I brought my briefcase. Someone said on the way in, why do pastors call it a briefcase? Well, it's cold. This is even colder than Monday or Tuesday. But we made it through the week, and we've had a good time together. And we're all sad that it has to come to an end and that it has to pass so quickly. And the week is such a great week, and you try to see everybody and everything and do everything. But it only makes us want to come back next year, doesn't it? And I want to say a special thanks to Mark Hudson for his leadership. and also Joe Shepard for leading us in our prayer times, which are special and precious, and I think that we feel is perhaps the engine house of the conference. It might interest you to know I was in New Brunswick and I was the family conference there. We had a couple sessions together and Pastor Tom Rush said, what's the problem here? And we discussed it together and he said, you know, I don't think that we're praying together. And so we started a prayer time there too. I think that we put our finger on it. It's been a great week. I've really enjoyed the messages, and I think I started to trend there when I said, I love you, Kay. I think that from now on, other pastors will be saying, I love you, Kay. Well, I mean, whoever their wives are. But it's been a great time. Now, this is a little hard this morning because I'm surprised to see so many. Actually, I didn't know that there was such interest in these historical things, and I'm grateful for that. This is a little hard because Ulrich Zwingli is a little hard, and what you receive this morning is maybe not exactly what you expect. But we'll work it through, and then with the question time, well, I think when I'm done I'll be under fire here. I don't know how much you know about Ulrich Zwingli, but I hope you know him a little better when we're finished. Master Ulrich Zwingli died on the battlefield of Kappel, October 9, 1531, in his 48th year. He expired still in the prime of life, along with his brother-in-law, stepson, his son-in-law, and his best friend, Leo Judd. Zwingli had led the Protestant army against the Catholic force Cantons. And he exhorted his ranks with these words, Brave men, fear not. Though we must suffer, our cause is good. Commend your souls to God. He will take care of us and ours. His will be done. The battle ran against the Protestant armies, and Zwingli himself, staggered by a rock, aimed at his head while he knelt to give one of his soldiers aid. Rising to his feet, he was pierced through with the lance, and he felt his lifeblood flow through his fingers. Eyes uplifted to heaven, he spoke his last words, What matters, this misfortune? They may kill the body, but they cannot kill the soul. He lay a long time propped up against a pear tree while Catholic soldiers pleaded that he recant. Zwingli simply shook his head. The battle lost. The victors took vengeance on their enemies, Captain Bockinger of Unterwalden, recognized Zwingli by torchlight, and drawing his sword pierced Zwingli through with these words, Die, you obstinate heretic. And then, like Saul of old, the enemy took Zwingli, burned his body, mingled the ashes with the ashes of swine, and cast the ashes to the four winds. And thus died the one who was called the third man of the Reformation. Now, who is Master Zwingli? Why should we, living some 400 years after his death, still take an interest in his life work? Moreover, why should we, who are Baptists, be interested in the enemy of our forefathers, who persecuted them and had them put to death? What is the significance of the life of Zwingli to the Reformation and the Church of God as a whole and our Christian lives today, What is Zwingli's Legacy? Ulrich Zwingli was born on January 1, 1484, some 510 years ago, in a lowly shepherd's cottage at Waldhaus in the county of Togenburg. Zwingli was a German-Swiss patriot who loved his country and its people. And while born in a lowly cottage, his father was not a peasant. He was the chief magistrate of his village, the village of Wild House, and he sired seven sons and two daughters. Zwingli was the third son. His parents were God-fearing and strong Catholics of the more noble sort, so the history books report. Zwingli's mother was a sister of the dean at Weston, and early in life, Zwingli was inculcated with Catholic doctrine and Catholic faith. The Swiss were freedom-loving people. It is interesting in history to see how geography has played a part in the lives of a nation. But the grandeur of the mountains, the blue lakes, and the sloping pastures gave them a sense of being free men. Some of you may have traveled to Switzerland and seen some of the glories of the Elves. Their lifestyle was physical, it was wholesome, and because of their refusal to be subdued, they formed themselves into a fearsome fighting machine. Their soldiers were admired and hired all over the world. In 1444, Louis, The 9th or the 11th of France sought to conquer the mountain country with overwhelming arms, but the Swiss fought so tenaciously, tearing the arrows out of their bodies that they might fight on, that Louis' soldiers became disheartened and melted away. Now the Republic of Switzerland itself was founded by the eternal covenant of the three force cantons, Uri, Schwarz, and Unterwalden. It grew from there by conquest, purchase, and free association. At the time of Zwingli, it was ruled by a single dyad, with each canton sending representatives. By the time of the Reformation, Switzerland was made up of 13 cantons, Zurich joining in 1351. Switzerland was Christianized as early as the 4th century, while still under Roman rule. Geneva was the seat of one of the most ancient bishoprics in Europe, and the north and interior of Switzerland was evangelized in the 7th century by Irish missionaries, Columban and Gaullus. The latter founded the Abbey of St. Gaul. In time, the whole of Switzerland fell under the bishopric of Rome. The Swiss served the papacy well over the years, often supplying the warlike popes with men-at-arms. I believe the Swiss still stand guard in the Vatican. Zwingli was born seven weeks after the great German reformer, Martin Luther, on January 1, 1484. The village of Wild House was the highest village in the Alpine Valley, and from there Zwingli might gaze upon the seven Cherfistan and the snow-capped Sintas. The inhabitants of Wild House are described as a cheerful, energetic people, traits found in Zwingli himself. The Reformation came to the valley in the year 1523. Interestingly, Zwingli's public life took place very close to his boyhood home, Glerus, Einzendelm, and Zurich. His was a happy home with honest virtue and hard work. He grew up believing and practicing, as George Washington, that one should never tell a lie. Now, young Zwingli was sent to his uncle in Weston for early schooling. the intent being that Zwingli would one day render services to the Church as a priest or theologian. When he was ten years old, he took his first major step by entering the College of Basel, where he excelled in Latin, grammar, and dialectics. The year 1492 saw Zwingli at the College of Bern, a student under the most famous scholar in Switzerland at the time, Heinrich Wulfen, or his Latin, Lupolus. who excelled in the classics, Latin verse, and later supported the reformers themselves. Zwingli was only 16 when he went to Venice to round off his training. He studied at the University of Venice. He was a relatively young man. He studied scholastics, philosophy, astronomy, physics, and the ancient classics. In Vienna, he became enthusiastic about the new learning, which emphasized the pagan philosophers of Greek and Roman times, and of course, the Renaissance was having its beginning. He also learned to play several musical instruments, such as the lute, the harp, the violin, the flute, the dulcimer, and hunting horn, with considerable skill, we're told. You've