merely saw
that day, but Lefevre also. And Lefevre would also denounce
to him some of the evils of the Catholic Church. "How dis
agreeable," he says, "is it to see a bishop asking men to drink
with him, gambling, rattling the dice, spending his time with
hawks and^ dogs and in hunting, hallowing after rooks and
deer and following after such company."
But important as was Farel's coming to him, his publica
tion of his new work on the Pauline Epistles was equally im
portant. It was a Latin translation of, and commentary on,
the Letters of Paul. In it he enlarged upon what he had
hinted at in his work on the Psalms in 1509. "This book,"
says Doumergue, "may in a certain sense be called the first
Protestant book." This is because it was published five years
before Luther's theses and for that reason may be called the
first Protestant book. It makes Lefevre the first of the Re
formers. In it he speaks of the necessity of a reformation in
the Church. He says :
"The Church rather follows the examples of its leaders
and is far removed from what it ought to be. The signs of
the times foretell a new revival. And since God has opened
new ways for the preaching of the Gospel through the dis
coveries and conquests of the Spaniards and Portugese in all
parts of the world, we hope that he will also visit his Church
and again lift her up from the humiliation into which she has
fallen." His favorite idea that "God would renew the world," so
often expressed to Farel, appears in this work. "God in his
great mercy," he says, will soon revive the expiring spark in
the hearts of men so that faith and love and a purer worship
will return. "Well, he was old enough to be a prophet and
he proved to be a true prophet.
This book reveals Lefevre's independence of Rome in
several important respects.
1. In the preface, contrary to the common Catholic tradition,
which makes Jerome the early Church Father to be the author
of the Vulgate, he took the position that Jerome was not the
author of the Vulgate. Now to deny that Jerome was the

io THE REFORMED REFORMATION
author of Vulgate version was going straight against the
decree of the Catholic Church. He thus began an era of
criticism, which ultimately led to a breach with the Romish
Church. And he not only denied this to Jerome, but he began
departing from the Vulgate, as he soon tried to correct it
according to the Greek.
2. But more important and significant for Protestantism
was his declaration for the authority of the Bible; and this
supremacy of the Bible would logically interfere with the
supremacy of the Church's authority. He boldly says:
"It is there (in the Bible) where the doctrine of Christ is
found. And those who will study it, will draw water with joy
from the Savior's spring." "Let us exalt Christ our king by
studying him in the holy oracles. Let us not follow the pre
cepts and dogmas of men, which have no foundation in the
light that has shone from on high."
3. But more significant than either of these was his clear
enunciation of the doctrine of justification by faith. He held
that salvation was not of works, but was by grace — the free
gift of God. He says :
"It is almost blasphemous to talk of the merit of works
especially before God. For a merit does not seem to ask for
grace, but to exact what is due : to attribute merit to works is
to have the opinion of those who think that we can be justified
by works, an error for which the Jews were particularly con
demned. Therefore let us not speak of the merit of our
works, which is very small indeed, rather worthless. And let
us exalt the grace of God which is everything. One can
attribute real merit to no one but Christ, who has deserved
everything for us: But as for ourselves, let us acknowledge
that we have no merit before God and hope in his grace."
'But you say, has any one ever been justified without the
works of the law, either written or natural?' Yes, there have
been such and without number. Who knows not that the
penitent thief was justified by faith alone." "By works with
out faith it is impossible to be justified; by faith without works,
it is possible." "It is God alone who by His grace justifies unto ever
lasting life. There is a righteousness of works, there is a
righteousness of grace : the one is earthly and passeth away,
the other is heavenly and eternal : one is the shadow and the
sign, the other, the light and the truth : one makes sin known

PROF. JAMES LEFEVRE n
to us that we may escape death, the other reveals grace that
we may obtain life."
When asked by his hearers in his lectures, 'If we are not
justified by works what is the use of performing them?" His
answer was :
"Certainly, they are not in vain. If I hold a mirror
to the sun, its image is reflected ; the more I polish and clear it,
the brighter is its reflection. But if I allow it to become
tarnished, the splendor of the sun is dimmed. It is the same
with justification (he really means sanctification) in those who
lead an impure life."
His objectors answered, "Then St. James did not agree
with St. Paul ?" Lefevre's reply was :
"St. James says, in the first chapter, that every good and
perfect gift cometh down from above. Can you deny that
salvation is a good and perfect gift. It is true, works are a
necessary sign of faith, just as breathing is a necessary sign
of life. But a man breathes because he is alive. If he did
not breathe, you would know that he is dead. A man is
justified by faith, and works then follow as a necessity."
He does not stop here, but goes on to show how God could
be just and yet deal with guilty sinners, — he could punish sin
and yet spare the sinner. He said:
"Wonderful exchange, the Innocent One is condemned
and the criminal acquitted, the Blessed One is cursed and he
who is cursed is blessed, the life dies and the dead live, the
glory is covered with shame and he who is put to shame is
covered with glory. And all from God's free and sovereign
love. Those who are saved are saved because God chose it —
by grace, by the will of God, not by their own will. Our oWn
choice, our own will, our own works are useless, it is the choice
of God, that alone is the cause of our salvation. When we are
converted, it is not conversion that makes us to be God's chosen
people; but it is the grace, will and choice of God that makes
us to be converted people. And not converted people only, God
makes us to be members of the body of his Son so that we
are filled with himself; for in Christ dwelleth all the fullness
of the Godhead bodily. Oh if men could but understand this
privilege, how purely, how holily would they live. They would
look upon all the glory of this world as dung. They would
delight themselves in that glory which is hidden from the
eyes of the flesh." "There is but one foundation, one object,

12 THE REFORMED REFORMATION
one head, Jesus Christ, blessed forevermore. Let us not call
ourselves after Paul or Apollos or Peter. One is our Master,
even Christ."
Thus Lefevre, says Doumergue, not only posits the two
fundamental positions of Protestantism, the supremacy of
Scripture and justification by faith; but he also attacks the
bases of Catholicism. One of these was the magic of the
sacraments. He says :
"The washing with material water in baptism does not
justify us; but it is the sign of justification by faith in Christ:
for the sensible symbols are the signs of things and divine
infusions." He also attacked the reality of the mass. He opposes the
"opus operatum" in the Lord's Supper or the idea of sacrifice
in the mass. In commenting on Hebrews where Christ satis
fies for the sins of the whole world by his sacrifice alone,
he says :
"That which is performed every day by the ministry of
the priests is not so much repeated sacrifices as the remem
brance and recollection of the one and only victim who was
offered but once." "It is said every time that you do this 'do
it in remembrance of me,' for he has satisfied for us all. And
there are no other mysteries save in the presence of his body
and blood. The remembrance of the divine sacrifice and
satisfaction is beneficial to all and more acceptable to God
than any other sacrifice of satisfaction unto the end of the
world." He thus denies transubstantiation, though he held to a
real presence of Christ of some sort, which later reappeared
in the spiritual theory of Christ's presence, formulated by his
successor, Calvin.
In addition to attacking the sacraments, he also attacked :
i. The celibacy of the priests, saying of it that the Church
had fallen into the snare of the devil.
2. Lent and the practise of fasting. Also tithes, monkery,
etc. He says :
"There are men nowadays who teach a foolish godliness
instead of Christ's doctrine. What does it profit me to fast
new Lents or to pay my tithes ? Why trust myself to formulas
of prayer of unknown authors and leave aside the prescrip-

PROF. JAMES LEFEVRE 13
tions of the apostles. Why die in the cassock when one has
lived his whole life in the secular habit? No such thing is
ordered in Christ's doctrine. The balance may be more super
stitious than religious. Let us therefore attach ourselves to
Christ alone and to the doctrine of the apostles, for it is suffi
cient and it is first and paramount for salvation."
3. The use of the Latin language in the Catholic worship.
He declared that most of the people prayed without under
standing what they prayed and so they did not pray in the
Spirit We thus see how Protestant this book is, for these were
all of them sound Protestant positions and for that reason he
could be called a Protestant. It was truly a remarkable book
for its day. Its advanced ideas did not pass unnoticed by the
Catholics, although at the time its true import and significance
was not realized. There were several reasons for this :
1. One was that they were written in Latin, and so reached
only the learned.
2. The times were not ripe for such a book. The abuses
of the indulgences had not become a scandal as five years later
when Luther nailed up the theses.
3. Lefevre was a different sort of man from Luther. He
has commonly been represented as a quiet, mystical sort of
scholar. That is not exactly true. He could fight (as we
shall see) when attacked. But he was not the polemist that
Luther was. Luther was the offensive theologian, Lefevre
the defensive. But he was not the quiet sort of man hitherto
supposed, for he could hit back hard when attacked.
All these things prevented this book from creating the
sensation later created by Luther, although this book was far
more Protestant than Luther's theses, which had little of what
is distinctively Protestant in them.
But what makes this book still more significant as a
source of the Reformation, is that it has been discovered that
Luther possessed a copy of it and used it in his lectures at
the university at Wittenberg. He used it up to 1516 or 1517
when the New Testament of Erasmus came into his hands.
Luther therefore was indebted to Lefevre. The German
Church historians have labored to make all the rest of the

14 THE REFORMED REFORMATION
Reformation to be indebted to Luther. Zwingli, say Harnack
and Loofs and Seeborg, got his ideas from Luther. We will
answer this claim in regard to Zwingli elsewhere. They also
claim that Lefevre was indebted to Luther.* But the recent
discovery of Luther's copy of Lefevre's Commentary has
proved that Luther utilized Lefevre. No, Lefevre stated the
doctrine of justification in 15 12 before Luther held to that
doctrine. That doctrine was not formulated till the Reforma
tion. And Lefevre's book was the only one in which that
doctrine of justification by faith was first formulated. So
Luther got its formulated statement from him. We thus see
how Luther was indebted to Lefevre. Luther was not the
first Reformer as the Germans claim, but Lefevre. Luther
speaks highly of Lefevre for he later says he feared "Erasmus
did not sufficiently promote the cause of Christ and the grace
of God, in which he was more ignorant than Lefevre."
It has been objected by those who favor Luther, that
Lefevre was not a Reformer, because he did not do something
like burning the pope's bull as Luther did or write a work such
as Calvin's "Institutes of Theology." Well there were others
whom the world recognizes as Reformers besides Luther and
Calvin and yet they did not burn a bull or write an Institutes.
Neither Bullinger or Beza did any such things, yet they are
rated as Reformers. Each man became a Reformer accord
ing to his own disposition and circumstances. There were
different kinds of Reformers and Lefevre was one of them.
But again it is objected that Lefevre held to some Catholic
doctrines. That is true, for when he published this work he
seems still to have held to prayers to the saints and purgatory
and did not attack the constitution of the Catholic Church.
But neither was Luther a Protestant when he nailed the theses
up at Wittenberg. He still held to the invocation of the
saints and transubstantiation and other Romish doctrines. The
truth seems to be that Lefevre was as much a Protestant
in 1512 as Luther in 1517 and more so. Thus Farel, in 1522,
says of Luther, that the gospel was hindered in France by the
reading of Luther's earlier works, because they were not ex-
* Doumergue has ably answered this in his Life of Calvin,
Vol. I, pages 542-555.

PROF. JAMES LEFEVRE 15
purgated from such Romanizing ideas as prayers to the saints,
purgatory and transubstantiation.
Again some have objected to Lefevre's being a Reformer
because he did not directly break off from Catholicism and
come out squarely as a Protestant. Neither did Luther at
first. He did not really break with the Catholic Church until
it began to break with him. It forced the issue. We shall
take up this special point about Lefevre later. Suffice it to
say just now, that the charge of timidity that used to be
made against Lefevre and which, it was said, kept him from
leaving the Catholic Church, must now be revised in the light
of what Prof. Doumergue has brought forth. Lefevre got
into too many controversies after this to have been a timid
man. This doctrine of justification by free grace, taught in this
book, he taught to Farel, who in later years wrote "Lefevre
extricated me from the false opinion of human merits and
taught me that everything came from grace, which I believed
as soon as it was spoken." Farel also says "Lefevre turned
me from the false thought that I could deserve anything of
God." He said, "We have no merits at all. All is of grace
or of God's pure mercy to those who deserve nothing. And
this I believed as' soon as it was told me."
We now come to the period when Lefevre shows his fight
ing mettle. The first controversy was a humanistic controversy
in 1 5 14 between the humanists and obscurantists. John Pffer-
korn, a converted Jew, and Jacob Hochstratten, a Dominican
inquisitor, had insisted on the banishment of the Jews and
the destruction of their writings. The emperor Maximilian,
to settle the controversy, finally required an opinion from
Reuchlin. This great Humanist, who was the finest Hebraist
of his day, with great ability defended Hebrew literature.
Pfferkorn published Reuchlin's opinion with abusive comments,
denounced him as a heretic and had him brought before the
bishop of Spires for trial. The whole literary and theological
world of that day was drawn into the contest. On the one
side were the monks and on the other the humanists. Reuch
lin was acquitted by the court. But the battle between the
two parties continued to rage until Count Francis Von Sickin
gen forced the monks to pay the costs of prosecution and to

16 THE REFORMED REFORMATION
make an honorable reparation to Reuchlin. In this great con
troversy, the greatest just before the Reformation, where did
Lefevre stand? Was he timid? Not at all. He boldly de
fended Reuchlin. Thus in a letter of August 30, 15 14, he
wrote to Reuchlin: "If you triumph, we triumph with you."
The next great controversy into which Lefevre entered
was directly against Catholic ideas. It occurred in 1517, the
very year Luther nailed up his theses. Lefevre ventured to
battle with the Sorbonne at Paris. The previous year, he had
published a second edition of his Commentary on Paul's
Epistles, which contained so much about justification as we
have seen. Now he also published another work on Mary
Magdalene. This attacked a favorite view of the Catholics,
indeed one that was incorporated in their liturgy for the
Church Lessons set down for festival days. It thus had
official sanction. It was that the three Marys of the New
Testament, Mary Magdalene, Mary of Bethany, and Mary
who anointed Jesus' feet, were one and the same person.
Lefevre declared that they were not one but were three differ
ent persons. He discussed it as a mere academic question,
but it raised a tremendous storm. The Sorbonne at Paris,
led by Beda, loudly attacked it. The Franciscans, Carmelites,
Dominicans vomited forth insults on the author of this heresy.
They called him "stupid," "impious," "ignorant." A great
polemical controversy arose. In this storm, what did Lefevre
do? Did he do, as we have hitherto been led to believe (be
cause he was such a timid character) , be silent or recant ? Not
at all. He boldly replied to these attacks. Yes, he even went
farther than before. He added another idea that seemed to
them heretical. He declared that Anna, the husband of Mary,
had not three husbands and three daughters as they believed,
but one husband and one daughter. When warned by a friend
that the publication of one of his books would expose him to
the fire, he replied :
"I fear nothing. I do not believe there can be danger
when we drive error from the minds of Christians in order
to show them the truth.' If some condemn me and my book
to the fire, I will pray against the fire that the dew from heaven
will put it out. I will forgive them."
These are not the words of a coward but of a martyr.

PROF. JAMES LEFEVRE 17
Thus a tremendous polemic grew around Lefevre. Re
peated attacks on him were published. Replies were made to
them by his friends as Clichtove and Agrippa of Nettesheim
To Beda, Lefevre's unpardonable offence was that he, a pro
fessor in the philosophical department of the university, should
presume to investigate matters that belonged only to the doc
tors of theology of the Sorbonne. The bishop of Paris ap
pealed to Fisher, the bishop of Rochester in England, who
published two tracts against Lefevre and Clichtove. They
responded and he replied. Thus there was a battle of books.
But in it all Lefevre never lost his courage or proved the
weakling he has hitherto been supposed to be. Farel, writing
of this controversy, says : Inasmuch as Master Faber had a
great deal more learning than all the doctors of Paris, he
was persecuted by them for that reason. And I t>egan thereby
to see the meanness of those doctors and esteemed them no
longer as I had done." Great was the uproar among the
students of the university as Lefevre taught his new doctrines.
They began to occupy themselves almost as much with the
doctrines of the Gospel as with their studies and comedies.
Finally the university of Paris on November 9, 1521,
issued a decree that he was a heretic because he maintained
that the three Marys were not one person. Thus six months
after the university ordered Luther's books to' be burned there,
Lefevre was condemned. Luther's works since 15 19 had been
coming into France. Beda and the Sorbonne detested and
feared Luther; but lo! they had a Luther in their midst in
Lefevre. Beda wanted to bring Lefevre before parliament as
a heretic. But just then the royal friendship of King Francis
and Queen Margaret intervened for Lefevre and the process
against him was stopped. Such was the storm that Lefevre
raised and nothing saved him but the royal intervention. But
meanwhile Lefevre had escaped from the power of his enemies.
He had left Paris early in 1521 and gone to Meaux, about
thirty miles from Paris, at the invitation of bishop Briconnet,
who had been one of his students. There he was safe.
During this controversy around him, Lefevre was also
passing through a change within himself. At the beginning
of 1 5 19 he published the "Legends of the Saints" or the "Acts
of the Martyrs." This was a collection of legends intended

18 THE REFORMED REFORMATION
for daily meditation of believers. The book was nothing but
a collection of superstitions. He published the legends for
January and February; but March came and no Legends ap
peared. Hardly had he begun the publication before he
stopped it. Farel says, "Having heard the gross idolatry
which belonged to the prayers of the saints and that their
legends served as brimstone to kindle the fire, he gave it all
up and betook himself to Scripture." Thus Lefevre cast away
saints and saint-worship. Farel thus describes it: "One, for
whom I thank God, spoke to me about worship, — that we
should worship God alone, — no saints, no images, no angels —
God alone." And thus Lefevre in 1519 in casting aside this
doctrine, not only preceded Luther in justification by faith
but also in giving up saint-worship, which Luther did not give
up until about 1523.
At Meaux he found safety and rest. He found relief
from the perpetual clamor at Paris against Luther and against
his own doctrines. He also found congenial surroundings.
The King's mother and Margaret, his sister, visited Meaux
soon after he came there. Margaret declared that the King
had entirely decided to let it be understood that the truth of
God was not heresy. A few weeks later, she wrote that her
mother and brother were more intent than ever on the refor
mation of the Church. Meanwhile Briconnet prepared to re
form his diocese. Lefevre, in 1523, was appointed by Bri
connet vicar-general of his diocese. Briconnet invited the
leaders of the Evangelicals, Roussel, Farel and others, to labor
in his diocese. They went everywhere preaching the gospel,
Lefevre declared.
"Kings, princes, nobles, people, all nations should think
and aspire after Christ alone. Every priest should resemble
that archangel whom John saw in the Apocalypse, flying
through the air, holding the everlasting Gospel in his hands
and carrying it to every people, nation, tongue and king. Na
tions awake to the light of the Gospel and inhale the heavenly
life. The Word of God is all sufficient. Of this Church it
was written, "In this diocese an image of the renovated Church
shines forth."
Lefevre, with several friends, was once engaged in conver
sation with some warm partizans of Rome. Lefevre, warming

PROF. JAMES I^EFEVRE 19
up at the prospect he seemed to behold, exclaimed : "Already
the gospel is winning the hearts of the nobles and of the com
mon people alike. Soon it will spread all over France and
cast down the inventions which the hand of man hath set
up." "Then," angrily retorted De Roma, a Dominican monk.
"Then I and others like me will join in preaching a crusade;
and should the King tolerate the proclamation of the Gospel,
we will drive him from his kingdom by means of his own
subjects." Lefevre wrote to Farel, July 6, 1524:
"You can scarcely imagine with what ardor God is mov
ing the minds of the simple in some places to embrace his
Word since the books of the New Testament have been pub
lished in France, though you will justly lament that they have
not been scattered more widely among' the people. The attempt
has been made to hinder the work under cover of the author
ity of parliament; but our most gracious King has become in
this matter the defender of Christ's cause, declaring it to be
his pleasure that his kingdom shall hear the Word of God
freely and without hinderance in the language which it under
stands. At present throughout our entire diocese on feast-
days and especially on Sunday, both the epistle and gospel are
read to the people in the vernacular tongue and the parish
priest adds a word of exhortation to the epistle or gospel or
both at his discretion."
Lambert of Avignon also wrote hopefully, January 20,
1523, to the Elector of Saxony: ''France is almost entirely
in the Evangelical movement." A cotemporary, chronicling
in 1526, said that Meaux was full of the false doctrine of
Luther. He made the cause of all the trouble to be Lefevre,
a priest and scholar, who rejected pictures from the Churches,
forbade the use of holy water for the dead and denied the
existence of purgatory.
And now begins to appear another great labor of Le
fevre's, which revealed his Protestantism. Lefevre, says Dou
mergue, was not only the first Reformer but also the great
Biblical Reformer, — that is, he was the first great translator
of the Bible into the vernacular. His work on the Psalms and
the Pauline Epistles was followed in 1522 by his Commentary
on the Gospels. In it he maintained "that the Word of God
and not the doctrines of men point out the way of salvation.
He prayed for a return to the pure faith of the Church of the

20 THE REFORMED REFORMATION
martyrs." In its preface he declared that "those, who forbid
the common people to read the good news which the Lord
commanded should be preached to every creature, would have
to answer for their sin before his tribunal. Bishop Briconnet
had Lefevre's Bible translations printed for the education of
the clergy in his diocese. But the Sorbonne at Paris placed
them in the Index of heretical books and only through the
mediation of the King was a farther investigation stopped. In
1525 Lefevre published his Commentary on the Catholic
Epistles. In this he first uncovers the errors of the Vulgate.
At the request of the King and Queen Margaret and also
of Briconnet, he began a translatiqn of the New Testa
ment into the French language. This was made from the
Vulgate and appeared in 1523 and the Psalms in 1525. By
1530 Lefevre had the whole Bible published in French. This
was a great boon to the French, to whom the Bible had been
a closed book. The learned might familiarize themselves with
its contents by reading the Vulgate; but others, acquainted
only with their mother tongue, were reduced to the necessity
of using a rude version in which the text and glosses were
intermingled in inextricable confusion and the Scriptures were
made to countenance the most absurd abuses. But although
they had had this earlier translation, Lefevre was the first
to depart from the Vulgate, which the previous ones had
closely followed. For although he translated from the Vul
gate, he enriched it here and there by comparison with the
Greek. His work in Bible translation was very remarkable,
1. In 1509 and 1534 a Latin translation of the Psalms;
2. A Latin Commentary on the New Testament, published
three times ;
3. A French translation of the New Testament, 1523;
4. A French translation of the Psalms, 1524 and 1528;
5. A French translation of the Old Testament in 1528;
6. A French translation of the whole Bible into French in
1530; 7. A French translation of the whole Bible with critical,
marginal corrections in 1534.
When he began, he closely followed the Vulgate, as Wick
liffe had done in his first translation into English. But more
and more in his later works he introduced corrections from the

PROF. JAMES LEFEVRE 21
Greek and Hebrew until in 1534 he published the first real
critical edition. This edition (1534 and also 1541) was con
sidered so dangerous by the Catholics that it was prohibited
in the Netherlands where it was published and by the Council
of Trent, because it departed from the sacred text of the Vul
gate. It was destroyed with great rigor by the Catholics. All
this Bible translation was a magnificent undertaking, prompted
by a fervent desire to promote the spiritual interests of his
countrymen. Only one, who has the Protestant spirit and who
believed in one 6f the fundamental principles of Protestantism
which was denied by Romanism, namely, that the Bible must
be placed in the hands of the common people in the vernacular,
could ever have been lead to undertake such a great under
taking. Lefevre's translation was the basis of all later trans
lations into French. It is worthy to rank with the translation
of Luther, which it preceded by four years, and also with the
Swiss Reformed translation of Zurich into German with which
it synchronized. In 1525 came the great test of Lefevre's life. Briconnet,
his bishop, had called down on himself the wrath of the Catho
lic authorities around him by his Evangelical reforms. Beda,
the leader of Romanism, was especially active and it was of
Beda that Erasmus once declared: "In one Beda there are
3,000 monks." In 1525 came the opportunity of the enemies
of Protestantism. The king of France was defeated at Pavia
and taken prisoner to Spain. In his absence, Romanism
seized the opportunity. It introduced the inquisition into
Paris. It took action against Briconnet. The Protestants were
the more helpless as Margaret, the king's sister, had also
gone to Spain to visit Francis. Briconnet did not have the
moral courage to resist his superiors. On October, 1525, he
issued a decree, at the order of parliament in Paris, condemn
ing Luther's doctrines. Lefevre's -translations were ordered to
be burned. Lefevre was very awkwardly placed. But did
he go back on his Evangelical views as Briconnet did? He
would have done so had he been the weakling he has been
hitherto depicted try his biographe.rs. No, he refused to recant
his Evangelical views and go back to Romanism. Rather than
do so, he fled to Germany in company with Roussel. They
went to Strassburg where they were gladly received by its

22 THE REFORMED REFORMATION
Reformers, Bucer and Capito. He stayed with Capito. And
there he would probably have stayed and become a Reformer
just like his pupil Farel and like Calvin who came there later.
Now, if Lefevre had been the timid man he has been sup
posed to be, how did he get courage to flee. If he had given
up his Protestantism as did Briconnet, he would not have been
worthy of being a Reformer; but just because he did not give
it up, he was a Reformer. Contrast him with Erasmus, who
while- he attacked some of the errors of the Catholic Church,
yet was always careful never to go too far. He always turned
tail sufficiently to put himself under the aegis of Rome. Or to
come nearer home, why did not Lefevre give up his Protestant
ism as did, at that time, his bosom friend and former defender,
Clichtove. Rome would have received him back as it did
Clichtove for a "slight recantation." Ah, Lefevre is more of
a Reformer than he has been reputed to be.
But a fortunate providence led to his return to France.
The King, Francis I, having returned to France from his im
prisonment in Spain, recalled him to Paris. He gave him a
position in the royal family as tutor of his children and as
librarian of the chateaux of Blois, where he could continue his
labors on the Bible. And when Lefevre came back to France
at the King's invitation, was it on condition that he give up
his Evangelical views ? No, he came back holding them as
clearly as before as we shall see when we come to his "Mass
of Seven Points."
But his position at Paris was uncomfortable, indeed it
became dangerous. The Catholics around him knew his Evan
gelical views. So Queen Margaret, the king's sister, came to
his rescue. She wrote to her nephew, the grandmaster of
Montmorency, "That good man, Lefevre', writes to me that he
is uncomfortable at Blois, because the folks are trying to
annoy him. For change of air he would willingly go to see
a friend of his if such were the King's pleasure." The request
was granted, for "the friend" mentioned was the Queen her
self, for she had been, as we have seen, one of his early con
verts. As early as 1521 she read her Bible and had it ex
plained to her by Lefevre. In 1527 he had rekindled her
faith as he said to her, "Do not be afraid, the election of God
is mighty." So Lefevre, for the rest of his life, was a resident

PROF. JAMES LEFEVRE 23
at her court at Nerac, where he was safe. There he concen
trated his attention more and more on his publication of the
Bible. But the papal party did not despair of winning Lefevre
back. A letter of the papal nuncio Aleander" of December 30,
1 53 1, has recently been exhumed in the Vatican records, which
showed that there was correspondence between the heads of
the papal Church about him. Aleander, in this letter, strongly
expressed himself in favor of making the effort. He said :
"Lefevre's 'few errors' had at first appeared to be of
great moment, because they were published at a time when to
change or correct the most insignificant syllable or a faulty
translation of the Scriptures when approved by the Church,
was an unheard of innovation. But by the time he now wrote,
more important questions had come to arrest attention and
the mere matter of re-translation without introducing un
sound doctrine seemed to be of little or no consequence. Let
Lefevre but leave the heretical company, which he has kept
and make but the least bit of retraction, respecting a few
passages and the whole matter would be at once arranged."
"But though this effort was thus talked of, nothing came
out of it, probably because Lefevre was too firm in his Evan
gelical principles.
Just two years before Lefevre's death, occurred two very
significant events in his life. The first was the visit of Calvin
to him. Calvin was staying at Angouleme with Du Tillet, not
far from Nerac, and he visited Lefevre at Nerac in April,
1534. Calvin, like all French Protestants of that day, felt
himself indebted to Lefevre. For although he had not been
a pupil of Lefevre's, yet it had been a pupil of Lefevre's,
Roussel, who seems to have exerted great influence over him
at the crisis of his life, his conversion. It is a remarkable co
incidence that just at the time that Lefevre had finished and
published a better French version of the Scriptures than had
before existed, there should come to him the young man,
John Calvin, who was to reduce the doctrines of "Scripture
to an orderly arrangement in his "Institutes of Theology."
When Calvin arrived at the chateaux and asked for Lefevre,
they told him Lefevre was "a little bit of a man, as old as
Herod, but as lively as gunpowder." Beza says the aged man
received the young man and looked upon him with pleasure,

24 THE REFORMED REFORMATION
prophesying that he would be an instrument for the establish
ment of the heavenly kingdom in France. Fl de Raemond
completed the description of this interview thus : Lefevre left
himself go over to the opinions of Calvin more than Roussel
did. He desired him nevertheless to hold back, from the fear
that he had that fervid spirit that might lead to disorder. Le
fevre gave him in parting his advice that he should govern
his opinions by those of Melancthon. In truth, Lefevre was in
spirit the French Melancthon, mild, yet true to Protestantism.
No wonder then he chose Melancthon as the model for Calvin to
follow. Lefevre told Calvin how the opposition of the Sorbonne
had compelled him to take refuge in the south so as to escape
the bloody hands of the doctors. Calvin was deeply impressed
by Lefevre, whose white hair and broken-down appearance
(he was about 99 years old) had about him a living force and
meekness, a moral grandeur and heavenly brightness that
charmed him. He urged Lefevre, whose idealistic views led
him to frequently repeat, "There ought to be only one Church,"
to greater decision. Lefevre was moved and, weeping, said :
"Alas, I know the truth, but I keep myself apart from those
who confess it." Then wiping his eyes, he gave Calvin his
benediction. Lefevre was also greatly impressed with Calvin.
He had already sent forth one Reformer, Farel, with the
words: "God will renew the face of the world and you will
see it." Now he sends forth another Reformer in Calvin.
He perceived that a greater than Farel was before him. "Young
man," he said to him, "you will some day be a powerful instru
ment in the Lord's hand. The world will obstinately resist
and everything will seem to conspire against the Son of God.
But stand firm on that rock and many will be broken by it.
God will make use of you to restore the kingdom of God in
France." Such was the prophecy of the aged seer already
breathing the air of eternity. It could hardly be expected that
at that gre'at age (99) he would go out with Calvin to new
work. His confession of weakness then, can be somewhat
condoned, when one remembers that such weakness often
comes on the very aged. Old age naturally loves rest and
Lefevre at his great age yielded to this peculiarity. But this
scene was like the transferring of a spiritual sceptre. Just

