zurich connection

Bullinger and Irenaeus?

2012-02-16T14:15:00.000-08:00

Recently, I came across this interesting excerpt from the pen of R.R. Reno of Creighton University:

“Irenaeus of Lyon provides us with the key categories for describing the patristic consensus about the meaning and role of scripture. Like the Christian readers who taught him, Irenaeus presumed that the Old Testament, however diverse in style and content, was a single text with a unified point or message. Following the standard terminology of the ancient rhetorical tradition, Irenaeus called the unified message of scripture its "hypothesis." At one level, Irenaeus saw this hypothesis as literary. The bible hangs together on its own terms, and readers sensitive to the hints and clues in the text will gravitate toward a unified reading. But more importantly, according to Irenaeus, the hypothesis of scripture reflects the fact that the entire world is governed by a single divine plan, or "economy." This economy is a multi-layered sequence of created realities, historical events, divine ordinations and laws. In other words, for the church fathers, the entire world-process is a meaningful system shaped by God's intention. Finally, following Ephesians 1:10, Irenaeus argued that all the complex facets of the divine economy, including the vast system of signs that make up the Old Testament, are recapitulated in Jesus Christ. Recapitulation (anakephalaiosis in Greek) is another standard term in the ancient rhetorical tradition. Even in contemporary English we speaking of ending a speech with a "recap," the conclusion when the speaker drives home the main point or hypothesis with a restatement of the main arguments in pithy, vivid summary.4 Christ is the basis and end point. He is the reason or purpose and the culminating summation of the great divine speech that we call reality.
For Irenaeus and the patristic tradition as a whole, scripture is the semiotic medium in which God encodes the pattern of the divine economy. How scripture is so encoded remains obscure. There was no settled patristic consensus about a so-called doctrine of inspiration that would specify the way in which scripture embodies the divine economy within itself. But there was a consensus that the undeniable literal heterogeneity of scripture depicts a single divine economy. "Anyone who reads the scriptures with attention," writes Irenaeus, "will find in them a discourse about Christ, and a prefiguration of the new calling [of the Gentiles]. For Christ is 'the treasure hidden in the field' [Matt 13:44], that is, in this world (for 'the field is the world' [Matt 13:38]), but he is also hidden is the scriptures, since he was signified by types and parables which could not be understood, humanly speaking, before the consummation of those things which were prophesied as coming, that is, the advent of Christ."5 The unity of scripture grows out of the singularity of divine purpose in and for all things, and this divine economy is directed toward fulfillment in Christ. Thus, the goal of spiritual exegesis is to bring Christ the treasure hidden in the field of scripture into view, and in so doing to bring the mind of the reader to desire to live more fully in his truth.”

It’s quite suggestive to see parallels in the way Bullinger handles Scripture. What do you think?

More on Bullinger and the Old Faith

2012-02-05T14:12:00.000-08:00

The following citation from The Old Faith demonstrates the extent to which Bullinger emphasizes the continuity between the old and the new covenants. The difference in the ‘new’ is more evident, ‘more clearly practiced, accomplished, fulfilled and performed.’

“I will declare, that God now also through the appearing of his Son would bring into the world and set forth none other religion, none other faith, neither any other salvation, than even the same which was shewed to the old fathers: saving that all things are more evident, more clearly practiced, accomplished, fulfilled, and performed; for the which cause also all figures, sacrifices, and ceremonies do cease: for in Christ is all perfection. Yet shall we not therefore cast away the Old Testament, as some ignorant, unlearned, and foolish people do, but have it in greater reputation; forasmuch as we shall know now through Christ, what every thing signifieth, and wherefore everything was thus and thus ordained, used and spoken. Now shall every man first have a courage to read the law and the prophets, when he seeth whereupon every thing goeth. And thus also at the beginning did the holy apostles preach Christ unto the Jews out of the law and the prophets, as it is oftimes mentioned in the Acts of the apostles. And our Lord himself, when he went with the two disciples toward Emaus, and preached so unto them, that their hearts burnt within them, he began at Moses, and went through all the prophets, and opened unto them the old scriptures, and shewed them that so it behoved Christ to suffer, and to enter into his glory. This is the cause also that the scriptures of the New testament hang all together and refer themselves to the scriptures of the Old Testament; so that these cannot be right understood without the other, no more than the gloss without the text. The text is the law and the prophets, the exposition are the evangelists and apostles.”

Bullinger and The Old Faith (1537)

2012-02-02T02:58:00.001-08:00

This work consists of eleven sections which collectively affirm the fulfillment of God’s promises in Christ. It is particularly in Section 4 that Bullinger directly refers to the covenant as can be seen from the following quote:

“For Noe was of our faith, even of the seed of God, and put his trust in in the blessed Seed, our Lord Jesus. Yea, the ark or ship of Noe was a figure of Christ, as we may easily understand by the words of St Peter. Seeing then that Noe was preserved through the ark, it followeth that he was saved by Jesus Christ: therefore is it manifest, that he first believed in Christ. Noe also was he, with whom God first renewed the covenant made with Adam. For it is but one covenant only, even the foresaid promise and end, made by God unbto Adam. Howebiet, the same covenant was afterward at certain times renewed by reason of certain occasions. Here might Noe have thought that all the world and all men should utterly have been undone; forasmuch as the Lord said, ‘I am determined to destroy all flesh.’ Therefore immediately he addeth moreover, and saith: ‘But with thee will I set up my covenant,’ that is to say: ‘whatsoever pertaineth to my covenant, and what I have promised Adam already, the same will I surely and constantly make good; and though I now destroy the world, yet will I perform my truth through thee. For I will preserve thee alive, that the blessed Seed promised afore may hereafter be born of thee in his generation.’”

It is to be noted that pundt was used exclusively by Bullinger for “covenant” in this particular quote. The Old Faith clearly emphasizes the unity of the covenant and that men and women of both Old and New Testaments have the same faith, viz faith in Christ. Thus Section 3 covers “Of the first faithful Christian, Adam and Eve.” In the quote above Bullinger states that “Noe was of our faith, even of the seed of God, put his trust in in the blessed Seed, our Lord Jesus.” Furthermore “it followeth that he was saved by Jesus Christ; therefore is it manifest, that he first believed in Christ.” These statements are all rooted in Bullinger’s understanding of the covenant.

Hooper to Bullinger

2012-01-18T14:41:00.000-08:00

The following is an extract from John Hooper to Bullinger. Dated 27 January 1546 from Strasburg.

