Carrie Euler on Bullinger

A previous post has referred to Carrie Euler’s book Couriers of the Gospel: England and Zurich which represents many years of meticulous attention to Bullinger’s correspondence. Euler is currently a professor at Central Michigan University.

The following is a quotation from the book illustrating her understanding of Bullinger and the covenant.

“Bullinger’s commitment to Old Testament law – a commitment much admired and reiterated by many English evangelicals – stemmed, in part, from his belief in the unity of the Old and New Testament covenant between God and man. As did Zwingli, Bullinger asserted this unity in his early writings against the Anabaptists. In one work written in 1534, however, Bullinger took this argument further than Zwingli. He distinguished between a testamentum (a written testament) and foedus (a covenant or conditional agreement between two parties). Moreover, he maintained that the covenant between God and man was a foedus, and he emphasized its conditional, bilateral nature.

Bullinger’s later writings, however, are much more concerned with the hermeneutical unity of the Testaments, first proposed by Zwingli in his writings against the Anabaptists but extended by Bullinger. The unity of the Old and New Testaments was very useful to Bullinger for two reasons. It allowed him to state that Christianity in its pure (Reformed) sate was the one and original faith, the faith of Adam and Abraham as well as the apostles and other early Christians. It also allowed him to use the Old Testament in his writings. This gave Bullinger more evidence to support Zwingli’s ideas about the place of law and secular authority in Christian societies, and it justified the application of Old Testament laws to those societies.”

Euler has made some very helpful comments here. For example, she is spot on with respect to the admiration of the English evangelicals to Bullinger’s understanding and application of Old Testament law for the believer. I believe the Puritans were profoundly influenced by Bullinger’s understanding of the law and this is reflected in the Westminster Confession. However, I suspect that many English evangelicals actually misunderstood Bullinger on the law. I hope to do some work on this.

Euler is also correct to point out that Bullinger’s understanding of the Old Testament (and of the law in the OT) was important for his understanding of church and state. This is well illustrated in Torrance Kirby’s book Zurich Connection.

Euler also suggested that for Bullinger the unity of the Old and New Testaments allowed him to “use the Old Tesament extensively in his writings”. Actually, this was more because of Bullinger’s canonical understanding of Scripture (he wrote a commentary on Revelation and preached a 100 sermons on it). We might even go so far as to say that Bullinger was a biblical theologian. That is why he did not write in the loci format but constantly referred to the overall message of the canon as is most apparent in der alte Glaube.

However, I do not agree with Euler’s comments on testamentum and foedus. I believe that a linguistic study of Bullinger’s writings with respect to the use of these terms (as well as of pactum) leads us to the conclusion expressed by Lillback and Bierma that Bullinger and Calvin had very similar views of the covenant. In other words, although Euler does acknowledge that there is a debate, Baker’s views can not be substantiated. Nonetheless, Baker has stimulated much thought on the covenant in Bullinger. This is a topic I am seeking to do further work on.

These observations on Euler’s views aside, her book is a mine of information and reflection on the significance of Bullinger for England. Her book provides access to the work of Andreas Mühling’s, Bullingers europäische Kirchenpolitik which may be less readily available to many of us. (pp32-33)