PROF. JAMES LEFEVRE 25
as Elijah transferred his mission and power to Elisha when
his mantle fell to earth from the fiery chariot in the skies, so
Lefevre here transferred the spiritual leadership of the French
Reformation to Calvin.
The second important event of that year (1534) was the
"Mass of Seven Points." When Lefevre went back to France
from Strassburg to live with King Francis I and Queen Mar
garet, was it on condition that he give up all his Evangelical
views and customs? Not at all. He still retained them as
strongly as ever. If he had not, he would have ceased to be
a Reformer. But just because he retained them, he continued
to be a Reformer, for he had suffered for them. In Mar
garet's court, her chaplain, Roussel, did not pray to the Virgin.
And he celebrated the Lord's Supper at times after the
Protestant fashion. By 1534 it is evident that these views were
still held by the Reformers of Nerac. It is also revealed that
they had not given up hope of gaining the king, and with him
France, over to their views. For the "Mass of Seven Points"
was the last attempt of Margaret to gain her brother, the king,
over to Evangelical views. It was made in the autumn of
1534 when she visited him at Paris. But alas, because the
placards against the mass had been posted up all over France,
her brother was just then very angry against the Protestants.
He replied to her proposal: "You want no Church and no
sacraments." She replied that it was necessary at that time
to unite the whole Church under one man, the bishop of Rome ;
but that the priests ought to be stripped of certain scholastic
doctrines and superstitious practices that robbed the ritual of
the Church of its primitive beauty. She hoped by. thus taking
advantage of the king's weak side — glory, to represent to him
the glory he could get, by being an instrument to thus unite
the Church. She then took from her pocket a paper that at
her request Lefevre had drawn up for her before she left
Nerac. It was a Confession of Faith known as the "Mass of
Seven Points." Its contents were as follows : The priest will
continue the mass, only
1. It will be a public communion (no private masses by
priests alone).
2. He will not lift up the host before the congregation.
3. There will be no adoration of the host by the congre-

26 ' THE REFORMED REFORMATION
gation kneeling when it is lifted up.
4. The priests and the people will commune in both
elements. 5. There will be no commemoration of Mary and the
saints. 6. The communion will be celebrated with ordinary bread
(and not with the wafer).
7. The priest, after breaking and eating, will distribute
the remainder to the people.
To these seven points of the mass was added another,
that the priests were to have the liberty to marry. One can
see from these how Protestant Lefevre still was. He was
farther than Luther was when he was first called a Protestant,
because he denied the worship of Mary and the saints and
would use bread instead of wafers. No wonder Francis I,
after hearing the paper, said "And what is then left of the
mass?" This incident throws a flood of light on Lefevre's
last days. It gives a political significance to his conservatism.
He hoped by it to at last gain the king and the court of France
to Protestantism. It failed; but Lefevre's motive must be
respected though this has been forgotten by historians.
Just before his death, Farel, who wanted help at Geneva
to introduce the Gospel, wrote to him to come and aid him
in his conflict with Romeanism. The venerable man shed
tears and returned thanks for what he heard. But he declined
Farel's invitation. This was natural for he was entirely too
old to take part in a disputation as Farel desired. This has
also been used against Lefevre to show that he was timid.
Rather it should be remembered that by this time Lefevre had
gotten to an age (being nearly one hundred years old) when
people don't go into new things or go to new places to live ;
for old age is naturally opposed to change of abode. Old age
loves a place to rest; and Lefevre, having found such a place,
was but following the course of old age in preferring to
stay there.
So he remained in his asylum until 1536, when he died,
a centenarian. The following scene, just before his death, was
told of him by Queen Margaret to Elector Frederick II of
the Palatinate when he visited Paris in 1538. Frederick's sec
retary gives it thus :

PROF. JAMES LEFEVRE 27
"The excellent man, James Lefevre of Etaples in Picardy,
who has been one of the most learned men of his day, seeing
himself cruelly persecuted in Paris by the followers of Sor
bonne, retired to Nerac, close to Margaret, Queen of Navarre,
sister of King Francis I. That princess, who loved letters,
received that excellent old man with joy and conversed with
him often about many serious and noble affairs. One day,
having planned to dine with him, she gathered together a num
ber of learned persons. During the repast Lefevre appeared
very sad and sometimes shed tears. The Queen, perceiving it,
asked of him the cause, rallying him that he was causing a
sadness instead of contributing to their recreation. 'Alas,
Madame,' he replied to her, 'How can I have the joy of con
tributing to those of others, being a wicked man on the earth.'
She replied, 'What so great sin have you committed, you, who
seem to have conducted before your evil age, a life so saintly
and innocent?' 'Madame,' he said, 'I see myself at the age
of 101 without having touched a woman and do not at all
remember to have any fault of which my conscience is able
to charge me. But I have one sin which I believe is not able
to be expiated.' The Queen having pressed him to discover
himself to her. 'Madame,' said the old man, weeping. 'How
can I stand before the judgment seat of God? I have in all
purity taught the Gospel of his Son to so many persons who
have suffered death for it, while I have always sought to
avoid it, and that at an age, when far from fearing it, I ought
rather to have longed for it.' The Queen, who was naturally
eloquent and who was not ignorant of Scripture, at this made
a beautiful discourse to him, showing by various examples how
the same thing was attained by many good and holy persons
who reigned with God in heaven. She added that because of
some great sin which one found in himself, he ought not to
despair of the mercy and goodness of God. Those who were
at the table joined their consolations with those of the princess.
The good old man was strengthened by them. T shall not
rest,' said he, 'until I have made my will before I go to God,
for I believe that he calls me.' Then casting his eyes to the
Queen, he said, 'Madame, I make you my heiress. I give my
books to Mr. Roussel, and I give my clothes and all I possess
to the poor. The rest I commend to God.' The queen smil
ingly said, 'But what of the inheritance remains to me?'
'Madame, the care of dividing my property to the poor.' 'I
will do so,' replied the queen, 'and I swear to you that I will
have more joy in that than if the King, my brother, would
make me his heiress.' Lefevre then appeared more joyful than
he had yet been and said, 'Madame, I have need of some re
pose.' And to those at the table he said 'Adieu.' Then he
laid himself on his bed and at the time when one imagined

28 THE REFORMED REFORMATION
that he slept, he passed to that better life without having given
any signs of illness. After his' death the queen gave him a
magnificent funeral, desiring also that he be covered with
marble which she had sculptured for him."
Fl. de Raemond recounts: "I remember to have seen
formerly (in the Church at Nerac) his tomb and on it these
words, 'I leave my body to the earth, my soul to God and all
my goods to the poor.' These were the last words of Lefevre,
dying." This testimony favors the authenticity of the last
conversation between Lefevre and Margaret.
Such was the life, death and influence of Lefevre. He
was the man who virtually made the Reformation, especially
for France. He is just coming to his rights as the Father of
the Reformers, — a Frenchman and Reformed, as is shown
by the fact that out of him came the Reformed Church of
France. The judgment of historians is coming back to what
D'Aubigne wrote in 1541, "The Reformation did not come
into France as an importation from abroad. It was born in
French soil. It sprang up in Paris. It had its first roots in
that university .itself — that second great influence in Romish
Christianity. The glory of having begun that work does not
belong to Germany or to Switzerland, but to France." And
Polenz, the historian of French Protestantism, says of him,
"Already before 1512, at a time when Luther went to Rome on
business for his Order and at an epoch when Zwingli had not
commenced to apply himself with zeal to the Holy Scriptures
and passed the Alps with the Confederates to fight for the pope,
God raised up a little man, modest in birth and appearance,
who lighted an Evangelical light in the solitude of his study."
The historical significance of Lefevre has not been noticed
sufficiently. He represents the first step in the Reformation, —
an attempted reformation in the Catholic Church. This at
first was the aim of all the Reformers until driven out of that
Church. But Lefevre's was the only movement where it really
came into existence, if only for a short time. ' For five years
at Meaux (1520-5) and later for about the same time at Nerac
it had an existence. Lefevre preferred to remain in the Romish
Church if he could, for he loved the idea of the unity of the
Church. But if necessity came, he would leave the Church as
he did in fleeing to Strassburg and worshipping for a time

PROF. JAMES LEFEVRE 29
with the Protestants. The historic significance of Fabrisian-
ism, as Doumergue calls Lefevre and his followers, is that
such a movement could not have continued existence — it must
fail. The Romish Church would not allow herself to be
reformed, she was too corrupt. Had Lefevre been younger or
lived later he would soon have been forced out of the Catholic
Church by the logic of events. The school of Lefevre was the
first Protestant school, the only one that seemed to succeed
within the Romish Church for a time. It should not be
criticized as it has been. It occupies a very important place
historically in the development of Protestantism. For out of
Meaux came the first and bravest of the martyrs. And out
of Nerac came the great Protestant queen, Jeanne D'Albret.
And from Lefevre came Farel. But the hour had now come
for this school to disappear. Rome, while temporarily allow
ing it, did not want it to continue. And with the death of
Lefevre the Lefevre type of Protestantism passed away and
the new type of Calvinism came. As Doumergue aptly puts it :
"When Lefevre died, the age of Fabrisianism was over, the
age of Calvinism was to begin." Nevertheless Lefevre and
his school occupy an interesting and important place, — are an
important link in the Reformation of which too little has been
made. And Lefevre, little but grand old man in old age, fight
ing like a tiger against the scholastic theology at a time of life
when men usually fold their sails to rest the remainder of
their days, no wonder he at last was glad for a rest at Nerac.
But he stands out in the early Reformation as a lonely yet
grand figure, especially as we see those who read his books and
caught his inspiration, Luther, Zwingli, Farel and Calvin, rally
around, him to reform the world.

CHAPTER II.
WHO WAS THE FIRST REFORMER, LUTHER OR ZWINGLI?
But even if Lefevre was the first of the Reformers (as
we showed in our previous chapter) the question still remains,
how about the two other Reformers, Luther and Zwingli,
which of these was the earliest? This has been for a long
while a bone of contention, especially between the Lutherans
and the Reformed. It would seem to be an easy question to
answer. But in reality it is quite difficult. For as soon as
you ask it, you are confronted with another question, "What
is it that makes a Reformer ?" "What must he do in order to
be a Reformer?" To this, three answers have been suggested,
each of which alters the date sought for.
i. Did he become a Reformer when he was converted and
began preaching the Gospel?
2. Or did he become a Reformer when he threw off the
papacy? 3. Or did he become a Reformer when he virtually com
pleted the reformation in his city and country?
From this it can be seen how difficult this question is. The
reason why there has been so much controversy about it, has
been because one writer meant one thing by a Reformer, and
another meant another. And the problem becomes even more
difficult in the light of recent research and especially since the
publication of the works of the Reformers.
Let us take up the first for a moment, namely, that he
became a Reformer when he first showed that he was con
verted. The answer to this will depend on what is meant by
conversion. This is the more difficult in the case of both of
these Reformers, because as their works are being discovered
and published it is evident that the conversion of both was
gradual. For years Luther seems to have been coming with
increasing clearness to justification by faith and during those
same years Zwingli was coming with increasing clearness to
the doctrine of forgiveness through Christ and not through

WHO WAS THE FIRST REFORMER? 31
the Virgin and saints. But how far in these doctrines must
a person go, so that we can say he is converted? We today
reply, until a man has a definite experience of forgiveness. But
you can't apply that test to persons born in Catholicism, though
that will do for Protestants. A few years ago in Italy, one
of the leaders of the Waldensian Church told me that the
Catholics are converted but not like Protestants. They did
not go through our sense of conviction for sin; for they no
longer have any conscience as the priest has been so long their
conscience for them. We cannot then expect to apply our Prot
estant test to the Reformation. Nor could we, if we would. , The
experience of both Luther and Zwingli is not given us with
sufficient fullness to enable us to so closely follow it. Thus,
if belief in justification by faith makes a man a Reformer, then
how was it with Luther? For though he advanced to that
doctrine just after the theses of 1517, yet he still held on to
Romish doctrines as purgatory and saint worship, etc. So
that it is a really serious question to know when he was
converted. Again, take the second, — that a man becomes a Reformer
when he throws off the papacy. Then the question arises
whether that means, at the time he first attacks the papacy,
or later when he entirely breaks with the pope.
Or take the third, — was a man a Reformer when he had
reformed only his city? or did it also demand the reformation
of his country?
There is a truth in each of these and we will consider all
together in the discussion of this problem. We will try to
show as we discuss the matter which — Luther or Zwingli—
was first in each of these stages. We will first of all take up
Zwingli's conversion and then Luther's.
A — THE CONVERSION OF ZWINGLI.
The conversion of Zwingli can be taken up in two ways.
We can study it according to the places where he lived,* or
we can study it according to the persons who influenced
* We have taken it up in this way in our Mission-Study
book, "The Famous Reformers of the Reformed and Presbyterian
Churches."

32 THE REFORMED REFORMATION
him. We believe that the latter is the more important method,
for a man is more apt to be influenced by persons than by
places. But we will endeavor to somewhat combine the two,
giving however greater prominence to the influence of per
sons on him.
Zwingli's preparation to become a Reformer may be said
to have passed through three periods :
i. The Churchly humanism.
2. The Evangelical humanism.
3. The Critical humanism.
1. The Churchly humanism. This influence came to him
in his early school days. And here there were three different
influences. The first was that of his uncle Bartholomew Zwingli, who
had been priest at Wildhaus when he was born, and who had
there baptized him. This uncle later removed to Wesen and it
was to his care that Zwingli's father committed the boy for his
education. The uncle believed that humanism gave a more
thorough education and so placed his nephew under its influ
ences. How mighty is the influence of those who guide the
education of the young. It is to this uncle that we owe it
that Zwingli became a humanist and then a Reformer. The
influence of this uncle on Zwingli, Stahelin compares to that
of Staupitz on Luther. He died in 15 13, before the Reforma
tion broke out.
After young Ulric had learned all he could in his uncle's
school at Wesen, he was sent by him to Basle where Binzli
had an excellent school. Under his training Zwingli began
revealing his special ability in debate and also in music. But
Binzli was not a humanist, although later, as the successor of
Zwingli's uncle at Wesen, he followed the steps of his dis
tinguished pupil, Zwingli, into Protestantism. It was, how
ever, at the next school that Zwingli attended, that he first
came into contact with humanism. This was at the school in
Bern under Lupulus or Wolflein. This was the first humanistic
school founded in Switzerland, — whose curriculum and method
of study followed after the humanists. Here, says Myconius,
Zwingli was admitted to the sanctuary of the classics. But
Lupulus was one of the conservative churchly humanists who
would not break with the Catholic Church.

WHO WAS THE FIRST REFORMER? 33.
The truth is that there were different kinds of humanists.
Just as today there are different kinds of modernists in the
Catholic Church, critical, ethical or Evangelical ; so there were
differences among the humanists. Humanism prepared for
the Reformation, only in different degrees, according to the
type of humanist. There were :
i. The pagan humanists. These wanted the classic lan
guages reintroduced but they had no interest in religion.
Often they were rationalists as the humanists of Italy. Of
this kind was much of the Renaissance which produced skepti
cism and Epicureanism, because culture was sought as an end
in itself. 2. The conservative Churchly humanists, of whom Lupu
lus was one. They believed in utilizing whatever of good
there was in humanism, but not to the extent of affecting their
adherence to Catholicism. Thus Lupulus was a devout Catho
lic. He made pilgrimages yearly to Einsedeln. After Zwingli
had been under him at Bern he made a pilgrimage in 1520
to the Holy Land, — to the holy sepulchre at Jerusalem. He
encouraged the sale of indulgences by the Dominicans. But
he was a sincere man and finally, in 1524, broke with the past
and became a valiant soldier for the Evangelical views. But
at the time that Zwingli was under him, he was a conservative,
Churchly humanist.
3. There was a third type of 'humanist,— the Critical.
These went farther than the last type. They wanted a refor
mation in the Church ; but they expected this reformation would
come about through education, — that is, by the study of the
classics. They spent their strength on a better education.
They wanted no break with the Romish Church. They were'
philological, aesthetic . humanists. Erasmus was one of this
type. 4. Then there was a fourth class, the Evangelical. They
wanted a reformation, but they did not believe it would come
through education. It must have a deeper impulse than that.
It could only' come through a spiritual movement — a religious
revival. They put religion into it. They wanted to use their
knowledge of the classics mainly so as to get back to the Bible.
They thus began setting up the Bible against the scholastic
theology of their day. To this class belongjfj=^tcfiiidife-^w'hom

34 THE REFORMED REFORMATION
we have spoken and Wyttenbach of whom we shall speak.
Luther also for a short time at first belonged to this class.
It is important to keep these different classes of humanists
apart, for except the first, all of them appear in connection with
Zwingli. And the failure to keep them apart has brought con
fusion into Reformation biographies and rendered much of them
useless. It is very evident that from so conservative a humanist
as Lupulus, Zwingli would get no impulse toward reforms.
Indeed Lupulus did not even try to protect Zwingli from the
efforts of the Dominican monks to get him to join their Order.
But Zwingli's uncle was more advanced than Lupulus and in
fluenced his father to take him away from the influence of
those monks, for he was more of the Erasmian type of human
ist, who did not like lazy monks.
So Zwingli was sent to the university of Vienna at the
age of 15. This university has hitherto been supposed to have
been entirely conservative. But recent researches, as by Stahe
lin and others, reveal that humanism had its strong represen
tatives in its faculty, . especially in Prof. Conrad Celtes and
Cuspianus. Celtes had reorganized the curriculum of the uni
versity. At Vienna Zwingli took the philosophical studies, ac
cording to Myconius, and so came under Celtes, so that Zwingli
received a thorough training there according to humanistic
ideals. It made classical studies an entrancing study. Thus
Vadian, Zwingli's fellow-student, was so enamored with his
Virgil that he took it to bed with him as a pillow. And
Zwingli shows his great appreciation of this university by later
sending students to it from Glarus, his first charge, rather than
to Basle where he had also studied. He seems to have felt
that the education was better at Vienna. At Vienna Zwingli
seems to have been greatly broadened by the variety of his
studies as in geography as well as in the classics. But what
is most interesting to us is tbat Zwingli, in going to Vienna,
passed from the conservative humanistic influence of Lupulus
to the criticizing humanism of Celtes, who was like Erasmus
in this respect. He railed at the superstitions of the clergy
and reproached the priests with making their very sanctuaries
the haunts of impurity. And yet Celtes was careful not to go
too far and was, like Erasmus, rated as a good Catholic,

WHO WAS THE FIRST REFORMER? 35
though liberal.
2. The Biblical humanism.
The second great influence that came into Zwingli's life
came from a Biblical humanist, Prof. Thomas Wyttenbach of
Basle. Most important for Zwingli was it that in 1502 at the
age of eighteen he returned to Basle as teacher in the school
of St. Martin and also to attend lectures in the university.
Here it was that he met the man who planted in his young
mind the seeds of the reformation. Here he at last met a
Biblical humanist who was really more than a humanist, for
he had already caught a glimpse of the Evangelical doctrine.
But as Zwingli came to Basle in 1502 and Wyttenbach did
not begin lecturing at Basle until 1505, the question arises as
to what Zwingli was doing in the meanwhile. We know he
was teaching and also attending the university. But what was
the condition of the university and where did it stand in rela
tion to humanism? Humanism had had its representatives
there. The great Reuchlin had taught there, but had left.
And since the departure of the last humanist professor, Brandt,
in 1500, scholasticism and conservatism had reigned supreme
with their pedantries and empty formulas. But although
there was conservatism in the university, in other things there
was progress. Literature was progressive through the great
printers at Basle, Amerbach and Frobenius. They were busy
publishing the literature of humanism. It was this facility
for printing at Basle that finally led Erasmus to locate there.
These publications stirred the students of the university to
new thought. Then, too, it looks as if there was a religious
awakening in the Church at Basle, though Catholic. For a
"Manual on Preaching and Pastoral Work" was published
there (1503) the year after Zwingli came there, which was
destined to have ultimately an important influence toward
Protestantism. Its author was a priest there, John Surgant,
who took the Protestant position that of all the duties of the
minister, preaching was the most important. This was not
in strict accord with the Catholic view, which made worship,
especially the mass, the most important. This book not only
emphasized preaching but also set up the Biblical over against
the scholastic theology. It said, "the doctrines of philosophers
and heathen contain truth and error mixed. The Catholic

36 THE REFORMED REFORMATION
teachers, however, sometimes weaken from the truth or allow
room for doubt, for all men are liars. But the doctrines of
the Bible rest on the truth of God which is infallible." Such
was the teaching of this book. And we know that Zwingli
was impressed by it, because many years after when he drew
up his form of worship for the first Protestant Lord's Supper
at Zurich, he somewhat followed Surgant's ideas. The im
pression made by this book on Zwingli was doubtless deepened
by the order of the new bishop of Basle, Christopher of Uten-
heim, who called a meeting of the synod of Basle and ordered
a law passed that each priest must preach the Gospel accord
ing to the Gospel Lesson that he read on Sunday. These
movements towards greater experimental religion probably
affected Zwingli.
As Wyttenbach did not come to Basle until 1505, in the
last year of Zwingli's stay there, the question has come up as
to Zwingli's theological views before Wyttenbach came there.
On this two suggestions have been made.
1. That Zwingli was a devout Catholic until Wyttenbach
came and that then Wyttenbach opened his eyes to the Evan
gelical truth as found in the Bible. This was the old view.
2. The other view is that Zwingli came to Basle already
inclined to the newer views of humanism especially through
the influence of Prof. Celtes and others. And that when he
had to sit under the dry, useless sophistries of the scholastic
professors of theology at the university of Basle, his liberal
mind reacted against their narrowness and he inclined to
greater extremes of liberalism. This is the view held by the
later biographers of Zwingli as Stahelin. And it would seem
to be proved by the testimony of Myconius, the first biographer
of Zwingli, who says of him at Basle :
"Because the regular course of things demanded it, he
paid diligent heed to theology in the scholastic form. What
a waste of time it involved, since it was such a jumble of
worldly wisdom, philosophy, God, inane loquacities, barbarities,
vain glory and things of that description, that no sane doctrine
could be reasonably hoped from it."
He also says that Zwingli while at Basle came under sus
picion of heterodoxy, because he defended some of the theses
of the Italian, John Picus of Mirandola, which had been con-

WHO WAS THE FIRST REFORMER? 37
demned by the pope. Of this influence of Picus we will speak
later. One thing, however, is certain, that no matter which of
these views is held, Wyttenbach became a profound influence
in Zwingli's life. For Wyttenbach confirmed all the liberal
tendencies that had been in Zwingli before. And he added
to them others which made him the great teacher of Zwingli's
reformatory views. Fortunate was it for Zwingli that he
came under the tutelage of such a man so broadminded and
yet so holy and spiritual.
As the life of Wyttenbach is comparatively unknown and
his value in Reformation history is just beginning to be recog
nized, we will pause upon it. He was an humbler teacher than
Lefevre, whose fame was recognized all over Europe. But
though humble, he was Evangelical even before Lefevre, who
as we have seen was Evangelical before either Luther or
Zwingli. As early as 1506, twelve years before Lefevre, he
taught at Basle the two fundamental doctrines of Protestant
ism, namely, (1) the supreme authority of Scripture and (2)
salvation by Christ and not through Mary. And eleven years
before either Luther or Zwingli denounced the evils of in
dulgences, he donounced them as a fraud and cheat. And like
Luther at Wittenberg, he had a disputation about them at
Basle in 1506. So that in Wyttenbach the Reformed had an
other Reformer beside Lefevre, who was before Luther. It
may, however, be replied that there were others even before
Wyttenbach, who, although in the Catholic Church, attacked
indulgences. Thus John Wessels, one of the "Reformers be
fore the Reformation," was imprisoned for teaching against
indulgences. But we reply that Wessels and the others were
of a different class from Wyttenbach. They were in no way
directly connected with the Reformation. But Wyttenbach
was very directly connected with it. His pupil was one of
its founders. And he himself later became a Reformer also.
For he later became the Reformer of Biel in Switzerland. If
Luther was made a Reformer by nailing up the theses, then
Wyttenbach was an earlier Reformer for he did the same
thing at Basle in 1506.
Thomas Wyttenbach was born at Biel, a town west of
Bern, in 1472. He was the son of the mayor of the town.

38 THE REFORMED REFORMATION
He studied diligently in the school in his native town and
then went away to the universities to study for the priesthood.
In 1496 he went to the university of Tubingen in southern
Germany, where the learned Reuchlin, the leader with Eras
mus of the humanists, taught. Reuchlin's Evangelical tend
ency was shown by the fact that in 1499, while at Stuttgard,
he lectured to the monks of the neighboring monastery of
Denkendorf on the art of preaching. This work was pub
lished in 1504 and it reveals its Evangelical tendency in urging
the monks to become acquainted with the Bible. It is easy
to see that the teachings of such a man would influence an
earnest, pious student like Wyttenbach. The latter remained
at Tubingen four years, taking the degree of Master of Arts
in 1500. At Tubingen he also came under the influence of
Paul Scriptor, who taught him that many of the things en
dorsed by the papacy would have to be set aside and that
there was need of a renovation of theology from Scripture
and the Church Fathers.
From Tubingen Wyttenbach went to Basle in November
26, 1505, where in the university he lectured on the great text
book of Catholicism at that time, the "Sentences of Lombard."
But he also lectured on the New Testament, especially on
Paul's Epistle to the Romans. He was thoroughly familiar
with the classics, but to them he added a profound knowledge
of the Bible. Out of the barren deserts of scholasticism, so
destitute of water, it was his delight to lead his pupils to
the living waters of God's Word. He was a man with a
message for that age. And he soon gathered around him a set
of earnest young men. Thus Leo Juda, who was studying med
icine, was by him influenced to study theology. He afterward
became Zwingli's great helper in the Reformation. Zwingli
also, who seems before to have been somewhat undecided, hav
ing been captivated by humanism and in love with his teach
ing, now fully decided under Wyttenbach's inspiration to study
theology. Capito and Pellican, later also Reformers, the former
at Strassburg, the latter at Zurich, seem to have come in touch
with Wyttenbach at that time more or less. Wyttenbach was
therefore like Lefevre, though in a lesser degree, the father of
Reformers. We have already mentioned four. And to them
ought to be added Haller, the Reformer of Bern, who later at

WHO WAS THE FIRST REFORMER? 39*
Bern, was influenced by Wyttenbach to become a Reformer.
Leo Juda thus writes to the city council of Biel about
Wyttenbach :
"From your city came forth this man, regarded by the
most learned men of that age as a true phoenix on account of
his many acquirements. Zwingli and I enjoyed his instructions
in 1505. Under his guidance, from polite literature in which
he was equally at home, we passed over into the more earnest
study of the Bible. His sagacity discerned clearly beforehand
the events of coming years, the overthrow of the papal doc
trine of indulgences and other groundless dogmas, by which
for many centuries Rome had held unthinking mankind in
bondage. Whatever of thorough knowledge we possess, we
owe it to him and must remain his debtors as long as we live."
Pellican was there as teacher of theology to the Car
melite monks and he also aided the printers at Basle in their
publications of the works of Augustine and Origin. He de
clared that at that time he gained from the study of the Church
Fathers the first doubts about indulgences, purgatory, trans-
substantiation, confession and the power of the pope.
Wyttenbach later apologized to Zwingli that he had been at
Basle a babbler of scholasticism and had caused him to waste
his time on the trifles of sophistry.* Zwingli replied to him,
June 15, 1523, consoling him that such teaching was due to
the custom of the age and added that Wyttenbach's example
had given encouragement to all noble spirits to free them
selves from such fetters. What Wyttenbach refers to in his
letter, we know not, unless it was that in lecturing on the
Sentences of Lombard he naturally followed the scholastic
method then in vogue. From the contents of that book he
could hardly do otherwise. But in lecturing on Romans and
the New Testament he seems to have corrected the sophistry of
Lombard by the truths of the Bible. Wyttenbach pointed out
to his students the great corruption of morals in the Church
and attacked this and also held up the great doctrines of
Scripture. He made Zwingli get hold of two fundamental
* The scholastic theologians would discuss such dogmas with
their students, as whether after the resurrection eating and drinking
were possible; or whether God's almighty power could have given his
Son the shape of a stone and how a stone could preach and perform
miracles. A fanatical Franciscan assured his hearers that Scotus had
done as much for the Church as the apostle Paul.