“The conference at Ratisbon as far as I understand by a letter from master Bucer, is suspended. I am more inclined to believe this, because Philip Melancthon is neither yet come to them, nor does he intend it. And Bucer, as far as I hear, is about to come to us sooner that I expected but as yet we have nothing certain; as soon as this shall be the case, I will inform your reverence forthwith, and you may expect a more copious letter whenever any new tidings shall require it. The count Palatinate has lately provided for the preaching of the gospel through his dominions: but as far as he relates to the eucharist he has descended, as the proverb has it, from the horse to the ass; for he has fallen from popery into the doctrine of Luther, who in that particular more erroneous than all the papists; and those who deny the substance of bread to remain in the sacrament, and substitute the body of Christ in its place, come more closely to the truth than those who affirm the natural body of Christ is with the bread, in the bread and under the form of bread, and yet occupies no place. God I hope will at length give him a better mind.”

What attracts our attention are Hooper's strong words about Luther’s understanding of the eucharist. Words that must have been written only just prior to Luther’s death.

Bullinger and the writing of history

2012-01-11T12:06:00.000-08:00

Bullinger was prolific in writing historical works, particularly about the Reformation in Switzerland up until the Kappel War. With reference to Bullinger’s Anklag, Bast noted that it “is utterly unselfconscious in its identification of the Swiss as the recipients of God’s covenant promises, more precious to him than the Jews; in it Swiss history becomes salvation history.” This was a way of highlighting the positive contributions of Zwingli. But precisely because Zwingli was such a controversial figure the publication of Bullinger’s Reformationsgeschichte was delayed. Detailed investigation of the Reformationsgeschichte by Moser revealed four constitutive elements of Bullinger’s historico-theological thinking that aid in the study of Bullingers works:

“1. History is understood essentially as covenant and salvation history, which has unfolded between God and humanity since the beginning of time and which reaches its culmination in Christ’s act of redemption and in his return at the end of time; 2. Biblical prophecy interprets the direction or periodization of history, especially church history; 3. History has a revelatory character –even if clearly subordinated to Scripture – and it serves as a source to make known God’s work and will; 4. Bullinger makes use of history in order to support his own argumentation as well as to expose and relativize false opinions in confessional confrontations.”

Bullinger and sola fide

2011-12-20T16:00:00.000-08:00

Bullinger has often been accused of compromising sola fide and of espousing a synergistic understanding of salvation. The following quotation from Archilla’s celebrated The Theology of History and apologetic Histogriography in Heinrich Bullinger: Truth in History will clarify Bullinger’s understanding:

“Bullinger’s understanding of faith upon the promise of Christ as the basic human response in the covenant dispels any doubt about his commitment to sola fide. The question might arise out of a cursory reading of De testamento, where the polemic is against the rebaptizers. But elsewhere Bullinger mainly argues in the context of an anti work-righteousness polemic. Doubt on this issue could also arise from Bullinger’s emphasis on the human response as faith and love. Yet that love for him, as we have shown, flows from the faith that relies solely on Christ. And even that very faith is a gift of God, a work of the Spirit:

‘Furthermore, that faith by which we believe that Christ fulfilled the law, and that he himself is our righteousness and our perfection, comes about neither from our nature nor from our merits, but rather out of god’s grace it is poured in by the Holy Spirit who is given into our hearts. This Spirit by remaining in our hearts, sets our breasts on fire with love and with earnest application to the divine law, so that we may legitimately attempt to expound and apply it by deeds. This earnest application and this attempt even if it never becomes fully realized, on account of the natural disposition of the flesh or human weakness which remains in us unto the end of our life, God nevertheless approves out of grace, but of course on account of Christ: so no one whosoever among the pious trusts in this other fulfillment, but rather in the first, because it is the only perfect one.’(Decades III.8)”

More on Calvin and Genesis 17

2011-11-30T17:55:00.000-08:00

Paul R. Williamson in his “Abraham, Israel and the Nations: The Patriarchal promise and its covenantal Development in Genesis” argues that Calvin viewed Genesis 15 and Genesis 17 as two stages in the same divine-human covenant. That is his understanding of what Calvin wrote in his commentary on Genesis:

“The first was a declaration of gratuitous love; to which was annexed the promise of a happy life. But the other was an exhortation to the sincere endeavor to cultivate uprightness …He (God) does not… speak of this (covenant) as a new thing: but he recalls the memory of the covenant which he had before made, and now fully confirms and established its certainty… Therefore, by these words, he intends nothing else than that the covenant, of which Abram had heard before, should be established and ratified: but he expressly introduces the principal point, concerning the multiplication of seed, which he afterwards frequently repeats.”

Calvin and Genesis 17

2011-11-29T20:32:00.001-08:00

Bullinger’s treatise on the covenant, De testamento, was an extended exegesis of Genesis 17. It is an interesting exercise to compare Bullinger’s conclusions with the thoughts of both Luther and Calvin on Genesis 17. Lillback has made such a comparison in his “The Binding of God” and in his article “The Early Reformed Covenant Paradigm: Vermigli in the context of Bullinger, Luther and Calvin” in Frank A James III (ed) “Peter Martyr Vermigli and the European Reformation: Semper Reformanda.”

The following are some sections taken from Calvin’s commentary on Genesis 17:

“Now that word summarily contains this declaration, that god enters into covenant with Abram: it then unfolds the nature of the covenant itself, and finally puts to it the seal, with the accompanying attestations (p442).”

“In this single word we are plainly taught, that this was a spiritual covenant, not confirmed in reference to the present life only; but one from which Abraham might conceive the hope of eternal salvation, so that being raised even to heaven, he might lay hold of solid and perfect bliss. For those whom God adopts to himself, from among a people – seeing that he makes them partakers of his righteousness and of all good things – he also constitutes heirs of celestial life. Let us then mark this as the principal part of the covenant, that he who is the God of the living, not of the dead, promises to be a God to the children of Abraham (p450).”

“As formerly, covenants were not only committed to public records, but were also wont to be engraven in brass, or sculptured on stones, in order that the memory of them might be more fully recorded, and more highly celebrated; so that in the present instance, god inscribes his covenant in the flesh of Abraham. For circumcision was as a solemn memorial of that adoption, by which the family of Abraham had been elected to be the peculiar people of God (p451).”

"and it is common to all sacraments to have the word of God annexed to them, by which he testifies that he is propitious to us, and calls us to the hope of salvation; yea, a sacrament is nothing else than a visible word, or sculpture or image of that grace of God, which the word more fully illustrates. If, then, there is a mutual relation between the word and faith; it follows, that the proposed end and use of the sacraments is to help, promote and confirm faith. But they who deny that sacraments are supports to faith, or that they aid the word in strengthening faith, must of necessity expunge the name of covenant; because, either God there offers himself as a Promiser, in mockery and falsely, and from which it may confirm its own assurance (pp451,452).”

