Infused v. Imputed

Infused v. Imputed

Article by Scott Windsor 

This is, perhaps, the dividing line between Catholics and (especially Calvinist) Protestants when it comes to Justification.  What do these terms really mean?  Let us begin first with definitions coming from each side as they define the terms then proceed with examination of the arguments.

Infused Righteousness (Catholic Position)

CCC 1999: The grace of Christ is the gratuitous gift that God makes to us of his own life, infused by the Holy Spirit into our soul to heal it of sin and to sanctify it. It is the sanctifying or deifying grace received in Baptism. It is in us the source of the work of sanctification.

It is really as simple as that - grace is infused into the soul.  The soul is healed.

Imputed Righteousness (Protestant Position)

Lest we should stumble at the very threshold (this we should do were we to begin the discussion without knowing what the subject is), let us first explain the meaning of the expressions, To be justified in the sight of God, to be Justified by faith or by works. A man is said to be justified in the sight of God when in the judgment of God he is deemed righteous, and is accepted on account of his righteousness; 2038 for as iniquity is abominable to God, so neither can the sinner find grace in his sight, so far as he is and so long as he is regarded as a sinner. Hence, wherever sin is, there also are the wrath and vengeance of God. He, on the other hand, is justified who is regarded not as a sinner, but as righteous, and as such stands acquitted at the judgment-seat of God, where all sinners are condemned. As an innocent man, when charged before an impartial judge, who decides according to his innocence, is said to be justified by the judge, as a man is said to be justified by God when, removed from the catalogue of sinners, he has God as the witness and assertor of his righteousness. In the same manner, a man will be said to be justified by works, if in his life there can be found a purity and holiness which merits an attestation of righteousness at the throne of God, or if by the perfection of his works he can answer and satisfy the divine justice. On the contrary, a man will be justified by faith when, excluded from the righteousness of works, he by faith lays hold of the righteousness of Christ, and clothed in it appears in the sight of God not as a sinner, but as righteous. Thus we simply interpret justification, as the acceptance with which God receives us into his favor as if we were righteous; and we say that this justification consists in the forgiveness of sins and the imputation of the righteousness of Christ. (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion Book III, Chapter 11.2)

They admit that the sinner, freely delivered from condemnation, obtains justification, and that by forgiveness of sins; but under the term justification they comprehend the renovation by which the Spirit forms us anew to the obedience of the Law; and in describing the righteousness of the regenerate man, maintain that being once reconciled to God by means of Christ, he is afterwards deemed righteous by his good works, and is accepted in consideration of them. The Lord, on the contrary, declares, that he imputed Abraham’s faith for righteousness (Rom. 4:3), not at the time when he was still a worshipper of idols, but after he had been many years distinguished for holiness. Abraham had long served God with a pure heart, and performed that obedience of the Law which a mortal man is able to perform: yet his righteousness still consisted in faith. Hence we infer, according to the reasoning of Paul, that it was not of works. In like manners when the prophet says, “The just shall live by his faith,” (Hab. 2:4), he is not speaking of the wicked and profane, whom the Lord justifies by converting them to the faith: his discourse is directed to believers, and life is promised to them by faith. Paul also removes every doubt, when in confirmation of this sentiment he quotes the words of David, “Blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered 2081,” (Ps. 32:1). 

I answer, that the grace which they call accepting, is nothing else than the free goodness with which the Father embraces us in Christ when he clothes us with the innocence of Christ, and accepts it as ours, so that in consideration of it he regards us as holy, pure, and innocent. For the righteousness of Christ (as it alone is perfect, so it alone can stand the scrutiny of God) must appear in court for us, and as a surety represent us judicially. Provided with this righteousness, we constantly obtain the remission of sins through faith. Our imperfection and impurity, covered with this purity, are not imputed but are as it were buried, so as not to come under judgment until the hour arrive when the old man being destroyed, and plainly extinguished in us, the divine goodness shall receive us into beatific peace with the new Adam, there to await the day of the Lord, on which, being clothed with incorruptible bodies, we shall be translated to the glory of the heavenly kingdom. (John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book III, Chapter, XIV, Nos. 11 and 12).