4o THE REFORMED REFORMATION
doctrines of Protestantism:
i. The Supremacy of Scripture. Wyttenbach said to his
students :
"The time is not far distant when the scholastic theology
will be swept away and the old doctrine of the Church estab
lished in its room on the foundation of God's Word."
2. The second great doctrine was that Christ is the sole
Redeemer from sin. In 1527 Zwingli says he had learned
from Wyttenbach that :
"The death of Christ was the sole price of remission of
sin and faith is the key that unlocks the treasury of that re
mission to the soul."
It is to be noticed that he gets at the Evangelical doc
trines a little different from Lefevre or Luther. With him it
is not Scripture and justification by faith as with them, but
it is Scripture and the atonement of Christ.
As a result of this second doctrine, Zwingli was led to
deny another Catholic doctrine that was then very prominent,
namely, indulgences. For if Christ's death is the one sufficient
ground of salvation, what need is there for such a thing as
indulgences. Christ's. death, and not indulgences, is the cause
oi forgiveness of sin. Zwingli thus wrote in 1523:
"At the beginning of 15 19, none of us had ever heard of
Luther except that he had published something against in
dulgences — a subject on which I did not require much enlight
enment, because I had already been taught what a cheat and
delusion indulgences were by my master and beloved teacher,
Thomas Wyttenbach of Biel, who had held at Basle some time
before, in my absence, a disputation on the subject."
Thus Wyttenbach, ten years before Luther, attacked the
scholastic theology and prophesied the time was not far dis
tant when it would be set aside and the old doctrines of the
Bible and the early Church Fathers restored in its stead.
Wyttenbach did a great service to Zwingli at Basle.
Zwingli had come, as we have seen, under the influence of
humanism before Wyttenbach became his teacher. He could
not help seeing the difference, yes often the contradiction, be
tween the humanistic ideas and the scholastic theology. To
his young mind there was such a contradiction between them

WHO WAS THE FIRST REFORMER? 41
that they could not be harmonized. But Wyttenbach came into
his mind with great power, by showing to him that there was a
harmony, instead of a contradiction, between theology and
humanism, that by making the Bible the sole authority, they
were harmonized. Wyttenbach showed to him on the one
hand, the usefulness of humanism for theology, in that it led
to a scholarly examination of the original sources; and on
the other hand, the usefulness of theology to humanism, to
prevent it from becoming a useless and merely secular science.
True theology was the application of humanism to the Bible.
Wyttenbach communicated to Zwingli the impulse which led
him to search the Bible in the original. This is shown by his
later study of the Greek and later still of the Hebrew.
We thus see the tremendous influence of Wyttenbach on
Zwingli. It was Wyttenbach who started Zwingli as a Re
former. He planted, as Leo Juda said, the seed thoughts that
afterward came to harvest in the Reformation. His was the
greatest influence that came into Zwingli's life, though it did
not show its full power till ten years later.
Zwingli never forgot the impression that Wyttenbach had
made on him, or the debt he owed to him. He always looked
back on him as the greatest of his teachers. In 1521, in a
letter to Haller, the Reformer of Bern, he sends greetings to
Wyttenbach who was then with Haller at Bern. He calls him
then "his dear preceptor." In 1527 he speaks of him as "the
most learned and holiest of men." Wyttenbach continued in
correspondence with Zwingli and in many a dark hour the
latter was greatly strengthened by him. Of this correspond
ence only one letter has come down to us, a letter of June 15,
1523. Wyttenbach, though he had been Zwingli's teacher, yet
now looked up to his pupil as the leader and desired to be
taught about the Lord's Supper. Zwingli replied to his ques
tion ; and still affectionately looking up to him as his old
teacher, says : "I will gladly give you my opinion (about the
Lord's Supper) not that you need it, but that when I am in
error, you may correct me and bring me back." Zwingli then
explains to his former teacher, the symbolical view of the
Lord's Supper over against transubstantiation, which he attacks
as he does baptismal regeneration. He held that in both sacra
ments, faith is necessary in order to bring blessing. He

42 THE REFORMED REFORMATION
emphasized the subjective side of the Lord's Supper over
against the objective aspect of the Catholics.
'Before leaving Wyttenbach, let us for a moment pause on
his later life. He left Basle in 1507, a year after Zwingli left
it. He went back to his native place, Biel, as priest. In 15 15
he was called from Biel to Bern as priest. There he threw
his life into the Reformation and joined the Reformed. He
prepared Bern for the Reformation. For Haller, later the Re
former of Bern, and he lived together and Wyttenbach taught
him what he had previously taught Zwingli. He thus helped
to make Haller a Reformer and thus added another Reformer
to the list of his students. In 1522, because he opposed the
burning at Bern of the bull against Luther he left Bern and
went back to Biel, his native place, to become its Reformer.
There he began the Reformation by preaching mightily against
indulgences. He declared that sin is not a thing to be bought.
He also attacked the mass and the celibacy of the priests. He
found strong support in his congregation, especially among
his own relatives, one of whom, Squire Nicholas Wyttenbach,
became his patron. Wyttenbach was one of the first priests to
marry (1524). He thus defied ecclesiastical authority; and
for it had to suffer many things. Many of the leading citizens
of Biel refused any more to attend his services because he was
married. They brought complaints against him before the
Swiss Diet, which was at that time mainly Catholic. This
diet sent a message to the town of Biel. against him. The
council of Biel then ordered all married priests and especially
Wyttenbach away and took from them their financial support.
Wyttenbach replied- by saying that the marriage of priests was
not forbidden by the Bible. He preached a month longer in
the parish Church, but then had to leave it. He then preached
in a chapel and later in the houses of those friendly to Evan
gelical religion. He had great crowds in the chapel. The city
then compelled him to leave the parsonage and he lost its
financial support. He therefore became very poor. But he
kept up a gallant fight for the truth and many rallied around
him. Finally he was at last compelled to leave Biel. He went
to Bern. There, completely worn out by his privations and
persecutions, he died in 1526 at the age of 54. He died just
too soon. Had he lived a little over a year longer, until after

WHO WAS THE FIRST REFORMER? 43
the Bern Conference made all that canton Protestant and Re
formed, he would have had the joy of seeing that canton be
come Reformed and with it his city of Biel, for whom he had
suffered so much. But his preaching and sufferings were not
in vain. For a strong body of his followers at Biel formed
the nucleus of the Protestant Church there, and to this day
Biel honors his. memory as its great Reformer.
Returning again to Zwingli, he left Basle for Glarus, his
first charge, in 1506. There the teachings of Wyttenbach seem
to have slumbered for a time. This was doubtless due to the
novelty of his work as priest and to his many duties, for his
parish was large, including one-third of the whole canton of
Glarus. But when the first novelty of the priesthood began
to wear off we find him revealing the impulse Wyttenbach
had given him.
First of all he opened a humanist school at Glarus. Wyt
tenbach had revealed to him the humanistic methods of thor
ough scholarship. And as he loved teaching (he had been
teaching at Basle for four years while studying at the uni
versity) he gathered around him some of the brightest young
men of the leading families of Glarus. Some of them after
wards became famous as Tschudi. His pupils bear strong wit
ness to Zwingli's rare ability as a teacher because he gave to
them not only education but also inspiration.
2. He also shows Wyttenbach's influence by beginning at
Glarus the study of the Greek language. As early as 1510 he
had sought means to study it but was not able to really begin
it until 1513. He wrote thus to Vadian, February 23, 1513;
"I am applying my ignorant self to the study of Greek
and Latin. I do not know who has stirred me up to the study
of Greek unless it is God. I do not do it on account of glory
for I do not look for that. But I do it solely for the sake of
sacred literature."
How often do great men thus feel that coming events are
casting their shadows before, as they do things, the significance
of which they do not at the time grasp ?
In 1523 he related at the First Disputation at Zurich:
"Ten years ago I began the study of Greek in order that I
might learn the teaching of Christ from the original sources."
He studied Greek without a teacher and yet became so

44 THE REFORMED REFORMATION
proficient in it by the time he left Glarus that he could already
read Lucian and the New Testament.
He also began the genuine study of the Bible while at
Glarus. This, like those already mentioned, came from the
inspiration given him by Wyttenbach. In 1522 he thus
describes his mind at that time :
"In my younger days I was as much devoted to worldly
knowledge as any of my age. And when seven or eight years
ago, I gave myself up to the study of the Bible, I was com
pletely under the power of the jarring philosophy and
theology. But, led by the Scriptures and the Word of God,
I was forced to the conclusion : you must leave them all alone
and learn the meaning of the Word out of the Word itself.
So I asked God to give me His light ; and then the Scriptures
began to be much more intelligible when I read them myself
alone, than when I read much commentary and exposition of
them. Do you not see that that was a sign that God was lead
ing me? For I never could have come to such a conclusion
by my own small understanding."
In these researches into the Bible he had already at Glarus
noticed a difference between the Bible and Jerome. We thus
see how far he had come at Glarus under the impulse given
him by Wyttenbach years before.
But we remarked at the beginning of this chapter, that
places as well as persons also have an influence; and before
we leave Glarus, we must notice two local influences that came
to him there and helped prepare him to become a Reformer.
The first was a political one. He had gone with the Swiss
troops three times to Italy as their chaplain. This helped to
open his eyes to the evils of the papacy. For there was an
old proverb: "the nearer Rome, the worse Christian." Out of
these experiences grew his opposition to the foreign mercenary
military service of the Swiss. His sermon at Monza to the
soldiers, exhorting them to fealty to their pledges, made for
him a life-long friend of the later burgomaster of Zurich,
Roust. He saw, too, that the pope, instead of trying to heal
the dissensions between the nations, tried to intensify them so
as to weaken his enemies. And although Zwingli did not break
with the pope then, yet his political reaction against foreign
service, even to the pope, prepared him for his later reaction
against the pope religiously. It was the entering wedge for

WHO WAS THE FIRST REFORMER? 45
further cleavage between the pope and himself later.
The second was a liturgical one and this came to him in
two ways :
(A) The first came to him in Italy. He found while at
Milan that the mass of that Church differed from the . mass
of his Church at Glarus in some particulars. Luther had also
previously made the same discovery that the Ambrosian service
at Milan differed from his mass at Wittenberg. It omitted
intercession for the public magistrates. Zwingli reasoned thus
about the matter:
"Either Ambrose, from whom this book came, made
changes in the Roman mass without being visited with cen
sure, or the Roman ritual had taken its shape since the time
of Ambrose. In either case the liturgy was the work of men
and subject to change."
This disposed of the claim of the Catholics that their
liturgy was the same at all times without variation.
(B) A second liturgical influence came to him from Switz
erland. He says:
"It was while pastor at Glarus that I came across at
Mollis, north of Glarus, an Obsequial,* which, although old,
was complete. And there stood a Latin rubric which said, that
immediately after the infant had been baptized, then shall the
sacrament of the Lord's Supper be administered to the child,
including the chalice containing the blood. How long this
practise was observed in the canton of Glarus I have not been
able to find out, but surely it was not two hundred years since,
in Mollis, the Lord's Supper was administered in both kinds."
He thus received his first Protestant impression about the
Lord's Supper, that the wine as well as the bread should be
given to the laity.
We have thus followed the influence of Wyttenbach on
Zwingli's life up to nearly the close of his pastorate at Glarus.
But now a new influence begins to tell upon him, the third in
our list — the Erasmian. But before taking it up we might
note that there is a third person beside Wyttenbach and Eras
mus, who has been mentioned as having influenced Zwingli
considerably, namely, John Picus of Mirandola, an Italian.
* That is a book for baptism, burial and benediction services.

46 THE REFORMED REFORMATION
This philosopher had some influence on him at Basle and later
at Glarus. This is shown by Myconius' Biography, where he
says that Zwingli, when at Basle (1502-6) "because he had not
condemned the theses of John Picus of Mirandola, was se
cretly spoken of by certain blockheads as a heretic." But what
the theses of Mirandola, that Zwingli refused to condemn, were,
we do not know. Of the thirteen theses condemned, perhaps
they may have been:
3. "That neither the cross of Christ, nor any image ought
to be adored in the way of worship."
6. "It is possible for the body of Christ to be present at
the altar without the conversion of the substance of the bread
or the annihilation of the state of being bread." (Mirandola
seems here to hold to the doctrine of remanence, for which
Huss was condemned — that not all of the bread was changed
into the body of Christ but that some of it remained bread.
This was a lowering of the doctrine of transubstantiation.)
10. "That the words: 'This is my body/ uttered at the
consecration of the bread are not to be taken as an actual fact,
but merely as significatory," that is, as a mere recital. (This,
too, would lower the idea of transubstantiation, for the Catho
lic doctrine held that the utterance of these words performed
the miracle of turning the bread into the body of Christ.)
But we do not know which of them he refused to con
demn. All is in confusion, as is shown by the fact that Sig-
wart suggests two others of the theses as most likely to have
appealed to Zwingli. The whole subject is so uncertain that
we do not take Mirandola up as one of the great influences in
Zwingli's life. The only sure inference that can be made about
it is that of Myconius, that it shows that Zwingli was inclined
to liberal views at Basle.
But Zwingli was more influenced by a nephew of Picus,
John Francis Picus, who later influenced him toward election,
etc. We must confess we do not understand why Calvinists
of the Federal School have been so chary of Zwingli. Perhaps
it was because of his low views of original sin where he
speaks of it as a disease. But they can get election, — all they
want and more, — out of Zwingli's sermon on Providence. Had
Zwingli not been killed in middle life, he might have been able
to somewhat co-ordinate these extremes of statement. On

WHO WAS THE FIRST REFORMER? 47
election, providence, and some other points, Zwingli used lan
guage like that of the younger Picus.
III. THE CRITICAL HUMANISM.
The third humanistic influence came from Erasmus.
Erasmus, like those of the first class, was a humanist;
but while theirs was a Churchly humanism, his was a critical
humanism. It also differed from Wyttenbach's in not oeing
thoroughly Evangelical.
Erasmus was undoubtedly the most prominent of the later
humanists. His publications had gained for him great fame
all over Europe. Zwingli came into contact with him during
his pastorate at Glarus. In the autumn of 15 14 he received a
letter from Erasmus, couched in terms of polite affection and
great praise. When Erasmus, after his stay in England came
to Basle in 15 15, Zwingli visited him early in the spring of
1 5 16. And after his return home to Glarus he wrote Erasmus
a letter full of fulsome praise and also of thanks. To this
Erasmus wrote a reply.* The influence of Erasmus is also
shown by the fact that several of Erasmus' books have been
found in Zwingli's library. Of these the most influential seems
to have been Erasmus' "Handbook of the Christian Soldier."
This was a popular handbook, describing the Christian life. It
was first printed in 1503, but Zwingli's copy is of the year
1515, so that it probably came to him about the time of his
association with Erasmus. This work tries to reduce religion
to its symplicity so that it could be understood by every one.
It also tried to emphasize the difference between true religion
and a religion of mere outward forms and rites.
It was this work of Erasmus that led Zwingli to doubt
the Catholic doctrine of intercession of the saints, — his first
doctrinal doubt about Romanism. In it Erasmus represents
men as perishing because they would not seek help in Christ
alone. Zwingli says (1523):
"I shall not withhold from you, dear brethren in Christ
Jesus, how it was that I arrived at the firm conviction that
we need no other Mediator than Christ and that none but
* Both letters are given by Jackson in his Life of Zwingli, pages
78-81.

48 THE REFORMED REFORMATION
Christ alone can mediate between God and man. Eight or
nine years ago I read a consolatory poem on the Lord Jesus,
written by the profoundly learned Erasmus of Rotterdam, in
which with many beautiful words, Jesus complains that men
did not seek all good in him, so that he might be to them a
fountain of good, a Saviour, comfort and treasure of the
soul. So I reflected, well, if it is really so, why then should
we seek help of any creature. And although I found other
hymns or songs by the same Erasmus on St. Anna, St. Michael
and others, in which he calls upon the saints of whom he wrote,
as intercessors : still this fact could not deprive me of the
knowledge that Christ was the only treasure of our poor souls.
I began therefore to examine the Bible and the writings of
the Fathers to find out if I could learn from them concerning
the intercession of the saints. To be brief, I have not found
it in the Bible. Thereupon I reflected: If that is so, why
then do we seek help from any creature."*
Of this work Zwingli wrote February 20, 15 19:
"I do not ever remember to have received such fruit from
a book of such compass. May God grant that this noble
heart (Erasmus) may long beat for us, so that it regales us
with so much sweet honey at the table of Christ."
Thus at Glarus, Zwingli lost faith in one of the tunda-
mental doctrines of the Romish Church, the intercession of
the saints. Christ was the only mediator and the saints were
not needed. But this idea of Erasmus was built on a previous
idea that Wyttenbach had put into his mind and which had
been slumbering there, namely, that sins are forgiven, not by
the Virgin Mary, but by the ransom of Christ. It was Erasmus
who roused in him the seed thought planted by Wyttenbach ten
years before. "As iron sharpeneth iron," so Erasmus sharp
ened Wyttenbach's teaching. Together they made Zwingli a
Reformer. How true what our Savior said : "One soweth and
another reapeth." Erasmus' idea would not have been the
spark to kindle the fire had not Wyttenbach laid the wood
there. In the loom of any man's life how marvelously the
influences of different men are interwoven by the hand of
God. Zwingli thus wrote in a letter :
"Thus have I taught. Yes it is true, why seek our help
from the creature. Christ is the sole treasure of our poor
* See also Egli, page 35.

WHO WAS THE FIRST REFORMER? 49
soul. Then searching for what the Scripture taught concern
ing the intercession of the saints I did not at all find it there.
Therefore Jesus is the Source of every good. He is our only
Saviour and our only hope."
Erasmus thus led Zwingli to give up saint-worship because
not Biblical. Erasmus gave Zwingli the inspiration to this.,
but he stopped there. But Zwingli went beyond Erasmus. He
carried out the logic- of Erasmus' writings. Erasmus gave him
the key, Zwingli unlocked the door with it. The old proverb
used to be, "Erasmus laid the egg of the Reformation, but
Luther hatched it." But this was far truer of Zwingli than
of Luther. For Zwingli was far more closely associated with
Erasmus than was Luther. For while Erasmus' influence on
Luther was indirect, on Zwingli it was, as we see here, direct.
So that the proverb ought to be changed to "Erasmus laid
the egg of the reformation and Zwingli hatched it."
Such was the state of mind in which Zwingli left Glarus
and went to Einsedeln* to be preacher in the abbey. His old
beliefs were beginning to crumble. The Scripture was becom
ing more and more the form by which he measured everything.
Then just at that psychological moment, with his mind in that
open condition, came in May, 1516, the greatest gift of Eras
mus to him: "The Greek New Testament" of 1516. To under
stand how great a boon this was to him, it is to be remembered
that there was no Greek Testament in circulation at that time, —
the Latin, the sacred language of the Romish Church, had
completely supplanted it. Zwingli, with his increasing knowl
edge of Greek, could get at the Greek New Testament only
as its verses were scattered here and there through the works
of Church Fathers. But now a book came to him enabling him
to read the Greek Testament as a whole. It did not take him
long, with his previous predilections to liberal views, to notice
the difference between the Greek New Testament and the
* We might pause here to* note the local influence that came to
Zwingli at Einsedeln after leaving Glarus. The quietness and seclu
sion of the place and the lack of pastoral duties gave him much
time for study. The gross superstitions of the place seem to have
produced in him a reaction against saint-worship. He also found there
a circle of congenial spirits in Geroldseck, the administrator of the
Abbey, Ochslin, and Zink, the papal chaplain.

50 THE REFORMED REFORMATION
Romish Church of his day. So great was his devotion to it,
that in June and July, 1517, he copied all the Epistles of Paul
in the Greek in a smaller form for his own private use, for
the Erasmus' edition was a large, heavy folio work. This
copy, as made by Zwingli, was called a "Paulinus," and is at
present in the City Library at Zurich. But he did more than
copy the Epistles of Paul. He committed whole Epistles to
memory. This was later of great service to him when he got
into public disputations with the Catholics. For he literally
annihilated them out of the Word of God.
As we here leave Erasmus we will pause a moment to
point out his later influence on Zwingli. Zwingli got from
him his liberal views of sin and guilt. Also, according to
Melancthon, it was Erasmus who gave him the first suggestion
of the figurative interpretation of "is" in the phrase : "This is
my body." All this liberalized his views over against the
Catholics. It caused Zwingli and his Reformation to be more
rational (but not rationalistic), while Luther emphasized the
mystical especially in the sacraments. Later Zwingli visited
Erasmus at Basle and in 1522 he invited him to come to
Zurich. But Erasmus became estranged from Zwingli because
he went so far beyond him in his reforms.
But while Erasmus thus influenced Zwingli, it was after
all Wyttenbach who gave to his mind the mould in which his
Reformation was born. The recent biographers of Zwingli treat
him as if Erasmus was the main influence that led him toward
the Reformation. They forget that Wyttenbach's influence
was first and was the more powerful (Zwingli refers to it
oftener.) And it differed from Erasmus in being a more
spiritual influence. They have forgotten to note the difference
between Erasmus the critical humanist and Wyttenbach the
spiritual, religious humanist. For the two seed-thoughts that
Wyttenbach had planted in his mind now came to fruitage
after be got this New Testament, namely, the supremacy of
the Scriptures and the completeness of Christ's atonement.
These two he had gotten from Wyttenbach before he knew
Erasmus. And besides, he went farther than Erasmus. Eras
mus had been willing to rouse the world by his criticisms of
the Church, indeed he was willing to critically revise the text
of Scripture; but he never came out boldly saying that the

WHO WAS THE FIRST REFORMER? 51
Bible was the rule of faith. He emphasized Scripture over
against a religion of outward rites, but he did not emphasize
the Scripture over against the Church as an authority. He
was too much of a time-server for that. He could say severe
things against the Church, but he was careful never to attack
her constitution or her authority. Just at this point Zwingli
got his inspiration from Wyttenbach to go farther than Eras
mus. He emphasized the Bible as the rule of faith and the
atonement as the only source of our salvation. Erasmus sug
gested the doubt to Zwingli about the intercession of the saints,
but he never went farther, as did Zwingli, who held that Christ
is our only intercessor and we do not need the saints.
It is very interesting to note how these seed-thoughts of
Wyttenbach come to harvest at Einsedeln.
The first was the supremacy of Scripture. We have seen
how this was growing in him as it did in Luther. In 1523 he
thus speaks of himself at Einsedeln:
"I. began to preach the gospel of Christ in the year 1516
before any one in my locality had so much as heard of Luther.
For I never left the pulpit without taking the words of the
gospel in the mass service of the day and expounding them
by means of Scripture."
He thus began preaching on the Gospel as found in the
pericopes or Scripture lessons:
" 'Study the Scriptures,' he said, 'and that you may better
understand them, study Jerome. However, the time will soon
come, with God's help, when Jerome and others will be little
esteemed by Christians, but only the Word of God.' "
Before he left Einsedeln he wrote to Myconius that he
expected to preach on the Gospel of Matthew, verse by verse,
as he later did at Zurich.
The second seed-thought of Wyttenbach that came to har
vest at Einsedeln was his emphasis on the One Mediatorship
of Christ. Erasmus only went so far as to say that Christ is
love, but he never taught his completed atonement. As Bullinger
in his "History of the Reformation" puts it :
"He preached the Gospel with all diligence at Einsedeln
and taught especially that Christ was the only Mediator to
be prayed to and worshipped and not Mary the Virgin and

52 THE REFORMED REFORMATION
Mother of Jesus. This was by many unheard because un
pleasant, but to others who were pious, it was acceptable. It
is indeed a providence of God that he was permitted to preach
at Einsedeln where everything was so superstitious."
He seems to have preached Christ and his forgiveness at
Einsedeln, not so much polemically as positively; that is, he
preached the salvation of Christ in its fullness, so that Mary
and the saints were overshadowed and forgotten. He did not
preach denunciations but the positive Gospel. But even this
must have required tremendous moral courage on the part
of Zwingli. For as Bullinger says, there was not a more super
stitious place than Einsedeln. Yet there in that Abbey, over
whose door, according to tradition, was the sign: "Here sins
are forgiven by the Virgin Mary," he preached that sins are
forgiven by Christ. And in that abbey, whose greatest prize
is the image of the Black Virgin said to have fallen from
heaven and worshipped today by hundreds as an idol, he held
up Christ, so while in his righteousness, over against the black
Virgin. The world has admired Luther's bravery at Witten
berg and Worms, but it has forgotten to notice that here at
Einsedeln there was also bravery and heroism as Zwingli
preached the new Gospel in the cradle of the old. No one
would dare to do so today in that abbey. As a result, pil
grims, who came to the abbey to find forgiveness of sin
through the Virgin, were led to forgiveness by faith in Jesus
Christ. Of his preaching there, we have two testimonies. One
is by Hedio, who in a letter he wrote to Zwingli, Novem Der 5,
1519, speaks of Zwingli's sermon on Pentecost (1518) at Ein
sedeln, when Zwingli preached on the story of the paralytic
(Luke 5:17-26) :
"I was greatly charmed by a discourse of yours, so elegant,
learned and weighty, fluent, incisive and Evangelical, wholly
such as recalled the energy of the old theologians, a discourse
on the passage about the paralytic in Luke 5 at the Church of
the Holy Virgin, at Einsedeln, a year and a half ago, at the
Pentecost season. That discourse, I say, so inflamed me that
I began at once to feel a deep affection for Zwingli, to look up
to and admire him."
The other is by the Humanist, Beatus Rhenanus of Basle,
who wrote December 6, 15 18:

WHO WAS THE FIRST REFORMER? 53
"I know well that you and your companions support the
pure doctrine of Christ, not according to the mutilation of the
scholastics, but as shown in its truth and clearness by an
Augustine, an Ambrose, a Cyprian and a Jerome. While the
others bring forward their babbling about the power of the
pope, of indulgences, of purgatory, of their invented miracles,
of vows (of monkhood) or of hellish punishments. But you
bring forth in your sermons the leading contents of the doc
trine of Christ as if it were painted on a table, how Christ
was sent by God to earth to teach us the will of the Father
and to bring it about that the world with its riches, its honor,
its dominion and power is despised and the heavenly Father
land is sought with a whole heart. . . . For his life is the
doctrine which stands out more prominently than anything that
belong to men."
As a result of Zwingli's emphasis on the sole mediatorship
of Christ, two other correlated doctrines appear.
The first was his opposition to indulgences. Samson came
into the neighborhood of Einsedeln preaching indulgences in
the summer of 15 18. Zwingli denounced them and so suc
cessfully that Samson went away. Later, Zwingli did the same
at Zurich early in 15 19 and by it started a movement that
ultimately drove Samson and the indulgence business out of
Switzerland. Zwingli says later (1523) that he did not get
his opposition to indulgences from Luther for he said it was:
"A subject in which I did not require much enlightenment
(by Luther) because I had been already taught what a cheat
and delusion indulgences were by my master and beloved
faithful teacher, Dr. Thomas Wyttenbach."
A letter has come down to us from Beatus Rhenanus,
written by Zwingli from Basle, December 6, 15 18. Rhenanus
says: "I have laughed a great deal at the peddler of indul
gences whom you depicted so vividly in your letter."
This remark has been exaggerated by Zwingli's later
biographers as if it showed that Zwingli did not take the mat
ter of indulgences seriously but merely as a joke. Thus Jack
son says: "He had no appreciation of the enormity of the
conduct of the pope in selling them." And some writers not
very favorable to Zwingli have used it to point out that while
Luther realized the deadly character of indulgences, Zwingli
just joked about them. But we ask of them : If Zwingli took
it merely as a joke and did not realize their enormity, how

54 THE REFORMED REFORMATION
was it that Samson was driven away from Einsedeln, the
very place in all Switzerland where he would have been apt
to find support? Mere jokes don't produce such serious re
sults. The cause they give is not sufficient to explain the
results. And one, who goes to Einsedeln today and sees its
gross superstitions, will realize how hard it must have been
to have produced such a result. Yet Zwingli did it and he
could not have done it by mere frivolity. No, he himself en
dorses Wyttenbach's remarks that indulgences were a fraud
and cheat and that makes them more than a joke.
Again this letter of Hedio's is in itself an answer to their
inference. He says:
"For it does not escape me that you and those like you
bring forth to the people the pure philosophy of Christ. . . .
You, in preaching tf> your congregation, show the whole doctrine
of Christ, briefly displayed as in a picture : how Christ was sent
down to earth by God to teach us the will of the Father to
show us that this world, i. e., riches, honor, authority, pleasure
and all that kind of thing, are to be condemned so that the
heavenly country can be sought with the whole heart, to teach
us peace and concord, ... to take away, from us foolish
affections, concerning country, parents, relatives, health and
other possessions, to declare that poverty and disadvantages in
this life are not real evils."
All this does not intimate the inference that has been
drawn from it that Zwingli was merely joking about indul
gences. But it shows that there was something deeper than
jokes in his preaching on it.
We have thus seen how Zwingli's fundamental doctrines
of the Scriptures and the atonement led to the denial of in
dulgences. There was also a second, doctrine founded on
them that was also discussed at Einsedeln by Zwingli and his
friends. It was that the Church must be reformed and that
the papacy rested on a poor foundation. Capito, in 1536,
in a letter from Strassburg to Bullinger thus wrote :
"Before Luther became prominent Zwingli and I had
come to an agreement that the pope must fall, as early as the
time he lived at Einsedeln." Zwingli too in a letter (1525) to
Compar, state secretary of Uri, says :
"Eight years ago (1517) at Einsedeln and then at Zurich,
I often proved to the Lord Cardinal of Sion, that the whole

WHO WAS THE FIRST REFORMER? 55
papacy rested on a false foundation and this always by appeal
ing to Scripture. The noble Sir Diebold of Geroldseck (the
head of the abbey), Master Francis Zink and Doctor Michael
Sander, all three yet living, are my witnesses; and the above
mentioned cardinal has frequently expressed himself to me in
this way, 'If God restores me again to favor (he was at that
time in disgrace with the pope), I will then willingly see the
pride and falsehood of the Romish bishop exposed and
corrected." Zwingli said to Pucci, the papal legate, of Switzerland :
"I will openly declare and before men still living, that ere
dissension arose in the Church, I have both by word and deed
witnessed to mighty cardinals, prelates and bishops of the
errors in doctrine, which are abroad, and warned and coun
selled them to remove abuses or they themselves would perish
in a more dreadful revolution."
Bullinger also says that at Einsedeln Zwingli exhorted
Hugo, bishop of Constance, to give freedom to preach the
pure Word of God and to remove gross abuses and supersti
tions. He says that Zwingli made similar remarks to Cardinal
Schinner, the papal legate in Switzerland. Stahelin has tried
to throw discredit on these accounts which place Zwingli's
Reformation so early. But in doing so he has to discredit
Bullinger's testimony. Our reply to him is that Bullinger's
testimony as a historian can not be discredited. We must
confess that we would prefer believing the testimony of
Bullinger, a cotemporary, to the theories of biographers and
Church historians of nearly four hundred years later. Prof.
Hagenbach used to answer such critics by "Is not the testi
mony of Bullinger sufficient." Something of. this kind must
have taken place or why did the pope appoint Zwingli one
of his acolyte chaplains September 1, 1518. Besides Zwingli
corroborates Bullinger's statements in his letter (1525) to Corn-
par. For what Zwingli said was evidently enough to cause a
stir as Rome began taking measures to offset it. It did not
do so by fulminating a bull against him as it did against
Luther. It did not dare do that, for the pope needed too
badly the Swiss soldiers in his armies. While he tried to
crush Luther by force, he tried to win Zwingli by favors.
Antonio Pucci used his influence with the pope and on Sep
tember 1, 1 5 18, announced to Zwingli that the pope, in recog-

56 THE REFORMED REFORMATION
nition of his ability and learning; had made him an acolyte
chaplain and released him from some acclesiastical censures.
This bid for Zwingli's favor seems later to have been followed
by other overtures of much higher positions in the Romish
Church. Zwingli bears witness to this in his Exposition of
the Articles of the Disputation on January, 1523:
"I had for three years previously to 1520 been preach
ing the Gospel with earnestness, on which account I received
from papal cardinals, priests and legates with whom the city
abounded, many friendly and earnest counsels with threats and
with promises of greater gifts and benefices."
Myconius says he asked Zink what the pope had offered
to Zwingli. The reply was: "Everything except the papal
chair."* We therefore believe that Zwingli began his Reformation
at Einsedeln. True no open break occurred there between
him and the pope. Nor did there for that matter occur with
Luther so early when he nailed up the theses in 15 17. But
Zwingli was preaching the Protestant doctrines of the su
premacy of Scripture and 'the full atonement of Christ. He
uses a significant clause in his letter to Juda (December 17,
1 5 18) urging him to become his successor at Einsedeln. "The
people here is single-minded and willing hears Christ preached
to them." It is significant that at this great pilgrimage place
of the Virgin Mary, Zwingli says not a word about her. But
he speaks of Christ.
* The argument of Stahelin, that if Zwingli had been preaching
the Protestant Gospel at Einsedeln, he never could have been elected
at Zurich, because Canon Hoffman the leader of the Catholic party
would have opposed him, does not impress us deeply. For there are
too many things to be taken into consideration. First of all it is to be
remembered that the lines had not yet been drawn at that time between
conservative Catholics and the humanists like Zwingli. Second and
more important, so many of the higher Church officials above Canon
Hoffman, even the bishop of Constance, were favorable to humanism
or winked at it. It was this strong influence of humanism that com
pelled Samson to leave the diocese. And thirdly Stahelin seems to
contradict himself, for on pages 128-9, he says that Hoffman declared
(1523) that in his thirty years of preaching he had often attacked the
abuses of popes and bishops. If Hoffman did this, it is not to be
expected that he would object to the election of Zwingli even if the
latter had already preached the Evangelical Gospel at Einsedeln.

vvnO VvA.6 ixixi riR.oT REFORMER? 57
We can not therefore agree with some of the biographers
of Zwingli that at Einsedeln Zwingli was yet only a humanist.
This theory is based mainly on a theory of Usteri who made
an examination of Zwingli's notes in the books that belonged
to him. He claimed that Zwingli changed his style of pen
manship in 15 19 and that relying on his penmanship his earlier
notes were only humanistic and did not have in them the doc
trines of grace. And Stahelin has followed Usteri here. In
deed some biographers place Zwingli's beginning of the Refori
mation as late as 1520 and 1521, and some of the German
Lutherans as Tschackert place it as late as 1523. The Luther
ans have seized on these admissions by Usteri and Stahelin to
discredit Zwingli so as to help Luther. The Germans have
always somewhat looked down on Zwingli because he was not
a German and only a Swiss. Thus the case against Zwingli has
been recently prejudiced by German Church historians. And
their Lutheran bias has aided this.
The trouble with the opponents of Zwingli is that when
ever it is asserted that Zwingli said he began the Reforma
tion independently of Luther, yes before him in 15 16, they
declare that he said this through jealousy of Luther. Even
Jackson echoes this. But let us look at this false charge for
a moment. Zwingli shows his entire lack of jealousy of
Luther :
1. By the fact that when Luther's writings first appeared,
he highly commended that they be read. Thus he wrote to
Stumpf at Basle, July 2, 1519: "Have the copies of H. Luther
on the Lord's Prayer distributed everywhere, both in country
and city among the unlearned people as well as among the
priests." Does that look like jealousy? Other quotations of
the same nature could be given.* Zwingli also had the publi
cation of the pope's bann against Luther stayed for four
months at Zurich. Does that look like jealousy? Can't a man
say what he believes to be the truth, as Zwingli did, without
being charged with being jealous?
2. The same kind of argument might be used against
Luther that, because he spoke against Zwingli, he was perforce
* See Jackson, "Huldreich Zwingli," pages 139-143, for Zwingli's
allusions to Luther.