seen those hunting horns that go way out down there and then come out somewhere down there? I've seen them yodeling there. Zwingli regarded music as that which refreshed the mind and softened the temper. But his Catholic opponents said of Zwingli that he was the evangelical lute player, piper, and whistler. Zwingli was expelled from Vienna for misconduct. And so he returned to Switzerland and further studies at Basel. Here, Ulrich met his best friend and future reformer, Leo Judd, who gave to the German Swiss a Bible. He also acquired his Master of Divinity. He never earned a doctor's degree, and therefore was often referred to as Master Zwingli. It was during this time that Zwingli was confronted with the current breezes of Reformation blowing through the Church. He was much taken by a certain Thomas Wittenbach, professor of theology, who opened his eyes to the abuses in the Church, especially indulgences, and urged his students to seek remission of sins through the death of Christ alone, rejecting the keys of the Church for the key of faith. Zwingli, upon graduation, was ordained in the capital of the Canton Galeris, called Galeris. And here he would spend ten productive years as pastor, preaching, teaching, visiting, and in systematic study of the scriptures. He began to study the Greek language in order to become proficient in New Testament studies, and he was introduced to Erasmus by correspondence and was much taken by the scholar and humanist, and later met Erasmus personally. He continued to study ancient classical authors and committed to memory Galerius Maximus for historical examples. I don't know who Galerius Maximus is, but the idea of committing him to memory is a phenomenal feat. And in God's Providence, he also read Picasdell of Merondola and grasped the doctrines of predestination. Now, Zwingli never came to blows with Erasmus, as did Luther, but they eventually drifted apart. While Zwingli agreed with Erasmus concerning abuses in the church, the necessity of the study of scriptures in the original languages, and perhaps the first hint of a figurative interpretation of the Lord's Supper, he disagreed with Erasmus' semi-aplagian approach to man's fallen nature. Zwingli held with Luther that man's will was in bondage to sin and Satan and had only one freedom apart from the grace of God, and that was to sin and to sin only. It was during his stay in Galerius that Zwingli went forth as a chaplain on at least three occasions with the Swiss mercenaries fighting in other countries. He saw the storming of Pavia, in 1512, the victory at Novera in 1513, and the defeat at Mareganio in 1515. He saw firsthand the bravery of his Swiss countrymen, but also the demoralizing effect of mercenary life, the suffering, and the shame. He returned to his parish determined to bring to an end the selling of human flesh for the god of war. Schaaf describes his tenures at Galerius in these terms, Zwingli became one of the most prominent and influential public men in Switzerland before he left Galerius, but he was then a humanist and a patriot rather than a theologian and religious teacher. He was zealous for intellectual culture and political reform, but chose no special interest in the spiritual welfare of the church. He did not pass through the severe struggle and violent crises like Luther, but by diligently seeking and searching, he attained to the knowledge of the truth. His conversion was a gradual intellectual process rather than a sudden breach with the world. But after he once had chosen the scriptures for his guide, he easily shook off the traditions of Rome, which never had a very strong hold upon him. That process began at Galerius and was completed in Zurich. It may surprise us to learn that at Galerius and a subsequent church at Einzadeln, Zwingli was not celibate. Although celibacy was the official stance of the church at the time, it was widely held to be a joke. Priests lived with or consorted with women on a large scale, resulting in a large population of illegitimate children. It is written that celibacy made concubinage a common and pardonable offense. The Bishop of Constance, Hugo von Hohlenlandenburg, absolved guilty priests on the payment of a fine of four guilders for every child born to them. And he is said to have derived from this source 7,500 guilders in a single year. Zwingli was, at that time, unconverted and lived in the light of the cultural mores of the time. Celibacy, being unnatural and unscriptural, put tremendous pressure on both men and women of clerical orders. Zwingli later confessed his failure at chastity, although his confession leaves somewhat to be desired, stating, I never mated with a married woman, virgin or none, but the daughter of a barber who had already been dishonored. In Zurich, he met and married a widow, Anna Reinhardt, who brought to the marriage a ready-made family. She had a number of children. He was faithful to his marriage vows, although he lived with Anna two years before legitimizing the union, because at that time they were not free to marry as of yet. Zwingli's marriage to Anna was not the passionate affair of Luther and his Katie. He addresses her as his dearest home wife and useful helpmate. Nevertheless, she made his life contented, filled with hospitality, and his children were well raised. In Einstein Del, in 1516, Zwingli was forced to leave Galerius due to the opposition of French political intrigue as Zwingli continued to oppose mercenary service. His next stop was Einsendaun with the intent of going back to Galerius when things quieted down. It is in the Catholic canton of Schwaz. Here in the Benedictine convent is to be found the famous black image of the Virgin Mary, where pilgrims still flock to worship and seek healing. At Einsendaun, Zwingli continued his studies, making good use of the library at the convent. Zwingli now began a diligent study of the Church Fathers, esteeming Jerome, Origen, and Chrysostom more than Augustine, it was said. But it was also here that Zwingli began to study the scriptures, and especially Erasmus, who had given the Greek New Testament to the world in 1516. Zwingli wrote out the epistles of Paul in Hebrew in his own handwriting that he might have a copy with him at all times. In the meantime, just as with Luther, an indulgence seller entered into the territory of Switzerland. His name was Samson, and Zwingli rose to the occasion. Zwingli claimed to preach the gospel in Switzerland before Luther's name was known in the Alps. but he admitted later that his teaching was too much based on the Fathers and not sufficiently on Scripture. Nevertheless, Zwingli was an attractive preacher, very able to gather a large hearing, with a voice adequate and clear in thought. One witness said that Zwingli preached to the people the purest philosophy of Christ from the fountain. Yet Zwingli enjoyed the confidence of the Catholic bishop and received a pension from the Pope. He was still a humanist, leaning towards Erasmus, an advanced liberal in the Church with no thought of separation from the Church. But the time had come in the purposes of God for Zwingli to play a greater role in the advancement of the Reformation. A pilgrim to Einzendelm had heard Zwingli preach and recommended him to the vacancy of Grossmunster, the chief church in Zurich. His enemies derided Zwingli, as a music lover, given to pleasure if not impurity. Nevertheless, he was elected to the ministerial post with 17 votes out of 24. And it was here in Zurich that the Swiss Reformation broke out. Zurich was one of the chief commercial cities of its age. It was founded among the rolling hills of the Lake Limmat. It was a German canton founded by King Louis of Germany, who built an abbey called the Frau Munster in 853 AD. At the time of Zwingli, it numbered 7,000 inhabitants. It was the center of international activity for the Swiss cantons. It