Doctoral Marginalia: Luther vs. Zwingli

This thought comes from my reading of History of the Reformation in the 16th Century, Vol. 3 by J.H. Merle D’Aubigné. D’Aubigné (1794–1872) was a Swiss Reformed historian and theologian who served as professor of church history at the Theological School of Geneva.

In Book 11, Chapter 4, he writes:

“The Swiss Reformation here presents itself under an aspect somewhat different from that of the German Reformation. Luther had risen up against the excesses of those who had broken the images in the churches of Wittenberg; and in Zwingli’s presence the idols fell in the temples of Zurich. This difference is explained by the different lights in which the two reformers viewed the same object. Luther desired to maintain in the Church all that was not expressly contrary to the Scriptures, and Zwingli to abolish all that could not be proved by them. The German reformer wished to remain united to the Church of the preceding ages, and was content to purify it of all that was opposed to the Word of God. The Zurich reformer passed over these ages, returned to the apostolic times, and, carrying out an entire transformation of the Church, endeavored to restore it to its primitive condition.”

While Luther and Zwingli agreed in many ways, we find within D’Aubigné’s assessment perhaps the most pointed area of disagreement.

Their differing views of the Lord’s Supper have been a great topic of discussion, but what is somewhat less well known is their disagreement over the principle (or methodology) of worship.

These differences can be summarized, although anachronistically, in what we now call the Normative Principle of Worship (Lutheran view) and the Regulative Principle of Worship (Reformed view).

Simply, the Normative Principle allows for anything not forbidden in Scripture to be used in the church’s worship, while the Regulative Principle only permits what is expressly commanded to be used.

Luther and Zwingli stand historically as the fountainheads of these two ideas. As expressed in the quote above, these differing views can be seen in the destruction of images.

The images in the churches, for Luther, were a matter of Christian liberty: not commanded, but not forbidden, and so they should be left standing. For Zwingli, the absence of a command was an answer in itself. What Scripture had not instituted, the Church had no right to keep.

The real dispute beneath the images was one of authority: what may the Church use in worship? Luther preserved the old forms, albeit chastened. Zwingli cleared them away, calling the Church back to apostolic simplicity. Both believed themselves faithful, not novel.

D’Aubigné’s sympathies lie with Zwingli, and the Regulative Principle found its fullest voice a century later in the Westminster Standards.

And while the two men shared in a disagreement over images, they also shared a common conviction in Scripture’s sufficiency. It was simply worked out toward different ends.

So, the footnote leaves a question to the reader. When it comes to worship, is it enough that a thing is not forbidden, or must it be commanded?

Which do you think is right?

For an explanation of the Doctoral Marginalia series, click here.

To purchase “History of the Reformation in the 16th Century” by J.H. Merle d’Aubigné, click here.

Some links above may be affiliate links. If you purchase through them, this publication may receive a small commission at no additional cost to you.