Calvin and Genesis 17

2011-11-29T20:32:00.000-08:00

Bullinger’s treatise on the covenant, De testamento, was an extended exegesis of Genesis 17. It is an interesting exercise to compare Bullinger’s conclusions with the thoughts of both Luther and Calvin on Genesis 17. Lillback has made such a comparison in his “The Binding of God” and in his article “The Early Reformed Covenant Paradigm: Vermigli in the context of Bullinger, Luther and Calvin” in Frank A James III (ed) “Peter martyr Vermigli and the European Reformation: Semper Reformanda.”

The following are some sections taken from Calvin’s commentary on Genesis 17:

“Now that word summarily contains this declaration, that god enters into covenant with Abram: it then unfolds the nature of the covenant itself, and finally puts to it the seal, with the accompanying attestations (p442).”

“In this single word we are plainly taught, that this was a spiritual covenant, not confirmed in reference to the present life only; but one from which Abraham might conceive the hope of eternal salvation, so that being raised even to heaven, he might lay hold of solid and perfect bliss. For those whom God adopts to himself, from among a people – seeing that he makes them partakers of his righteousness and of all good things – he also constitutes heirs of celestial life. Let us then mark this as the principal part of the covenant, that he who is the God of the living, not of the dead, promises to be a God to the children of Abraham (p450).”

“As formerly, covenants were not only committed to public records, but were also wont to be engraven in brass, or sculptured on stones, in order that the memory of them might be more fully recorded, and more highly celebrated; so that in the present instance, god inscribes his covenant in the flesh of Abraham. For circumcision was as a solemn memorial of that adoption, by which the family of Abraham had been elected to be the peculiar people of God (p451).”

"and it is common to all sacraments to have the word of God annexed to them, by which he testifies that he is propitious to us, and calls us to the hope of salvation; yea, a sacrament is nothing else than a visible word, or sculpture or image of that grace of God, which the word more fully illustrates. If, then, there is a mutual relation between the word and faith; it follows, that the proposed end and use of the sacraments is to help, promote and confirm faith. But they who deny that sacraments are supports to faith, or that they aid the word in strengthening faith, must of necessity expunge the name of covenant; because, either God there offers himself as a Promiser, in mockery and falsely, and from which it may confirm its own assurance (pp451,452).”

Bullinger and Marriage

2011-11-10T14:10:00.000-08:00

Rebecca Giselbrecht of the Institute for Swiss Reformation History at Zurich has an article on Bullinger’s wife Anna Adlischwyler in the latest edition of Zwingliana. The following is an excerpt from this article:

Heinrich Bullinger II, the reformer, was interested in marriage from a pragmatic theological point of view but was also a romantic – even authoring a love song for his wedding. Already in February 1525, the twenty-one year old Bullinger shared his expert advice on marriage in a reply to a letter from his student Marx Rosen. Bullinger specifically defined masculine marital behavior in his letter to Rosen, depicting the woman as a mere object and portraying her to be the weaker vessel, as he pieced together a picture of the female sex using Bible citations. He also made it clear to Rosen that a woman was not to be beaten.

By personally pursuing Anna Adlischwyler, Bullinger created an interesting legal situation when he ignored the social mores of marriage and its usual third party facilitation. Instead, Bullinger sent Anna a very lengthy letter asking for her hand. With logical and forceful arguments for marriage and the Reformed faith, Bullinger pressed his intentions, trying to convince Anna that life in the convent was neither biblical, not God’s will for her future. After declaring his personal integrity, financial situation, and love for Anna, Bullinger, who was all of twenty-three years old wrote: ‘Yes, you are young, and God did give you such a body, and did not create you so that you remain an eternal madam and do nothing so that fruit comes form you.’ He tells her not to stay a virgin stuck between the walls of a convent, and closes with instructions: ‘Read my letter three or four times, think about it, and ask God so he tells you what his will is in this matter.’ Bullinger’s first letter is remarkably similar to The Complete Teaching on Christian Marriage, a tract that he had begun to write two months previously on his 23rd birthday, 18 July 1527.”

Bullinger’s advice to Calvin

2011-10-27T15:46:00.000-07:00

In response to the Gnesio-Lutherans re the Reformed understanding of the Lord’s Supper (in particular, the Consensus Tigurinus) Calvin, in tandem with Beza, drafted a reply that would be sent to Westphal. Calvin sent his draft to Bullinger for his comments as Bullinger had previously stated re this effort: “May the Lord give you His Holy Spirit so that the enterprise will be to His honor and a blessing to many. I await your answer with longing.”

But when Calvin’s full draft was received in Zurich it was deemed not on the ball enough re the Lord’s Supper, especially its attitude to the Augsburg Confession. Furthermore, it was a very aggressive attack on the Gnesio-Lutherans without sufficiently analyzing their position. It was more a case of playing the man rather than playing the ball. Bullinger was given the task of conveying the comments of the ministers at Zurich to Calvin. The following is an extract of Bullinger’s letter to Calvin:

“It appears to us, dear Calvin, that you proceed far too roughly against our opponents. Three or four times, you call them ‘good-for-nothing’ and you reproach them because of the cows of their country and their nearness to the polar seas and you call Westphal a ‘beast’. Well, we admit freely that they deserve such harsh treatment but – not from you and not from us. It will be more to our favor to remain charitable. It was exactly invective like this in Luther’s writings which put off many sincere people. Your written response, therefore, should be, in our opinion, thoroughly moderate in tone, so that one will in every respect appreciate that the author simply aims at the upkeep and defence of the truth. He retains his Christian dignity and leniency in spite of these stormy and violent times. We wish, as far as is possible, to give Westphal, this verbose and belligerent man, no further opportunity to squabble. In Saxony and northwards to the Baltic Sea there are many thousands of well-meaning people whose friendship, as you mention, we should cultivate. Perhaps, however, exactly these people would feel insulted by your offensive statements. As you use general terms of abuse concerning cold and icy people, beasts and ne’er-do-wells, it would be better to strike them out and name the renewer of the sacrament controversy by his correct name, Westphal, so that everyone will know that we are proceeding against him.” (Pestalozzi, p389)

Bullinger’s commencement as Antistes of Zurich

2011-10-23T20:13:00.000-07:00

The following is part of Zwingli’s address to the magistrates in Zurich in assuming the role of Antistes. Zwingli had been one of three Leutpriesters.