In short, righteousness covers over sin - but does not remove it.  The righteousness only makes the sin "covered" and "buried" so that we do not come under judgement.  It is not so different from the paraphrase of Luther in the statement of "snow covered dung."  Below is some research I have previously done on this alleged statement from Luther:

He may not have said those exact words, though he has been allegedly quoted as saying such, not merely by Catholics, but even by other Lutherans. The paraphrase may have come from Martin Luther’s Sermon on Our Blessed Hope (St. Louis Ed. IX: 930-957):

"We see grain sowed in the ground. Reason now asks: What happens to the grain in winter that has been sowed in the ground? Is it not a dead, moldy, decayed thing, covered with frost and snow? But in its own time it grows from that dead, moldy, decayed grain into a beautiful green stalk, which flourishes like a forest and produces a full, fat ear on which there are 20, 30, 40 kernels, and thereby finds life where only death existed earlier. Thus God has done with heaven, earth, sun and moon, and does every year with the grain in the field. He calls to that which is nothing that it should become something and does this contrary to all reason. Can He not also do something which serves to glorify the children of God, even though it is contrary to all reason?"

We do get closer to the saying here:

"I said before that our righteousness is dung in the sight of God. Now if God chooses to adorn dung, he can do so" (Luther's Works, Vol. 34, page 184).

In that same document Luther adds:

"All the justified could glory in their works, if they would attribute glory to God with respect to themselves. In this manner they would not be dung, but ornaments" (Luther's Works, Vol. 34, page 178). http://cathapol.blogspot.com/2006/10/luthers-snow-covered-dunghill.html

The bottom line here is that Luther and Calvin are not far apart on this issue as both see justification as a "covering" of ones sin.

The Contrast

The contrast then is the Catholic position is one of healing and restoration of the soul to a condition of righteousness whereas the Protestant position doesn't cure or change anything - it simply covers it up - leaving the sinner with his sin (thus impure and cannot enter Heaven, according to Revelation 21:27).  Now this, alone, would not be so bad IF the Protestant position accepted Purgatory, wherein any stain of remaining sin in those who have been judged "righteous" or "saved" can be "purged," but they also reject Purgatory!  Thus the doctrine of imputation, as THEY define it, leaves them condemned to Hell!  The Catholic position of infusion of righteousness washes away sin and restores the soul to a state of grace which enables the person to be "saved" even if some stain of (venial) sin might remain, that too can be "cured" in Purgatory.  

Now the Protestant will argue, "How can one who has been imputed righteousness and judged righteous be condemned to Hell?"  And again, it is not the Catholic position that such a person would be condemned.  Those with any stain of sin remaining after they have been judged while still being "saved" will have their works tested.  If there are good works, they will endure the testing and the person will be rewarded; if there are bad works (sin) then these will be "burned up" and this person, though already judged as "saved" will "suffer loss."  This is fundamentally clear in St. Paul's words to the Corinthians:

 ¹³ Every man's work shall be manifest; for the day of the Lord shall declare it, because it shall be revealed in fire; and the fire shall try every man's work, of what sort it is.

¹⁴ If any man's work abide, which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward.

¹⁵ If any man's work burn, he shall suffer loss; but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire.

(1 Corinthians 3:13-15, DRB)

This is as clear of a testimony to Purgatory and describes exactly what will take place there!  I repeat again, this passage speaks to men who have already been deemed to be "saved" and their works are being tested by fire and those which "burn" will cause this saved person to "suffer loss."  But I digress.

Back to the point, in the Protestant position of imputation the person is "clothed" or "covered" in righteousness, but like a snow covered dunghill, the sin remains.  A clothing or covering does not change or remove that which is clothed or covered.  In the Catholic position righteousness is infused into the soul, the soul is changed.  

Non-Religious Examples:

Infused:  Gasoline which is infused with ethenol, while still gasoline is now a cleaner burning gasoline - it has been changed.  A coach can "infuse the team with confidence" (source).

Imputed: To assign fault, blame or credit.  "An example of to impute is find an oil leak as the cause for a car breaking down" (source). 

A Matter of Semantics?

I believe that when push comes to shove, the Protestant will acknowledge that the person is changed by this imputation, but if they do - then what they are really doing is accepting the Catholic position of infusion.  It would seem that they must ultimately accept the Catholic position here, even if they continue to call it "imputed righteousness," for as explained earlier, such an imputation does not change anything, it only covers it up.  In the Lord's Day (the Judgment) when all our works are tested - the "snow" will be melted away and expose that which it covered.  Any sin which remains will be a cause of suffering for the person (again, who has already been judged to be "saved" at this point).  So, when we get down to the fundamentals here, are not the Protestants still affirming the Catholic position?  If so, why is this a major point of contention between us?  

I plea to our Separated Brethren, why not come home?