was here the nations of the world had their embassies and sought to woo mercenaries with fame and fortune. Bullinger, son-in-law of Zwingli, said of Zürich, before the preaching of the Gospel, Zürich was in Switzerland what Corinth was in Greece. Zwingli's impact upon Zürich was electrifying. His first Sunday in the pulpit, he abandoned the lectionaries and began an exposition of the Gospel of Matthew, beginning with the genealogy of the Lord Jesus Christ. By such means, his auditors were given, for the first time, a complete picture of the life of Christ. The way of salvation was clearly brought out. His approach was manly, plain, practical, and impressive. He did not immediately attack abuses, but rather the sins of men's hearts. He soon gathered followers who said, such preaching was never heard before. Tired of old wives' tales, myths and fables, their thirsty hearts cried out, this is a genuine preacher of the truth, a Moses who will deliver the people from bondage. No portrait is available of Zwingli in his lifetime, but he is described as a fine-looking man of middle size, with a florid complexion and an agreeable and melodious voice, not strong, but it reached the hearts. As a pastor, he was cheerful, loving, kind, hospitable, and benevolent. He took special interest in students and young men whom he taught and encouraged, soon gathering some very youthful disciples. In his first year at Zurich, Zwingli vacationed at the famous Baths of Pfaffers and Regats. Here he learned of a pestilence that was passing through Switzerland and heading toward Zurich. He immediately shortened his vacation and returned to his congregation. For several weeks he gave himself unstintingly to the point of exhaustion as the pestilence ravaged the city. When it was finished, twenty-five hundred or one-third of Zurich's population had lost their lives. Zwingli was spared, but for some time felt the strain of those weeks, yet he had endeared himself to the citizens of his beloved city. Aubigné, Reformation historian, dates Zwingli's conversion and consecration to God to his experience during the plague. But unlike Luther or Paul, perhaps even Calvin, we have no account of a sudden conversion, but a gradual growth in the grace and knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ. Nevertheless, Zwingli's spiritual deepening can be traced to that event and the impact it had upon his soul as he was faced with the fragility of life. In those dark days, he wrote the following hymn, My pains increased, haste to console, For fear and woe seize body and soul. Lo, Satan strains to snatch his prey, I feel his grasp, must I give way? Death is at hand, my senses fail, My tongue is dumb, now Christ prevail. He harms me not, I fear no loss, For here I lie beneath the cross. In the year 1522, Zwingli preached a series of sermons in opposition to the forbidding of the use of meat during Lent. At the time, his publishers were working overtime on Protestant books and felt the strictures debilitating. Zwingli subsequently published his first book maintaining that the conscience is to be free in matters of secondary importance. The Bishop of Constance challenged the pastor of Grossmunster and appealed to the Council of 200 and the Swiss Diet. The Council had already warned priests to preach the gospel and forego sermons on things that pertained to human invention. The support of the Council then became instrumental in the advancing of the Reformation, and it also became a snare for Zwingli, whose reliance on the Council soon became all too apparent. For two years, Zwingli had little opposition in Zurich. He had a honeymoon. But the question of Meats brought opposition and even threats of assassination. Nevertheless, Zwingli held his ground. His book Architales, The Beginning and the End, because he hoped his first answer would be the last, aroused opposition from none other than his old friend Erasmus. the striking feature of the book being its strong insistence of the authority of the scripture over the authority of the church. Zwingli wrote, What agrees therewith, to that I hold fast. What conflicts therewith, I shall reject, notwithstanding all the hubbub that is made by those who may feel themselves aggrieved by this maxim. Zwingli now became bolder in his denunciation of medieval church teaching. He spoke out against celibacy, images, purgatory, and even the mass. His boldness required the great council to gather a number of the learned for a disputation of Zwingli's views. 600 delegates gathered at the town hall where Zwingli, six years after Luther's 95 theses, presented the Reformed Church's first confession called the 67 Conclusion. solidly reformed, they reject the primacy of the Pope, the Mass, the invitation of saints, human merit, fast pilgrimages as unscriptural commands of men. The articles are full of Christ, presenting Jesus as the sole mediator between man and God. Salvation by faith alone in the finished work of Christ, Christ the only head of the Church, that men are bound to no works except those commanded by Christ, magistrates are to be obeyed so long as they do not contradict Christ, and all spiritual leaders are to repent and preach Christ only, or perish. The Bishop of Constance sent his delegate, and others came from the cantons of Switzerland, but Zwingli clearly won the day and changes came swiftly. With the approval of the Great Council, priests and nuns were allowed to marry, convents were emptied, baptism administered in the tongues of the people, mass and images despised. Riots were fomented by angry citizens who became iconoclasts. Further disputations were held, and this time, before lay and clergy alike, the Romanists were badly represented and could not withstand the demand for reform. On Pentecost, June 20, 1524, imagine this, the reforms were enacted before magistrates and the heads of the Church. Accompanied by architects, masons, carpenters, the churches of the city were purged of pictures, relics, crucifixes, altars, candles, and all ornaments, the frescoes effaced and the walls whitewashed, so that nothing remained but the bare building to be filled with a worshipping congregation. The pictures were broken and burnt, the bones of saints were buried, even the organs were removed, and the Latin singing of the choir abolished, but fortunately replaced by congregational singing of psalms and hymns in the vernacular. Bullinger writes, within thirteen days all the churches of the city were cleared. Costly works of painting and sculpture, especially the beautiful table in the water church, were destroyed. The superstitious lamented, but the true believer rejoiced in it as a great and joyous worship of God." Here's where we launch out here. While we sometimes lose sight of what the Reformers accomplished, If you think of it in these terms, look at Zwingli's approach to the Mass. Recall that the Mass is celebrated for over 800 years. It's central to the Roman faith, the Roman church faith. It's celebrated weekly, if not daily. Christ is sacrificed on the Roman altar. Now, in place of that, Zwingli managed to abolish the Mass in favor of the scriptural Lord's Supper, celebrated not daily, not weekly, but four times a year. Further, Zwingli moved from a sacramental understanding of the Lord's Supper, where grace is bestowed to a simple ordinance of remembrance of Jesus' once-for-all sacrifice on the cross for those who believe in his name. So in three or four short years, Zwingli had done that remarkable deed of overthrowing the mass. It was his understanding of the memorial nature of the Lord's Supper, and this is one of his contributions, of course, to the church, that led to the eventual split between the Reformers and the Lucerans. Under pressure by Catholic princes, the Protestant leaders sought unity between the German and Swiss Reformers. At the Marburg Conference in 1529, Zwingli