“I swear according to the mandate imposed by my lords of Zurich to teach and preach the holy gospel and Word of God to which I am called, from the Old Testament and the New Testament, faithfully according to my rightful Christian understanding and ability, and not to meddle with any doubtful dogma or wayward, unauthorized teaching but follow the ruling of the general synod which is called twice yearly, Furthermore it is my duty and will to serve the Lord Mayors, Council and Citizens with faithfulness and a good disposition as my rulers and support the well-being and piety of the city and canton by preventing harm and providing admonition as much as lies in my power. I shall be obedient and true to them and their appointed constables and officials and to their commands and strictures in reverential and equitable matters and remain in attendance loyally and void of any menace.”

Ich schwöre, das heilige Evangelium und Wort Gottes, dazu ich berufen bin, treulich und nach rechtem christlichem Verstand auch nach Vermög alten und neuen Testamentes, laut meiner Herren von Zürich erlassenen Mandates, zu lehren und zu predigen, und darunter kein Dogma oder Lehre, die zweifelhft, noch nicht uaf der Bahn und anerkannt ware, mit einzumischen, sie sei den zuvor der allgemeinen, ordentlichen Versammlung, die jährlich zweimal gehalten wird, angezeigt und von derselben anerkannt worden. Ueberdies soll und will ich einem Bürgermesiter und Rath, auch die Bürgern, als meiner ordentlichen Obrigkeit true und hnold sein, gemeiner Stadt und Landes Zürich Nutz und Frommen fördern, ihren Schaden wenden und davor warmen, so weit ich’s vermag, auch ihr und ihren bestellten Vögten und Amleuten, ihre Geboten und Verboten, in geziemenden, billigen Sachen gehorsam und gewärtig sein, truelich und ohne alle Gefährde.

Ella on Bullinger and Calvin

2011-10-18T04:39:00.000-07:00

The following is Ella’s assessment of the relationship of Calvin vis-à-vis Bullinger (George Ella, Henry Bullinger: Shepherd of the Churches):

“It is this author’s contention that Calvin, with all his obvious abilities as a Reformer, has been placed on a pedestal which rightly belongs to Bullinger who eclipsed his French friend in almost all areas. Indeed, had it not been for Bullinger’s strong leadership over Calvin and the enormous influence Bullinger exerted on his doctrine and the fatherly and brotherly way Bullinger supported Calvin in all his battles, Calvin would never have remained in Geneva from 1541-1564 and never have been half the Reformer he was. Bullinger’s advantage over Calvin was that Zurich at that time, as Bullinger repeatedly testifies, was a City of a Hill in the spiritual sense that church and state lived in almost constant, peaceful harmony. On the other hand, the scene at Geneva was one of turbulence and strife both with each other. We never hear of Bullinger denouncing his fellow ministers, citizens and Council in the denigrating way Calvin did the ministers, Church, citizenship and Council of Geneva up to the last few years of his life. It must be also be said with equal truthfulness that the peace of Zurich was largely Bullinger’s making and the problems which arose in Geneva, which Bullinger was invariably looked upon to solve, were often because of Calvin’s lack of diplomacy and lack of control over his temper, tongue and pen.”

Yet More On Bullinger and Luther

2011-10-13T03:08:00.000-07:00

The following is an extract of Bullinger’s letter to Bonifacius Amerbach dated 14 March 1545:

“He (ie Luther) has ranged and raved in public writings against the living and the dead to such an extent that we cannot conceal it. We respond, however, modestly, I imagine, for these very good men and especially for the church for which we are ministers, defending our integrity and that of others in a forthright manner.”

In his Wahrhaftes Bekenntnis of 1545 Bullinger described Luther’s Brief Confession in the following way:

“This book is so full of devilish unchristian insults, lewd filth, impure speech, anger roguishness, rage, and fury that all who read it … must wonder that such an aged, quite experienced, and well respected man should write so crudely before everyone.”

At the end of Wahrhaftes Bekenntnis Bullinger appended Luther’s Kurzesbekenntnis or Brief Confession for comparison to indicate his willingness of his work to be openly inspected and compared to that of Luther’s.

Bullinger and the Covenant in his De prophetae officio

2011-10-10T03:42:00.000-07:00

Bullinger writes the following in his work on the role of prophets:

“For testament, which also is the title for all of Scripture, surely stands for the content of all of Scripture. Neither is this to be wondered at as something recent or devoid of meaning. For by the word testament we understand the covenant and agreement by which God agreed with the entire human race, to be himself our God, our sufficiency, source of good and horn of plenty. And this he would abundantly prove by the gift of the fertile earth and the incarnation of his son. Man, however, ought to pursue integrity, that he may stand before this God with a perfect and upright mind, that he may walk in his ways and commit himself totally to him, as to the highest and most loving Father.”

De prophetae officio sig. Aivv-Avr

More on Bullinger and Luther

2011-10-09T21:07:00.000-07:00

In response to Luther’s attack on Zwingli and Oecolampadius in his Brief Confession, Bullinger wrote the following:

“Or should Luther be allowed to write so furiously while we cannot even once publish Zwingli’s pious and useful work with a modest preface. Yes, we will protect our teaching – not with our own abilities but through the power and help of Christ.”

(from Bullinger’s letter to Ambrose Blarer of 5 September 1544)

On another occasion, he wrote:

“I would rather die than disown the simple and certain truth of our church for a dream of concord. Better concord with the truth and discord with Luther than concord with him and discord with the truth.”

(from Bullinger’s letter to Bucer, May 1544 as quoted in Pestalozzi, p227)

More on Luther and Zurich

2011-10-06T18:15:00.000-07:00

As is well known, in Luther’s exposition on Genesis (based on his lectures in Wittenberg in July 1543), Luther labeled Zwingli a “Schwärmer” and an enemy of his understanding of the sacraments. Bullinger reacted to this and Luther’s recent rejection and criticism of Froschauer’s Bible and wrote the following in his letter to Joaichim Vadian:

“Luther has never ceased, both publicly and privately, to condemn Zwingli and ourselves. We have written to him privately, just as was decreed, but he did not respond, disregarding us and criticizing us sharply.”

(Die Vadianische Briefwechsel VI, p322)

Luther had claimed that Zwingli had broken their Marburg agreement by publishing his Exposition of the Christian Faith and sending it to Francis I of France.

Melanchthon reacted to Luther’s action by writing to Frecht:

“the pain which I feel over the renewal of the sacramental controversy would still not be relieved.” He further wrote to Bullinger:

“Before this letter has arrived you will have perhaps already received doctor Luther’s abominable work in which he renews the war over the Lord’s Supper. He had not blunder so impetuously on this matter until now. My hope for peace in our churches is gone. We will only advance our enemies, who are protected by monkish idolatry. Our churches will be torn apart again! This cuts my heart to pieces.”