  

  

God of Calvinism

SW: I wrote: "Our God is not the god of Calvinism."(1)  To which John Lollard wrote:

JL: I think that's a strange thing to hear you say. How seriously do you believe that Calvinists worship a false god of their own construction?

SW: I am quite serious about this.  They have taken a few verses from the context of Scripture as a whole and portray God as an unloving, arbitrary and unjust god.  I know, they reject this portrayal, but truly they can't get around it.   A favorite cited in response to Catholics is Romans 9:18,  "Therefore he hath mercy on whom he will; and whom he will, he hardeneth."   This is not saying that God has already decided, in our view of time, whom He will have mercy upon or whom He will harden, only that in specific cases, such as Pharoah (v. 17) where He has singled out someone to demonstrate His power, "To this purpose have I raised thee, that I may shew my power in thee, and that my name may be declared throughout all the earth."  Consider why God would want to "show His power" - that His Name may be declared throughout the earth... not just "the Elect" - but the entire earth.   Why would God need to have His Name declared throughout the earth if He's already decided whom He will save and whom He will condemn?  Calvinist logic is severely lacking here!

The context continues on:  

¹⁹Thou wilt say therefore to me: Why doth he then find fault? for who resisteth his will? ²⁰O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it: Why hast thou made me thus? ²¹Or hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump, to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?  ²²What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath, fitted for destruction, ²³That he might shew the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he hath prepared unto glory?  

The Calvinist would compare the Catholic position to the clay complaining to the Potter, however, again, the context is NOT about everyone in general being created for mercy or hardening, but for specific cases, like Pharoah.  Again, it makes no sense that God would need or want to proclaim His power to the earth if He's already made up His mind.

JL: For instance, if Calvinists worship a different (and hence false) god, then are they Christians?

SW: That would depend on how hard you want to draw the line of defining "Christian."  If that line is drawn at "one who believes in Jesus Christ," then I would say they are Christian.  Likewise, I would say Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses are Christian by that standard.  If the line is drawn at "one who believes Jesus Christ is True God and True Man, who gives Himself freely to ALL who will accept Him as their Lord and Savior," that pretty much eliminates the LDS, JWs AND Calvinists.  So, when I speak "seriously" about this matter of a "different gospel" and/or the "false god of Calvinism," it is this higher view of God, not the overly simplified "one who believes in Jesus Christ."

JL: If so, then in what sense?

SW: Well, I have pretty much answered that above.  To reiterate, if one is taking this higher view of God as One who "freely gives" Himself to ALL who will accept Him, then we (Catholics v. Calvinists) don't have the same deity.  

JL:  In worshipping their false Calvinist deity, are they guilty of idolatry?

SW:  Idolatry implies the worship of an actual object, like a statue or a mountain or a tree, so no, I would not call their worship "idolatry."

SW: The above answers the direct questions Mr. Lollard asked, but how about some more details?

What is the god of Calvinism?

Calvinism adheres to a strict concept of predestination where by they believe that God has already predestined everyone to Heaven or Hell.  Let us look at Calvin's own words:

In conformity, therefore, to the clear doctrine of the Scripture, we assert, that by an eternal and immutable counsel, God has once for all determined, both whom he would admit to salvation, and whom he would condemn to destruction. We affirm that this counsel, as far as concerns the elect, is founded on his gratuitous mercy, totally irrespective of human merit; but that to those whom he devotes to condemnation, the gate of life is closed by a just and irreprehensible, but incomprehensible, judgment. In the elect, we consider calling as an evidence of election, and justification as another token of its manifestation, till they arrive in glory, which constitutes its completion. As God seals his elect by vocation and justification, so by excluding the reprobate from the knowledge of his name and the sanctification of his Spirit, he affords an indication of the judgement that awaits them. (emphasis mine).(2)

Now, while I agree with Calvin that for those who are saved this is founded/based on His gratuitous mercy and is totally irrespective of human merit.  No one "earns" salvation, but that is not what Calvinists of today focus on here!  They focus on the bolded text above and have developed an ungodly (from the perspective of the True God) concept of predestination.  I have recently had a discussion on "foreknowledge" with Barry Hofstetter(3)  and I believe it is this concept of foreknowledge or "prescience" where Calvinism goes awry.  