and Luther sat down to iron out any differences. They agreed on every article but the 15th. Luther claimed the bread and the wine were the actual flesh and blood of Jesus. Did not Jesus say, this is my flesh given for you? Zwingli replied that the verses were to be understood figuratively. Jesus said he was a door, but not a door literally understood. Luther pounded the table and petulantly replied, you do not have the same spirit as us. And the meeting broke without agreement. Zwingli's next contribution to the Reformed cause was baptism. Not simply the forbidding of exorcism at baptism, or having it spoke in the vernacular, in the tongue of the people, but Zwingli toyed for a bit with the idea of abandoning baptism of infants altogether. Some of the younger and more noble men of Zurich had begun to question the place of infant baptism in the church. They too had studied the scriptures and were an equal match with Zwingli in that regard. When the controversy broke out, Zwingli wrote to a friend. The former controversy with the Romanists is mere child's play to this. Why? Because the Anabaptists, as they would one day be known, and as Zwingli well knew, stood where he stood on the word of God, and were as proficient as Zwingli in the scriptures of God. In 1525, Zwingli was faced with a new challenge from a different quarter then. In the eyes of the radical reformers, as they are known in history, Zwingli's reforms were too gradual and not sufficiently thorough for their taste. The controversy would swirl around the ordinance of baptism, but its roots were more radical than either the mode or the meaning of baptism. Zwingli at one point seemed willing to abandon infant baptism, stating in one sermon, Nothing grieves me more than I am at present obliged to baptize children, for I know it ought not to be done. Certainly the Radical Reformers thought Zwingli was in their camp. At the disputation in the Grossmunster of 1525, Felix Mons, later an Anabaptist, speaking before the Great Council said, I am sure Master Zwingli understands this matter of baptism the same way I do, knows it even better perhaps, but for a reason that I do not know, he does not reveal his views. Now the question arises, of course, in the controversy, why did Zwingli change his views? Why did he stop at the threshold of a radical reformation? Why did he cling to infant baptism when he knew it was unsupported in the New Testament, or at least at one point in time felt it was unsupported? And I just throw in here, it's very interesting in reading to find that Busser and Bollinger and even Luther at one point questioned baptism. And why did Zwingli become a fanatical anabaptist? So we can call him an anti-Baptist filled with an unholy hatred for his former compatriots, co-reformers, and disciples of himself. And this leads to a greater question. Why was Zwingli so successful in his reforms in Zurich in such a short period of time? We've already seen how in such a short period of time he overthrew centuries of ingrained dogma, the mass being but one example. Well, our problem is that we think Zwingli and the other Reformers simply got into the pulpit, Bible in hand, preached in such a manner as to win their populace to the way of thinking. And in part, that is and may be true. But coinciding with this is the truth that the Reformers were heirs to an underground church whose presence was reaching a crescendo of demand for a church more in line with scriptural teaching. Now this was a church within the official church of the Holy Roman Empire. They paid minimum dues to the official religion of the empire, that is Christendom, but secretly advanced the faith once for all delivered to the saints. These views now began to surface in men like Huss and strong leaders like Zwingli and Luther and later Calvin. Their doctrines are the basic beliefs of evangelical churches today. And when the Reformation began, this underground church saw an opportunity to advance the cause of Christ more perfectly. And they looked to Reformers like Swingly with expectation, but were eventually disappointed as they were in Luther. Now, we have to keep in mind that church history just doesn't fall out in chunks, but it rolls out, as it were, with one event awaiting another event and depending on another event. Because at the ascension of Constantine as emperor, Christianity began to enjoy a favored status in the empire. And this was buttressed by the dubious arguments of none other than Augustine, who was wholly persuaded that Constantine had bestowed a great blessing upon the Church. The official religion of the Empire was to be Christianity, and everyone in the Empire was regarded to be Christians, or soon forced to be so. The sign and seal of one's membership was baptism in infancy, thus entitling you to all the privileges of the Empire as well as the Church. Certainly, from the beginning of the establishing of Christianity as the state religion, voices protested and continued to protest. The Donatists, for example, opposed the corpus christenium, or christenedom, for the corpus Christi, body of Christ. They said only those who had been born again and show forth the fruits of the Spirit are the legitimate members of the body of Christ. This protest was ridiculed by Augustine, saying that the Donatists were insignificant and must conform to the new state of things. Augustine advocated the use of the sword to invoke conformity upon pagan and his fellow believers alike. Nestorius, the church historian, wrote concerning Augustine, while personally philanthropic, His theory of one monolithic, unanimous society contained the germs of spiritual despotism, of intolerance and persecution. For one thousand years, the protest of the Donatist was carried on, sometimes publicly, more often than not, secretly. And now, in 1525, a very common event took place that was to change history. Conrad Grebel, A nobleman's son had a son whom he refused to christen in Zurich. Grebel was a scholar whose father sat on the great council. The magistrates were scandalized and wished to prosecute, but first they had to appeal to the church for a decision whether this was heresy or no. On January 17, 1523, the good burghers were invited to the town hall for a disputation between Zwingli and what would later be known as the Anabaptists, although no one had been baptized in that fashion as of yet. Zwingli knew what the magistrates expected of him. He also knew that to side with the Radical Reformers was career suicide as well as life-threatening, and he temporized. In all likelihood, he hoped that in time infant baptism would fall as had the Mass. Whatever, the Council acted immediately upon the decision that all parents who refused to baptize their children or christen them after the custom of the centuries must themselves be brought under prosecution and persecution. The Radical Reformers were determined And Zwingli in turn hardened his position. And those who were former friends were now disliked strongly by Zwingli. He consented to their death, and their manner of death, and even their torture. Now why? It is always hard to judge the motives, but in all likelihood Zwingli knew he was wrong, but Zwingli also knew he didn't want to pay the price. I quote a historian, there must have been something rankling in Zwingli's bosom, some deep-seated grudge against his erstwhile friends and associates. How otherwise to explain his deep hatred for them, a hatred that made him speak of and deal with the Anabaptists as though they were veritable demons. Though on the previous page he had a long list of un-evangelized pagans in heaven. Now Zwingli believed that un-evangelized pagans who lived rightly would go to heaven. It was Zwingli who suggested that the heretics be baptized a third time by drowning and pursued a policy that speaks of a guilty conscience. It's interesting that before that, why