(Corpus Reformatorum: Opera quae supersunt Omnia, V, p476)

Bullinger also wrote the following to Melanchthon:

“Luther insults not only us, but the holy Christian church, whose servants we are after the call of god; he insults the Lord Jesus Himself, He, the highest leader of the congregation, our king and high priest, whom we follow and serve.”

(Pestalozzi, p220).

Calvin also wrote to Bullinger to encourage him not to be too harsh with Luther:

“I hear that Luther has at length broken forth in fierce invective, not so much against you as against the whole of us. On the present occasion, I dare scarce venture to ask you to keep silence, because it is neither just that innocent persons should be harassed, nor that they should be denied the opportunity of clearly themselves; neither on the other hand, is it easy to determine whether it would be prudent for them to so so. But of this I do earnestly desire to put in mind, in the first place, that you should consider how eminent a man Luther is, and the excellent endowments wherewith he is gifted, with what strength of mind and resolute constancy, with how great skill, with what efficacy and power of doctrinal statement, he hath hitherto devoted his whole energy to overthrow the reign of antichrist, and at the same time to diffuse far and near the doctrine of salvation.”

(Calvin Opera XI, p774)

Jim West’s Book on Zwingli

2011-10-04T21:12:00.000-07:00

Jim West has produced a book on Zwingli. Jim is a Zwingli expert and Zwingliphile. The books lets Zwingli speak for himself. It is a helpful read though the downside is that there is little on Zwingli and Bullinger.

Here is a link to the book which can be purchased as a pdf file:

http://www.lulu.com/product/paperback/christ-our-captain-an-introduction-to-huldrych-zwingli/16584676

Zwingli’s Works Online

2011-10-04T21:11:00.000-07:00

The staff of Zwingliana have been very busy beavering away and have made available Zwingli’s works online. The links are:

For Zwingli’s works: http://www.irg.uzh.ch/static/zwingli-werke/index.php

For Zwingli’s letters: http://www.irg.uzh.ch/static/zwingli-briefe/index.php

A big THANK YOU to everyone at the IRG in Zurich!

Bullinger on Luther

2011-10-03T23:31:00.000-07:00

The following is a citation from Bullinger’s letter to Eberhard von Ruemlang, the town clerk of Bern. The letter is dated 8 March 1539. The citation comes towards the end of the letter:

“I recognize Luther as a man who has erred and is able to err, who ought to be admonished about error and controlled. I do not approve of those who have determined to build a bookcase out of our new understanding.”

(Corpus Reformatorum: Johannis Calvini Opera quae supersunt Omnia, X, p322)

The following quote is from Bullinger’s letter to Luther on 30 August 1539 which appears to be the last correspondence between Bullinger and Luther. The letter responds to Luther’s charge that Zwingli was guilty of Nestorianism:

“Most learned Luther, we have read your treatise on the councils and fathers which is clearly necessary and suitable for our time. May the Lord strengthen you so that you may continue to battle and destroy the rule of the antichrist with zealous perserverence and unshakeable bravery. It grieves us very much that you do no honor our great and learned man, Ulrich Zwingli.”

(Weimar Ausgabe, Briefwechsel, VIII, p546)

Luther and the Zurich Reformers

2011-10-03T03:06:00.000-07:00

The quote from Luther’s Table Talk in the previous post contrasts with Luther’s letter of 1 December 1537 in reply to a letter the Swiss sent him in January 1537 stating their position concerning the theological issues dividing the Swiss and the Germans. Bullinger was so pleased with Luther’s reply that he wrote the following to Myconius in his letter of February 1538:

“Luther’s answer is clear, simply, thoroughly unadorned, and fully Christian. He does not attack our writing concerning the Lord’s Supper, rejects nothing, does not order us to do anything, and expresses himself simply; at the conclusion he recognizes us as brothers and asks for our friendship, and also allows those interpretations that are not wholly agreed upon to stand. In short it was good. One should not deride it.”

(quoted in Pestalozzi p 206)

But this apparent positive attitude of Luther to the Swiss was not to last very long!

Table Talk and Bullinger

2011-10-03T02:02:00.000-07:00

The following quote from Luther’s Table Talk illustrates how perturbed Luther was at Bullinger’s understanding concerning Christ’s presence in the Eucharist:

“Before the world existed God said, ‘Let there be a world; and the world was. So he says here (in the Lord’s Supper), ‘Let this be my body,’ and it is, nor is it prevented by the scoffing of Bullinger, who says that because it isn’t present. For in the former instance he created invisible, in such fashion as he wished.”

(Luther’s Works, Vol. 54, Table Talk (ed. and trans. G. Tappert – Fortress Press, 1967), p89)

Zwingliana in print

2011-10-03T01:02:00.000-07:00

The 2011 edition of Zwingliana is now in print. A big thank you to the editorial staff who have worked hard to produce this edition. Here is a summary of the articles of this issue:

Martin Bundi “Zur Dynamik der frühen Reformbewegung in Graubünden: Staats-, kirchen- und privatrechtliche Erlasse des Dreibündestaates 1523-1526”

Christine Christ-v. Wedel “Das Buch der Bücher popularisieren: Der Bibelübersetzer Leo Jud und sein biblisches Erbauungsbuch "Vom lyden Christi" (1534)"

Rebecca A. Giselbrecht “Myths and Reality about Heinrich Bullinger's Wife Anna”

Mark Taplin “Josias Simler and the Fathers: The "Scripta veterum latina" (1571)”

Urs B. Leu “The Hollis-Collections in Switzerland: An Attempt to Disseminate Political and Religious Freedom through Books in the 18th Century”

Christoph Ramstein “ “Pfarrbrüder", "Pfarrconvent" und Schweizerische Predigergesellschaft: Drei historische Beispiele der Zusammenarbeit und des Austauschs unter Pfarrpersonen der reformierten Schweiz im 19. Jahrhundert”

Moots on Bullinger and Calvin and the Covenant

2011-09-27T23:14:00.000-07:00

The following is a another extract from Moots' book:

“Unlike Calvin, who rooted covenants of salvation in the unknowable will of God, Bullinger made those covenants more accessible by putting them in the context of human covenants and agreements. Bullinger casts the biblical covenants as something which God condescended to make with persons, mimicking the covenants persons already made with one another (III. Vi, 169). In writing of the Lord’s Supper and the binding of persons to God and to one another, for example, Bullinger compared the sacraments to human confederacies (V. vi, 238-239). The point here was not to argue that Bullinger thought covenants were an agreement between equals or to make the biblical covenants akin to human covenants, but rather to stress the accommodation of God. The unknowable mystery in Calvin is why God chose to save one person rather than another; the unknowable mystery in Bullinger is the role of God’s will in predestination (IV. Iv, 185-188).”