58 THE REFORMED REFORMATION
jealous of him, which is not true. Then neither is this charge
against Zwingli true. Zwingli did later, it is true, have a
controversy with Luther on the Lord's Supper, but there was
no jealousy on either side in it. It was with each a question
of principle. 3. The basis of their argument against Zwingli is the
theory that Zwingli was only a humanist at Einsedeln. As
to this, we would call attention to several facts in Zwingli's
life which can not be explained by that theory.
(A) How does it come that Zwingli was preaching the
ransom of Christ at Einsedeln? No humanist ever did that.
Humanists emphasized the Bible, though not in the full Prot
estant sense as the supreme guide over against the Romish
Church as the supreme authority. But the doctrine of Christ's
finished work, no humanist had ever gotten up to. Erasmus
had emphasized Christ and made Christianity consist of love.
But he never got up to Christ's complete atonement. as the
only ransom, or to Christ's sacrifice as all-sufficient over against
the intercession of saints and angels as Zwingli did. This was
an entirely new doctrine, that "Christ died once for all" (He
brews 10:10.) Now since Zwingli preached this doctrine, as
Bullinger says at Einsedeln, he was more than a humanist —
he was a Protestant.
2. How does it come about, if he were only a humanist,
that Zwingli when he first came to Zurich began preaching on
the Gospel at Matthew, verse by verse? No humanist would
ever have undertaken so radical a change as to set aside the
time-honored pericopes or Scripture-lessons that the Catholic
Church had used for hundreds of years. The Romish service
had become a hard and fast service of form. To deviate from
it in the slightest degree was regarded as heresy. We have
seen this in the case of Lefevre when he departed from the
Romish calendar by saying there were three Marys instead
of one. What a storm it brought about his head. Who ever
heard of a humanist doing what Zwingli did in introducing
such an innovation into the mass service at Zurich. The theory
that Zwingli was only a humanist fails to account for this
great change at Zurich at the very beginning of his ministry
there. He must have been a Biblicist before that to have done
it, that is, when he was at Einsedeln. Indeed while yet at

WHO WAS THE FIRST REFORMER? 59
Einsedeln he said he would begin preaching thus.
But not only does the theory that he was only a humanist
fail to account for what he did, but there are three sources
which may throw light on this subject :
1. The hand-writing or notes in his books.
2. The testimony of his cotemporaries.
3. The testimony of Zwingli himself.
1. The first seems to us the least conclusive. For hand
writing is difficult at best to decipher. The theory of Usteri
may be true, but it is at best only a theory perhaps to be set
aside later by another theory. And even if it be true, the
argument from silence is always a sort of inconclusive. For
we never have all the books or writings or letters that were
written; especially in Zwingli's case is this true. We do not
know what Zwingli would have said if we had more of them.
We must therefore conclude that of the three reasons, this
is the least conclusive. And yet this is the only one upon
which the theory, that he was only a humanist at Einsedeln,
rests. Besides if it be true it must be harmonized with the
other proofs given below.
But the other two kinds of proofs are much more im
portant and sure. The second proof is the testimony of his
cotemporaries. Myconius, Zwingli's first biographer, places
the beginning of the Swiss reformation at Einsedeln. He
says "Zwingli went to Einsedeln because it gave him such
a favorable opportunity to preach Christ and his truth." This,
from what he says before, refers to the Evangelical Gospel.
Bullinger says "that he preached the gospel with all diligence
at Einsedeln and especially taught that Christ is the only
Mediator and that men should not pray to and worship Mary
the pure Virgin and mother of God." Capito says Zwingli
and I had an understanding that the pope must fall even as
ea*rly as when he lived at Einsedeln. Zwingli' says in his letter
to Compar (1523), "Eight years ago at Einsedeln I showed to
the Cardinal of Sion and later often with clear words that
the whole papacy had a false foundation and that always out
of the Word of God." The Bern Chronik says he preached
the Gospel for three years at Einsedeln. He must have
preached it before 15 19, for quite significant are his words as
given by Myconius. "In 15 18 he was asked by one of the

6o THE REFORMED REFORMATION
canons of Zurich whether he would be willing to preach the
Word of God in Zurich." He replied, "Yes, for if the grace
of Christ is proclaimed and received in so renowned a place,
the rest of Switzerland will soon follow the example." The
universal testimony of his contemporaries was that he began the
Reformation at Einsedeln.
3. But the greatest argument is the testimony of Zwingli
himself. He certainly knew when he began it. He is the one
who most of all ought to know about it. He universally placed
it at Einsedeln and not at Zurich. Three times he said he began
it at Einsedeln.* Jackson is right when he says that Zwingli
dated his arrival at Evangelicalism while he was at Einsedeln.f
Certainly Zwingli knew better than German Lutheran his
torians or theorists like Usteri who lived nearly four hun
dred years later.
The truth is that those who make Zwingli only a humanist
forget to note a peculiarity in his conversion. They say he
was first a humanist and then a Protestant. But they forget
to note a peculiarity in his convertion to which we have called
attention, namely, that there were different kinds of humanists.
Their theory might be true, if Zwingli had come only from
Erasmus' influence to Protestantism. But they forget that he
had first come under the strong Biblical, Evangelical influence
of Wyttenbach before he bad come under mere critical human
ism under Erasmus. It was Wyttenbach's influence that made
him a Reformer though Erasmus woke that up in him. But
as we have seen, he quickly went beyond Erasmus, because
he had had Wyttenbach before as his teacher. The Biblical
humanist in his case came before the critical humanist. And
that made him a Reformer earlier as at Einsedeln than mere
critical humanism would have done.
So then when was Zwingli converted and when did Jie
preach the Gospel? He mentions two dates, 15 16 and 15 17.
In his Archeteles (1522)$ he says :
* Zwingli's Works, Schuler and Schulthess edition I 253, III 117,
VII 186. We shall in a moment give these references.
tWe are surprised that Jackson contradicts himself by placing
it also in 1520.
t English Translation, Vol. I, 198, Preface.

WHO WAS THE FIRST REFORMER? 61
"But now for about six years (1516) I have labored to the
best of my ability with the talent entrusted to my keeping that
when the Lord came and demanded his gain I might not sloth-
fully bring forth forward with fear and shame the one idle
talent." In his work against Luther (1527) he says:
"I thank my knowledge of the truth and contents of the
Gospel the study of John and Augustine and above all the
diligent reading of Paul for my knowledge of the truth and
contents of the Gospel. This of Paul I copied eleven years
ago with my own hands, while you, Luther have only begun
to domineer since eight years (15 19)."
2. Zwingli in his letter to Haller December 29, 1521,
speaks of the work of Evangelical service "which I began five
years ago" (1516).* There is also another reference to 1516
which we shall give in a moment.
The references that place it in 15 17 are:
1, Zwingli in his letter to Compar (1525) says:
"I have often shown with clear words to the Cardinal of
Zion eight years ago (1517) at Einsedeln and later at Zurich
that the whole papacy had a poor foundation and I did it al
ways by the power of the Gospel."
He must have felt that that year caused somewhat of a
breach, for he said in 1520 :f
"I had for three years previously been preaching the Gos
pel with earnestness, — on the other hand in 15 17 I declined to
receive the pension of fifty gulden, — I must confess my sin
before God and all the world that before 15 16 I hung mightly
upon the pope."
This is proved by the statements of Myconius and
Bullinger. Myconius says (English Works of Zwingli, 7) :
"An opportunity was offered to remove to Einsedeln, which
for the time being seemed a sensible thing to do. The con
course of men from almost all parts of mankind, so celebrated
was the name of the place, attracted him as it give such a favor
able opportunity to preach Christ and his truth in regions varied
* Schuler and Schulthess Edition of Zwingli's Works, Vol. VII,
186. f Schuler and Schulthess Edition of Zwingli's Works, I, 253.

62 THE REFORMED REFORMATION
and remote. Nor was his hope disappointed, for Chirst began
to be known more soundly."
Bullinger says :
"He preached the Gospel with all diligence also'at Einsedeln
and especially taught that Christ the only Mediator and not
Mary the Virgin and Mother of God should be prayed to and
worshipped. This was a wonderful providence of God, that it
was given to him to preach thus in Einsedeln, which was such a
superstitious place."
And his conversion must have occurred before 1518, for
Beatus Rhenanus in 1518 speaks of Zwingli as one of "the
teachers of Evangelical truth who had torn the mask of the
scholastic theology off, because it sought to bring Christ under
the rule of Aristotle."
How shall we harmonize these different dates given by
Zwingli? Probably the best way to harmonize them is that
he began preaching on the Gospel in the mass service in 15 16
as he says in 1523:
"I began to preach the Gospel of Christ in the year 15 16
before any one in my locality had so much as heard the name
of Luther : for I never left the pulpit without taking the words
of the gospel as used in the mass service of the day and ex
pounding them by means of the Scriptures: although at first
I relied much upon the Fathers as expositors and explainers."
But even that sort of Biblical preaching was a far advance
on anything they had had before. Then we can place the
second date (1517) as the time when he began to publicly
preach the Gospel of free grace, — the atonement of Christ as
the source of forgiveness and as the time when he began
preaching Christ over against the Virgin as Bullinger says.
There is however one other date which is mentioned as
the day when he preached this Gospel. It is the only specific
date of it that has come down to us. Just as October 31, 1517,
has come down as the date of Luther's nailing up of the theses.
So has Pentecost, 15 18, come down to the Reformed. For
then Hedio says he heard him preach the 'Gospel. Zwingli
then took for his text "the healing of the paralytic in Luke 5,
in which is the significant verse : 'But that ye may know that
the Son of Man hath power to forgive sins.' " This date is, it
is true, about six months later than Luther's theses, but then

WHO WAS THE FIRST REFORMER? ' 63
as we shall see, Luther was then not yet a Protestant. We
are inclined to place the beginning of Zwingli's preaching of
the new doctrine of the Reformation near the close of 1517,
about the time that Luther nailed up his theses.
B — THE CONVERSION OF LUTHER.
The conversion of Luther was according to tradition sud
den. One tradition held that while climbing up the Sacred
Stairs at Rome, he heard the voice saying: "The just shall
live by faith." But this view has been given up. For Luther
clearly showed his intense Romanism there : because he says he
read mass ten times while there, and he even wished his father
and mother were dead, so that he might be able to release
them from purgatory by his penitential exercises. Besides this,
his works, published after his visit to Rome, show that he had
not come to justification by faith.
But later researches in Luther's life have led to the belief
that his conversion was not sudden but gradual. Thus his
early Lectures on the Psalms, 1513-5, have come to light. Also
his Lectures on Romans, 15 15-6, were first discovered in the
Vatican Library at Rome and then in the library at Berlin.
These have brought new revelations about his belief in that
early period. His lectures on the Psalms show that he is be
ginning to use the humanists such as Lefevre and Reuchlin.
After lecturing on the Psalms, he began to lecture on Romans.
Here he at first follows Lefevre until Erasmus' New Testa
ment came into his hands. These early works of Luther reveal
two things :
1. First that the idea of justification by faith began to
dawn in Luther's mind earlier than has been supposed. But
it began only to dawn and then very gradually the light be
comes clearer.
2. They reveal that he did not come to the full grasp of
that doctrine until later than has been supposed.
We will quote two or the latest authorities about Luther
in this period. One is Prof. Boedmer of Marburg Univer
sity who says :*
"In the course of 15 16 he overcomes his monkish views of
* "Luther in the Light of Recent Research,'' page 84.

64 THE REFORMED REFORMATION
humility and learns that humble submission to the will of God
is not sufficient, but that there must be added thereto the glad
trust in his mercy. Not until the turning of the year 15 16-7
does he dare discard his pastoral doubts about the certainty
of salvation; and his monkish aversion to the thought that a
pious person may confidently count on the mercy of God
without seeming to infringe on humility.* He had by this time
(1515) begun his reformatory criticism of conditions of the
Church. Only one thing he lacked, the clear recognition that
the faithful Christian not only dared be sure of his salvation,
but that he must be certain of it."
Prof. Henry Preserved Smith, the author of "Luther's
Life and Letters," says :
"In his first lectures (1513-5) he no longer lays the whole
emphasis on works as he apparently did in his first monastic
years, but on the other hand he has not yet arrived at the
sola fides (faith alone)."
But while Luther thus vacillated between justification by
faith and justification by works, he had settled one point. He
had discarded the Scholastic theology formulated by Aquinas
and founded on Aristotle and had taken up Biblical Theology.
And by the middle of 15 17 he had succeeded in getting Bibli
cal Theology into the university at Wittenberg.
Then came the thunder-clap in his theses against indul
gences October 31, 15 17. For this brave act Luther deserves
great credit. But while he was thus gradually coming toward
the light on justification by faith, he does not reveal it in
these theses. This is granted by Lutheran writers. Thus the
Lutheran editors of the excellent edition of Luther's Works,
now being published in English, say so in their introduction
to their translation of the Ninety-five Theses. They say :
"The word faith destined to become the watchword of
the Reformation does not occur in them, the validity to for
give sins, especially in reserved cases, is admitted within
limits and the question is simply: "What is virtue ?"f
There is no clearer proof of this than Luther himself gives
in the preface of the edition of his Works in 1545, when he
wrote :
*Page 103.
tVol. I, page 15.

WHO WAS THE FIRST REFORMER? 65
"When I took up this matter against indulgences, I was
so full and drunken, yea so besotted in papal doctrine, that out
of my great zeal, I would gladly have been ready to see and
help that murder should be done on all who would not be
obedient and subject to the pope, even in his smallest word."*
And in 1520 Luther wrote: "Some two years ago (1518)
I wrote a little book on indulgences which I now deeply regret
having published, for at that time I held that indulgences
should not altogether be rejected, seeing that they were ap
proved by the common consent of men." This book, pub
lished a year after he nailed up the indulgence, shows that he
believed in indulgences when he nailed up the theses;
For Protestant readers of these theses must be careful
not to read into the theses their Protestant views ; but to read
them as a Catholic would or as one coming out of Catholicism
like Luther would. We must disabuse our minds of our Prot
estant standpoint and view them from the Catholic stand
point from which Luther came. Thus, take for instance the
first of these theses : "Our Lord and Master Jesus Christ when
he said "Do penance." Now Protestant translations have
translated "do penance" by "repentance." But the Protestant
idea of repentance is not at all the idea here. It is the Catholic
idea of doing penance. And this "doing something" was quite
in accord with the Catholic doctrine of justification by works;
for indulgences were based on that doctrine. "Luther," says
Koestlin, "up to 15 17 saw no other light than that every one
should confess to the priest, secure absolution and the inter
cession of the saints, which he justified against Huss and in
his sermons he invoked the Virgin."
What Luther was attacking in these theses was :
1. The abuses of the indulgences. He protested against
the scandals of the traffic. This was his main objection. It
was especially the money abuses that had roused Luther's in
dignation. The sale of indulgences in Germany had been
farmed out by the pope to the Fuggers, the great bankers at
Augsburg, and to the Archbishop at Mayence for a large roy
alty given to them for the sales. As we would say now, "the
trusts had gotten hold of the business" and were perverting
* English Translation of Luther's Works, page .10.

66 THE REFORMED REFORMATION
it to their own ends.
2. What he especially attacked were papal abuses* those
indulgences that came from the pope and which really inter
fered with the indulgences given by the priests in their par
ishes. The sale of these papal indulgences took a great deal
of money out of the hands of the German priests and princes
because it was taken to Rome. It was depleting their coffers.
That was the reason why some of them opposed the sale of
indulgences. It was an important reason why Luther re
ceived so much support from the German princes. Thus Duke
George of Saxony, though later an opponent of Luther, on
account of this, was greatly pleased at Luther's checking the
indulgence traffic.
Now from the standpoint of Protestantism, the opposite
of indulgences is faith and not the papal pardons, which
Luther attacked in these theses. It is faith over against justi
fication by works, upon which the whole system of indulgences
is built. And that is what Luther would have championed had
he been a full Protestant. But not a word about faith does
he interject anywhere in the theses. On the contrary he says
(71) that "He who speaks against the truth of 'apostolic par
dons,' let him be anathema and accursed."
3. A third thing that Luther objected to in indulgences
was that the power of indulgences extended into purgatory.
He said that the papal power was only temporal and did not
extend to purgatory, — indulgences were only for penalties im
posed in this life. Therefore the pope's indulgences could not
reach there as Tetzel had declared that
"Soon as the groschen in the casket rings
The troubled soul from purgatory springs."
But while Luther thus protested against the indulgences affect
ing purgatory, the theses reveal that he was a firm believer
in purgatory.f But how, according to our Protestant concep
tions, can one hold to justification by faith and yet believe in
purgatory, which is built entirely on justification by works ;
for purgatory has to do with the arrears in works that the soul
is in at death.
* Thus theses 5, 6, 33, 34, 38, 45, 48, 49, 75, 76 show this.
t Thus theses 11, 16, 1-7, 22, 25, 29, 35, 82, 84.

WHO WAS THE FIRST REFORMER? 67
All honor to Luther for his courage in nailing up the
theses, but it is evident that he was not a Protestant then
and had not clearly come out to justification by faith. If we
can believe what he says in his other works before and at
that time he was oscillating between justification by works
, and justification by faith ; but had not come out clearly enough
to faith to boldly attack indulgences, which at its root was the
denial of justification by works.
It is an interesting psychological problem to know how
Luther could thus endorse the papal system of indulgences
founded on justification by works and yet be coming out
toward justification by faith. How he could hold them to
gether at the same time seems contradictory to the Prot
estant. But it was not so to the Catholic mind. It can hold
to contraries at the same time. For the Catholic faith is
often a religion of contradictions. An explanation can easily
be made of Luther's case, that he was here only followed his
great Church Father and model, Augustine. Augustine held
to two contradictory views of religion, — sacramentarianism
and Evangelicalism, — that is, he held on the one hand to bap
tismal regeneration and on the other to election. According
to the former, man's act (the priest's when he baptizes) saves;
according to the latter, God's act saves, for he elects us out
of his own good pleasure. Such compromises were common
in Catholicism. This is shown by the act of the Council of
Trent in the sixteenth century when it tried to decide between
justification by works and justification by faith. It straddled
the question and held to both. A Protestant asks how can
that be done. Very easily said the Catholic Fathers of Trent.
That council taught justification by faith (or as it calls it, by
grace) at baptism, and by works after baptism. The Romish
Church has ever been a Church of compromises. Remember
ing these things we can the more easily understand Luther's
frame of mind at that time.
Such was Luther when he nailed up the theses — in a state
of transition. No, it was not until 15 18 that Luther came out
to clearer views on justification by faith. In the spring of
1518 he went to Heidelberg to attend a convention of his
Augustinian Order. While there he held a disputation on the
subject of free-will. From this it is evident that he was com-

68 THE REFORMED REFORMATION
ing more clearly toward justification by faith. For the slavery
of the will which he debated there was the foundation of justi
fication. "But," as Koestlin says (Theology of Luther I, 285)
"Luther developed his views of justification most fully in his
Sermons 'Of the Threefold Righteousness' and 'Of the Two
fold Righteousness.' " Those pamphlets appeared after the
Disputation at Heidelberg, which was held in the spring of
1 5 18. We can therefore place Luther's full declaration of
justification by faith somewhere in the summer of 1518.
Having thus carefully studied the conversion of both
Zwingli and Luther, we are now ready to answer the ques
tion which one was first, Luther or Zwingli. According to our
first definition of a Reformer he became such when he had
been converted and began preaching Evangelical doctrines. If
that be the criterion, we have Zwingli preaching his Protestant
doctrine of Christ's finished work as Mediator in 15 17, prob
ably in the autumn just about the time when Luther nailed
his theses up at Wittenberg. But that was about six months
or more before Luther came out clearly and decidedly on jus
tification by faith in the summer of 1518. An additional proof
of Zwingli's precedence is given by Hedio, who said that he
heard Zwingli preach an Evangelical sermon on the text, "But
the son of man has the power to forgive sin." This sermon
was preached on Pentecost, 15 18, which was before Luther
published these sermons on justification by faith to which we
referred. We therefore conclude that according to our first
definition of a Reformer, Zwingli was before Luther, because
he preached Christ's atonement before Luther did justification
by faith. Besides Zwingli came out more fully than Luther, for
the atonement is the basis of justification by faith. There
Zwingli got down deeper than Luther, even to the root of the
doctrine of justification, whereas Luther emphasized the result
in justification. But both, thank God, came to the great first
principles of our Protestant faith.

CHAPTER III.
HARMONY OF THE LUTHERAN AND REFORMED REFORMATIONS.
We have thus far followed the Reformation up to the
time of the conversion of Luther and Zwingli. We propose
to continue the study of their Reformation by placing their
work at Wittenberg and at Zurich side by side. Harmonies of
the four Gospels have greatly aided us in understanding the
life of our Lord, why not harmonies of the Reformation to
enable us to understand it better. As far as our knowledge
goes, no such harmony has ever been attempted. We will
therefore place the events at Zurich and Wittenberg side by
side as they take place. In this way new light will be let into
the subject. And we will be better able to study the progress
of the Reformation step by step.
We will begin with the year 15 19, as we have already vir
tually covered the ground up to that time. And the year 15 19
is a good year to begin with ; for on January 1 of that year
Zwingli began his work at Zurich. And Luther also began his
great public defenses by his debate at the Conference at
Leipsic, 15 19.
Luther had, as we have seen, come out on the subject of
justification by faith as revealed in his sermons in 15 18. He
now begins to advance to another doctrine, namely, that of
the Church and the papacy. In a letter of May 30, 1518, to
the pope, he declared, that he still recognized the voice of
the pope as the voice of God. But it was as the pope began
attacking him, that he was led to greater clearness on that
doctrine. His first appeal (October 16, 1518) is from a pope
badly informed to a pope to be better informed. On Novem
ber 28, 1 5 18, he appealed from the pope to a council. This
was not however considered heretical in those days, for only
six months before, the university of Paris, which had always
represented the liberal or Gallican Catholicism as by Gerson
at the Council of Constance, appealed from the pope's decision
to a council. At the beginning of 15 19 he wrote to the pope

70 THE REFORMED REFORMATION
that the authority of the Church was superior to everything,
save Jesus Christ.
Then came the Conference at Leipsic in the summer of
1519, where Eck most adroitly produced theses about the
authority of the pope with a view of entangling Luther. And
when in the discussion, Luther was there led to declare that
some of the theses about Huss, which had been condemned
by the Council of Constance in 1415, were true, Eck charged
him with "the Hussite poison." That was where Eck wanted
to get him. He at once denied that, in saying what he did, he
denied the authority of a council. But he was soon to go a
step farther and deny both popes and councils as the final
authority and rely only on the Bible. Meanwhile though he
was thus coming out from under papal authority, he still held
to other papal doctrines, as in his "Instruction" in certain
articles, he declares that prayers to the dead and purgatory
were allowable. He also held to saint-worship and transub
stantiation. As late as 1520 he ended his sermon with an Ave
Maria. Before October 3, Melancthon had however published
some theses against transubstantiation which was the next
Romish doctrine to be attacked.
While this was going on at Wittenberg, what was going
on at Zurich? There we notice first of all that the Reforma
tion was proceeding along other lines. We find that Zwingli
was doing, what Luther had not yet thought of doing, namely,
making changes in the cultus or worship of the Church.
Zwingli did not go any farther at first than simply to lay
aside the pericopes and preach on whole books of the Bible
at a time. But even that was a great step, for it broke the
unchangeable order of the Catholic Church service. For no
man had a right to do this without express permission from
the bishop. By this step he uprooted the Catholic custom of
centuries. Had he done as he had been doing before at Ein
sedeln, preach upon the pericope of the Sabbath, it would not
have been so revolutionary. But no, he was now so strongly
imbued with the authority of Scripture, that parts of the Bible
as in the pericopes, did not satisfy him, he must give the whole
Bible to his people. And so he preached on the Gospel of
Matthew, verse by verse. His preaching began to produce re
sults, for he could by the end of the year write to Myconius

HARMONY OF THE REFORMATIONS 71
that more than 2,000 citizens of Zurich, one-third of the popu
lation, sympathized with him. Many looked upon him as "the
Moses who would lead the people out of slavery."
Another significant event was his attack on indulgences.
Soon after he came to Zurich, Samson came there selling in
dulgences. But so strongly did Zwingli oppose him, that he
left not only Zurich but also Switzerland. When the plague
broke out in the autumn he became sick unto death, indeed
was reported dead. But he recovered. However his great
illness deepened his piety and prepared him for the great work
before him as Reformer. He composed a hymn in his illness.*
Zwingli's statements in his letters are quite interesting as they
reveal his progress in reformatory ideas. On March 9 he
wrote to Beatus Rhenanus : "It (an oration) will please you
immensely so full is it of slurs against the priests and silver-
loving cardinals." On March 21 he wrote to him again: "It
pained me that the man-pleaser, or if you prefer the cuckoo,
is entertaining designs against the rising theology. The Lord
will not save Judah when he trusts in his chariots and horses ;
but only when trusting in his mercy." On March 25 to
Beatus he speaks of "the 'old womanish' business of Lent."
And on June 7 he speaks against the adoration of saints and
on December 31 he writes slightingly of relics.
Zwingli had by this time advanced toward Protestantism
on three points. Like Luther he held to the authority of
Scripture. He also had come out on the finished atonement
of Christ just as Luther had on justification by faith. He
had not openly attacked the pope, for he had not been attacked
by the pope as had been Luther. Still he had, even before
Luther begun to doubt the papacy as at Einsedeln. And he
had come out against saint-worship to which Luther held
several years longer. 1520.
The year 1520 was a great one for Luther and the Luth
eran Reformation; for in it Luther published his two great
Reformation treatises, — those trumpet voices of the new era.
"The Luther of 1520," says Boehmer, Luther's latest biog-
* See my "Hymns of the Reformed Reformations.''

72 THE REFORMED REFORMATION
rapher, "was indeed a different person from the Luther of
the Ninety-five theses (1517). His aims were grander, his
view much broader and clearer and his self-confidence vastly
mightier." Before however issuing his two great appeals he,
in February, got hold of a work by an Italian, Valla, which
showed conclusively that the "Donation of Constantine," on
which the papacy was founded, was a fiction and a fraud.
This completed his denial of the power of the papacy. In
his two pamphlets, Luther advanced to several new positions
He had first attacked indulgences and then the papacy. Now
he attacked the priesthood and the sacraments and other errors
of the papacy.
His first book was his "Appeal to the German Nobility,"
published in the summer. In it he says that the Romanists
had surrounded themselves with three walls. The first was
that they declare the spiritual to be above the temporal; and
therefore the secular powers have no control over the clergy.
The second was that the pope alone could expound Scriptures,
which therefore could not be used against them. The third
was that only a pope could call a council. Luther called for a
trumpet, which like those which threw down the walls of
Jericho, would destroy these walls. Over against the first,
he declared that the Biblical doctrine of the priesthood of all
believers destroyed any special privileges of the Catholic priest
hood. Over against the second, he claimed that the Bible gave
to each Christian the right of private judgment. After his
destruction of the first two walls, the third was easily over
thrown. He proved that the early councils of the church were
called not by popes but by emperors; and he held that coun
cils should not be fettered by the pope. In this work he also
attacked the celibacy of the clergy and demanded the diminu
tion of masses for the dead. He appealed to the German
nobles that as the Romish hierarchy would not attempt to
bring about needed reforms, they should do so, which right
they had by virtue of the doctrine of the priesthood of all
believers. "It was a political and social manifesto (having
however a religious basis) to the German nobles to go for
ward and reform Germany."
This trumpet blast was shortly followed by another, "The
Babylonish Captivity," published in October. In this he at-

HARMONY OF THE REFORMATIONS 73
tacked the sacramental system of the Catholic Church. He
mentioned several captivities. The first was the withholding
of the cup from the laity at the Lord's Supper; the second
was transubstantiation ; the third was making the mass a sacri
fice. He reduced the number of sacraments from seven as
among the Catholics to three, baptism, the Lord's Supper and
pennance, though he grants that the latter was not a full sacra
ment. He held that the sacraments were seals of God's for
giveness and that they were efficacious through faith. In his
"Address to the German Nobility," he had dwelt on the
external abuses in the state; in this "Babylonish Captivity,"
he treated of the internal errors of the Church.
This epochal year was brought to a close and a climax
by a most heroic act, — his burning of the pope's bull on De
cember n. He defended this act by claiming that the bull
taught the pope's absolute authority over the Bible, the Church
and the Christian conscience. This act marked his formal
breach with the papacy, for he burned not only the bull, but
also the canon law, in which were the Decretals on which the
papal system was supposed to rest.
But while Luther went so far in breaking with the pope,
he was still Catholic in many of his customs. He was still
saying the canonical prayers, which were required of the
priest for each day. For he says, "he missed them sometimes
for a week and so had to make up for lost time by saying them
all together for a whole day, so that he had no time to eat or
"drink." It seems strange that after he' had come out to justi
fication by faith, he should still continue to use these canonical
prayers, as they were based on justification by works. Was
he still relying on good works to save, when he so carefully
goes to the trouble to make up for those that he had missed?
Turning from the Lutheran to the Zwinglian Reformation,
we find that the year 1520 was a comparatively quiet one, com
pared with Luther's. And yet one can see clearly that the
Reformation was steadily • progressing among the people.
Early in the year, Zwingli made an attack on the tithing sys
tem of the Catholic Church. This was a serious blow to the
revenues of the cathedral. He says the provost of the cathe
dral declared that! the tithes were of divine right. This Zwin
gli controverted publicly. The provost pled with Zwingli not

74 THE REFORMED REFORMATION
to furnish any more arms to the laity to use against the clergy.
Quite significant. of the way that Zwingli's preaching. was tak
ing hold of the people was the action of the city council, that
the Scriptures should be preached, — "all priests and curates
should freely and everywhere preach the Holy Gospels and
the Epistles of the Holy Apostles, and they should only teach
what they could prove and establish by the Word of God.
As for the doctrines and commandments of men, they should
let them alone." This was the first action of a secular author
ity either at Wittenberg or Zurich, favorable to the Reforma
tion. The Reformed on two points, it will be noticed as we
pass along, were ahead of Luther's Reformation, in cultus .and
in secular action favorable to the Reformation.
But the most significant event of the year at Zurich was
Zwingli's renunciation of his papal pension. At the beginning
of the last chapter, we called attention to the different defini
tions of what constituted a Reformer. We later saw how
both Luther and Zwingli became Reformers, according to the
first definition, namely, when they began giving expression to
the Evangelical faith, Zwingli in 15 17 and Luther in 15 18;
Luther, to justification by faith and Zwingli, to the completed
atonement and one mediatorship of Christ. We saw how ac
cording to that definition of a Reformer Zwingli was first.
We now come to the second definition there given of a
Reformer, namely, that he was one who renounced publicly
the papal yoke. Well, Zwingli did so in 1520 as he renounced
the pension he had received from the pope. This was a pen
sion that had first been given him in 1512-1513 of 50 gulden
($20) yearly. This he used to buy books and it was greatly
needed for he was poor. In 1517 he declined it, but they kept
on sending it to him. He says :
"In 1517 I declined to receive the pension, which they
gave me yearly (yes, they wanted to make it 100 gulden, but
I would not hear to it). But they would not stop it until in
1520, I renounced it in writing. (I confess here my sin
before God and all the world that before 1516 I hung mightily
on the pope and considered it becoming for me to receive
money from the papal treasury.) But when the Roman repre
sentative warned me not to preach against the pope, I told
him in express and clear words that they had better not