did they put them on the stake? The reason that they put them to the stake and fired them is because they were to gather the tares and cast them into the fire. But of course, with the idea of baptism, then the idea of drowning. As he beat a retreat, as it were, on the political front, he also beat a retreat on the theological front. He acknowledged And this is another contribution that Zwingli made, which those in the Reformed faith perhaps will appreciate, and those of us who are Baptists perhaps struggle with. He acknowledged that the Fathers had erred concerning baptism by making it a sacrament, and therefore he disagreed with Luther. Luther said that baptism had come through the church untainted, untouched. Can you imagine? Every other doctrine is tainted except baptism. But Zwingli said the infant is not brought to the font to be made a Christian because there are no magical powers in the waters themselves, but he said they come because they are already in the Christian church. They are part of the covenant that God made with Abraham and passed from generation to generation. The only difference between the sign in the Old and the New is that the Old, the sign is circumcision, while in the New it is baptism. And Zwingli's argument was much loved by other magisterial reformers, as they're called, that is, those who depended on the magistrates for reforms, because it allowed them to maintain the evangelical truths of salvation by grace through faith alone, while satisfying the magistrates as to a homogeneous and undivided society. The idea of some people living apart in a pluralistic society was simply unacceptable to the medieval mind. Zwingli did not take into account the differences between the Old and New Testament in my estimation. That the New not only fulfills the Old, but, according to Hebrews, makes it obsolete. A New Covenant takes its place that no longer says, Know the Lord, but every member will know the Lord. That circumcision was a sign and seal of Abraham's faith in God is true. but only a sign and seal of Abraham's faith in God. For Abraham's circumcision, in a sense, does reflect New Testament baptism. But for his descendants, circumcision inducted them into the physical blessings of Abraham while being a constant reminder in the flesh that they must exhibit the faith of Abraham if they were to be heirs of the spiritual blessings. Further, it seems clear that circumcision is filled in the New Covenant by regeneration. Baptism, then, is applied to those, and only those, who have been so circumcised, i.e. regenerated. The fact is, Wingly was once again defending the old Corpus Christianum. Zurich was the nation of Israel revived, and the idea of a composite society made up of defined believers and unbelievers was simply unacceptable. True biblical baptism, by the way, draws the operborium of the world for this very reason, I suspect. It separates and culls out of people who claim a distinct and higher and heavenly citizenship. Beasley Murray points out that true baptism often draws the ire of outsiders. For example, in India, amongst Hindus, christening draws no response. But when believers' baptism is practiced, the crowds hiss. If society applauds, And it is probably because christening is wrong if it hisses, it is because believers' baptism deeply offends. This led Zwingli into fatal error. Having failed morally to stand against the magistrates, even though he claimed that the magistrates go through, go contrary to Christ, dare to be opposed, he sought to justify his position theologically. And he gave a brilliant argument, and a brilliant argument it is, and we give him that much. Having sought to justify infant baptism, he now saw the need to meet the challenge of the radical reformers on another ground, concerning the purity of the churches. Like Luther, Zwingli taught a people's church. All were members of the church who had been baptized and given the sign, but only God knew who were the true believers. The sign of membership being baptism just as circumcision was applied to all males in Israel as the sign of their membership in the Israelite nation. To aim for a pure church based upon regenerate members was hypocritical, they said, and pharisaical. In order to enforce conformity, both Luther and Zwingli appealed to the magistrates as had the Roman harlot before them. As Verduin points out, when Luther went magisterial, he made it impossible for himself to preserve the New Testament emphasis on fruits bespeaking and interchange. The Anabaptists protested, saying, These two, Luther and Zwingli, have exposed all the knavery and tricks of the papal harlot, much as if they were out to smash it with thunderbolts. But they have attached themselves to the worldly powers, having put their confidence in the help of man, and it has gone with them as with a man who, as he patches an old kettle, only makes the hole bigger. They have raised up a people utterly callous in sin. And the Anabaptist was never tired of saying, whenever government and church are together, as in Bern, there cannot be the true church. And the reformers knew this too, and for a while they tried the termination of christening. But when the regnum, that is the magistrates, entered the picture and bared its teeth, the price went up and swingly back down. I give you the instance of Michael Slatter, a fine Christian man and an Anabaptist who was condemned to death because he protested the Corpus Christianum in favor of the Corpus Christi, the body of Christ. He was taken to the city center, his tongue was cut out, he was tied to a wagon, and with red hot tongs they tore his flesh to shreds five times until he reached the stake and he burned to death as an arch heretic. And this brave woman, Katerina Zell, who was a wife of one of the magisterial reformers, said to a room full of preachers, perhaps, she said, they separate from the church because of you. He who commits a crime the magistrate should punish, but his business is not to coerce and play the boss in matters of faith, as you seem to think. This belongs to the heart and to the conscience. Balthasar Hubmeier gives a different account as to how the Reformation looked to the Anabaptists. Yes, he said, the old saying is being fulfilled. It goes from bad to worse. Things are not getting better, but worse. This punch in the jaw we have to endure from the side of the worldly ones, meaning the worldly ones in the church. God have mercy on us, for we have to endure this because we keep excusing ourselves For everybody nowadays wants to be a good Christian and soundly evangelical by taking a wife, eating meat on Lent, no longer bringing sacrifices, never fasting, never praying, but all we see is boozing, gourmandizing, blasphemy, usury, lying, cheating, swindling, violating, dispossessing, forcing, flirting, loafing, harlotry, fire-setting, gambling, dancing, raping, garrotting, and murder. Oh, the pain of it. All this transpires under the cover of the Gospel. And when you say to that kind of evangelical, it is written, brother, cease from evil and do good, they shoot back at you. It is impossible for us to do good. All things are included in the decrees of God and therefore unavoidable. They think by that device everything is permissible. And if you continue, it is written that he who does evil shall go into the fire and not be quenched. Into the fire that is not quenched. They quickly find an apron-fig of leaves with which to cover their blasphemy as they say, it is written that faith alone saves us, not works. With that kind of subtlety, they manage to be and remain soundly evangelical. This is a protest to the Anabaptists. It wasn't simply baptism. It was simply the purity of the Church. What is the Church? And what is the Church to be made of? And if you think it's Anabaptist trumpery, then listen to Luther. This is a little hard, by the way. I was glad to