A proper sense of this foreknowledge or "prescience" would be based in the fact that from God's perspective there is no past or future.  God is outside of our concept of time.  RC Sproul explains it this way, separating foreknowledge from what God foreordains:

If God foreordains anything, it is absolutely certain that what He foreordains will come to pass. The purpose of God can never be frustrated. Even God's foreknowledge or prescience makes future events certain with respect to time. That is to say, if God knows on Tuesday that I will drive to Pittsburgh on Friday, then there is no doubt that, come Friday, I will drive to Pittsburgh. Otherwise God's knowledge would have been in error. Yet, there is a significant difference between God's knowing that I would drive to Pittsburgh and God's ordaining that I would do so. Theoretically He could know of a future act without ordaining it, but He could not ordain it without knowing what it is that He is ordaining. But in either case, the future event would be certain with respect to time and the knowledge of God.(4)

This brings us back to the so-called "Golden Chain of Redemption" discussion:

²⁹For whom he foreknew, he also predestinated to be made conformable to the image of his Son; that he might be the firstborn amongst many brethren.³⁰And whom he predestinated, them he also called. And whom he called, them he also justified. And whom he justified, them he also glorified. Romans 8:29-30

God does not predestine those whom He has not first foreknown!  Therein lies the fatal flaw of Calvinism's view on predestination!  Sproul (whom I often disagree with) has it right when he said, "He could not ordain it without knowing what it is that He is ordaining."  So those whom He has foreknown to make the right decisions and to persevere until the end of the race, it is those whom God has foreordained and calls "the elect."  If it were not so then Scripture itself would not make sense where it tells us to "persevere" and "run to win the race" or to "buffet (our) body" as St. Paul Himself said:

²⁷But I chastise (buffet) my body, and bring it into subjection: lest perhaps, when I have preached to others, I myself should become a castaway. 1 Corinthians 9:27

If St. Paul himself worries about losing his own soul and becoming a "castaway" - how much more should the rest of us be concerned?  God does already know where we'll be at the "end of the race" - but from OUR PERSPECTIVE we cannot and do not KNOW this.  We can have confidence in the fact that by His Grace He has given us the strength to accomplish the desired end(5) and that He will not allow us to be tempted beyond our ability to resist the temptation(6).  These scriptural concepts make no sense if God foreordains WITHOUT foreknowledge of the outcomes of our temptations and/or perseverance.

Sometimes called the "classicus locus"(7) regarding Calvinism's predestination is Ephesians 1:3-11:

³Blessed by the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with spiritual blessings in heavenly places, in Christ:
⁴As he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and unspotted in his sight in charity.
⁵Who hath predestinated us unto the adoption of children through Jesus Christ unto himself: according to the purpose of his will:
⁶Unto the praise of the glory of his grace, in which he hath graced us in his beloved son.
⁷In whom we have redemption through his blood, the remission of sins, according to the riches of his grace,
⁸Which hath superabounded in us in all wisdom and prudence,
⁹That he might make known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure, which he hath purposed in him,
¹⁰In the dispensation of the fulness of times, to re-establish all things in Christ, that are in heaven and on earth, in him.
¹¹In whom we also are called by lot, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things according to the counsel of his will.

Now, keep in mind, the person writing this also wrote what we read above in 1 Corinthians 9:27!  So, either we have a contradiction of thought in St. Paul of 1 Corinthians v. St. Paul of Ephesians or this concept of predestination is based in foreknowledge - that God has foreknown the acts of men and therefore based upon this knowledge He predestines some to Heaven and others to Hell.  Rather than assent to a scriptural contradiction here, logic would side with the latter rather than the former.  If we read Ephesians 1 from the perspective that God already knows then it is not difficult to accept that He has also predestined those who will, in our perspective of time, persevere to the end and receive the prize which awaits the winner of the race.

The god of Calvinism is a "sovereign god" who will not have his will dictated by the acts of men.    This god has created men for salvation and others for damnation - simply because he desires some to live eternally with him and at the same time wishes some to perish in everlasting fire.  When one points out the unlovingness or unfairness of such a god - the Calvinist will be quick to throw Romans 9:18ff into the argument.  As we have already seen, Romans 9 is not about mankind in general, but about specific individuals whom God has used to show His power and might.  


Catholicism does not deny the sovereignty of God - we accept that it is PART OF GOD'S FREE WILL(8) that God GAVE men FREE WILL.  God ALLOWS for men to freely choose or reject Him (except in specific cases, as pointed out in Romans 9, where God uses individuals for His Own purpose).  That ALLOWS for men to truly LOVE Him, for God IS Love(9). Love is not something forced upon another, no true love is something GIVEN and GIVEN FREELY by the lover(10).  Therefore it is illogical to think that God chose "the elect" without their consent and through some "Irresistible Grace" (the "I" in TULIP) God has forced "the elect" into obedience and a warped concept of "love."  It is God's Will that we love Him, TRULY love Him - and those outside of His Will will suffer the ultimate - an eternity without God.