HARMONY OF THE REFORMATIONS 75
believe that I would, on account of their money, suppress a
syllable of truth."
Zink, the chaplain at Einsedeln with Zwingli, says that
Zwingli was never moved a finger's breadth from the Gospel by
the favor of pope, emperor or noble; but always proclaimed
the truth and preached it faithfully among the people. He said :
"I was present when the papal legate Pucci was frankly
told by Zwingli that he could not for money advance the papal
interests, but would preach and teach the truth to the people in
the way that seemed best to him."
From all this it looks very much as if the papal pension
was forced on him in the later years, very much as literature
that we do not want is forced on us through the mails. It
is also very clear that in 15 17 he told them that he could not
be bought by it and that when they sent it to him after that,
they did it on their own responsibility. The whole thing was
a trick to injure him as events proved.
This was Zwingli's final breach with the pope. It is an
interesting coincidence that Luther and Zwingli both threw
off the papal authority publicly in the same year (1520);
Luther, by burning the pope's bull and Zwingli, by giving up
the pope's pension. But if it be asked which of the two was
the earlier in doing it, we again reply Zwingli ; because Luther
did not burn the pope's bull till very late in the year (Decem
ber 11). It may perhaps be answered by the Lutherans that
Luther was attacking the pope earlier than when he burned
the bull. That is true, bu,t Zwingli earlier than Luther, even
while at Einsedeln, had spoken against the papacy.
1521.
The year 1520 had been the great year of Luther's declar
ation of independence from the pope, the next year was a
vear of great confusion at Wittenberg. Early in that year
(April) Luther, having been summoned to Worms before the
German Diet, made there his great defense in which he refused
to recant, closing with "Here I stand, God help me, Amen."
This heroic act was followed by his arrest and captivity among
friends at the Wartburg, where he spent his time in trans
lating the New Testament and later in the year in writing

76 THE REFORMED REFORMATION
a pamphlet against the monks.
In his absence matters came into great confusion at Wit
tenberg, as Carlstadt became the leader there. Now Carlstadt
has been too severely handled by the Lutheran Church his
torians because he attacked Luther who is their idol. His case
has been prejudiced against him by them. But Carlstadt,
although he had his faults (as we all have) and his eccentrici
ties, is yet quite significant to the Reformed.
Andrew Bodenstein of Carlstadt, or Carlstadt, as he has
become known to us, was a professor at the Wittenberg uni
versity, senior to Luther. He was a man of considerable abil
ity and learning, so that a monk once called Luther "the
greater light" at Wittenberg and Carlstadt the "lesser light"
there. At first he had opposed Luther's change from the scho
lastic theology to the Biblical; but later he had followed him
in doing the same. He then became the first defender of
Luther as against Eck, which led on to the Leipsic Disputation
in the summer of 15 19.
In 1520, he had had a controversy with Luther, in which
he took what was really the Reformed position on the inspira
tion and canonicity of the Bible. Luther in his "Resolutions"
had given expression to a low estimate of the Epistle of
James, because it seemed to him that James favored works
rather than faith. Carlstadt took exception to this remark of
Luther's. The truth was that Luther in doing so, held to
what may be called the subjective theory of the canonicity of
the books of the Bible, — that the canonicity of the different
books depended on whether they were in agreement with what
seemed to him to be the truth of Christianity. Carlstadt de
nied this and declared that the canonicity of a book depended
on the decision of the Church and not on the whim of the
individual. This view of Luther's, if carried out to its ex--
treme, would lay open the way for the baldest rationalism and
highest criticism by making the subjective the guide. Carl
stadt inclined to what was the later Reformed view, espe
cially Calvin's, who minimized the subjective authority of
canonicity and emphasized the objective. Calvin held to a
doctrine called the "Testimony of the Holy Spirit." But this
was objective canonicity. For it held, not that we authenticated
the books, but that they authenticated themselves to us, — were

HARMONY OF THE REFORMATIONS 77
self-authenticating, — they spoke to us by the Holy Spirit. It
was not our subjective opinion of them, as Luther virtually
held, that settled their canonicity. But it was their voice to
us that did it. On this point Carlstadt was Reformed rather
than Lutheran. And also in his separation of the Canonical
books from the apocrypha, he was again Reformed and not
Lutheran. This controversy however passed by and. Carlstadt
knew no difference between himself and Luther until 1522.
But this controversy in 1520 was only a prelude to, and
prophecy of, the greater controversy in 1521. Carlstadt had
gone to Copenhagen about the end of 1520 to aid the king of
Denmark to introduce Protestantism into his university. When
he came back to Wittenberg in the summer, he found that
Luther was gone, — that he had been imprisoned in the Wart
burg and that the Protestants had no leader; for Melancthon
lacked the qualities of leadership as he was yet so young.
Carlstadt's unquestioned ability gave him the elements of
leadership and so he became the leader at Wittenberg and
introduced a number of reforms. Some Lutherans, who criti
cize him for what he did there, ascribe it to jealousy of Luther.
They make the same charge against Zwingli, so that it some
times looks as if anybody who opposed Luther was jealous
of him, a very foolish suggestion. But Carlstadt's reforms
were on the one hand only the carrying out of what Luther
had been preaching at Wittenberg. On the other hand, in
some of them, Carlstadt went beyond Luther. What makes
him especially interesting to us is that on a number of points
he was Reformed; though at the time he did not know it.
He did so because he felt that what he did was Scriptural.
When he arrived at Wittenberg, he found that a number
of the people, as the result of Luther's preaching, demanded
that the mass should be celebrated according to the New Testa
ment by giving the cup to the laity and also that the monas
teries should be abolished. His first attack, made a week
after his arrival, was on the celibacy of the clergy. He then
published (June 21) two important works against the celibacy
of the clergy. Luther had granted that priests could marry,
if they desired ; but not that monks could do so. But Carlstadt
went further and demanded that the congregations be served
by only married priests. Carlstadt's attack on celibacy was

7B THE REFORMED REFORMATION
followed by his attack on another Catholic error, — the refusal
of the communion cup to the laity. Here too he followed
Luther, who as we have seen, had demanded it as in the"Baby-
lonish Captivity." But he went beyond Luther in declaring
that to receive the communion without the cup was a sin.
From these two, the celibacy and the cup, he went on to re
forms in the worship that Luther had not yet attempted. And
in doing so he became Reformed, though he knew it not. On
October 17 he held a disputation in which he attacked the
elevation of the host at the mass (this was really artolotry or
idolatry of the bread), though he still held to the adoration
of the host. Then he went further. He denied the necessity
of observing Catholic fasts. He also attacked the use of pic
tures in the Churches. This too was a peculiarity of the Re
formed rather than the Lutherans. He held that the second
commandment prohibited the use of pictures and that it was
as binding as the commandment against theft or" adultery.
Then he preached against the mass and he declared that if
the Elector of Saxony compelled him to hold mass on New
Year, it would be after the Protestant fashion. But he did
not wait until New Year, for on Christmas (1521) he cele
brated the mass, changing it to a Protestant ordinance. In
doing so he made the following changes :
1. He omitted reading the parts of the mass that made
it a sacrifice. 2. He gave the cup to the laity.
3. He let the laity take the bread and wine into their own
hands, instead of himself putting them to their lips as is the
Catholic custom.
4. He did not require them to come to the confessional
before they came to the communion. Yes, he preached against
it at that communion service.
5. He discarded the vestments and robes of the clergy
at mass, calling them idolatrous and used the ordinary street
dress. Of these changes, the last three were specifically Reformed
and not Lutheran.
The controversy over these innovations caused riots.
Riots began on October 1 when Zwilling, an Augustinian monk,
began preaching against the mass. On December 3 the priests,

HARMONY OF THE REFORMATIONS 79
who were celebrating mass in the parish church were stoned.
About one-third of the monks in the Augustinian cloister left
that monastery. These riots were dangerous enough, but
there came another influence that made matters more danger
ous, — the prophets from Zwickau arrived at Wittenberg in
December. They claimed to have visions and revelations of
God. They decried education so that the students began to
leave the university. Carlstadt, though he tried to temper ex
cesses, was somewhat led away by them. Meanwhile Luther
at the Wartburg had become alarmed at the situation at Wit
tenberg. In' December he secretly visited that town. But he
found the situation not so threatening as he had feared. He
laid the blame of the riots on the students and thought that
the other troubles were mere temporary excitements. Thus
the year 1521 at Wittenberg closed in the midst of storm
and change.Turning now to Zurich, we find that the year 1521 was
a year of quiet, quite in contrast to Wittenberg. And yet
the reforms already begun, were continuing their quiet prog
ress. Zwingli speaks of preparing sermons against the wor
ship of the saints. And though the year was quiet, yet it
was a lull before a storm which broke out the next year.
Just at the close of the year Canon Hoffman of the cathedral
at Zurich, leader of the Catholic party there, brought com
plaint against Zwingli's preaching, — that it was unprofitable
and unbecoming. He especially attacked Zwingli for attack
ing the monks from the pulpit. This Zwingli had done, be
cause the monks, together with Hoffman, had been his prin
cipal opponents. Hoffman also complained of his preaching
,against the Virgin, degrading her from saintship and also of
his attacks on the legends of the saints. We thus see that
Zwingli, just as he had done before at Einsedeln, preached
against saint worship and now added to that, preaching against
the monks and other errors of Rome. Luther had not yet got
ten that far. He was still a monk and he held on to saints
and saint-worship a year or two longer. Hoffman also
charged that Zwingli had been preaching against purgatory,
the authority of the pope and fasting, especially in Lent. Zwin
gli had long broken with the Catholic doctrine of the sacra
ment and preached against baptismal regeneration. All this

80 THE REFORMED REFORMATION
led to friction in the next year as we shall see. At the end
of the year the ministers there took an action that was the
beginning of a declaration of independence against the bishop
of Constance, for the ministers of the canton declared that
they would not pay their dues to the bishop. And the council
promised to withhold it so long as the bishop did not tax the
upper clergy. And so the year closed with a great controversy
at Wittenberg and a threatened one at Zurich.
1522.
The year 1522 opened at Wittenberg with storm. The
new innovations were creating friction. On St. Stephen's day,
Carlstadt had a marriage ceremony for one of the ministers
and also betrothed himself, Melancthon being present. On
January 24 he secured the adoption by the city of Wittenberg
of a Church Order. This was the first secular action taken
there on religion (two years later than at Zurich, as we have
seen). This Church Ord.er cast pictures out of the Churches
and forbade begging. Carlstadt had denounced pictures, de
claring that they were forbidden by the second command
ment and that their place was in the fire and not in the Church.
So the Council decided to have the images removed from
the parish Church. But before that was done, some of the
citizens broke into the Church, tore them out, hewed them to
pieces and burned them. On February 1 there was another riot
and Carlstadt was forbidden to preach. Luther had disap
proved of Carlstadt's demand that nuns and monks leave their
convents. But he had supported the change of the mass to
the Protestant Lord's Supper. He even approved of Carl
stadt's marriage. But by the end of February he wrote a
sharp letter to the people of Wittenberg in which he found
fault with their compulsion — that they forced the new faith on
those who still wanted the old. At the same time he con
gratulated the Elector on his remarkable collection of relics
at Wittenberg and told him he would be back at Wittenberg
to set matters right. This greatly alarmed the Elector, for
he feared lest, if Luther left his secret asylum at the Wart
burg, the emperor would seize him or would punish him (the
Elector) for harboring a heretic. But Luther came neverthe
less. He appeared in Wittenberg and preached March 9-16,

HARMONY OF THE REFORMATIONS 81
endeavoring to set things right again according to conserva
tive ideas. Of all the changes made by Carlstadt, Luther re
tained only one. He still omitted that part of the mass which
made it a sacrifice to God.
Now in all these changes, it is interesting to note that
Carlstadt, though he did not know it, was yet making changes
that were Reformed rather than Lutheran. Thus his custom
of having the communicants receive the elements into their
own hands was Reformed and not Lutheran. His attack on
images and pictures was Reformed. His casting aside of
vestments at communion was Reformed. In fact it is very
remarkable, that what was really the first Reformed Lord's
Supper was not celebrated at Zurich, but by Carlstadt at Wit
tenberg four years before Zwingli was able to introduce it at
Zurich. It seems strange that the first Reformed Lord's
Supper should take place in the cradle of Lutheranism at
Wittenberg. But Luther's restorations were so remarkable as to need
special notice. When he returned he restored all the old Cath
olic customs except one as we have said. He restored the vest
ments and robes of the priests as the Catholics had them. He
also restored their fasts and the use of the confessional. He
rejected the new custom of giving the elements into the hands
of the communicant and restored the former Catholic custom
of laying them on the lips of the communicant. He retained
pictures and images, because he said such things were too
trifling to make a fuss about. And in spite of what he had
said in his "Babylonish Captivity" about giving the cup to
the laity, he had them give1 that up and he restored the Catholic
rite of only one element. It is true that at a side-altar, an
opportunity was given for those who desired to commune in
both kinds. But the main official act was without the cup.
He thus reintroduced the Catholic mode of communing and
that in spite of the fact that most of the people went to the
side-altar until finally the communion in one kind disappeared
there a few years later. He restored the elevation of the
host and retained the adoration of the host until 1543, only
three years before his death. And in spite of his attack on
the monks, he reassumed the monks' habit and continued wear
ing it. for two years more. Luther also reintroduced the use

82 THE REFORMED REFORMATION
of the Latin language in the words of institution of the Lord's
Supper. This was contrary to the Reformed custom.
Luther did all this for two reasons.
First he claimed that cultus was secondary to doctrine
and therefore he placed less stress on it. He said that such
things as the marriage of priests, cloister life, private con
fession and images in Churches might be tolerated. Only
things that contradicted the Word of God as private masses
and enforced confession were to be abolished.
Second he was opposed to an enforced religion on any
one. The new faith and its rites were not to be forced on
the people but must be accepted voluntarily. All must be
done in an orderly way. Paul, he said, preached at Athens
and the images fell though he never touched any of them.
Now while we would show all honor to Luther for his
courage as shown in many ways, we are the more surprised
that he revealed such weakness here. The Reformed might
have been slow in changing Catholic rites before the times were
ready for a change. But we do not know of a single Re
formed who ever did what Luther did here, — restore a Romish
rite after it had been given up, especially the Lord's Supper.
The Reformed would never have done this. They would
not have done it because they believed that cultus or the mode
of worship was as important as doctrine; while to Luther
these things were adiaphora or indifferent. The Reformed
would not have done it because such things were matters of
principle with them. They were not so to the Lutherans. The
truth is the Reformed stuck closer to the Bible than Luther,
for they would have in the worship Only what was in the Bible.
Carlstadt, after Luther's return, quietly submitted to
Luther's leadership. But the next year he went to Orlamunde
near Wittenberg and became pastor there. There he intro
duced a number of changes in the worship just as he had done
at Wittenberg; and in so doing made the service Reformed
rather than Lutheran. All pictures, crucifixes, images and
altars, together with vestments and robes were cast out, as
was also the use of the Latin language. But Carlstadt was
afterward compelled to leave Saxony and became a wanderer
until 1534 when, after he had given up his association with
the sects, he was made a Reformed professor of theology in

HARMONY OF|#HE REFORMATIONS 83
the university of Basle. Trl^re he died in 1541.
Turning now from Wittenberg to Zurich, we find that the
year 1522 was a stormy one also. Soon after it opened, a
great controversy arose about fasting in Lent. Zwingli had
been preaching against fasting especially in Lent as there was
no Scripture proof for it. Canon Hoffman of the cathedral,
as we saw a few moments ago, had brought complaints
against Zwingli in the previous December. Zwingli before
Lent had publicly declared that Lent had no support in the
Bible. He himself for the sake of prudence did not disobey
the city law to observe Lent. The chief offender was Christo
pher Froschouer, the great printer of Zurich, who published
Zwingli's. works. (He printed so many Bibles that he was a
whole Bible Society in himself.) He refused to fast in Lent
and made a plea that he had so much printing to do before
the book market at Frankford that it was necessary for him
and his workmen to have meat. The city authorities cited
Froschouer before them. Zwingli then defended Froschouer's
course in a sermon, which he later published, entitled "Liberty
Concerning Food." Froschouer defended himself before the
council out of Scripture and the magistrates did not punish
him, but ordered that Lenten fasts should be continued. The
next year they repealed the law favoring Lent.
Zwingli, having begun- with attacks on tithes and then
on fasting, at last brought down on his head the wrath of his
superiors in the Church. The bishop of Constance, in whose
diocese Zurich was, now began an investigation. Hitherto
these upper officials had either been lenient toward humanism,
yes some of them favorable to it. But now the bishop sent
a commission adverse to Zwingli to Zurich. They first
brought the matter before the canons of the cathedral where
Zwingli so ably answered them that they left the hall in
confusion. Then they appealed to the smaller council in
which the Catholics had the majority. This council refused
to give Zwingli a hearing on the matter. Matters looked dark-
for the Reformed. Zwingli could do nothing more. His only
resource was to God. So he betook himself to great and in
tense prayer for the night. And lo ! when the great council
met the next day, it out-voted the little council and ordered
him to be present and reply. When the head of the bishop's

84 THE REFORMED REFORMATION .
commission had finished his add£e,ss, he, with the rest of his
party, started to leave before Zwingli began speaking. But
the Swiss love of fair-play led the council to compel them
to stay and hear Zwingli. The council then reaffirmed its
former position in favor of fasting. But it put on record
an action unfavorable to the Catholics, — that the divine law
was higher than the pope's. The bishop was dissatisfied with
this for he sent letters to Zurich urging that heresy might be
suppressed. Up to the summer of 1522 Zwingli had been mainly at
tacking Romish doctrines, now he began attacking the Church
regulations. He attacked the many saints' days and Catholic
festivals. On June 19 he attacked Corpus Christi. . He also
attacked the monks and the mass and declared that the pope
was only a temporal prince and not of divine appointment.
Then another step was taken favorable to Protestantism.
This time it was the celibacy of the clergy that was attacked.
In July two petitions were sent, one to the bishop of Con
stance, the other to the Swiss diet, asking that the clergy be
permitted fo marry. The one to the bishop was signed by
Zwingli and ten other priests.
While these petitions against celibacy were being sent,
another event occurred at Zurich that created an excitement.
A prominent friar of the Franciscan Order arrived there,
Lambert of Avignon. He had been influenced somewhat by
Luther's writings, but was not yet in the clear. He preached
four sermons in the Fraumunster Church, Zurich, in which
he defended the worship of Mary and the saints. Zwingli,
who was present, arose and called out: "Brother, you are in
error." This led to an arrangement for a disputation between
Lambert and Zwingli. It lasted four hours. Zwingli so
pressed him out of the Bible that at last Lambert declared
himself discomfited and said he would ever after pray to God
alone and lay aside all mediators and rosaries. We thus see
.how Zwingli had broken on saint-worship with the Catholics
even before Luther.
In August Zwingli published his reply to the charges made
by his bishop against him in the spring. He named it "Arche-
teles," which means "the first and the last," hoping that as this
was his first attack on the bishop, it might be his last. It

HARMONY OF THE REFORMATIONS 85
taught the .independence of the Christian from Church author
ity. It revealed how thoroughly Protestant Zwingli had be
come. It upheld the supremacy of the Bible and forgiveness
of sins through the atonement of Christ. In it, he declared
against the confessional, pictures in the Churches, the use of
music, vocal and instrumental, in the Church service. H6
criticized Luther for approving of the confessional, purgatory
and worship of the saints. On these points he was clearly
ahead of Luther.
In September, Zwingli preached at the great anniversary
of the Angelic Dedication at Einsedeln. His theme was a
twofold one, the supremacy of the Bible and faith in Christ
as the Mediator instead of Mary. Thus the Reformation at
Zurich was moving fast and gathering force as it advanced.
A crisis came in November. Zwingli decided to resign as he
declared he could no longer perform the duties of his office.
He had become so opposed to the mass and other Catholic rites
that they had become distasteful to him. But the council solved
the difficult situation. It allowed him to resign and chose some
one else, thus relieving him from his distasteful duties. Then so
as to keep him, it created for him a new office, that of preacher.
This act was very significant. It was in reality a declaration
of independence from Rome, for it was the appointment of a
minister by a secular power, without asking or waiting for
the bishop to sanction it. Just at the close of the year came
up also a controversy about pictures and images, to which
we will refer in connection with 1523.
1523-
At Wittenberg very little of importance occurred. There
seemed to be a calm after the storm of the previous year
under Carlstadt. And there was also a luil before the
Peasants' War which broke out the next year. Luther, to
gether with Melancthon and others, was busy on his trans
lation of the Old Testament. This was finally published in
1534, being preceded by the Reformed Bible published at
Zurich in 1530. In this year he comes out against saint-
worship by approving of the position of the Bohemian Brethren.
If we turn to Zurich we find that it was quite otherwise
than quiet. This, was the great year of the Zurich Reforma-

86 THE REFORMED REFORMATION
tion. On January 29 a great Conference was held in the city.
Zwingli, just as Luther had done in 1517 at Wittenberg, now
nailed up 67 theses. In them he attacked the whole range of
Catholic doctrines, purgatory, the papacy, mass, intercession of
saints, celibacy of clergy, etc. Faber, the vicar general of the
diocese, was present. He declared that such matters should
not come before such a conference called by the secular power,
but before a council. Zwingli answered that the Bible was
arbiter enough. Faber was pressed by Zwingli to produce
proofs from Scripture for his doctrine, but he failed to do
so. So the council took action that Zwingli should continue
to preach the Gospel as long and as often as he wanted, and
that all priests and ministers should preach nothing but what
could be proved out of the Bible. It also forbade that they
should call each other heretics. This was then a great vic
tory for the Reformed, for it closed the mouths of their ene
mies against their calling them heretics and also opened their
mouths to preach the Gospel everywhere.
The pope by this time had become alarmed at the prog
ress of the Protestant movement in Switzerland. He sent his
nuncio to Zurich with a friendly letter to Zwingli (January 23)
to win him back to the Catholic Church. Myconius says that
the pope urged Zink, the papal chaplain at Einsedeln and a
very close friend of Zwingli's, to try to win the latter back
to Catholicism. Myconius states that he asked Zink what in
ducements the pope offered to Zwingli. Zink replied : "Every
thing but the papal chair." That meant that Rome would
have been willing to have given Zwingli anything, even made
him a cardinal in order to silence him. But he refused all
such bribes.
On August 10 occurred the first baptism in German
instead of Latin in the cathedral. On September 2 Zwingli
began trying to make changes in the mass. He published his
Canon of the Mass.* In it he enunciated his doctrine of the
Lord's Supper, that it is a memorial feast where the thought
of Christ's presence stirs us to greater service. He also pro
posed in it a substitute for the Latin prayers of the service.
* The canon of the mass was that part of the mass in which the
words of institution occur.

HARMONY OF THE REFORMATIONS 87
Then another controversy arose, this time about images.
Leo Juda, the new pastor of the St. Peter's Church at Zurich,
preached on September 1 against images in the Churches.
Zwingli had already been preaching on that subject at the
cathedral, saying, that the images of the Virgin and the saints
were idols and should be removed. Bolder spirits caught up
these teachings. It happened that just then Hetzer published
a pamphlet, "The Judgment of God Against Images." This
led Claus Hottinger, a pious shoemaker, to cut down the
great crucifix at Stadelhofen, one of the suburbs of Zurich.
For this Hottinger and his helpers were cast into prison.
Zwingli sympathized with them though he thought them over-
zealous. As a result of this controversy the council ordered
that another Conference should be held on October 26 and
that the subject of the disputation should be images and the
mass. On the first day the subject of images was debated,
on the last two days, the mass. The Catholic party had almost
no defenders. The council decreed that images should be re
moved wherever it could be done without disturbance or
wounding tender consciences.
Finally came the last act of the year and a very impor
tant one. Zwingli had on October 9 defended himself against
the charge that he retained the Catholic ceremonies because
he liked them. This he denied. Now Zwingli, Leo Juda and
Engelhard, the . three pastors at Zurich, delivered an opinion
stating that they were ready to administer the Lord's Supper
according to the Protestant fashion and also to have daily
Bible readings instead of the mass. But the city council post
poned this revision of the worship. Thus Zwingli was ready
to complete his Reformation at Zurich as early as the end
of 1523, though his wishes were not granted until more than
a year later. And yet this was the year after Luther had re
stored the Catholic rites at Wittenberg. We thus see how the
Reformed were leading the Lutherans both in the cultus and
in the civil action favoring Protestantism which made the
Reformation permanent. 1524.
During the year 1524, very little was occurring at Witten
berg. For they were kept busy by the Peasants' War which

88 THE REFORMED REFORMATION
was not suppressed until the next year. This insurrection
had the same effect on Luther that the Carlstadt movement
had, it made him more conservative. Against the Peasants he
published his tract "Against the Heavenly Prophets." How
ever one step of progress was taken. The German was intro
duced into the service at Wittenberg and the mass was given
up in the castle Church there though it remained in the city
Church. But while comparatively little was being done at Witten
berg, Zurich was going forward with the Reformation. On
January 19 the Catholic party, led by Canon Hoffman, made
their last attempt to stop the Reformation. Hoffman ap
peared before the council and was asked if he and his friends
would obey the orders of the council and preach according to
the Bible. He refused and so was compelled to leave the
city. This broke the power of the Catholic party. Now
everything was becoming Protestant. The saints' days were
no longer observed. The council permanently abolished the
Whitmonday procession to Einsedeln. The relics were taken
out of the Churches. The ringing of Church-bells except for
Church service was forbidden. Payment for the confessional
and for masses for the dead, the blessing of the communion
plate, holy water, candles and extreme unction were all set
aside. Between July 2-17 all pictures, images, statues and
other ornaments were quietly taken out of the Churches by
the authorities. Only the statue of Charlemagne in the tower
of the cathedral was permitted to remain, for they very highly
honored him because he had given the ground for the cathe
dral. Besides they got over the difficulty by saying that Charle
magne was not a saint, which was probably true. This ex
ample of the churches in the city was followed by the churches
throughout the canton. On December 3 the monasteries and
convents were abolished at Zurich. So that by the close of
the year nothing remained of the old worship but the mass.
And it would have been abolished the year before if Zwingli
and his sympathizers had their own way.
Perhaps the most startling announcement of the year was
the public announcement of Zwingli's marriage on April 2.
He had married in 1522, but had kept the matter secret for
prudential reasons lest it might cripple his influence. Only a

HARMONY OF THE REFORMATIONS 89
few friends as Myconius knew of it. This has led some,
especially Lutherans, to say that he had contracted a "clerical
marriage" with her in 1522. Now this may be a convenient
name to call it, but it raises more difficulties than it sets aside.
Such a concubinage as had been allowed in the Catholic Church
can not be harmonized with several facts. One is that My
conius speaks of Zwingli's wife as his "wife" three times in
1522. Again how could Myconius call her as he does in one
of his letters his "Spouse in Christ," if she were merely a
concubine. Again 1522 was the year when houses of ill- fame
were cleaned out of Zurich at Zwingli's inspiration. How
could that have been done if he were living in such concu
binage. In a word, if Zwingli were immoral at that time,
he would have been utterly unable to have carried through
his reforms, especially as he had so many Catholic enemies
right around him to watch every lapse of conduct. Clerical
marriages might have been possible in the former days of
Catholicism, but not with the awakened conscience of the Prot
estant Reformation. "If he erred," says Simpson in his "Life
of Zwingli," "the error was one of judgment rather than in
fringement of moral law. With our imperfect knowledge of
the problems and conditions involved, it behooves us to be
very charitable in forming an opinion. Zwingli acted from
conscientious motives with an eye to the interests of the king
dom of God." Christoffel, in his "Life of Zwingli," calls atten
tion to the fact that notwithstanding his enemies were circu
lating the most absurd stories to vilify him, yet his marriage
was not utilized by them as a subject for reproach. "In it,"
says Christoffel, "I not only find no censurable weakness but
the same wise and temperate regard for the religious develop
ment of his congregation." I525-
During this year, the Reformation at Wittenberg was
almost at a standstill because of the Peasants' War. But at
Zurich the year was marked by the completion of the Refor
mation. Zwingli and his party appeared before the city coun
cil on April 11 (Tuesday of Passion week) and asked for the
abolition of the mass and the restoration of the Lord's Supper
according to the New Testament. The council ordered it
to take place on Thursday of Passion week (April 13). It

9o THE REFORMED REFORMATION
was a very simple service. Instead of the altar was a plain
table, instead of the gold paten or chalice were wooden plates
and cups. Both of the elements, the wine as well as the bread,
were given to the people. They received them seated instead
of kneeling as in the Catholic Church. There was no singing,
its place being taken by the responsive reading of the Creed and
the Gloria by the minister, the men and the women. All the
service was in German instead of Latin. This completed the
introduction of Protestantism. It was introduced, not in one
church as at Wittenberg, but in all the city churches and in
all the churches of the canton. This was not done in Witten
berg until 1526-7.
In thus completing the reformation, Zwingli was before
Luther just as he was in 15 17 and 1520. For Luther did not
publish his German mass until the next year, 1526. And when
one compared Zwingli's changes in the worship, they are much
more radical than Luther's. For the Lutheran service at that
time contained elements of Romanism. It then retained the
pericopes, Te Deum, Benedictus, adoration of the host and
chalics, also gowns, candles, altars and fast days. Zwingli's was
more completely Protestant.
We thus see as we have passed along, that on some, points
the one Reformation was earlier, on some, the other. The
Lutheran Reformation at first created greater sensation as it
spread over a larger country as Germany. Had it been per
mitted to go on in that way it would have antedated the Re
formed. But the reaction, caused by the Carlstadt episode and
the Peasants' War, checked the progress of "Lutheranism for a
time so it almost stood still until 1526-7. Meanwhile the Re
formed at Zurich had gone right on and were earlier in their
reforms than Luther, especially in worship and government.
Thus on all the definitions we have given of a Reformer,
Zwingli preceded Luther. We therefore answer the question,
Who was the first Reformer, Luther or Zwingli, by having thus
proved that in each of these definitions of a Reformer, Zwingli
preceded Luther. If being a Reformer meant conversion and
preaching of Protestantism Zwingli was earlier than Luther in
1 5 17 ; if it meant breaking with the pope, Zwingli was earlier in
1520; if it meant changing the services and introducing Prot
estantism into the city and country, Zwingli was earlier in 1525.