hear your zeal for Christian discipline, but in this sad time, I dare not introduce such a thing. But the Anabaptists were, and it cost them their lives. Besides, he went on in a very unpleasant fashion. You know you have to let a peasant do his bit of boozing, and a drunken guy will wet a haycock down. Luther hung back, but the Anabaptists did not. And in a few short years, they established an underground church of phenomenal success. One Baptist pastor baptizing Poland over 6,000 converts in six months. So successful, in fact, that the rival church under the Reformers were forced to double the police force to try in vain to stop the flood now let loose. As for Zwingli, he was fully committed to the use of the sword against his former companions in Christ. The consequences had far-reaching results. One of the earliest martyrs was Felix Mons, who had gone to the dispensation and tried to persuade Zwingli in the Council of 200, condemned for being involved in rebaptism and having confessed that he wanted to gather only those who confessed Christ and followed him, and to separate themselves from the state church. Such doctrine being harmful to the united usage, it was said of him of all Christendom and against sound government, man's was placed in a rowboat with his wrists firmly tied together and passed over his cock-knees. A heavy piece of wood thrust between his bent knees and elbows, he was rode out into the Limmat River, thrown overboard, and drowned. And that was the beginning of many such like martyrs. I write to show this because, as Joe Vandenberg said, we write concerning these men in history that we might rejoice in the great things that they did, but we might also escape from the mistakes that they followed. Zwingli was not guiltless. He wavered at the very point which Scripture demands, a church free from state authority, in which Jesus Christ alone is head. A church, as Baptists at least, we believe, made up of regenerated members only, and the sign being Believers' Baptism. And his wavering cost his life nonetheless, for it was inevitable that the two Christendoms, Rome and the Reformed, would clash, but they would be in the same bed when it came to the Anabaptists. Both appealed to the sword and to the magistrate to protect the one true church. And in the Battle of Capelle, the Protestants had won victory over the Catholic countenance, and the terms of peace ensued. But Zwingli was anxious for a full military victory, because he realized that the Protestants would only get weaker and the Catholics stronger. But the Bernese, his allies, insisted on terms of peace. But when the Catholics again broke the treaty sanctions, or the treaty sanctions were imposed, And the Catholics, now desperate and having nothing to lose, marched to war with 7,000 strong to 1,500 Protestants. Zwingli, seeing what was forthcoming before the war started, sought to resign, but the magistrates he had relied on refused to accept his resignation. On October 9, 1535, the Protestant forces were defeated, and as Verdun describes it, His body was slain on the field, his hands still clutching in death the musket he had shouldered in the service of this new hybrid. This was a truly horrible way for a career that had held such great promise at the outset to end. But the pit which Swingly had dug he fell into. He had taught that the regnum, the magistrates, of the Protestant cantons had the duty to suppress by forms of arm, if need be, every religion but the right one. Meanwhile, other men of the class were teaching the regnum of the Catholic cantons the same wisdom. In his last agonizing days, Zwingli said, a chain has been forged, and it is all but complete, one that will cut off the head of many a devout Zuricher. A little later, the hybrid held in its grisly maw the body of Ulrich Zwingli. Now, just some lessons in conclusion. What is Zwingli's legacy to the church? I would suggest two things. Zwingli's legacy to the church was certainly in the area of infant baptism. He rescued it, and he rescued it by the argument I was saying that New Testament baptism is the fulfillment of Old Testament circumcision. And just as Abraham and his children were all to be circumcised, so the believer and all their children were to be baptized. And it's an argument that's powerful. It's an argument I'm sure here some this morning would want to defend. But it was Zwingli's argument. And while it has been advanced, It was Zwingli who first proposed it and proposed it soundly. It was Zwingli also who gave to us the understanding of the Lord's Supper, especially for Baptists in figurative terms, and went further than some in the Reformed faith when he demanded that it be remembered or practiced as a memorial. And we see the blood of Jesus as figurative as we see the bread as figurative of the body of the Lord Jesus Christ, reminding us of the once for all sacrifice on the cross. But Zungle was a man, after all, and he had the failures of a man, a brilliant man and a scholar. Yet he wavered, I believe, my thesis is right, when he ought to have trusted. His reliance on the state, I believe, set back the Reformation at least 300 years and it stained the Reformed churches with the blood of good and innocent people for at least 200 years after that. It forged a church state that would eventually undermine the doctrine of the formers and would be a breeding ground of rationalism centuries later. His reliance on the sword is contrary to the true teachings of Jesus for his church. It is a reminder in our day and age that the church is not to rely on the state nor appeal to the state to assist in the advancement of the concerns of the church. Our weapons are not carnal but spiritual, Paul says, and how long will it take the church to learn that? In the face of the renewed attempt to establish a theocracy after old Israel in America, we must strongly resist. We, especially as Baptists, have a deep stake in this. Theonomy is the old Church-Constantinian hybrid that has been the death of the Church for centuries. And I believe that God punished Wingly for the ruthlessness which he pursued and sought to destroy his former companions in the faith and lovers of Christ. that Zwingli was a Christian, no one will deny, but we see what sometimes happens to us if we imbibe the wisdom of the world rather than the true wisdom of Christ. I am thankful to the Reformers and Zwingli for their penetrating insights into the doctrines of grace and salvation by faith alone, but insofar as their understanding of the New Testament Church is concerned, they were sadly misinformed. They did not make a complete break with Roman Catholic baptism, for Luther calling it the only doctrine that came down through the centuries untouched, and they did not allow the headship of Christ to be preeminent, and they did not seek the necessary separation of church and state, and they failed to insist upon a distinction between the company of the redeemed and the worldling in their midst. Amen. Now, I just might add, boy, that had to be boring. I almost fell asleep reading it. But I think we'll have questions. Don't you? Well, someone's got their hand up already. Not yet. Time out. I have to take a Coke. The question for the tape. Is it true that Is it true that the Anabaptists opposed the doctrines of grace? That the Radical Reformation jeopardized the success of the proper Reformation? And that all damnable heresies from the 16th and 17th century can be traced back to the Radical Reformation? And is there any proof in the public writings of Zwingli that to substantiate the claims that he was a closet or secret anabaptist? Mr. Robinson? Well, I commend you, you picked up the paper very well. I'll start with the last one first. There's no proof in his writings that he was a closet Anabaptist. But, nevertheless, the Anabaptists felt betrayed by Zwingli, and they felt betrayed by Zwingli