Bullinger and Calvin and the Covenant

2011-09-27T03:39:00.000-07:00

Here is an interesting extract from the recent book by Glenn A. Moots, Politics Reformed: The Anglo-American Legacy of Covenant Theology (2011):

“The most common and most substantial error among those who study the Reformation is to ignore or minimize Bullinger and to focus on Calvin instead. Not only did Bullinger gain a position of influence much sooner than Calvin, but his influence was arguably as extensive as Calvin’s, if not more so. Archives of known correspondence have three times as many surviving letters from Bullinger as from Calvin, and there are potentially thousands more; his influence penetrated every corner of Europe and Britain. By 1528, when Calvin was still relatively unknown, Bullinger had composed scores of theological works and was an internationally recognized authority. His influence far surpassed Zwingli’s. He also outlived Calvin by twelve years, furthering his influence. Bullinger’s works circulated widely in Englad approximately thirty years before Calvin’s works. His influence even in France (acknowledged by Franz Hotman in a letter of 1572) can be attributed in part to his early converting influence on Theodore Beza in 1535. During the sixteenth century, there were well over fifty European printers producing hundreds of editions of Bullinger’s works in at least five languages. Even Geneva may may have been more taken with Bullinger than Calvin, as Genevan printers worked hard to promote French editions of Bullinger’s work. Even the Genevan authorities recognized the importance of Bullinger’s scope, depth, and tone and required that Bulligner’s doctrinal works be published alongside Calvin’s Institutes. Within one hundred years, 400 editions of Bullinger’s works had been printed in Switzerland and 230 editions in other countries. Bullinger’s shadow was least as long as Calvin’s for the next two generations.

Bullinger was the first to appropriate the Abrahamic covenant. In 1523, at the age of nineteen, he was already beginning to employ the traditional testamentum (covenant) in writing. In 1526 he asserted that the New Testament was the fulfillment of the covenant with Israel. By 1534, Bullinger had published his first substantial seminal treatise on biblical covenants, De testamento seu foedere dei unico & aeterno. De testamento was the first great contribution of the Reformation’s ‘Hebraic Christianity’ and the first great work of covenant or federal theology. Peter Lillback considers this study ‘of strategic importance’ and ‘the first study of the covenant produced in the history of the church’. Most important for Reformation political theology, the work provided a seminal definition and defense of civil government just as the greatest progress of the Reformation was about to be made. Together with his Decades, which also addressed covenant continuity, De testamento cemented Bullinger’s reputation as a political theologian. Calvin’s first edition of his Christianae religionis institutio, published two years later, did not contain any detailed discussion of the covenants.”

Calvin and Bullinger on the Covenant

2011-09-26T03:18:00.000-07:00

I have just come across a helpful article by Peter Optiz on Calvin and Scripture and cite a section of it here. Opitz’ article is to be found in Herman J. Selderhuis (ed.), The Calvin Handbook (Eerdmans, 2009), pp235-244. The original article is in German and has been ably translated into English by Rebecca A. Giselbrecht who is on the staff of the Institute for Swiss Reformation History in Zurich.

“Calvin’s understanding of the ‘covenant’ is essential to his doctrine of Scripture. Especially during his Strasbourg period, Calvin appears to have grappled intensely with the relationship between the Old and New Testaments. A fruit of this study is found in a comprehensive chapter of the Institutes of 1539, in which he explains the close connection of both Testaments as a dynamic unity with internal differences (CO 1, 225-244). Martin Bucer surely had direct influence on this, and with him the entire circle of the upper-German reformers with their humanistic backgrounds, who in turn had been influences by Zwingli and Bullinger – a fact less heeded by researchers. Bucer, who had already defended the unity of the two Testaments in his commentary on the gospel, enjoyed lively exchanges not only with his colleagues the Hebraists Capito and Hedio from Strasbourg, but also with Heinrich Bullinger. With the encouragement of Zwingli, Bullinger had already argued the one covenant as the scopus of Scripture and received Bucer’s total approval for his defense of it in his De Testamento from 1534. Ever since the 1539 version of the Institutes, Calvin widely expounded Bullinger’s argument for the doctrine of one covenant – not, however, without setting an independent accent that seems to demonstrate the lasting influence of Melanchthon, especially his Loci from 1535. In the Institutes of 1559, the doctrine of one covenant is finally completely integrated into his soteriology; and at the same time, this interpretation of the covenant became the connecting link in Calvin’s theology; particularly between his Christology and his exegesis. Institutes II was thus entitled ‘The Knowledge of God the Redeemer in Christ, First Disclosed to the Fathers under the Law, and Then to Us in the Gospel.’ In Calvin’s first Institutes from 1536 the placement of this doctrine of the law was similar to its placement in Luther’s Small Catechism. From 1539 on, there is a remarkable change. The title of Institutes II.7 reads: ‘The Law Was Given, Not to Restrain the Folk of the Old Covenant Under Itself, But to Foster Hope of Salvation in Christ Until His Coming.’ Thereby the law is expressly defined in alignment with an Old Testament Torah understanding: ‘I understand by the word ‘law’ not only the Ten Commandments, which set forth a godly and righteous rule of living, but the form of religion (formam religionis) handed down by God through Moses’ (Inst. II.7.1). However, because this law depends on God’s electing grace, Christ is already present, even though in Moses’ writing this was ‘not yet expressed in clear words.’ Accordingly, ‘apart from the mediator, God never showed favor toward the ancient people, nor ever gave hope of grace to them.’ For ‘the blessed and happy state of the church always had its foundation in the person of Christ’ (Inst. II.6.2). Therefore the relationship between the Old and New Testaments means: ‘The covenant made with all the patriarchs is so much like ours in substance and reality that the two are actually the one and the same. Yet they differ in the mode of dispensation’ (Inst. II.10.2).”

Bullinger, Usury and the Covenant

2011-09-12T05:12:00.000-07:00

Baker has written on his understanding of Bullinger on usury and its connection with the covenant. Bullinger wrote on usury because it was an issue raised by the Anabaptists. The following is an extract from Baker’s book:

“Bullinger’s teaching on usury was fully consistent with his covenant idea. Indeed the covenant condition of piety or love for the neighbor was the basis for his entire social ethic including the realm of economics. In De testamento he listed the loan and other economic matters among the items that were included under ‘that part of the covenant that prescribes integrity and commands that we walk in the presence of God.’ To Bullinger, the second degree of the law was the equivalent of the Love Commandment, and it explained hos sinful man could keep the conditions of the covenant. So when Bullinger referred to the Love Commandment, he meant more than Calvin’s general appeal to Christian love and equity, although that was certainly involved. For Bullinger, the Love Commandment was the summary of the conditions of the covenant, God’s eternal will for His people.