I hope this discussion has helped you, and if it has - I invite your comments.  As always, I also invite those critical of what I have said to comment.  

In JMJ,
Scott<<<




Footnotes:
(1) Windsor, Scott earlier on the CathApol Blog.
(2) Calvin, John,  Institutes, Book III, Chapter 21.7 - qtd. from here: http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/calvin-predestin2.asp full source and context available here: http://www.reformed.org/books/institutes/books/book3/bk3ch21.html
(3) Catholic Debate Forum discussion started here and continues here then the concept is further challenged here.
(4) Sproul, R.C. qtd. from here: http://www.the-highway.com/DoublePredestination_Sproul.html
(5) Philippians 4:13 - "I can do all these things in him who strengtheneth me."
(6) 1 Corinthians 10:13 - "Let no temptation take hold on you, but such as is human. And God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that which you are able: but will make also with temptation issue, that you may be able to bear it."
(7) White, James R. from debate: Does the Bible Teach Predestination? 
(8) CCC 295 We believe that God created the world according to his wisdom. It is not the product of any necessity whatever, nor of blind fate or chance. We believe that it proceeds from God's free will; he wanted to make his creatures share in his being, wisdom and goodness: "For you created all things, and by your will they existed and were created." Therefore the Psalmist exclaims: "O LORD, how manifold are your works! In wisdom you have made them all"; and "The LORD is good to all, and his compassion is over all that he has made."
(9) CCC 257 "O blessed light, O Trinity and first Unity!" God is eternal blessedness, undying life, unfading light. God is love: Father, Son and Holy Spirit. God freely wills to communicate the glory of his blessed life. Such is the "plan of his loving kindness", conceived by the Father before the foundation of the world, in his beloved Son: "He destined us in love to be his sons" and "to be conformed to the image of his Son", through "the spirit of sonship". This plan is a "grace [which] was given to us in Christ Jesus before the ages began", stemming immediately from Trinitarian love. It unfolds in the work of creation, the whole history of salvation after the fall, and the missions of the Son and the Spirit, which are continued in the mission of the Church.
(10) CCC 2002 God's free initiative demands man's free response, for God has created man in his image by conferring on him, along with freedom, the power to know him and love him. The soul only enters freely into the communion of love. God immediately touches and directly moves the heart of man. He has placed in man a longing for truth and goodness that only he can satisfy. The promises of "eternal life" respond, beyond all hope, to this desire:

If at the end of your very good works . . ., you rested on the seventh day, it was to foretell by the voice of your book that at the end of our works, which are indeed "very good" since you have given them to us, we shall also rest in you on the sabbath of eternal life.

Reformers on Mary

I have restored this blog entry back to the original web page.  The current "updated" page is found here:  http://quilocutus.blogspot.com/2011/01/reformers-on-mary-update.html

 

“Reformers” on Mary

An Assembly of Quotes

By: Kara Lynn Teresa Turton

(Originally posted on BattleACTS on 4/25/2004)

Martin Luther:

Mary the Mother of God

Throughout his life Luther maintained without change the historic Christian affirmation that Mary was the Mother of God:

"She is rightly called not only the mother of the man, but also the Mother of God ... It is certain that Mary is the Mother of the real and true God."¹

Perpetual Virginity

Again throughout his life Luther held that Mary's perpetual virginity was an article of faith for all Christians - and interpreted Galatians 4:4 to mean that Christ was "born of a woman" alone.

"It is an article of faith that Mary is Mother of the Lord and still a Virgin."²

The Immaculate Conception

Yet again the Immaculate Conception was a doctrine Luther defended to his death (as confirmed by Lutheran scholars like Arthur Piepkorn). Like Augustine, Luther saw an unbreakable link between Mary's divine maternity, perpetual virginity and Immaculate Conception. Although his formulation of the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception was not clear-cut, he held that her soul was devoid of sin from the beginning:

"But the other conception, namely the infusion of the soul, it is piously and suitably believed, was without any sin, so that while the soul was being infused, she would at the same time be cleansed from original sin and adorned with the gifts of God to receive the holy soul thus infused. And thus, in the very moment in which she began to live, she was without all sin..."³

Assumption

Although he did not make it an article of faith, Luther said of the doctrine of the Assumption:

"There can be no doubt that the Virgin Mary is in heaven. How it happened we do not know."⁴

Honor to Mary

Despite his unremitting criticism of the traditional doctrines of Marian mediation and intercession, to the end Luther continued to proclaim that Mary should be honored. He made it a point to preach on her feast days.