because time and time again they insisted that Zwingli had changed his mind. and that they had every reason to believe at one point in time that they would be supported by him. Now there is a quote from one of his sermons saying that he regrets having to baptize infants but of course again that's not written and so you could say maybe that's hearsay but certainly his opponents felt that at one time Zwingli was in their camp and they felt also that the same of Luther that he would continue the Reformation rather than halting it. So you can defend Zwingli on those grounds. You can say he never did change his mind. But I believe he did. And I believe that the Anabaptists weren't lying when they were in disputation with them. And Felix Mance wasn't lying when he said, Zwingli knows this, and he knows it better than I. And I don't understand why he won't reveal it. And I believe Zwingli wouldn't reveal it because he knew exactly what would happen when the magistrates said otherwise. I think, what was the other question now? Yes, that's right. Well, the Anabaptists are not a homogeneous group. And there are three types of Anabaptists. There are the evangelical Anabaptists, and then there are the Anabaptists who receive revelation through the Spirit and through the Bible out. But you have to keep in mind that many people were, if you didn't belong to the Catholic Church or the Reformed Church, you were just lumped as an Anabaptist. The name Anabaptist covers a lot of group of people that shouldn't be there at all. The main body of Anabaptists coming from the Waldensians, because I believe there was an underground church fomenting reformation, and that these reformers, the reason that they were so successful in part And the reason that they advanced so quickly at that time is not that the Reformation started in 1517 with Martin Luther, but the Reformation was already boiling and percolating underneath, and Luther was the one through whom it suddenly burst forth. The Waldensians and others were teaching true evangelical doctrine within Christendom at the time. I don't believe the Anabaptists are the source of all heresy. I think that's quite wrong. If you read their confessions, you see that many of the things they believed, fought for, and taught were soundly based on scripture, which we believe and practice today. Did Anabaptists believe the doctrines of grace? Not likely. Some did, of course, but I think in part because of what I mentioned in the paper, the doctrines of grace were sometimes used as a cover for sin. And we can't help ourselves because God destined everything so we can practice our wickedness and they sought hard for a purity of church. But I say, in defense of the Anabaptists, that we have to be careful, because their enemies had the press. They had the power. The Anabaptists didn't have the press. They didn't have the power. They often didn't have time to write theological works, because they were hunted and persecuted. And anybody that differed from the two churches was linked as an Anabaptist. And many times, it was quite unfair, because the Anabaptists didn't hold those views at all. There was another question there? Or was that answered those questions? They're well put, I appreciate it. Yes, that's an interesting question because it's probably at the very heart of the paper because that's exactly what Zwingli would have felt. They asked him in the disputation, they said, Zwingli, if the magistrates go contrary to the scriptures, you would oppose it. He said, that's right. That was fundamental doctrine with him. But the fact is, he didn't. Did they undermine the true reformation? Well, one has to assume that Luther and Zwingli and Calvin were giving us the true reformation, and my contention is they were giving us a new hybrid, more closely linked to the New Testament, and more closely in line with the New Testament, but it still was not the complete reformation. It didn't separate church and state. It continued to use the magistrates as a sword to wield against those who opposed them. And it's only in our centuries, after centuries of bitter religious strife, that Reformed churches have come to the place where they see themselves as separate from the state as well. As interesting as that happens, the so-called sign of the covenant, baptism, weakens, always. Because the sign of the covenant is always connected with the nation as a whole. The sign being applied to everybody. Everybody considered Christian within the nation. So my answer to that was that when those Anabaptists had the same choice as Wingly, but the difference was they said, we'll give our life. for this, for a pure church. And that's exactly what they did. They knew exactly what would happen to them. I don't think they jeopardized the Reformation at all. I think that they finally, as a matter of fact, I think in God's time, they finally won out. Question over here. We'll get to you, George. You have to keep in mind, of course, that, or at least I think you have to keep one thing in mind. Why were they so opposed to the magistrate? And I think that it's maybe a lesson for all of us this morning is that we are creatures often not of action, but reaction. Faced with persecution and faced with, in many instances, a hostile magistrate, the reaction was that all magistrates are the devil and one ought not to be involved in politics. But they certainly had a view which reveals itself in Hutterite communities, Mennonite communities, who we come right out of the world. We're a community unto ourselves. We don't have intercourse or communion with the world. And that was certainly a legacy that they left to the world. And you may be quite correct that it wasn't a biblical legacy in that regard. And I agree with you. I'm not so sure we want to trace Baptist roots back to Anabaptists, but certainly many of the things they taught, the supremacy of the scripture, the importance of separation of church and state, Jesus being the head of the church, the purity of the church, are things we want to defend today. And of course, in Reformed churches, they want to defend the same thing, obviously, today. the purity of the church. The problem with Zwingli is he had a real problem because what would happen is if the princes said, okay, this canton will be Protestant, well, boom, everybody in the place had to be Protestant. And you had to conform, period. No questions asked. That legacy lingered in the church for a long time and does in some churches today, Greek Orthodox and others. The question is, are there any Mennonite groups today that believe in some form of baptism? I assume that they baptize believers. Maybe I assume too much, I don't know. Someone knows here about Mennonites. They do all three. The interesting thing about Mennonites, though, is they do the very thing that they complained against. Isn't that interesting in history? You see, they complained that you can't force religion on the conscience, so they form a community purely of Mennonites, and woe betide a Mennonite boy or girl who doesn't go along with the conscience of the community. They find themselves outside the community. You see, I remember Dr. Masters saying, we have to give our children, we have to give people the right to say no. Because if you place your child in a situation where he must be a Christian, or your community places children where they must be a Christian, you've got a real problem. And the Mennonites ended up where? where they didn't want to end up in one of the ironies of history. You can't force Christianity on the conscience. It's the weapons of grace. First part of the question, I believe, was in what ways was Wingly hobbled by Right, by the edict laid forth by the magistrates. Right, that Zwingli was to reform the church based solely on the word of God. Well, he certainly hobbled when it came to the subject of baptism. As soon as the