CHAPTER IV.
THE HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF ZWINGLl'S EAREY THEOLOGY.
The theology of Zwingli has been considered by a num
ber of writers as Baur, Zeller and others. With most of them
there is one fundamental fault, — the authors are not them
selves orthodox; and that has warped their judgment. Baur
and Zeller were Hegelians of the purest water and had little
conception of what was orthodox theology, which they
spurned. Some of Zwingli's biographers, not being orthodox,
have made .the same mistake. For it is to be remembered that
Zwingli approached the Protestant views from the old stand
point of what is now called the traditional theology. Unless
that is kept in mind (and neither Baur, Zeller or the others
had any true appreciation of it) Zwingli's true position can
not be understood as we shall see. Another fault to be found
with these writers is that, in giving Zwingli's theological views,
they dwell upon them as given in his later works rather than
in his earlier. The gradual growth of Zwingli's views — his
historical development, has not been sufficiently watched. We
will find by examining Zwingli's standpoint thus that it will
give a quite different perspective to his life and a truer esti
mate of him.
The first statement that we have of his departure from
Romanism is during his first pastorate at Glarus. He there
declared that he did not find the doctrine of the intercession
of the saints in the Bible. "Christ," he says, "is the only
treasure of our poor souls. Why do we seek help in the
creature?"* The reason why he began to doubt this doctrine
we have already adverted to in the. previous chapter. f He
got the suggestion as we saw there from Erasmus' "Handbook
of the Christian Soldier."! This raised a doubt in his mind
* Egli "Schweizerische Reformation-Geschichte," page 35.
t See pages 47-48.
fFor extracts from that book, see Emerton's "Erasmus," paegs
100-102.

92 THE REFORMED REFORMATION , '
about the doctrine of the invocation of the saints. But in
doubting this doctrine he struck at one of the fundamental
doctrines of Catholicism. For the whole Catholic system is
built upon a system of mediators or intercessors between God
and man with Mary and the saints at the top and the bishops
and priests at the bottom. This system was an inheritance
from the old Arian theory of aeons in the fourth century.
Zwingli's doubt led him to deny the invocation of the
saints. At Einsedeln he preached on the significant text, "The
Son of Man hath power to forgive sins." Bullinger in his
history says, as we have seen, "that Zwingli preached the
Gospel with all diligence at Einsedeln and especially taught
that Christ is the only Mediator and that men should not pray
to or worship the pure Virgin and Mother of God." And
Stahelin grants that Zwingli's experiences at Einsedeln made
him attack the worship of the saints and the idleness of the
monks. Zwingli's opposition to this doctrine appears again and
again. On June 7, 15 19, he wrote to Rhenanus that he would
take a considerable quantity of Luther's works on the "Lord's
Prayer," especially if he deals somewhat with the "adoration
of the saints." In 1521 he speaks of preparing for the press
some sermons on saint-worship and Haller, the Reformer of
Bern, wrote to him that he was daily expecting to read Zwin
gli's sermon on the worship of the saints. One of Canon Hoff
man's complaints against him was that he preached against
saint-worship. In 1522, it again appears prominently in his
debate with Lambert of Avignon which he thus describes in
a letter to Rhenanus of July 30, 1522:
"You know that a certain Fransciscan from France, whose
name indeed is Franz, was here not many days since and had
much conversation about the Scriptural basis of the saints and
their intercession for us. He was not able to convince me by
the aid of a single passage of Scripture that the saints do
pray for us as he had with a great deal of assurance boasted
he would do."
On September 17, 1522, he published a sermon on the
"Perpetual Virginity of Mary" in which he held to her virginity
and lauded her purity and faith, but he denied her intercession.
Myconius says that when he debated with the Commission of
the bishop of Constance in 1522, this was one of the doctrines

ZWINGLI'S EARLY THEOLOGY 93
that he attacked. It comes out very prominently at the First
Conference at Zurich in January 29, 1523. Among his 67
theses, the 20th says "God desires to give us all things in his
name, whence it follows that outside of this life, we need no
Mediator except himself." And in the discussion that came
up on these theses there occurred an interesting episode. The
defense on the Catholic side was very weak. Faber, the vicar-
general, led it. Zwingli said:
"Now since my Lord vicar announces and publicly boasts
of how he convinced the clergyman of Fislisbach (Wyss) by
means of the divine Scriptures of the fact that one should pray
to the dear saints and the mother of God, therefore that they
are our mediators with God, I beg him, for the sake of God
and of Christian love, to show me the place and the location,
also the words of Scripture where it is written, that one should
pray to the saints as mediators ; so that if I have erred and err
now, I may be better instructed; since there are here present
Bibles in the Hebrew, Greek and Latin languages. These we
will have examined, so that we may see whether it is the
meaning of Scripture that the saints are to be prayed to as
mediators." The vicar made a long-winded reply without giving any
Scripture passage as proof. Zwingli later again insisted that
he give the passages on which he had brought back the priest
of Fislisbach to the Catholic doctrine and added this sharp
passage :
"For if such a custom began at the time of Gregory then
it did not exist before; and if before that time men were
Christians and were saved, though they did not hold to the
intercession of the saints and perhaps knew little about it, then
it follows that they did not sin, who believed in Christ alone
and did not consider the intercession of the saints.' For we
really know from the Scriptures that Jesus Christ alone is the
Mediator between us and God."
He then again after some digression, says to the vicar:
"I desire that you do not make use of bombastic speeches,
which do not even bear upon my question, but as I have asked
before, tell at once where is written in Scripture concerning
the holy invocation and intercession of the Virgin Mary as
you pretended you could show from Exodus, Baruch, &c."
But the vicar again turned it off by going into the mar
riage of priests, then a burning question. Again Zwingli

94 THE REFORMED REFORMATION
asked him to prove from Scripture where it is written con
cerning the invocation and intercession of saints. Then,
finally the vicar quoted the text in Luke, 2nd chapter, where
Elizabeth says to Mary, "Blessed is the body that has born
thee and blessed the breasts which thou has sucked." But
Zwingli quickly interrupted, "We are not asking concerning the
holiness and dignity of Mary, but concerning her invocation
and intercession." Then the vicar took offense at the inter
ruption and helped himself out by sitting down and refused
to say any more.
We thus see the prominence of this doctrine at that
Conference. In his Exposition of his Theses published July 14, 1523,
this doctrine is prominent. After this First Conference in
1523, the subject came up again as iconoclasts began destroy
ing the images in the Churches. This led, as we have seen,
to the Second Conference at Zurich in October, 1523. At this
Conference the subject of saint-worship took up the whole
first day. Canon Hoffman tried to say something in defense
of images but was silenced as he could give no Scripture proof.
The proposition was then ' taken up, "The images are for
bidden of God in Scripture. Therefore they should not be
made or adored among Christians and they ought to be done
away with." Leo Juda proved this proposition ably from
Scripture. Conrad Smith of Kussnacht tried to weakly de
fend them, that the images were staffs and supports to the
weak. Zwingli arose and said:
"God forbid. Had useless ministers and bishops zealously
preached the Word of God instead of busying themselves with
useless trumpery and mummery, it had not come to this, that
the poor ignorant people, unacquainted with the Word, must
learn Christ only through pictures on the wall or wooden
figures." We thus see in all this the prominence given by Zwingli
to this doctrine.
Before leaving this doctrine, it ought to be noted that it
is somewhat remarkable that Zwingli began his Protestantism
at so superstitious a place as Einsedeln which was erected to
the worship of Mary. It is also remarkable that as Zwingli
began his Reformation by strong opposition to saint-worship
he should be called upon to end his life with it. For when

ZWINGLI'S EARLY THEOLOGY 95
lying under the pear tree and dying on the battlefield at Cap-
pel, he was advised by the Catholic soldiers who gathered
around him, that if he could not speak or make confession, he
should pray in his heart to the Mother of God and call upon
the saints. But Zwingli shook his head against it.
Now while this doctrine has been appearing thus early
in Zwingli's life, it is noticeable that alongside of it another
doctrine has been becoming prominent, namely, the sole Medi
atorship of Christ between God and us. Bullinger in the ex
tract we have given says he preached at Einsedeln, that Christ
is the only Mediator. It is really the other side of the same
doctrine of the invocation of the saints, namely, that they ought
not to be prayed to since Christ is the only Mediator. Bullinger
says that Zwingli in his first sermon at Zurich "praised God
the Father and taught all men to' trust in the Son of God, Jesus
Christ, as the only Savior." Zwingli later, speaking of his first
preaching at Zurich, after describing how he preached first on
Matthew, then on Acts, Timothy, then on Peter's Epistles, says
he went to Hebrews :
"In order to bring to the knowledge of the people the
great benefit of the coming of Jesus Christ in its whole extent..
Here they were to learn that Jesus Christ is the high priest
and well have they learned it. They shall also learn that
Christ as an offering, once made for all coming time, has alone
justified them."
He again speaks of this doctrine in a letter of January
4, 1520: "Christ died once for our sins and now dies no
•more." (Romans 6:9.)
In the 67 theses of the Zurich Conference (1523) this
doctrine is clearly stated in theses 2, 3, 50 and 51 :
50. "God alone remits sins through Jesus Christ his son
and our Lord."
51. "Whoever only assigns this to creatures detracts from
the honor of God and gives it to him which is not God : this is
real idolatry." 2. "The sum and substance of the Gospel is that our Lord
Jesus Christ, the true Son of God, has made known to us the
will of his heavenly Father and has with his innocence re
leased us from death and reconciled God."
3. "Hence Christ is the only way to salvation for all who
ever were, are and will be."

96 THE REFORMED REFORMATION
Again in 1 523 in the Canon of the Mass, he again speaks
of it as he says: "Christ offered once for all for us as the
cause of forgiveness." He placed this against the idea of
making the mass a sacrifice. In 1524, in a defence against
the rumors that he had received his knowledge of the Bible
from a Jew who lived in Winterthur and that he denied the
divinity of Christ and his atoning death in his sermons, he
again declares that "man finds the sure certainty of his salva
tion in the death of the living Son of God."
In his. first compendium of theology his "True and False
Religion" (1525) he devoted considerable space* to this doc
trine. In his later life it again appears. For in the Confession
which he sent to the Emperor of Germany at Augsburg (1530)
he says :
"I know that there is no other victim for expiating crimes
than Christ, for not even was Paul crucified for us, for there
is no other name under the sun in which we must be saved
than that of' Christ. For this is the one sole Mediator between
God and man, Christ Jesus."
And in his last theological work published posthumously,
"Explanation of the Christian Faith," he says : "For the con
firmation, satisfaction and atonement of our sins gained with
God is only through Jesus Christ who has suffered for us."
Other doctrines came in as he grew older, to broaden his
theological system. But they all gathered around this early
doctrine of his, the one mediatorship of Christ, — the ransom
for sin, — Christ died once for all (Heb. 10:10).
Where did Zwingli get this fundamental doctrine ? It came-
to him first as we have already seen from his great teacher,
Prof. Thomas Wyttenbach, of Basle, who implanted in his
mind in 1506 the great spiritual doctrine that "Christ was the
ransom for sin." He says :f "the death of Christ was the sole
price of remission of sins. Therefore faith is the key which
unlocks to the soul the treasury of such remission." "Absolu
tion," said Wyttenbach, "is a Romish cheat, the death of Christ
is the only payment for sins."
That great doctrine of the atonement became the sheet
* Zwingli Works, Vol. Ill, pages 194-6.
t Opera III, 544.

ZWINGLI'S EARLY THEOLOGY 97
anchor for Zwingli. It laid hold of him then and affected him
ever afterward. It is specially prominent in his earlier think
ing before he broadened out into whole systems of theology
as in his "True and False Religion," where the number of other
doctrines tends comparatively to throw this one more into the
background. It was the belief in this doctrine that prepared
the way to undermine his faith at Glarus in the intercession of
saints. "If Christ was the only mediator and salvation, what
was the need of the saints?" That was the logic of it. But
he approached it Scripturally and ever after held it for that
reason. He could not find saint-worship in Scripture, that
settled the matter for him. As he meditated on it, it became
more and more clear to him that Christ was the only Mediator ;
as he later says (indeed the phraseology is very significant)
"Christ is the one only Mediator." He seems to have gotten
this from the Epistle to the Hebrews, for its phraseology
sticks in his mind — Christ died one for all. If Luther got his
Gospel of justification from Galatians and Romans, Zwingli
got his Gospel of atonement from Hebrews.
It was the same Gospel only the emphasis was different.
Zwingli went down deeper than Luther to the basis and root
of justification by faith, namely, the ransom of Christ. All
justification is based on the atonement. It is not what we do,
either by works, or by faith as Luther said, but it was what
God does in Christ at his atonement, that saves us. Zwingli's
views were therefore more definite and complete that Luther's.
The text that seems to have most impressed him was Hebrews
10:14. He referred to this in the First Zurich Disputation of
1523, where he repeatedly quotes Hebrews. In answer to the
vicar, he says:
"I say that you should prove from the Scriptures that the
mass is a sacrifice, for as St. Paul says (Heb. 8: 12.25.26)
Christ not more than once was sacrificed not by others' blood,
but 'by his own blood he entered once into the holy place,
&c. ;' nor yet that he should offer himself often as the high
priests in the Old Testament had to do for the sin of the
people, for then Christ must have often suffered. Likewise
St. Paul writes, (Heb. 10: 12.13) 'But this man after he had
offered one sacrifice forever sat down on the right hand of
God.' Likewise, 'for by one offering he hath perfected for
ever them that are sanctified.' Likewise, 'by so much does

98 THE REFORMED REFORMATION
this sacrifice surpass the sacrifices in the Old Testament ful
filled by the high priest, by so much more powerful is this
declared to be that it was sufficient once for the sins of all
people." (Heb. 7:22-27.)
To this same source may be traced his early opposition,
which appeared at Zurich against fasting. He had been preach
ing against Lenten fasts because not in the Bible. But the
theological basis for it was, that fasts were supposed to be
good works which saved us. And Zwingli was jealous for his
master. "Christ saves and saves alone" was the keynote of his
early preaching.
Again this emphasis on Christ as the great Mediator placed
him in a peculiar position while he was at Einsedeln. For
there in the abbey was the Black Virgin, — there it was held
that sins are forgiven by the Virgin, in whose honor the abbey
had been built and who had consecrated it miraculously. But
in spite of all that, Zwingli preached that sins were forgiven
by the death of Christ and not by the Virgin Mary. No wonder
his preaching created a sensation so that tradition has it that
those who went away told those whom they met coming to the
abbey the new gospel. And they turned away home and did
not go to Einsedeln. Now it must have required a tremendous
moral heroism to have preached, right at the shrine of Mary
at Einsedeln, this Gospel of the forgiving Christ. It was like
Paul defying Diana right at Ephesus and Daniel worshipping
God in the face of the king's idolatrous edict. But Zwingli
had the courage of a hero. He knew he was right. For he
knew he was preaching the Bible. His clear humanistic mind
had laid hold very clearly and strongly on the death of Christ.
This emphasis on the death of Christ explains his
emphasis on another doctrine, which Zwingli made so
prominent, namely the Memorial View of the Lord's Supper.
As he began his theological Protestantism by so emphasiz
ing the death of Christ, he naturally fell into the view
that makes the Lord's Supper a memorial of Christ's death.
For the Lord's Supper is complex in its significance. Now
we have one element made prominent and now another
by different Reformers and different Churches. Luther,
especially after 1524, emphasized the relation of the communi
cant to Christ's body in the sacrament. Calvin, on the other

ZWINGLI'S EARLY THEOLOGY 99
hand, emphasized the relation of the communicant to the living
Christ, — the idea of communion by faith with God and with
Christ in heaven through the Holy Ghost. Zwingli em
phasized the relation of the communicant to the death of
Christ, — the Lord's Supper was a memorial of his death.
And who will deny the truth of this when Christ says :
"This do in remembrance of me." In his 67 theses at Zurich
he says : "Christ having sacrificed himself once, is to
eternity a certain and valid sacrifice for the sins of all the
faithful. It, therefore, follows that the mass is not a
sacrifice." Zwingli later broadened the scope of his theological
system and the doctrine of the atonement does not occupy
proportionably so prominent a place. But it is there either
clearly stated or understood. One feels it pulsing under
all the other doctrines — Christ died once for all. In his
larger work, published 1525, his "True and False Religion"
other doctrines come in to complete the system. Perhaps
the change that took place is best given in his Confession
to the Emperor of Germany (1530), where, after speaking
of Christ as the sole Mediator between God and man he
adds "Moreover God's election is manifest and remains
firm : for whom he has elected before the foundation of
the world, he has so elected as through his Son to receive
Him unto Himself." Thus the atonement passes into elec
tion, which doctrine was further emphasized in his tract on
"Providence." But in his last work "The Explanation of
Faith," he returned to the atonement and the sole Mediator-
ship of Christ appears again.
We have thus dwelt on the early theological develop
ment of Zwingli, which made Christ's death fundamental.
Our reason for doing so is that the later biographers of
Zwingli, like the writers on his theology, have not been
fully Evangelical. Stahelin is undoubtedly the best as he
is the latest biographer of Zwingli, though he cannot be
' followed in all respects. But Stahelin would not be con
sidered orthodox by us in America. He occupied the posi
tion of a Mediate in theology. He did not believe in the
complete vicarious atonement of Christ in the sense that
the Bible gives it, namely that it was substitutionary, —

ico THE REFORMED REFORMATION
Christ took our place. The result is that he does not do
justice to Zwingli on these points. The earlier biographers
as Christoffel and others are better here. What is said of
Stahelin is truer yet of the later Church historians who
have taken up Zwingli's life. The recent attempt of the
Ritschlian School on Germany, among them Harnack, has
been to make Zwingli entirely dependent on Luther. And
recent American biographies have simply echoed the Ger
mans. But the Ritschlians fail to understand Zwingli, be
cause they themselves are not Evangelical and cannot study
him from his own standpoint. For they deny the absolute
deity of Jesus and also as a result, his substitutionary atone
ment. For if Christ be not a God, he cannot make so great
an atonement as was required. Therefore these writers,
in summing up Zwingli's theological views, pass by
Zwingli's doctrine of the ransom of Christ. It does not
appeal to them. It has no place in their theology and so
they do not see it in his. We, therefore, call attention to
what the earlier Evangelical biographies of Zwingli made
prominent, the great doctrine of the atonement.
There is one great Reformation lesson we need to learn at
this anniversary, and that is that had Luther and Zwingli not
emphasized Christ's atonement, there would probably have
been no Reformation. It was Christ's death, and justifica
tion through it, that gave us the Reformation. The flabby
sweet-scented doctrones of the New Theology of today
would never produced such a sensation or lead to such
results. It, therefore, behooves us on this anniversary of
the Reformation to get back to the great doctrines of the
Reformation, because there has always been tremendous
power in them. They have the dynamic to shake the
world. We of the Reformed need to get back to the doc
trine of the supremacy of Scripture which he held to
gether with Luther. We need to get back to his great doc
trine that Christ is the ransom, — Christ's Mediatorship is
sole and his work is complete. The theological cry was
some time ago Back to Christ, we need to go farther and
say "Back to Christ and Him Crucified," which was the
centre of Paul's preaching. Nothing but the love of Christ,
as revealed in his death, will ever conquer the world. The

ZWINGLI'S EARLY THEOLOGY 101
more that Christ's atonement is given merely a moral sig
nificance, the less there is of love in it. It becomes merely
ethical and fails to satisfy man's whole nature, especially
the emotional and the more Christ's atonement is reduced
to mere law by taking the vicariousness out of it or by
making vicariousness the law of nature, so that Christ's
death was purely natural and not supernatural, the more it
is evacuated of love. Salvation is not by law, for Christ's
atonement is the great exception to natural law. Love can
only be revealed by grace, — by God's free unmerited for
giveness for the sake of the death of his Son, who took our
place, dying in our stead. That old doctrine of the ransom
of Christ's is the magnet that will draw the world to him
as nothing else can do.

BOOK II.
The Contribution of the Reformed to the Spirit of
Protestantism.

CHAPTER I.
THE UNFINISHED LUTHERAN REFORMATION AND ITS
SIGNIFICANCE TO THE REFORMED.
The Reformation of the sixteenth century especially con
cerns two Churches, the Reformed and the Lutheran. But
as between them, what is their Reformation significance.
The contrast between them is brought out in our topic, the
unfinished Lutheran Reformation and its significance to the
Reformed. In speaking on this subject it is not our wish to detract
from the character or credit that belongs to the Lutheran
Church. Luther will ever stand out as one of the popular
heroes of the Reformation. He had a dramatic way of do
ing things, that caused them to make an impression. And
the Lutheran Church, that he founded, should be strongly
praised for the tenacity with which she held to and de
fended his doctrine of justification by faith.
But the Lutheran Church was not the whole of the
Reformation and we fear that some of its extreme admirers
will on this 400th Anniversary of the Reformation treat the
Reformation as if Luther and the Lutheran Church were
the whole of it and make the anniversary wholly Lutheran.
We believe that fair-minded Lutherans will not do this,
though we fear that the Reformed side of the Reformation
will be scantily passed by as of little significance to them.
Some of them have never given credit to Zwingli or Calvin as
generously as we have done to Luther. It is to correct this
one-sided emphasis of theirs and to state the Reformed side of
the Reformation in its full significance that we take up this
subject. The unfinished Reformation of the Lutheran Church, —
this should not be held as too severe a reproach against
them. For the Reformation, whether Lutheran or Re
formed, is not entirely finished, even in our day. Thus the
pietism of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries came in

106 THE REFORMED REFORMATION
to add something to both the Lutheran and Reformed
Churches. Each of these Churches has developed and will
continue to do so, but we believe in harmony with their
historic position and not away from it into. a new theology.
We simply want here to call attention to certain facts in
the Reformation that show that the Reformed Reforma
tion went farther than the Lutheran. That this is true is
conceded by so great a Lutheran authority as the late Prof.
Krauth, who named his book on the Lutheran Reformation,
"The Conservative Reformation." The Lutherans were the
conservatives and the Reformed were the progressives at
that time. The Lutherans have charged us as Reformed
with being radicals and even rationalistic: we return the
charge by declaring their Reformation an unfinished one
and that it remained for the Reformed to finish it. This
unfinished Reformation of the Lutherans can be proved in
three ways. It was unfinished in doctrine, worship and
government. In all of these the Reformed went farther
than the Lutheran.
The most evident of these three was in cultus or wor
ship. Here the difference between the two Churches is
perhaps most marked. The Lutheran Church treated many
things as indifferent that the Reformed considered abso
lutely wrong. In fact, as has been suggested by Koest-
lin, the Lutherans of the Reformation did not place worship
as quite on a level with doctrine. If that be true, then the
difference was that the Reformed placed worship on a level
with doctrine as to its importance. The two Churches seem
to have looked at worship from different standpoints.
D'Aubigne has well stated this thus, — the Lutherans cast
out of the worship only those things that were forbidden
by the Bible : the Reformed retained in the worship only
those sanctioned by the Bible. Or we may state it in
another way — the Lutherans used the Bible as a rule nega
tively and the Reformed positively.
As a result the Reformed went farther than the Luth
erans, for there were a number of forms of worship that
lay between the positive and negative application of the
Bible as a rule. In saying that the Reformed went farther,
we are not speaking of the iconoclastic Puritans, though

UNFINISHED LUTHERAN REFORMATION 107
there was a great deal of Puritanism in the Reformed
Church at the Reformation. -And while we cannot defend
all the extravagances of Puritanism, especially in relation to
art, yet there is not much wonder that they went so far.
If you1 and I had been worshipping an image of a saint and
been praying to it for many years and would then find out
that it was a fraud and cheat, that it could not hear our
prayers and could not forgive sins, the revulsion would be
apt to lead us unto extravagancies. I suspect you and I
would have done the same thing. But I am not referring
to the extreme iconoclasts. Even the conservative Reformed
then went beyond the Lutherans in revising the forms of
worship. And they did it because they had a different principle.
To prove the difference, it is only necessary to refer to
some of the differences between the two Churches at the
time of the Reformation. We are not speaking of the
Lutheran Church at present as much as then, for the
Lutherans since then have in many places accepted some
of the more progressive reforms of the Reformed. Here
were certain forms that the Lutherans then retained, which
were eschewed by the Reformed. Thus at baptism they re
tained exorcism, christening or the making the sign of the
cross, and lay-baptism. At the Lord's Supper, they retained
the use of the wafer, while the Reformed used only bread
and the latter insisted that the bread be broken as symbolic
of Christ's broken body. The Lutherans also retained the
adoration of the host. In the regular Lord's Day service,
the Lutherans retained crosses and crucifixes, and some
times lights and splendidly wrought robes like the Catholics.
As late as 1536 the delegates from Strassburg were offended
by the presence of pictures and candles and the elevation
of the elements in the Lutheran Churches at Wittenberg.
The Lutherans retained many saints' days, which were re
jected by the Reformed as not being Scriptural. At the
benediction, the minister made the sign of the cross. Some
of these the Lutheran Church has later given up. To show the
position of the Lutheran Church at that time we give the fol
lowing. Luther in 1528 wrote to a friend:
"I condemn no ceremonies but those opposed to the Gos
pel. All others I retain intact in our Church. For the font

108 THE REFORMED REFORMATION
stands and baptism is administered with the same rites as
before though the language used is the vernacular. I even
leave the images undisturbed except those destroyed by the
rioters before my return. We also celebrate mass in the cus
tomary vestments and forms, only adding certain German songs
and substituting the vernacular in the words of consecration.
I do not by any means want the Latin mass done away nor
would I have permitted the use of German, had I not been
compelled to. In short, I hate nobody worse than him who
upsets free and harmless ceremonies and turns liberty into
necessity." Writing in 1539 to a Berlin clergyman who was troubled
by the many Catholic ceremonies retained in the worship of
the newly established Church of Brandenburg, he said:
"In God's name make your processions with a silver or
gold cross and with cowl and mantle of velvet, satin or linen.
And if your Lord the Elector does not find one hood or cas
sock enough, put on three as Aaron, the high priest, wore
three richly adorned garments from which the priestly robes
under the papacy got their name. And if his Electoral grace
does not find one circuit or procession enough with its ringing
and its singing, make seven as Joshua marched around Jericho
with the children of Israel, shouting and blowing trumpets.
And if your Lord the Margrave would enjoy it, let his Elec
toral grace leap and dance in front of the procession with
harps, kettle-drums, cymbals and bells as David did before
the ark when it was brought into the city of Jerusalem."
As late as 1541, he wrote to Chancellor Brueck
"Our services, God be praised, are so conducted as re
gards unessential things, that a layman from Italy or Spain
not understanding German, would be compelled to say, on
seeing our mass, choir, organs, bells and the like, that ours
is a true papal Church, not at all or very little different from
what he has in his own country."
And Melancthon wrote in the Augsburg Confession:*
"Our Churches are falsely accused of abolishing the mass,
for the mass is retained on our part and celebrated with great
est reverence and almost all the ceremonies that are in use (in
the Catholic Church) are preserved, saving that with the things
sung in Latin, we mingle certain things sung in German in
various parts of the service."
* Part II, 1.

UNFINISHED LUTHERAN REFORMATION 109
And in a letter July 30, 1530, to the papal legate, he says:
"A slight difference of rites seems to be the only cause of
opposition to the concord (with the Catholics)."
The Reformed never talked that way. To them the aboli
tion of these indifferent things was a matter of conscience be
cause Scriptural. And they cast them all aside. All this only
proves that the Reformed went much farther in worship or
cultus than the Lutherans. They completed what the Luth
erans left unfinished. Protestant worship would be different
today if the Reformed had not come into existence.
We will now leave this point and go to Church govern
ment. Here too the Reformed went much farther than the
Lutherans. Luther attempted in a measure to organize the
Churches, when they came out of Catholicism, as in 1527-30.
But he did not get very far before he stopped. When we
compare his effort at organization with the farther advance
of the Reformed, we see how Zwingli began, and Calvin and
Lasco completed, the Reformed form of Church government.
Government too with the Lutherans did not seem of so much
importance as doctrine, for there seemed to be no necessary
principle about it as the Lutherans in Scandinavia are Episco
pal, and in Germany consistorial. They did not hold to the
parity of the ministry as necessary and Scriptural as the Re
formed did. Luther allowed the state to attend to the form
of government. It might have any form it pleased except the
Catholic. But not so with the Reformed. They went by a
fixed principle, — a principle that is found in the New Testa
ment, — the government must be presbyterial and autonomous.
Koestlin, Luther's biographer, grants that Luther was not an
organizer, for he says : "Luther's mission did not lie within the
'sphere of concrete practical organization."
We see then the difference between the Lutherans and the
Reformed was, that the Lutherans left each prince organize his
own church. Each prince in Germany appointed a consistory
composed of councillors, some ministers, some laymen. Here
appears the Erastianism of the Lutheran Church. The church
instead of being autonomous as a true Reformed Church is,
is dependent on the state. Even in the lowest form of Eras
tianism, that the congregation and not the prince has the right
to call its own minister, yet that call must be confirmed by the

no THE REFORMED REFORMATION
consistory of the prince. This was different from the Re
formed. Zwingli, it is true, did not go as far as Calvin; but
granted to the state certain rights in the Church. But Calvin
declared that Church and state had different functions. Al
though he did not reach the full separation of Church and state
at Geneva as there exists in the United States; yet he started
an entering wedge that ultimately drove them asunder. But
Luther halted before he got that far. Now in Churches that
are Erastian there are two forms, a higher and a lower ; in the
one, the Church is above the state in authority; in the other,
the state is above the Church. In the latter, when the Refor
mation was introduced, the state simply took the place of the
bishops and lorded over the Church as before. This was true
of some of the Reformed Churches in Switzerland, especially
Bern. And also in some parts of Germany the consistorial
form of government has been introduced into the Reformed
Church. But this has been due to the Lutheran influences
from the surrounding districts. This consistorial form of
government was sometimes quite low, as it required only the
presence of some official of the prince at the synod. But it gen
erally was higher, namely that no action of the synod was final
without the approval of the consistory. And as the Lutheran
Churches generally had no synod, the consistory had all the
authority in itself. But pure Reformed Church government
gave all the authority to the synod or the Church, and not to
the prince. Therefore in Church government, the Reformed
went beyond the Lutheran and the Lutheran was incomplete.
The Reformed went beyond, because they aimed to be Scrip
tural and only Scriptural.
There was also another difference between the Lutherans
and the Reformed in Church government. The distinction we
have just noticed was an external one — that is, external to the
Church; for it dealt with the church's relation to the state.
But there was also a difference between them internally, —
within the Church. The Reformed held to representative
Church government within the Church. This peculiarity grew
out of the one we have just mentioned. Just because the
Church was not governed by the state, but governed herself,
she had to develope a self-government of her own. This she
did by the representative method. The congregation had repre-

UNFINISHED LUTHERAN REFORMATION in
sentatives in the upper Church courts as consistory, classis,
synod and general synod. To each the congregation elected
elders. Each congregation was represented by elders. And in
its own consistory it was represented by elders and deacons.
This representative ' form of government has always been the
peculiarity of the Reformed Cljurch. It was this representative
form' of government that enabled the Reformed to be able to
found republics.
We thus see the difference between the two churches in
government. We in America are not apt to notice these dif
ferences because the Lutheran Churches here are not organized
as they are in Germany where Church and state are united.
Here, where no princes rule, there are no princes to appoint a
consistory to govern thern. So they have become, like the Re
formed, self-governing. And they have taken on themselves
either the congregational form of government, as in the General
Synod, or a sort of presbyterial, as in the General Council.*
Others have superintendents and some talk of a bishop. To
show how this lack of complete organization in the Lutheran
Church of Germany has hindered it, we will give an illustration
given us by one of the leading Reformed ministers of Germany.
About the year 1817 and later the Lutheran and Reformed
Churches in different parts of Germany were united to form
the Evangelical Church. In this union, while each was allowed
to retain its creeds and customs, yet the church government
was a compromise. At the top was placed the consistory taken
from the Lutheran Church and at the bottom, the synod, taken
from the Reformed. This led to the introduction of the pres
byterial form of government into the Lutheran districts of Ger
many. This presbyterial form of government compelled all
congregations to elect elders. And in doing so, a peculiar
condition was revealed. In many of the Lutheran districts,
they had great difficulty to find men enough to serve as elders.
Why? Because the Lutheran Church had not, in all the cen
turies since the Reformation, been training up elders. Men
had almost to be forced into the eldership so that the positions
might be filled. Now this would never have happened in the
Reformed Church. For the Reformed Church for hundreds
* But the General Council has not given to its vestrymen the
power that the Reformed Churches do in their Church courts.