"The veneration of Mary is inscribed in the very depths of the human heart."⁵

"Is Christ only to be adored? Or is the holy Mother of God rather not to be honoured? This is the woman who crushed the Serpent's head. Hear us. For your Son denies you nothing."⁶ Luther made this statement in his last sermon at Wittenberg in January 1546.

John Calvin:

It has been said that John Calvin belonged to the second generation of the Reformers and certainly his theology of double predestination governed his views on Marian and all other Christian doctrine . Although Calvin was not as profuse in his praise of Mary as Martin Luther he did not deny her perpetual virginity. The term he used most commonly in referring to Mary was "Holy Virgin".

"Elizabeth called Mary Mother of the Lord, because the unity of the person in the two natures of Christ was such that she could have said that the mortal man engendered in the womb of Mary was at the same time the eternal God."⁷

"Helvidius has shown himself too ignorant, in saying that Mary had several sons, because mention is made in some passages of the brothers of Christ."⁸ Calvin translated "brothers" in this context to mean cousins or relatives.

"It cannot be denied that God in choosing and destining Mary to be the Mother of his Son, granted her the highest honor."⁹

"To this day we cannot enjoy the blessing brought to us in Christ without thinking at the same time of that which God gave as adornment and honour to Mary, in willing her to be the mother of his only-begotten Son."¹⁰

Ulrich Zwingli:

"It was given to her what belongs to no creature, that in the flesh she should bring forth the Son of God."¹¹

"I firmly believe that Mary, according to the words of the gospel as a pure Virgin brought forth for us the Son of God and in childbirth and after childbirth forever remained a pure, intact Virgin."¹² Zwingli used Exodus 4:22 to defend the doctrine of Mary's perpetual virginity.

"I esteem immensely the Mother of God, the ever chaste, immaculate Virgin Mary."¹³

"Christ ... was born of a most undefiled Virgin."¹⁴

"It was fitting that such a holy Son should have a holy Mother."¹⁵

"The more the honor and love of Christ increases among men, so much the esteem and honor given to Mary should grow."¹⁶

NOTES
¹ Martin Luther, Weimar edition of Martin Luther's Works, English translation edited by J. Pelikan [Concordia: St. Louis], volume 24, 107.
² Martin Luther, op. cit., Volume 11, 319-320.
³ Martin Luther, Weimar edition of Martin Luther's Works,
English translation edited by J. Pelikan [Concordia: St.
Louis], Volume 4, 694.
⁴ [Martin Luther, Weimar edition of Martin Luther's Works (Translation by William J. Cole) 10, p. 268.
⁵ [Martin Luther, Weimar edition of Martin Luther's Works(Translation by William J. Cole) 10, III, p.313.
⁶ Martin Luther, Weimar edition of Martin Luther's Works, English translation edited by J. Pelikan [Concordia: St. Louis], Volume 51, 128-129.
⁷ John Calvin, Calvini Opera [Braunshweig-Berlin, 1863-1900], Volume 45, 35.
⁸ Bernard Leeming, "Protestants and Our Lady", Marian Library Studies, January 1967, p.9.
⁹ John Calvin, Calvini Opera [Braunshweig-Berlin, 1863-1900], Volume 45, 348.
¹⁰ John Calvin, A Harmony of Matthew, Mark and Luke (St. Andrew's Press, Edinburgh, 1972), p.32.
¹¹ Ulrich Zwingli, In Evang. Luc., Opera Completa [Zurich, 1828-42], Volume 6, I, 639
¹² Ulrich Zwingli, Zwingli Opera, Corpus Reformatorum, Volume 1, 424.
¹³ E. Stakemeier, De Mariologia et Oecumenismo, K. Balic, ed., (Rome, 1962), 456.
¹⁴ Ibid.
¹⁵ Ibid.
¹⁶ Ulrich Zwingli, Zwingli Opera, Corpus Reformatorum, Volume 1, 427-428.
¹⁷ David F. Wright, ed., Chosen by God: Mary in Evangelical Perspective (London: Marshall Pickering, 1989), 180.

Original Source of Quotes from 2004: http://replay.waybackmachine.org/20040405023855/http://www.mariology.com/sections/reformers.html.