disputation took place, it was a court that was packed in favor of the continuation of infant baptism for the sake of the homogeneous community. Many of those who were leaning towards believer's baptism didn't even want to participate in the disputation because they knew that the question had already been decided by the magistrates. So there was a constant interference in the church by the magistrates, and Zwingli knew this as well, and even when he attempted to resign, they rejected his resignation and so he followed through with the battle at Capelle. When we talk about Romans 13, I think the problem here is, that's what I was thinking when you were saying, I think the problem is we don't make a distinction between preserving grace and saving grace. In the Old Testament, you have a community where there's preserving grace and also saving grace. But in the New Testament, people, you have saving grace. The magistrates, in Paul's idea, are preserving grace. They preserve order. They punish the wicked. But they don't advance the kingdom of God. In the Old Testament, of course, the theocracy of the people is all one thing. And therefore, there's a preserving grace going on there in the Old Testament. And the sword is used to enforce conformity. But even in the Old Testament, God starts to make a distinction between the Saul who is king and the Saul who sacrifices on the altar. And he begins the distinction in a society. that God's purposes may be different than the state itself. But I believe that Zwingli was hobbled, and he felt hobbled. But I also believe that Zwingli knew that his pension was with the magistrates, and I also believe that Zwingli, although I don't account him as a coward, he was not that, I believe that he knew the cost. I mentioned the one fellow there because that's exactly what happened. The Anabaptists knew that they'd have to pay the price. But I should add, that may be a little harsh, because when you try to judge a motive of man, that's difficult. What was his motive? If it is true that at one time he even advanced the argument that maybe infant baptism wasn't right, why did he change his mind? Well, you might say it was purely scriptural, and that's a possibility. That has to be fought on scriptural grounds. So I want to be fair to Swingly because I'm going to meet him someday and he'll say, hey, I heard you. Now Nestorius, well, it's the old tale, isn't it, that bad men can speak good things. And even a heretic can tell the truth. The fact is, he doesn't lie about Augustine. Augustine wrote things against the Donatists that were simply wicked. And his attack on the Donatists, I believe, was an attack upon what was probably the cream of the church at the time. And it was Augustine that set up the whole idea of church and state working together to employ and advance the kingdom of Christ. And I believe Nestorius is right that he laid the groundwork for men who came later to use the sword and ultimately the apex which is called the Inquisition. We'll do that next year. Well, there were charges against Zwingli. Is there any evidence of Zwingli in his life being charged in a negative way with being a Whitlipite? I'm not aware of it, but I am aware of the fact that he was charged with Waldensian Hussite thoughts, and the reformers constantly tried to stay away from that. They constantly denied that what they were teaching was linked with this, not because what Huss and Wycliffe weren't teaching was right. but simply because they realized that names, after a while, have a certain operborium about them. Fundamentalism is a good name, but because of what has happened in fundamentalism, if you call someone a fundamentalist today, we sort of shy away and say, well, I'd prefer if you said I was an evangelical or reformed evangelical. Because names in history gather certain, and that's what happened to Huss, even though Luther was amazed when he sat down to take a look at Huss that he was teaching the same thing. Why? Because they're coming from the same source, the word of God. And my contention is, the opening of my eyes in part to this, is we think the reformers come along, stood in the pulpit, and everybody was saved, and they went out and they reformed society, and they reformed economy, and on. on and on. As a matter of fact, there was a whole underground, I believe, going on within the church that was pressuring and demanding reform, and ideas were circulating, and some of these ideas had already to do with the mass, questions of image, questions of pilgrimage. These were the ideas in the mind of these people, and when a man like Zwingli, who had a powerful preaching voice and the ability to gather people, got in the pulpit, he found a ready reception. He found men and women who said, my heart's so hungry and thirsty, we're hearing the Word of God. No longer fables, no longer wise tales, no longer myths. And I believe that that's what made it possible in two or three years time. Imagine to change the whole mass, sweep the altar out, sweep the mass out, and have the Lord's Supper four times a year. Why did they have it four times a year? Because they were tired of having it every week and every day. I don't know, you know, why four times a year? No, I'm not aware of any association with Wycliffe, but I am aware that Zwingli was charged with bringing up these areas of the Waldensians and the other areas, ideas that were floating about. Yeah. Perhaps one more question. I'll go to a home church man there, George. Interesting, because there's a human tendency that runs against the scriptures all the time. And I think Verduin's got it right when he talks about a sacral society. A sacral society is a society in which there's a homogeneous society in which everybody believes the same thing, worships at the same altar, and follows through the same rites. And Christianity has fought the sacral society since its birth, when Jesus was crucified. For people not familiar with sacral society, just let me say, if you're an Apache, you were born with your religion. You had an Apache religion, and you did the same rites, and it was the priest who had the insight and the mystery, and he was the one that had control and authority in the society. And it's interesting, in Apache society, you weren't interested in evangelizing anybody else outside of your society. And you weren't interested in evangelizing anybody in your society because you're all the same. Now in our society today, we have a sacral society. But it's not the religion of Christianity, but it's the religion of the secular man. So what our secular society does is that all you children and all you adults will conform to this idea that all religions are the same. And you'll conform to this idea that we will tolerate all religions and ideas except opposition to secularism. And that's where Christianity makes its thrust again. And Christianity demands the sovereign rights of Jesus Christ. Its rights to evangelize in that society and outside of that society. And so the two beasts that you get in Revelation are very interesting because they are politics on the one hand, the government on one hand, and false religion on the other, and they support each other to keep that homogeneous society and to keep out the people of Jesus Christ. But there the suffering begins economically and sometimes physically. And I think that according to my paper, and I'm not a historian by any stretch of the imagination, but you had a sacral society, and the Magisterial Reformers said, you will conform, just like the Romans said you'll conform, and the Baptists said, we have to, Anabaptists said, we have to remain pure to Christ. What happened to the Catholics? Did they have to move away? Over to you. The pressure would begin to build up upon them. They would be denied priests, they would be denied their worship, they would be denied perhaps economic opportunity.