112 THE REFORMED REFORMATION
of years, ever since the Reformation, had been training up
elders in its congregations. And what magnificent laymen as
elders and leaders she has had ; as in the Reformation, Vadian
the Reformer of St. Gall, Admiral Coligny of France, Elector
Frederick III of the Palatinate in Germany and William of
Orange in Holland. All these things show that her Church
government was therefore more complete than the Lutheran.
The Reformed went beyond this unfinished organization of the
Lutheran Church and fully organized themselves. They did
it because they believed they found the presbyterial form of
Church government in the New Testament where it speaks of
elders and of the presbytery and where bishops and presbyters
are translated from the same word. It would have been a great
loss to Protestantism if the Reformed Church organization had
not come into existence. For then Catholicism would have the
more easily reconquered Protestantism.
Having thus shown that the Lutheran Church has been an
unfinished Reformation on two points, cultus and government,
we now take up the last point, and that is doctrine. We may
surprise some when we say that the Lutheran Church did not
complete her doctrine. This is not so familiar to us in America.
Did we live in Germany, where the two Churches exist side by
side, we would be more familiar with the doctrinal differences
between the Lutherans and Reformed. Here the main differ
ence is on the Lord's Supper, although in the German language
there are also two differences in the use of the Lord's Prayer.
The Lutheran, closely following the Latin of the Catholic
Church, says "Father our" instead of "our father"; and the
clause "deliver us from evil" is used by the Lutherans, while
the Reformed use the phrase "deliver us from the evil one."
In the Apostles' Creed, the Lutherans use the phrase "Christian
Church," while the Reformed use "Catholic Church." But in
Germany they are familiar with a whole line of differences
between the two Churches, from the beginning of dogmatics —
the doctrine of God, down to the end — the future state. Were
we more fond of polemics than we are, we might be interested
to note these differences all through the system of theology.
Time fails to do this, but we will note two differences where
the Lutherans failed to complete a doctrine and the Reformed
completed it, — two instances where the Reformed went farther

UNFINISHED LUTHERAN REFORMATION 113
than the Lutherans. The two doctrines referred to are the
Lord's Supper and justification by faith.
We will take up the Lord's Supper first. The Lutheran
doctrine of the Lord's Supper holds that the body and blood
of Christ are present "in, with and under" the elements, bread
and wine. Other Churches call this consubstantiation, a name
that is denied by the Lutherans. But when we come to study
Luther's doctrine instead of the general Lutheran doctrine, we
find a difference. We find that Luther differed at different
times. There may be said to have been two Luthers, an early
and a late one. The first was when he first came out against
the Catholics and reacted against their doctrine of transubstan
tiation ; the later period was when he was defining himself not
against the Catholics but against the Sacramentarians, as he
called the Reformed. Luther's controversies with Zwingli and
the Reformed caused him to narrow down, and he hardened
his views. In his early days Luther was broader in his sympa
thies. His views, as we shall see, inclined more toward the
Reformed than later. The change occurs between 1523 and
1526. The Luther before that time is in some respects different
from the Luther after it. In fact Luther's views in his develop
ment of the sacrament are an interesting study.
We get Luther's early views on the Lord's Supper in four
of his works :
1. The Sermon on the Blessed Sacrament, 1519.
2. The Sermon on the New Testament, 1520.
3. The Treatise on the Babylonish Captivity of the Church,
1520.
4. The Abuse of the Mass, 1522.
Let us look at these different works.
The first extended statement of Luther's views on the
Lord's Supper is in his "Treatise on the Blessed Sacrament"
(15 19). The great emphasis of this work is significant. He
has not a word to say about the sacrifice in the mass, which
was the Catholic view. But he has a great deal to say about
faith and its necessity. Almost his first assertion is the quota
tion from Augustine, "Why preparest thou stomach and teeth ?
Only believe and thou hast already partaken of the sacrament."
This phrase seems to be the clue to all the rest. The theme of
the sermon is fellowship with the saints. It is divided into

114 THE REFORMED REFORMATION
three points — the sign, the significance of the sign and faith.
And more than half of it is taken up with the third part — faith ;
for he says that on faith all depends. He says :
"It is not enough that you know the sacrament as a
fellowship, &c, you must desire it and firmly believe that you
have received it. You must not doubt that you have what the
sacrament signifies, that is, that you are certain Christ and
all his saints come to you, bringing all their virtues, sufferings
and mercies to live, work, suffer and die for you and be wholly
yours." He denies that the Lord's Supper is an "opus operatum,"
that is, has virtue intrinsically in itself; but it is an "opus
operands, " that is, has not virtue in itself; for faith is neces
sary to make it efficacious.
" 'The sacrament is for us,' he says, 'a food, a bridge, a
door, a ship, and a litter, on which and by which, we pass from
this world into eternal life. Therefore all depends on faith.' "
The second treatise is his "Sermon on the New Testa
ment." Here the emphasis is somewhat different from the for
mer treatise, for he emphasizes the presence of the spiritual body
6i Christ. But almost at the very beginning, he emphasizes the
necessity of faith, as in Section 6, "Trust and faith is the
beginning, the middle and end of all works and righteousness."
He defines the sacrament as
"The sign and seal of the testament in which Christ has
bequeathed to us the remission of all sin and eternal life. The
taste for the riches of Christ's testament comes by the faith
which believes and is trusting the testament and promise.
There are many saints who, like Paul and Hermit, remained
for years in the desert without mass and yet were never with
out mass. 'The reason was they had faith.' When there is no
faith there, no prayer helps nor the hearing of many masses."
Especially striking is Luther's repeated assertion that faith,
which leans on the Word and is the "principle part of the
mass," does not absolutely need a sacrament. He says :
"I can daily enjoy the sacrament in the mass, if only I
keep before my eyes the testament, that is, the words and
covenant of Christ and feed and strengthen my faith thereby."
The third work in which he refers to the Lord's Supper
is his "Babylonish Captivity." His "Address to the Christian

UNFINISHED LUTHERAN REFORMATION 115
Nobility of Germany" was his great brief on the rights of
the laity. But this "Babylonish Captivity" was not written to
the secular powers but to the Church. In it he takes up the
Romish sacraments and handles them without gloves, showing
how they blind the people and keep them in captivity. In this,
at the beginning of the discussion of the Lord's Supper, he
begins again with a reference to Augustine's dictum, "Believe
and thou hast eaten." The first captivity is the incompleteness
of the mass by withholding the cup from the laity. The second
is transubstantiation. The third is that the mass is a sacrifice.
"The mass is a divine promise which can profit no one,
intercede for no one and be communicated to no one, save
him alone who believes with a faith of his own. For the mass,
being the promise of God, is not fulfilled by praying, but only
by believing." Speaking of Judas he says (217), "It always remains the
same sacrament and testament which works in the believer its
own work, in the unbeliever, a strange work." Luther declared
that the sacraments were mere signs of the forgiving love of
God in Christ. Unless there was faith they could not help.
In 1523 Luther says :
"Faith, without which the outward reception is nothing,
stands in this, that we firmly believe that Christ, God's son,
stands for us and has taken all our sins upon his neck and is
the eternal satisfaction for our sins and reconciles us before
God to the Father. Who has faith belongs to this sacrament.
Who stands in such faith belongs here and takes the sacrament
as an assurance and sign or specification that he is sure of
the divine promise and consent, that this bread is a comfort
to the sorrowing, a medicine to the sick, life to the dying,
bread to the hungry, and a rich treasure to all poor and
needy." All these quotations reveal Luther's early emphasis on faith
or the subjective in the Lord's Supper. This was very different
from his later emphasis on the objective or the presence of
Christ's body in the elements of the Supper. Luther's doctrine
of the Lord's Supper consisted of three parts :
1. The relation of the Supper to us, that is, our faith.
2. The relation of the Supper to our Lord, — the presence
of his body.

116 THE REFORMED REFORMATION
3. The relation of the Supper to the Word of God.
In his early period he emphasized the first. We agree with
Goebel in his admirable essay on Luther's early doctrine of the
Lord's Supper (Theologische Studien und Kritiken, 1843, Pa&e
357) that Luther's early doctrine of the Lord's Supper was
quite different from his later doctrine. But we can not quite
go as far as to say that it was virtually Reformed and that the
Reformed could virtually accept Luther's early doctrine. For
while the Reformed could thoroughly agree with Luther on
his emphasis on faith in that sacrament, yet all the while
he does not deny the real presence of Christ's body, indeed
hints at its presence. And although he does not say as much
about the sacramental use of the Word of God as he does
later, yet it appears slightly in his early writings. But Goebel
is right in saying that Carlstadt in his reformation at Witten
berg (while Luther was absent at the Wartburg) and which
Luther so bitterly attacked, was really carrying out Luther's
earlier teachings. Carlstadt's view was that Christ's death, and
not the real presence of Christ's body and blood in the sacra
ment, was the ground for forgiveness. Carlstadt cast aside, as
we have seen, transubstantiation and consubstantiation, the
elevation of the host and its adoration, the real presence, the
specific sacramental activity and the distribution of the body
and blood of Christ. It was the extremes to which Carlstadt
went, that led Luther to react against his earlier positions.
And from the time of his controversy with Carlstadt he be
came more and more conservative and more and more empha
sized the other two elements of his doctrine, the presence of
Christ's body and the power of the Word in the sacrament.
In order to understand the efficacy of the Lord's Supper,
it is necessary to notice that there are three views about it. At
one extreme is the view that the sacraments have efficacy in
themselves, and that regardless of faith or the spiritual con
dition of the believer. This was the "opus operatum" theory
of the Catholics. The water in baptism in itself cleanses with
out faith. And the bread and wine feed the soul without faith,
because of their inherent efficacy.
At the other extreme is the subjective view of sacramental
efficacy. This has been the Reformed view. The sacraments
have no efficacy unless faith is present. It is this subjective

UNFINISHED LUTHERAN REFORMATION 117
side that comes out in the early Zwinglian and the Calvinistic
views. Zwingli's at first made it a memorial, — we were to re
member Christ's death, — a subjective process. Calvin said that
at the Supper we are to lift up our minds away from the ele
ments up to heaven where Christ is and thus commune with
him; also an intellectual and subjective process. The Re
formed thus emphasized the subjective element. But that is
just what Luther did in his earlier works. Faith to him was
everything, as we have just seen. Thus far Luther was Re
formed. The reason why Luther so greatly emphasized faith in his
earlier writings was probably due to his emphasis on justifica
tion by faith. His reaction against the Catholic doctrine of
justification by works would naturally lead him to emphasize
faith. If faith was so necessary for our salvation, it was also
necessary for the sacrament.. Luther shows this emphasis on
faith, especially in his first work, to which we have referred.
In his second, the emphasis on the Word begins to appear.
Later Luther's emphasis was more on the presence of Christ's
body. So we see that he finally accepted the third view,
namely, that the efficacy of the sacrament lay not in the
objective efficacy alone nor in the subjective state of the mind
alone. His view was a compromise view — it was an objective-
subjective view. The efficacy lay not in the elements them
selves as according to the Catholic or objective view; but it
lay in the presence of Christ's body, which however must be
received by faith. He thus held on to objectivity (for Christ's
body was objective to us). And he also held on to the subjec
tive in demanding faith. So while the emphasis was laid in his
earlier writings, as we have seen, on the subjective or faith;
it is in his later writings laid on the presence of Christ's body
rather than faith. It is to be remembered that the Lutherans
after Luther's death split into two camps, the high Lutherans,
holding to ubiquity and that the unworthy received Christ's
body through the mouth* And these claimed to be following
Luther in holding to it. But this does not at all agree with his
?Westphal and his followers were not content with "vere"
(true) and. "substantialiter" (substantially) but they added "cor-
porealiter" (corporeally), "dentaliter" (with the teeth), "gutturaliter"
(through the throat) and "stomachaliter" (taken into the stomach).

118 THE REFORMED REFORMATION •
earlier view, for then faith was the important element and was
necessary. They followed Luther in his later views, as Mel
ancthon and the Melancthonians followed his earlier views.
All this shows how far Luther got at last from his first
position as given in the works that we have quoted. His con
troversy with Carlstadt led him as we have seen to react against
these earlier views and his controversy with Zwingli and the
Reformed led him more and more to react against the sub
jective view and to emphasize the "real presence" of Christ's
body, as he calls it in the sacrament. His emphasis later, as
at the Marburg Conference, was on "the Word" as used by the
priest in the sentence "This is my body." In his growing em
phasis on the power of the Word spoken at the Supper, he
harks back to the magical idea of the Catholics, that those
words "This is my body" performed the miracle of trans-
substantiation. We thus see that, on the Lord's Supper, there
was an different emphasis by the earlier and the later Luther. .
His earlier views would have largely harmonized with the Re
formed for he emphasized the subjectivity of the sacrament,
as did the Reformed. Very occasionally he speaks of the pres
ence of Christ's body. And when Calvin later formulated the
spiritual presence of Christ at the Supper, the only difference
was that the Calvin made Christ's presence spiritual and Luther
made it natural and material.
Now what is the significance of all this. It is that Luther
in his early writings emphasized very much the subjective in
faith. It is that the Reformed, and not the Lutheran, have
continued what was the emphasis of Luther in his early works.
The Reformed could have accepted Luther's first tract on the
Supper (15 19) except where he makes incidental reference to
the prayers of the saints for us. But as far as the Lord's
Supper is concerned, that tract is largely Reformed doctrine.
Would that Luther had remained, where he stood at first, for
then there would not have been the great and unfortunate divi
sion between the Lutherans and the Reformed.
And there is another significance about this. The reason
why the Reformed later became victorious in large parts of
Germany, as the Palatinate, Hesse, Anhalt, Lippe, Bremen,
Northern Rhine, &c, was, that they continued the original
Lutheranism. Where Lutheranism had not become polemic,

UNFINISHED LUTHERAN REFORMATION 119
but had retained the original irenic spirit, there the Reformed
doctrines found lodgment. We often say that the introduction
of the Reformed doctrines into Germany was due to a reaction
against the narrowness and bigotry of the later high Lutherans.
But was it only a reaction? No, it was not only a reaction, it
was a development These low Lutherans felt the Reformed
views were more nearly theirs of the early Lutheran Reforma
tion than those of the high Lutherans. And so they accepted
them. The significance of it all was this, — the Reformed con
tinued Luther's earlier views in his emphasis on subjectivity
in the sacrament. And the significance of it to us as Re
formed and Presbyterians is that we are in the main propagat
ing the Original views of Luther. But we do not hold these
views because they are Luther's; for the Reformed always
refused to take any man's name as their own. But we do so
because they are found in the New Testament and so have the
authority of the Word of God behind them.
We have thus noticed the incompleteness of the Lutheran
doctrine of the Lord's Supper and we have seen how the Re
formed have completed it in the Calvinistic doctrine of the
spiritual presence of Christ at the Supper. We now pass on to
take up another doctrine that Luther and the Lutherans left
incomplete and that it remained for the Reformed to complete.
It was no less a doctrine than the one that Luther said was the
"standing or falling doctrine" of the Church, — the one that
Luther and the Lutherans have always claimed to make cen
tral, — namely, justification by faith. One would think, from
the emphasis they laid on it, that they had completed it, but
they did not. And it remained for the Reformed to do so.
Luther began teaching it and that was a great deal, but did not
finish it. The Reformed went beyond him. Calvin virtually
completed the doctrine. And this he did especially on two
important points.*
The first of these additions to the Lutheran doctrine of
justification is that the Lutheran doctrine did not lead to assur-
* For the suggestions of this subject I am indebted to Rev. Prof.
A. Lang, D.D., of Halle, who delivered an address upon it at the
meeting of the Reformed Alliance of Germany in 1913, and it was
since published.

120 THE REFORMED REFORMATION
ance, the Reformed, did. Luther's lack of assurance is shown
by the way in which he first laid hold of the doctrine. In his
lectures on Romans 1515-1516, he is uncertain about salvation,
although at times he has a belief in salvation by faith. Then he
would fall back on works again. Even after he had come to
justification by faith there is uncertainty. And this uncertainty
at the beginning remained with him to some extent to the end.
Thus he shows it' in his Larger Catechism in the 6th petition,
"Altho we obtain forgiveness of errors and peace of conscience,
altho we have been cleansed in every way from sin, yet it is
true in regard to our conduct, that today one stands, but to
morrow one falls." Luther followed Augustine very closely
and Augustine with all his doctrine of election never rose up
to full assurance, because he tried to tack his sacramentarianism
on to it by means of baptism regeneration. Harnack says:
"With all his horror of sin, Augustine had not experienced
the horror of the uncertainty of salvation. Luther therefore
thought that no one could be sure of salvation possessing
assurance." Luther never rose as did Calvin up to the doctrine of the
perseverance of the saints, which meant "once a saint, always a
saint." The certainty that came from that idea, Luther did not
have. He sought certainty in every way, especially in the
objective gifts of God, — the Word and the sacraments. Very
important to him was baptism. For by it, he thought God by
an objective rite worked regeneration. And extremely impor
tant to him was the Lord's Supper, that pledge to him of for
giveness, because the body of Christ was in it, and the minister
had said over it the magical words of institution. But these
external rites could not produce absolute certainty of salva
tion. Luther held all the time to the idea of the strenuous
life — the doing of everything possible in order to get assurance,
yet never absolutely getting it. But the Reformed went farther.
They had among their doctrines, one that gave them perfect
assurance. It was the doctrine of election. They founded the
assurance of faith not merely on an experience as did the
Anabaptists, or on external rites (the sacraments and the
Word) as did the Lutherans. But they founded it on the
decree of God. They were in God's hand as clay in the hands
of the potter. Election was sure, for with God nothing could

UNFINISHED LUTHERAN REFORMATION 121
fail. Therefore they easily passed from justification to assur
ance, making assurance the last part of faith and so of justifica
tion. Now the doctrine of election is in these days not so
popular as it once was ; but it- contains in it a truth that ought
never to be forgotten, namely, that God, and not chance, is the
foundation of everything. It may seem to some to be an over
emphasis on God. But that very emphasis on God gave it
tremendous power and made it a tremendous comfort to God's
people. They felt God could be implicitly trusted. What great
saints this doctrine made. The Calvinists went into battle or
persecution or death without fear, for they were "God's elect."
And while the doctrine of election may be very much modified
in our days, yet when the great truth that is in it is lost, namely,
God's sovereignty and also his love, the world will be poorer
and God's people more comfortless, for their great comfort of
assurance is gone. It was this great doctrine of assurance of
faith that has been the comfort of the Calvinist, — not the as
surance of Wesleyanism that depends on feeling that may pass
away, but the great assurance that we are God's because we
are his elect. Historically therefore we say that the Reformed
went beyond Luther in assurance in justification.
Then on another point the Reformed went beyond Luther
on this doctrine. They ethicized justification, that is, they put
into justification a moral element. It goes without saying that
Calvin was the great Ethicist of the reformation. Though
Calvin in his theology made so much of God's act in election,
yet he demanded man's act in doing right. Here he also went
beyond Luther. Luther in his intense opposition to justification
by works so emphasized faith as to leave works out. • He
separated the doctrine of faith from what ought always to be
connected with it, good works. He tended to place faith and
works into juxtaposition with each other. He insisted on
justification pure and simple. He did not place works at the
beginning of justification as did the Catholics, nor did he place
it at the end even by a synergism as did Melancthon. He was
solafidian throughout, that it, by faith alone.
But with Calvin, justification always had in it an ethical
element. Not that works saved us. In rejecting justification
by works, he was at once with Luther. But while Luther said
justification was by faith, Calvin said it was by God. They

122 THE REFORMED REFORMATION
meant the same thing, only Luther emphasized faith, and Cal
vin, God. Again Luther most pronouncedly sets the law over against
faith. Calvin did not set them over against each other, for
faith included the law, that is, the observance of the law. He
thus put an ethical element in faith. He was not so much afraid
of works as Luther. He put them into the doctrine, not at the
beginning as the Catholics, but at the end. Thus a man never
could be justified if he were impure or unrighteous. There
was an ethical necessity because faith was not complete without
works. He thus did not separate faith and works as did
Luther, but he put them together. Every act of justification
implied an ethical element in it. It was just this ethical element
that Calvin did not overlook in the doctrine. Calvin placed less
value on subjective assurance, for he demanded the presence of
good works as evidence of saving faith. The doctrine of the
perseverance of the saints was not mere tenacity in holding on
to God, but it was their consistent activities in the energies of
the Christian life. This ethical peculiarity of the Reformed
grew out of their doctrinal beliefs. They believed in election,
but they believed that no man was elect unless his life as a whole
was up to his election. They believed in justification, but it
was not justification unless there was an ethical temper about
the conversion. On these two points therefore, on assurance and on the
. ethical, the Reformed went beyond the Lutherans on the subject
of justification. They thus completed the Lutheran doctrine of
justification. Taking our whole subject together, Luther left matters
incomplete on three points, cultus, doctrine and government.
What a fortunate thing for the world and for Protestantism
it was that the Reformed came in to complete what Luther
began. Or putting it the other way, how unfortunate it would
have been for the world and for Protestantism had the Refor
mation stopped with the Lutherans, and the Reformed side of
the Reformation never had been born. The Reformation would
have been like Ephraim "a cake not turned" — only half-baked.
The influence of the Reformed side of the Reformation for
purer worship, for higher morals, for better Church govern
ment would have been lost. It is therefore evident that much

UNFINISHED LUTHERAN REFORMATION 123
as Lutheranism has done, a large part of the work of the
Reformation was not Lutheran. And that part must not be
forgotten in our glorification of Luther at this time. We
rejoice in what Luther did, we admire his heroism. His fail
ings are covered over by the greatness of his work, as ought
to be the case with our judgment of each of the Reformers.
But that does not blind us to the fact that if the Reformation
had gone no farther than Lutheranism, there would have been
a great loss to the Protestant world. If the worship of the
Protestants had remained as in the early Lutheran Church of
the Reformation, we would have altars and crucifixes in our
Churches — the sign of the cross would be made at baptisms
and in pronouncing the benediction. At the Lord's Supper
there would be adoration of the elements. I am not speaking
of the Lutheranism of today (which often under Reformed
influence has sloughed off some of these Catholic superstitions).
Now such half measures never produced sturdiness of
character. And that is what the Lutheran Reformation lacked
often. We will give an illustration of the difference of this as
between the Lutheran and the Reformed; and others might
be given. In the days of the Reformation, there were two
districts of the Palatinate. The larger part was the Lower
Palatinate along the river Rhine whose capital was Heidelberg.
The Upper Palatinate was several hundred miles to the south
east, whose capital was Amberg. The first named Palatinate
was Reformed, the last named persistently refused to become
Reformed and remained strictly Lutheran. Then what hap
pened? In the awful Thirty Years' war in the early part of
the seventeenth century, both Palatinates were overrun by the
Catholic armies. When the war was over, there was no
Lutheran Church in the Upper Palatinate, it had all gone
clean over to the Catholics. But the Lower Palatinate was
still Reformed and persistently refused during the war to
become Catholic. It was easy for the Upper Palatinate to go
back to Catholicism because there was so little difference in
their rites. But the Reformed absolutely refused to do so.
They were summoned before the city hall at Heidelberg and
commanded to become Catholics. They declared they would
give up their lands and emigrate elsewhere — yes, they would
o-ive up their lives : but they would not give up their Reformed
faith.

CHAPTER II.
THE CONTRIBUTION OF ZWINGLI TO THE SPIRIT OF THE
REFORMATION.*
There is what may be called a Spirit of the Reforrhation.
This spirit of the Reformation differed from other ages. It
differed from that of the Middle Ages before it. And it dif
fered from the age after the Reformation and from the spirit
of the present scientific age in which we live.
To this spirit of the Reformation, each nation and each
Reformer made a contribution. The spirit of the Reforma
tion is the combination of all these and more. Luther made his
contribution to this Reformation spirit by his inspiration.
So did Melancthon by his scholarship. Calvin contributed most
to the permanent organization of the Reformation. Even the
lesser Reformers as Beza and Viret and Lasco contributed their
share. Tonight I take up the contribution that Zwingli made
to this spirit of the Reformation.
Now before beginning this topic it will be necessary to
clear the ground somewhat of things that all these Reformers
held in common. Rev. Dr. Schaff has stated in his histories
that there were three great Reformation doctrines, the suprem
acy of Scripture and justification by faith; and he later added,
after he had gotten out from Mercersburg Theology, the priest
hood of all believers. Now the first and last of these were
peculiarities of both the Lutheran and Reformed Churches.
Both Luther and Zwingli held to the authority of the Scriptures
and the priesthood of all believers. The doctrine of justification
was pre-eminently a Lutheran doctrine; and so of it we need
not speak just now. But we can set aside these Reformation
peculiarities that were common to all and take up the things
* This Chapter is an address delivered before the Eastern Synod
of the Reformed Church in the United States, October 17, 1916.
We have left it unchanged, which will explain why it repeats certain
thoughts in the rest of this work.

THE CONTRIBUTION OF ZWINGLI 125
in which Zwingli made his peculiar contribution to the spirit
of the Reformation.
1. The first contribution he made was that he stands out as
the Political Reformer. Have you ever noticed that he was a
political Reformer before he became a religious Reformer. In
his early ministry, in his first charge at Glarus, he already began
opposing the foreign mercenary service of the Swiss soldiers
who were fighting for other lands. This subject was forced
upon him by the evils that came out of it in his own parish, for
he had a habit of talking out on the evils of the day. It was
his attacks on this foreign service that compelled him to leave
Glarus, as the military party in his congregation began making
things unpleasant for him. We thus see that his political
activity came out early. And when later he became pastor at
Zurich he pursued the same policy unflinchingly. It was
through his efforts, his almost superhuman efforts (and this is
often forgotten by those who study his life), that Zurich gave
up sending its citizens away as soldiers. The difficulty of this
act is shown by the fact that the other states of Switzerland
favored doing so. Zurich stood alone for a while and all
because of Zwingli.
Now Luther on this point is Zwingli's antipodes. He abso
lutely refused to countenance the use of the secular power by
the Church. He held to the purely spiritual view of the
Church, which meant that God would take care of his Church
and the states should take care of themselves politically. Thus,
especially over against Luther, Zwingli stands out as the great
Political Reformer.
For this he has been most severely criticized. The Church
histories have been full of this criticism. But we of the Re
formed should remember that some part of this criticism has
as its basis a narrow Lutheran bias which I am glad to say
some Lutherans do not have. And this prejudice against
Zwingli thus cultivated, has been helped on here by the spirit
of America. For we in the United States have so strongly
emphasized the separation of Church and state that any political
activity has seemed objectionable to many.
Your speaker would however like to interpose a caveat
just here about this. He is suspicious that if you or I were in
the same position as Zwingli was in the Reformation, we would

126 THE REFORMED REFORMATION
probably do the same thing, or at least something very much
like it. I suppose I am historically heretical for saying this.
But for the fads of Church historians I pay little respect. What
I want is truth. What I mean is that Zwingli has been over-
criticized for his political activity. Remember that he lived in
a republic. He had no power over him as Luther had in his
prince, the Elector of Saxony, to attend to his politics for him.
He was a prince himself as was every other citizen of a republic
like Switzerland. Much of his political activity was due to the
fact that he lived in a republic, while Luther lived in a mon
archy. Then remember also too that Zurich was isolated from
the other cantons politically for several years and just because
through Zwingli she had become Protestant. It was an awful
isolation. The Swiss diet was mainly Catholic and so against
her. Nothing held that diet back from sending far larger
armies than her's into her territory, except that some of the
larger cantons as Basle, Bern and Schaffhausen were wavering
because they were slowly becoming Reformed. Zurich was
alone. Like her Lord, she was treading the wine-press alone.
She had no friend in all the world at that time if the Catholic
armies came against her. She was more fearfully isolated than
ever Luther had been. She had not like Luther some prince
to steal her away and hide her for a time in the Wartburg.
Zurich stood alone, like Athanasius in the fourth century,
"contra mundum," "Athanasius against the world." Now at
such a crisis, when the life or death of a state is at stake,
every man, especially in a republic, becomes a statesman. And
so Zwingli became a political leader there. And especially so
because the political situation was produced by his religious
reforms. His opponents have triumphantly replied, "Yes, look
at his death. His defeat and death at Cappel were a judgment
on him for his entering into politics." And they quote tri
umphantly the saying of our Lord that "all they that take the
sword shall perish with the sword." Not quite so fast, my
friend. It needs to be remembered that our Lord also said
that he "came not to send peace, but a sword." And remember
also that those political leagues would have come anyhow.
They lie in the genius of the Catholic Church which is one of
the most political of powers. Remember too this special fact
that the particular political policy that led to the death and

THE CONTRIBUTION OF ZWINGLI 127
defeat of Zwingli was caused by Bern and not by Zurich.
Zwingli had protested against it, yes, preached against it. And
then Bern left Zurich in the lurch. So that his death was not
a judgment on himself.
Perhaps this whole subject of political activity may be
illuminated by what happened the next century. Has it ever
occurred to you that there would probably never have been
that awful Thirty Years' war, had Zwingli's plans for a political
federation of Protestants been carried out. At least the Prot
estants would not have suffered as they did. If the Catholic
powers had known that a strong and united political' league of
Protestants were ready to meet them in 1618 they would not
have entered that war, out of which they came, even with such
weak opposition by the Protestants, with such ignominy. Now
what took place thus in that 17th century, Zwingli foresaw.
And this led him to prepare for it, first by forming a league of
the Protestant states of Switzerland and then with Strassburg
and Hesse. It was simply a case of preparedness as we call it
now. Permit me also to carry you a century farther. About
1688 the Catholics were ready to make a similar onslaught on
the Protestants as they had made in 1618. They had a leader
in Louis XIV. This is shown by their attitude. Louis XIV
had ordered out of his land 500,000 Protestants. The Pala
tinate was overrun by the French. The Catholic powers were
determined to win England back. But a little political event
checked it all at the beginning. The Catholics were defeated
at the battle of the Boyne. That put a quietus on their prepara
tions all over Europe. They found that the Protestants were
prepared Zwingli's political efforts were justifiable. His policy
was one of preparedness, about which we hear so much now.
The practical lesson that can be drawn from this peculiarity
of Zwingli is that the Church has a sphere in political life. We
are not here referring to partisan politics. But whenever poli
tics touch morals, the Church has a right to speak out, to take
proper measures and to do that as quickly as possible before
the forces of evil become entrenched. For she is the con
servator of the morals of the nation. What Zwingli did here
was even more accentuated by Calvin, who was the great
municipal Reformer. He never waited for some circumlocutory
route as some do now by which to denounce and crush evil.