The importance of the covenant is quite evident in Bullinger’s interpretation of the Deuteronomy text (ie Deuteronomy 23:19-20). Since God’s law did not change, Bullinger could not simply apply the prohibition to those historical circumstances as Calvin did. Bullinger agreed with Calvin that the permission of usurious interest was nothing but a temporary privilege. Unlike Calvin, however, he thought that the prohibition among brothers applied only to the dishonorable Wucher, which violated the covenant conditions of love. If Calvin appealed to a brotherhood where interest was authorized, which was quite different from a brotherhood where it was abominated, Bullinger simply suggested that the medieval concept of brotherhood was false. Honorable usury had never been prohibited among brothers – Jews of Christians. This standard had not been altered for Christians but was simply restated in the Love Commandment.

Thus, when Bullinger was confronted with the radicals’ strict and logical application of the communitarian ethic to the contemporary situation, he did not simply equivocate or revise the medieval theory as did Luther and Zwingli. Like Calvin later, he abandoned the ole theory and formulated a new economic ethic that corresponded more closely to the actual economic conditions of his day. Yet, in forming his new economic ethic, Bullinger drew from the record of the covenant. The guide for daily economic activity in Christian society was the Love Commandment, the conditions of the eternal covenant of God.”

The Central Role of the Covenant in the Role of the Prophet

2011-09-08T15:07:00.000-07:00

Baker rightly points out the centrality of the covenant in Bullinger’s understanding of the prophetic role of the minister when expounding Scripture to the congregation. This may be illustrated from the following quote from Bullinger’s De prophetae officio (1532) in Baker’s translation:

“Thus I admonish you, oh prophet of God, that more frequently, when you are about to expound the Scripture, you should reflect on what the essential point of the holy Scripture is and to which matter all things return. May (Baker rightly assumes here that Bullinger is referring to the Lutherans) say it is the law and the gospel – but incorrectly. For the testament, which is the title of the whole Scripture, is also the essential point of the entire Scripture.”

“So rate ich dir, Prophet Gottes, wenn du daran gehst, die Schrift auszulegen, oft bei dir selbst zu bedenken, welches die Grundlage der Schrift ist und worauf sich alles bezieht. Die mesiten behaupten ja, sie liege in die Unterscheidung von Gesetz und Evangelium, doch das ist kaum zutreffend. Denn das Testament, das der ganzen Schrift den Namen gibt, ist auch die Grundfrage der ganzen Schrift” (Heinrich Bullinger Schriften I, p14).

Bullinger continues at this juncture with:

“Das soll niemandem als neuartig oder gekünstelt erscheinen. Unter dem Begriff Testament verstehen wir nämlich einem Pakt, einen Bund oder eine Vereinbarung” – This ought nobody consider to appear to be something new or something artificial. With the concept of the Testament we understand, namely, a pact, a covenant or an agreement.

Baker on Bullinger and the Covenant

2011-08-19T06:23:00.000-07:00

No serious study of Bullinger and the covenant can be made without seriously considering the work of J. Wayne Baker. His major work is Heinrich Bullinger and the Covenant : The Other Reformed Tradition. After criticism by Dowey, Muller, Archilla and others of his major thesis that the covenant is the central underlying theme of Bullinger’s writings Baker followed up with “Heinrich Bullinger, the Covenant, and the Reformed Tradition in Retrospect”, Sixteenth Century Journal, vol 29 (no2, 1998), pp359-376. There is no doubt that Baker is one of few scholars that have read and studied a wide breadth of Bullinger’s works. This is clearly evident form the extensive footnotes in the Sixteenth Century Journal article.

To my knowledge, no one has yet done a detailed analysis of Baker’s work bearing in mind the extensive number of Bullinger’s works he cites. Baker is often cited in the literature but there is rarely an examination of Bullinger’as actual works to evaluate if Baker’s conclusions are accurate or not.

There is no doubt that Baker’s works are stimulating reading. Here is a quote concerning Bullinger and the Anabaptists from Baker’s book published in 1980:

“This, the preservation of the unity of the covenant, was exactly Bullinger’s point when he defended the authority of the Old Testament against the Anabaptists. Christ has not abolished the moral law but only the ceremonies, which He had fulfilled. Although he had thus freed from the Christian from the condemnation of the law, the moral law remained as the holy and correct guide for living and civil society. The Old Testament still had great authority in the church because New Testament Christians were one with the old people of God. ‘These are truly one people of God, in one church and communion, in one covenant or testament; and they have one and the same redemption and salvation, one and the same teaching, one faith, one spirit, one hope, one inheritance, one calling and equivalent sacraments.’ The Anabaptists, however, rejected that whole concept of covenant unity, arguing that Christ made a new covenant of faith. Their rejection of infant baptism rested on their insistence of this new covenant and thus stemmed from their rejection of the Old Testament.

When Bullinger treated infant baptism he again dealt with the covenant. Baptism was a sign of the people of God, a covenant sign equivalent to the circumcision of the Old Testament. The covenant made with Abraham was an eternal covenant, and the Anabaptist contention that Christ had established a new covenant, abolishing the old was erroneous. God’s promise that he would be the God of Abraham and his children remained firm after Christ. Since children had been included in the sign of the covenant in the Old Testament, they also were included in baptism, for God would not be less merciful in the New Testament period than He had been in the Old. The covenant was sometimes called ‘new’ because it had been renewed and confirmed by Christ and because the heathen were now included. Bullinger made several arguments from the New Testament to demonstrate that children were still included in the covenant. Christ said that little children were in the kingdom of God (Mark 10:14), and He referred to children having faith (Matthew 18:6). With regard to the latter, Bullinger explained that the Scripture spoke of faith and the faithful in two ways. First, there were those who heard the word of God and believed; this did not refer to children. But the Scripture also referred to the faithful, which did include children, because ‘they are counted and reckoned among the faithful out of the free grace of God, who has included the children in the covenant.’ Therefore, Christ could not have excluded children from the Great Commission (Matthew 28:19-20). Furthermore, Paul clearly taught that baptism was the new sacrament of the covenant, replacing circumcision (Colossians 2:11-2), and he himself baptized entire households (1 Corinthians 1:16; Acts 16:33), which must have included children. Baptism was thus ‘a sign of the people of God and the seal of the covenant.’’