128 THE REFORMED REFORMATION
Both Reformers went at the subject directly. And though our
Church here is not so directly related to the state as was
theirs, yet its duty is no less necessary; for the question has
then become not one of politics but of morals. How the old
Hebrew prophets spoke out on political questions. This em
phasis of separation of Church and state forgets also to note a
fact that while Church and state have different spheres, they
have never entirely separated. Each enters the other's sphere,
the state in the case of legal action : the Church in the case of
moral action. Zwingli and Calvin are strong examples for the
Reformed to take active part in all the great moral and social
questions of the day. But Zwingli differed somewhat from
Calvin here. Zwingli's activity was political as between states ;
Calvin's concerned his own city. Zwingli stands out for the
activity of the Church in international relations. He is there
fore the prophet and herald of the great movement born in our
day and so greatly emphasized by this awful war, that the
Golden Rule must not only be observed within nations, but be
tween them. And it is the duty of the Church to speak in
trumpet tones on this subject. Zwingli thus becomes the
prophet of the "League of Nations to enforce Peace," of which
we hear so much now. He like Erasmus was an ardent advo
cate of peace but he also believed in thorough preparedness for
war. Zwingli thus assumes a new importance in the light of
present events. The great political Reformer was the harbinger
of these great international Reforms, in which the Church must
nobly bear her part if they are ever to be carried through suc
cessfully — of that millennial day
"When the war drums beat no longer and the battle
flags are furled,
In the parliament of man, the federation of the
world."
2. The second contribution that Zwingli made to the spirit
of the Reformation was that he was the Humanistic or Intel
lectual Reformer. Far be it from me to say that the other
Reformations and other Reformers were not intellectual. They
were. Luther was able, Melancthon, brilliant, Calvin, brainiest
of all and yet also the most practical. But Zwingli brought a
peculiar intellectual influence into the Reformation. This was

THE CONTRIBUTION OF ZWINGLI 129
due to his humanism. Luther was the monk-Reformer, Zwingli
the humanist-Reformer. The more I study Luther's life, the
more I realize the limitations placed imposed on him by his early
monkhood and the more I realize the broader, clearer spirit of
Zwingli. For Zwingli gained three great peculiarities from human
ism. The first was as to the method of thought, — thoroughness,
Humanism taught that it was necessary to go back to the
sources and so went back to the Bible. The second was as to
the expression of thought. Humanism taught clearness of ex
pression over against the verbosity of language due to the hair
splittings of the scholastic theology. Perhaps a third ought
also be added, namely, breadth of sympathy. Zwingli was the
broadest of the Reformers. All this gave an intellectual aspect
to the Zwinglian Reformation, over against the early Lutheran.
Now this prominence of the intellect was greatly needed at
the time of the Reformation. For the Romanism of the Middle
Ages had checked, yes, prostituted, the intellect. The Renais
sance and humanism had been but the bursting of the coffin in
which the Middle Ages had been trying to entomb the intellect.
The Catholic Church by its doctrine of "fides implicita" (im
plicit faith) had served notice on the intellect that the Church
could get along without it. And that Church by its doctrine
of transubstantiation had virtually mocked at the intellect, by
requiring it to believe in the Lord's Supper what three of our
senses said was not so. It was time that the intellect should
come to its own again. Humanism came to awaken it. And
the Reformed Church then came to properly safeguard it in its
rights. And so humanism and Zwingli made the intellect prom
inent. The result was that in that Reformation age, the Re
formed emphasized education and everywhere founded uni
versities and schools, more so in the Reformation than the
Lutherans. I need but to refer to Herborn, Marburg and the
three Dutch universities and the schools in France and Hun
gary. The Lutherans have later been catching up until they too
have a splendid set of institutions.
But our Lutheran brethren, just because Zwingli gave the
intellect its rights, have been charging us with rationalism. Our
reply is that we are rational but not rationalistic. Zwingli was
as orthodox as Luther on the great fundamentals of faith or

130 THE REFORMED REFORMATION
they never would have agreed as they did on all the 15 Articles
at Marburg except the one on the Lord's Supper. The Re
formed, like the Lutherans, grant much to faith, yet they
believe that the rights of the reason must be respected. Their
doctrine of the Lord's Supper is more rational. They believe
as Scripture says that we must ever be ready to give a reason
for the hope that is within us. Reason must never be hidden
by mysticism, as was done by Luther at Marburg when the
only answer he was able to give to Zwingli's argument on the
Lord's Supper was to point to the words "This is my body"
written in chalk on the table. The Lutheran Church has em
phasized the mystical especially in the Lord's Supper, and we,
the rational. And both should be combined and neither for
gotten. But while Zwingli made his important contribution of
intellectualism to the spirit of the Reformation so needed then
amid the superstitions of Rome, this intellectualism must never
be placed over against the Bible and revelation as Rationalism
does. To do so is to depart from the spirit of Zwingli. One
of the most impressive and pathetic scenes occurred just a
century ago at Zurich when, in the 300th Anniversary of the
Reformation, old Antistes Hess, the head of the Church, over
eighty years of age and tottering over the grave, seemed to
renew his youth as he preached the Anniversary sermon and
as Zwingli's successor declared that he was a Biblicist and
not a rationalist and his successors in the Church should be
like him. 3. I have time to refer to but one more contribution that
Zwingli made to the spirit of the Reformation. And this has
not been emphasized enough by the German Church historians
because they have been so prevailingly Lutheran. They have
looked at everything through Lutheran eyes. It is strange how
Church historians will follow fads. And if one of them makes
a mistake, those who come after him are apt to follow him
blindly like sheep. For instance, Prof. Phillip Schaff, D.D.,
brought over with him from Germany the idea that there were
two principles in the Reformation, the material principle which
was justification by faith, and the formal which was the Scrip
tures. Is it not time that we correct this old worn-out, hind-
foremost statement? We, with our practical minds today,

THE CONTRIBUTION OF ZWINGLI 131
would put it the other way. It is the Bible that gives us the
material, and justification is the form by which we work up that
material. If justification is the material principle as they say,
where does it get its material from, if not from the Bible ? And
where would the Bible get its formal principle, if justification
were, as they say, the material; for there is little of justifica
tion in the Bible compared with other doctrines.
Well, take another fad of Church history. The great doc
trine of the Reformation has been stated to be justification by*
faith. So it was for the Lutherans. But German Church his
torians (most of them Lutheran) have therefore presumed that
that was true of ihe rest of the Reformation. This view has
blinded their vision so that they have not recognized that Zwingli
approached Protestantism from a different perspective. It is
true, he believed in justification by faith. But it does not bulk
so largely in his works. What was his peculiarity as a Re
former ? Well, he held as did Luther to the Authority of Scrip
ture. So that was not peculiar to him. But then he goes on to
say that he got from his great teacher, Prof. Thomas Wytten
bach, at Basle, another fundamental thought. It was the Ran
som of Christ. He states it in different ways, but it is always
the same doctrine. "Christ is the sole Mediator, and therefore
the Virgin and the saints are not needed." Or he states in that
Christ died "once for all." But it is always the same doctrine, —
Christ's finished work. Thus Bullinger in his history says, "He
preached the Gospel with all diligence also at Einsedeln and
especially taught that Christ was the only Mediator and that
Mary the Virgin and Mother of Qod should not be prayed to
and worshipped." The third great peculiarity of Zwingli was
that he stands out as the Redemptive Reformer.
Zwingli therefore had a different doctrine from Luther
and yet not so different. These two doctrines of atonement and
justification are related as indeed are all the doctrines of the
Bible. For there may be said to be three types of the doctrine
of justification: one, the metaphysical, which puts the justifica
tion back in the mind of God through election, the second, which
is redemptive, placed it at the cross of Christ, and the third,
which was experimental, placed it in connection with faith and
works at conversion. Now the old Calvinists emphasized the
first, and the Lutherans, the last. But Zwingli emphasized the

132 THE REFORMED REFORMATION
second. The redemptive element is present with him both in
justification and in everything else. In fact as these doctrines
are related, it is interesting to note that in this doctrine of
justification Zwingli went deeper than Luther. He went down
to the root of it, which was the atonement, while Luther looked
only at the result — what we ordinarily mean by justification.
For you can't have justification without the atonement, but you
can have the atonement without justification. Yet while they
are alike they are different. Of the two Christ's atonement is
the greater doctrine.
And so the third great contribution that Zwingli made to
the spirit of the Reformation was the great Redemptive element.
It was the emphasis on Christ's death. And it was a great
contribution then, for the Romish Church had made more of
the judgment day than of Calvary, and more of the crucifix
than of the Crucified.
So as this Reformation anniversary comes again, let us
preach again the doctrine of Christ's atonement. Some of you
perhaps do not believe it in the traditional sense that all be
lieved it in the early Reformation and as Zwingli did, though
to me his substitutionary atonement is the most precious of all
comforts. But whether you believe it or not, historically that is
how he began his Reformation. Some find the modern socio
logical altruistic explanation satisfactory, — that Christ's re
demption is only sympathetic. Well preach it that way if you
can't the other way. I prefer the old substitutionary atonement.
But whatever you do> preach the atonement as one of the great
doctrines of the Reformation. For that doctrine of infinite
sympathy and love is the magnet that will draw the world to
Christ. O that we might preach it with new power this Refor
mation year. When time seems short and death is near,
And I am pres't by doubt and fear,
And sins, an overflowing tide,
Assail my peace on every side,
This thought my refuge still shall be,
I know my Savior died for me.
His name is Jesus, and he died

THE CONTRIBUTION OF ZWINGLI 133
For guilty sinners crucified;
Content to die that he might win
Their ransom from the death of sin,
No sinner worse than I can be,
Therefore I know he died for me.
If grace were bought, I could not buy ;
If grace were coined, no wealth have I ;
By grace alone I draw my breath,
Held up from everlasting death.
Yet since I know that grace is free,
I know my Savior died for me.
I read God's holy word and find
Great truths that far transcend my mind,
And little do I know beside
Of thoughts so high, so deep and wide ;
This is my best theology,
I know my Savior died for me.
My faith is weak, but 'tis thy gift ;
Thou canst my helpless soul uplift,
And say, "Thy bonds of death are riven,
Thy sins by me are all forgiven,
And thou shalt live from guilt set free,
For I, thy Savior, died for thee."
— Rev. Dr. Bethune.

CHAPTER III.
THE CONTRIBUTION OF THE REFORMED SIDE OF THE REFORMATION
TO THE SPIRIT OF PROTESTANTISM.
We have just spoken of the Spirit of the Reformation in
the last chapter. But there is also a Spirit of Protestantism.
Between these two there is this difference. The spirit of the
Reformation was the spirit of the sixteenth century. The spirit
of Protestantism is larger, for it takes in also the spirit of the
three centuries since the Reformation. It may be called the
twentieth century spirit. Take as an illustration of the differ
ence, the growth of republics. Calvin in the Reformation at
Geneva had a republic but it was an aristocratic one, an oli
garchy. But the last three centuries have developed out of that
great republics that are democracies. The spirit of Protestant
ism is therefore larger than that of the Reformation. And this
spirit of Protestantism needs to be also considered in connec
tion with the anniversary and that very carefully.
Each part of the Reformation gave its own peculiar con
tribution to Protestantism. All Protestants agreed on the su
premacy of the Bible and the priesthood of all believers. The
Lutherans emphasized justification by faith, the Reformed,
the finished atonement of Christ. The Anabaptists gave their
contribution in their emphasis on Church discipline and per
sonal independence. Both the Lutherans and the Reformed
emphasized education and produced a better idea of exegesis of
Scripture than the Catholics.
Turning from these general different contributions to the
spirit of Protestantism, we come to speak of the special con
tribution of the Reformed. And we mention
I, Liberty. Zwingli and Calvin are both very interesting
characters to Americans because like us they were citizens of a
republic. Anabaptism also emphasized liberty but it never re
sulted in permanent results, due to its extreme individualism.
But the Reformed Church built up, according to historians as
Ranke and Motley, great republics in Switzerland and. the

THE CONTRIBUTION OF THE REFORMED 135
United States and monarchies that are virtually republics as
England and Holland. Even France, which so cruelly cast out
the Calvinists at the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes (1685),
has been compelled to accept Calvin's form of civil government
and become a republic. It was the Genevan Bible that pro
duced the Commonwealth in England. Civil and religious
liberty have followed in the wake of Calvinism. Now Luther
anism has no such history to show. Her lands, Germany and
Scandinavia, have produced no republics, although in this
country the Lutherans have become strong adherents to our
principles of liberty.
Now the cause of all this is not far to seek. There has
always been an intimate relation between the government of
the Church and that of the state. The Church is apt to reflect
the government of the state and vice versa. Calvinistic Church
government was more democratic than Lutheranism. Thus in
the Lutheran Church, the prince was the head of the Church.
That prince appointed consistories to rule the Church. These
consistories were composed of ministers and laymen, but they
held office only at the will of the prince. The prince also
appointed superintendents. The appointment and the authority
given to these came from the prince and not from the Church.
But it was not so with the Reformed. Here the Church gave
the authority. The people elected their pastors, and the con
gregations elected their elders and deacons. Each congregation
was in itself a virtual republic. The Reformed, having thus
learned to rule the Church, were able to rule the state, for they
had learned in the congregation how to do it. King James I
of England was right when he said that "Royalty and presby
tery go not well together." He scented the battle from afar.
The Reformed Church produced a class of people who were
trained to rule themselves. They therefore held that they could
call even king and rulers to account, if they were not ruling
rightly and in the fear of God. This overthrew any "divine
right of kings." It meant "the divine right of the people" to
rule. Indeed they so learned to rule that they did not abso
lutely need kings and princes at all. And thus out of this
republic in the congregation grew up the great national re
publics. Now this was a remarkable and unexpected peculiarity

136 THE REFORMED REFORMATION
of the Reformed. Calvin, whether rightly or wrongly it is not
the place here to discuss, has been greatly vilified for the exe
cution of Servetus. And yet it was Calvin's successors who
won for the world civil and religious liberty. Notice another
unexpected and remarkable result. Calvinism has been declared
to be the grave of man's free will because of its doctrine of
election. And yet it was this very doctrine of election that
has given the world the greatest number of men of free wills
for producing liberty.
There is a twilight dawning on the world,
The herald of a full and perfect day,
When liberty's wide flag shall be unfurled,
And kings shall bow to her superior sway.
How priceless the boon of liberty is, it is impossible to
describe. It is the most colossal, yes, celestial, of the gifts to
man. And in the making of that liberty, the Reformed
Churches have made the largest contribution and for it they
can justly be proud.
2. The second great contribution of the Reformed to the
spirit of Protestantism has been its Ethics. That Protestantism
has a peculiar ethical quality and that its ethics are higher than
Catholicism needs no proof because self-evident. But what
gave to Protestantism its peculiar ethical quality? It was
undoubtedly Calvinism. Now in saying this we do not wish to
discredit the ethics of the Lutheran Church. For she too has
taught ethics and her ethics were higher and brighter than those
of the Catholics. But she has not emphasized ethics as strongly
as the Reformed. The ethics of Protestantism have come
mainly out of the Reformed.
To prove this we will give several historical examples. In
the Reformation, why was it that the Hussites, who originally
fraternized with Luther and the Lutherans, left them and went
over to the Reformed side in the later Reformation? It was
because Luther refused to introduce Church discipline, which
with them was a matter of conscience. They therefore com
plained of the laxity of discipline in both the Churches and
universities of the Lutherans. Now on the other side we see
John Calvin as the great ethical Reformer of the Reformation.

THE CONTRIBUTION OF THE REFORMED 137
His reforms at Geneva were undoubtedly severe but they made
Geneva the "model city" of that age. Even Prof. Andrea, of
Tubingen, one of the leaders of the Lutheran Church, was
compelled to bear witness when on a visit to Geneva, that
Lutheranism had no such city as that.
And what occurred in the Reformation has been the pecul
iarity of the Reformed ever since. Their ethical standards
were higher. 'The Lutherans also taught ethics, but Prof.
Schweitzer has proved in his able articles in the Studien und
Kritiken many years ago, that as far as ethics was concerned,
Protestantism had to depend mainly on the Reformed. They
might be called Puritans and be laughed at by the world for
their narrowness and bigotry, but as Puritans they were pure —
pure in life. Take as an example the city of Bremen in northern
Germany. Bremen became Reformed in the later Reformation.
All around her except on the north, where was the sea, were
Lutheran lands. But under the regulations due to Reformed
influence in the city, the morals of Bremen were higher than
those of the surrounding countries. And this was true up to
the days of Church Union a century ago. Other examples
might be given. But these are enough to show that the spirit
of Protestantism that is ethical has come mainly out of the
Reformed Church. The great moral uplift of the world that
came through Protestantism was mainly due to the Reformed.
And today it is this ethical chord vibrating in Protestant
ism that needs to be recognized and heard. In these days when
altruism and service — those higher ethical ideals in morality —
are being stressed, where do these elements come from ? They
are here because of the Reformed. And the Reformed should
be especially active in every department of reform, for they are
but carrying out the spirit of the Reformation in doing so. In
this day when men are demanding that the moral law and the
golden rule be applied not only to city, state and nation but also
to international relations, it is for the Calvinists to rise up and
support these movements, for they come out of their fathers.
3. A third contribution that the Reformed have made to the
spirit of Protestantism has been Pietism. This is an emphasis
on experimental religion and tends to produce the great prac
tical activities of the Church. For wherever there is pietism,
there missions and charities abound. The pietism of Protes-

138 THE REFORMED REFORMATION
tantism came out of the Reformed Church. But we suppose
we will be at once challenged by the Lutherans, who at once
declare that the great Pietist of Germany was a Lutheran,
Spener. But we place opposite German pietism as equally im
portant in history the Puritanism of England, for Puritanism
was at heart pietism. And we add to that the Puritanism of
Holland. What great pietists they had in Holland in Prof.
Voet and Lodenstein. All the pietists in the world do not
come out of Germany. Nor was Spener's pietism the only piet
ism that was in Germany, for there was also a Reformed pietism
there. There is also such a thing as a world-wide pietism, and
in it the Reformed played the larger part. But let us pause a
moment. Where did Spener get his pietism? He got it from
the Reformed. It was the preaching of Labadie, the eloquent
preacher of the Reformed Church of Geneva and the successor
of Calvin, that led Spener to become a pietist. When Spener
heard Labadie at Geneva, Labadie was not yet a separatist.
He was a pietist within the Church, because Calvin had em
phasized that, and Calvin had gotten it from Zwingli and his
prophesyings at Zurich. And where for instance did Spener
get his idea of prayer-meetings that he first introduced into
Frankford? From the Reformed, who had always had the
"ecclesiola in ecclesia" in the Church. And it was those prayer-
meetings that gave permanence to Lutheran pietism. Why,
Lutheran pietism would have been crushed in Germany but for
the Reformed, who saved it to the Lutherans. When Spener
was driven out of Saxony because of the persecutions of the
orthodox Lutherans, where could he have gone, had not a
Reformed prince, the Elector of Brandenburg, received him
into his realm. Yes, the Elector did more. He founded for him
and his school of Lutherans ¦ a university, the university of
Halle, where they might be able to perpetuate themselves.
Lutheran pietism in Germany owes its origin and permanence
to the Reformed. It really looks as if the remark of Rev.
H. J. Ruetenik, D.D., made to the writer many years ago is
true. "Pietism," he said, "is germane to the Reformed Church
but not to the Lutheran, to which it came, from the outside, —
from the Reformed." Prof. Ebrard also says the same: "In
the Lutheran Church, there lay no new birth at the basis of
theology as there did in the Reformed, which led to personal

THE CONTRIBUTION OF THE REFORMED 139
experience." Iken says: "We must consider pietism as an
integral part of Reformed Church history." The pietists were
not a party in the Reformed Church as in the Lutheran but a
part of her inmost life and history.
Both the Lutherans and the Reformed emphasize the
mystical. But with the Lutherans it was the mystical in the
sacrament, with the Reformed the mystical in every relation
of life. Perhaps the best illustration of pietism in the Reformed
Church is found in the Heidelberg Catechism, its first answer,
"What is thy only comfort in life and death? That I with
body and soul am not my own but belong1 to my faithful
Savior Jesus Christ." Its emphasis on personal experience is
the finest flower in the garden of religious instruction in the
Church. Therefore the richness of personal experience, which
is so prominent a feature of Protestantism over against the
mechanical and ceremonial of the Catholic Church, is due
mainly to the Reformed.
And when we turn to the fruits of pietism in the missions
and charities of the Church, the same thing is true. Luther
anism has done much for missions and has had some great mis
sionaries, but the Reformed have done more. The Reformed
sent out the first missionaries as to Brazil in 1557. And the
Reformed entered /the field of world-missions before the
Lutherans. How they labored amid great difficulties in the
East Indies in the seventeenth century when the Luthefan
Church rejected missions so that Baron Von Welz had to go
himself to South America (as no one else would go) and die
for missions. The Lutheran Church, it is true, woke up in the
eighteenth century and is now doing a great work. And as to
other charities, we suppose no land is as full of them as Re
formed Holland— the product of the Church. In the Dutch
Churches the first of the three collections taken at each service
always goes to the poor. As a result there are more charities in
Holland than there are poor to fill them. But further proof
is unnecessary, for in Germany it is a common saying that the
Lutherans emphasize the passive and the Reformed emphasize
the active. And if we were to do as they do in Germany, count all
Protestants who are not Lutheran as Reformed, the balance
would be still heavier on the side of the Reformed. For there

140 THE REFORMED REFORMATION
they throw the Methodists, Baptists, Congregationahsts, etc.,
in with the Reformed. And there is a truth in this. These
other denominations are the outgrowth directly or indirectly
of the Reformed. Congregationalism certainly came out of
English Puritanism. Methodism is, for it came out of the
Anglican Church, which in the Reformation had for its name
the "Reformed Church of England," and whose priests today
take oath to the Reformed Church of England. And as for
the Baptists, they claim to come from the Anabaptists of the
Reformation, but the relation is largely in the similarity of the
names, Anabaptist and Baptist. For historically the first Bap
tist congregation came out of the Congregationahsts in Britain
in the seventeenth century, according to Prof. Whitsitt, late
professor of the Baptist Church. If we therefore follow the
German method and count all these as Reformed, it overweighs •
the Lutherans very greatly. The great religious activity of our
present Protestant Church has undoubtedly come largely from
the Reformed. 4. Education. The Reformed were always the leaders in
Education. Here too the Lutheran Church has a splendid
record. Protestantism always stands for the school as well
as the Church, and in these educational movements the Re*
formed have had a large share. In the Reformation she
founded the university of Herborn in Germany, three universi
ties in Holland led by Leyden, the Carolinum at Zurich and the
theological schools at Bern, Geneva and Lausanne, out of
which grew the present universities. In France and Hungary
she founded celebrated schools as Sedan and Debreczin. And
the Reformed have ever kept in the van of education. And
they not merely founded universities for the rich ; but it was a
Reformed pedagogue, Pestalozzi, who made education possible
for all, even the poor; and thus laid the foundation for our
modern universal education. They were also leaders in the
founding of schools for girls. Thus the Reformed Church has
had an enviable record in this greatest of all movements next
to the Church.
5. Capitalism. A recent and interesting attempt has
been made in Germany by Prof. Max Weber, of Heidelberg
university, to show that capitalism also came from Calvinism.
Prof. Weber's views have been finely summarized in the Con-

THE CONTRIBUTION OF THE REFORMED 141
temporary Review for June and July, 1910, by Prof. Forsyth,
from which I quote freely.
"By capitalism is not meant what we today mean by the
capitalist over against labor. But capitalism means the system
of the growth and the use of capital that has made the modern
world." We must confess that when we first heard the proposition
advanced that capitalism was the product of Calvinism, we
shook our heads. Calvinism has already had enough sins
charged to its account without having any more added. But
we were somewhat relieved when we found that capitalism and
not the modern capitalist was meant. We were somewhat sur
prised at the source of this suggestion, for it is not usual for an
economist to praise a theologian or for the land of Luther to
laud Calvin. But the more we considered it, the more we be
lieved that there was a great truth in it. Calvinism, which was
aiming to be a religious movement, has become a great econo
mic force. Just as modern missions, intended to be only spirit
ual, has become a mighty world-wide sociological uplift, so it
has been with Calvinism. And if Calvinism has produced
liberty- as we have seen, why should it not produce as great a
boon in world-wide commercial supremacy?
For the facts of history seem to bear out the proposition
of Prof. Weber. At and after the Reformation, when the
Catholics drove out the Reformed, the latter found refuge in
England, Holland, Switzerland and Brandenburg, now Prussia.
They were largely of the great middle class and were mainly
artisans. Great trades were built up by them in these lands.
France found that she had impoverished herself to build up
the nations that were her enemies. The countries that received
these refugees prospered greatly. First Holland captured the
commerce, and then England. Prussia owes her present posi
tion at the head of Germany largely to the coming of these
refugees. Antwerp took the trade from the French ports.
Spanish commerce on the other hand went down and decayed.
Thus these refugees developed their business until, as Prof.
Weber says, we have the mighty world movement of com
mercialism. ¦ For Calvinism gave that liberty that enabled capi
tal and industry to develope and it also gave it the protection
it needed to advance. Hence the genius of capitalism with its

142 THE REFORMED REFORMATION
free initiative and bold enterprise arose.
Prof. Weber also suggests a reason why all this grew out
of the Reformed. He says :
"It is wrong to identify the genius of capitalism with the
trades of capitalists. The genius of capitalism is not mere
acquisition or greed, — the passion of getting and keeping. It
has a normal power. It is the passion of production and enter
prise — the passion of work that spends little on itself but
delights to get at nature and use it fof God. Calvinism trans
figured work. It changed the mediaeval idea that work was
a necessary evil and a mere means of living and made it the
engine of God's glory in the world. Our calling was not as
with Luther, a sphere of modest accommodation to our sta
tion (Lutheranism), nor on the other hand a means of getting
on (Secularism), but it was a problem to be solved, a book
to be opened, an opportunity of doing something on an eternal
scale with spirit and zest to the glory of God. It had an
inward nisus that Lutheranism had not. Its ideal was not
that of pious repose, but a life energy. Accept the evil situa
tion, said Luther, may God mend all. Nay, said Calvin, but
we must help him to mend all. Life's work then becomes not
a poor broken fragment, but the confident expression of an
elect destiny. Our vocation is not an acquiescence but a
conquest. Faith is not mere reliance but an energy. The
leading idea of Calvinism is not compliance but action, — all
under obedience to God. It not merely changed the heart of
the world but the face of it. Put into the language of econom
ics, this was ethical while it accumulated wealth. It opposed
luxury and the careless enjoyment of what it owned. It cared
more for work than enjoyment. It recognized stewardship
rather than ownership. It discouraged consumption and de
veloped production. It released production from the fetters
of a tradionalist ethic or an egotistic enjoyment, especially
in the matter of interest on money where Calvin took a posi
tion so enlightened compared with Luther's traditional ethics.
It was the ethic of a large and sacred utilitarianism."
He thus speaks beautifully of the ethical character so
common to all of Calvin's influence — even in money-getting.
He says: "Calvin's ethics branded the mere passion of possession
as covetousness and mammonism. The spring of industry was
the Christian passion of energy and world-mastery for the
enhancement of the Christian passion, God's kingdom and
glory. Its final regard was to the will of God."
But this great economist closes with a warning. He says :

THE CONTRIBUTION OF THE REFORMED 143
"We come to the end of our age. We face another than
a stage of capitalism. Capitalism has done its great and indis
pensable work in leading the social evolution. Capitalism now
announces its own end in becoming dethroned in a plutocracy.
And in becoming a plutocracy it has thrown aside the control
of religion and warned it off of the economic sphere. Does
labor promise to allow it a place any more effective? That is
hard to answer. But no one will deny that alongside the ele
ment of labor in the economic sphere, there has arisen another
principle in the religious, — the passion for souls, — a new
respect for manhood in the sense of moral personality. We
have seen that the Calvinistic ethic approached the world with
a belief in its resources, in their destiny to be developed for
the glory of God and in the duty of the elect above all others
so to use them. This gave a tremendous religious impulse to
the exploitation of the world by the most powerful characters."
Prof. Weber in all this has given to us a very interesting
discovery in history. His statements of the way in which Cal
vinism puts morals into business is unique, but true. We re
member the couplet that has ever been associated with the
Huguenots as describing their characteristics :
"Self-reverence, self-knowledge, self-control.
These alone lead to sovereign power."
We also remember the illustration that is told of one of the
noble family of Prussia after the Huguenot refugees had
come there. The Elector of Brandenburg one day surprised
his wife, the beautiful Electress Louisa Henrietta, in the act
of giving some of the crown jewels into the hands of a stranger.
In astonishment he asked her who the man was. She replied,
"I do not know his name, but I know he is a Huguenot." That
was enough. A Huguenot's word was as good as a bond. And
there were no better specimens of Calvinism than those Hugue
nots. Prof. Weber's warning against plutocracy is quite sig
nificant, but we believe that Calvinism will adjust itself to the
demands of this new age with its controversy between capital
and labor, because, as he says, it so emphasized the idea of
stewardship rather than ownership. Calvinism can yet be a
mighty power in the world by putting back of the Golden Rule,
which is the motto of all Christians, the will and power of
God's sovereignty and God's love, which have ever been the
two pillars of Redemptive Calvinism.

APPENDIX
TOPICS SUITABLE FOR REFORMATION SERMONS OR
ADDRESSES
1. Great Characters Among the Reformers (their life, work, influence
and example).
Lefevre, Zwingli,* Luther, Melancthon, Ecolampadius,* Haller,*
Leo Juda,* Vadian* Bullinger* Bibliander (the Missionary
Reformer),! Farel,* Calvin,* Viret,* Beza,* Bucer,* Lasco,*
Ursinus* and Olevianus,* Cranmer, Ridley and Latimer, Hamil
ton,* Wishart* and Knoz*
2. Preparation for the Reformation.
Erasmus, Lefevre, Brethren of Common Life, Reformers before
the Reformation (Wyckliffe, Huss and Savonarola), Renaissance
and Reformation.
3. Great Laymen of the Reformation.
Vadian (the Reformer of St. Gall),* Admiral Coligny, Prince Wil
liam of Orange,* Elector Frederick III of the Palatinate,* Elector
Frederick of Saxony, Landgrave Phillip of Hesse.
4. Relations of the Reformation.
The Reformation and History (the Reformation, a World-wide
Movement), The Reformation and Economics (or Society), The
Reformation and Politics, The Reformation and Art, The Refor
mation and Literature, The Reformation and Science, The Refor
mation and Geography, The Reformation an dMissions.f
5. General. Lessons of the Reformation for our time, The sixteenth century
and the twentieth century, — a contrast and a likeness, Great
Prayers of the Reformation, Great Workers of the Reformation,
Great Martyrs of the Reformation, The Gospel of the Reforma
tion (four doctrines, Authority of Bible, Priesthood of all believers,
Justification by faith (Luther), Ransom of Christ (Zwingli)),
The Spirit of the Reformation (revival, self-denial, conscientious
ness, activity, etc.), Symbols and Mottoes of the Reformation.^:
6. Results of the Reformation.
Liberty (civil), liberty (religious), education, experimental re
ligion, world-wide missions, world-wide business.
* See "Famous Reformers of the Reformed and Presbyterian
Churches," by the author of this pamphlet.
t See "Outlook of Missions," December, 1916, and later numbers. "
t See "Historical Decorations," by Rev. H. C. McCook, D.D. It
can be gotten from the Presbyterian Historical Society, Philadelphia
Pa. All these books can be ordered of the Reformed Publication
Board, Philadelphia, Pa., or the Central Publishing House, Cleveland, O.

YALE UNIVERSITY LIBR

9002 05333 7474