This is a helpful summary by Baker of Bullinger’s thoughts. But I believe Baker errs when he argues that Bulligner developed his understanding of the covenant partly to counteract the Anabaptists. Bullinger was first and foremost a biblical theologian and the covenant is an integral underlying theme of the canon.

Bullinger and God’s Accommodation in the Covenant

2011-08-16T06:37:00.000-07:00

In De Testamento Bullinger emphasizes that God accommodates Himself to mankind in the covenant. This is evident from this following quote from De Testamento :

‘ The following words of Moses, which are set forth in this passage from Genesis 17 :1-14, testify to the fact that God entered into a covenant with us according to human custom : ‘Now when Abraham was ninety-nine years old, the Lord appeared to him and said to him : ‘I am the almighty, all-sufficient God. Walk before me and be upright. And I will make my covenant between me and you and between your seed after you in your generations an everlasting covenant, that I may be your God and the God of your seed after you. And I will give to you and to your seed after you all the land of Canaan as an everlasting possession, and I will be their God. And you on your part will keep my covenant, you and your seed in their generations. This is my covenant between me and you and your seed after you. Every male from among you will be circumcised. The male, however,whose flesh shall not have been circumcised on the foreskin, his soul will be blotted from his people, because he has made my pact void.’ These are the words of my covenant, not written down verbatim but brought together and united in a summary. If you examine these words carefully, you will see that God has acted according to human custom at every point.’

Quod autem Deus hominum more foedus nobiscum pepigerit testabuntur sequentia Moses uerba, quae XVII. Gen Cap. In hanc leguntur sententiam, Postquam uero nonaginta & nouem annorum esse coeperat Abram, apparuit ei dominus, dixitque ad eum : Ego Deus omnipotens siue omnisufficienta. Ambula coram me & esto integer. Ponamque foedus meum inter me & te & inter semen tuum post te in generationibus suis foedere sempiterno, ut sim Deus tuus & seminis tui post te. Daboque tibi & semini to post te omnem terram Chanaan in possessionem aeternam, eroque Deus eorum. Et tu quidem pactum meum custodies, tu & semen tuum in generationibus suis. Hoc est pactum meum inter me & semen tuum post te. Circumcidetur ex uobis omne masculinum. Masculus autem cuius caro praeputη circumcisa non fuerit delebitur anima illa de populo suo : quia pactum meum irritum fecit. Haec sunt uerba foederis, non uerbotim appensa sed summatim collecta coprehensaque : quae si perpendas uidebis Deum omni modo morem retulisse humanum.
(De Testamento p5a)

Das aber Gott den Bund mit uns nach menschlicher Gewohnheit eingegangan ist, bezeugen di folgenden Worte des Mose in Genesis, Kapitel 17 : «Als Abraham 99 Jahre alt war, erschien ihm der Herr und sprach zu ihm : Ich bin der Allmächtige und die Allgenugsamkeit. Wandle vor mir, und sei untadelig. Und ich richte meinen Bund auf zwischen mir und dir und deinem Nachkommen von Geschlecht zu Geschlecht als einem ewigen Bund, dass ich dein und deiner Nachkommen Gott sei. Und ich gebe dir und deinem Nachkommen das ganze Land Kanaan zu ewigem Besitz, und ich will ich ihnen Gott sein. Du aber halte meinem Bund, du und deine Nachkommen von Geschlecht zu Geschlecht. Das is mein Bund zwischen mir und euch und deinem Nachkommen : Alles, was männlich ist, das soll beschitten werden. Ein Mann aber, dessen Vorhaut nicht beschnitten worden ist, dessen Seele soll aus seinem Volk ausgerottet werden : meinen Bund hat er gebrochen.« Das sind die Worte Bundes, nich wörtlich wiedergegeben, sondern gesammelt und zusammengefasst. Wenn du diese Worte sorgfältig erwägst, wirst du erkennen, dass Gott ganz der menschlichen Gewohnheit gemäß gehandelt hat.

More on Bullinger and the Unity of the Old Covenant and the New Covenant

2011-08-03T06:41:00.000-07:00

In De Testamento Bullinger wrote:

“Many arguments are found in Scripture that first glance seem clearly to distinguish between two covenants, two peoples and two spirits, such as that which we read in Jeremiah 31:31-32: ‘Behold the days will come, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and Judah, not according to the covenant I made with their fathers,’ etc. And again in Ezekiel 36:26, ‘I will give you a new heart, and I will put a new spirit in your midst.’ Again in Galatians 4:24, ‘These are the two covenants.’ Now I will explain from whence these terms were born and how they should be understood. To begin with, it is certain that the nomenclature of the old and new covenant, spirit, and people did not arise from the very essence of the covenant but from certain foreign and unessential things because of the diversity of the times recommended that now this, now that be added according to the contrariety of the Jewish people. These additions did not exist as perpetual and particularly necessary things for salvation, but they arose as changeable things according to the time, the persons, and the circumstances. The covenant itself could easily continue without them.”

Caeterum cum multa inueniantur in sacris argumenta quae prima statim fronte.
Testamenta duo, spiritus duos, & populos duos, longe lateque inter se uideantur
secernere, quale illud est quod apud Ieremiam legimus, Ecce dies uenient dicit dominus,& feriam cum domo Israel & Iuda testamentum nouum, non iuxta testamentum quod
pepegi cum patribus eorum & c. Item apud Ezechielem, Dabo uobis cor nouum &
spiritum nouum ponam in medio uestri. Item as Galat. IIII. Haec sunt duo testamenta,
consequens est ut nunc edisseram unde ista enata sint, quoue sensu dicantur. Principio ergo certum est ueteris & noui testamenti spiritus ac populi nomenclaturam non oriri ex ipsa foederis substantia, sed ascititηs quibusdam & accidentibus, quae temporum interuallis aliud atque pro diuersitate gentis Iudaicae suadentibus, accessere, non ut perpetua & unice ad salutem necessaria, sed ut mutabilia & pro tempore & pro personarum & caussarum ratione enata, sine quibus ipsum foedus facile subsisteret:

‘Nun sind aber in der Heiligen Schrift viele Äußerungen zu finden, die auf den ersten Blick zwei Testamente, zweierlei Geist und zwei Völker deutlich voneinander zu unterscheiden scheinen. So liest man etwa bei Jeremia 31,31-32 ‘Siehe, es kommen Tage, spricht der Herr, da schließe ich mit dem Hause Israel und mit dem Hause Juda einen neuen Bund, nicht einen Bund, wie ich ihn mit ihren Vätern schloss’ usw. Ebenso im Galaterbrief 4 :24 ‘Diese Frauen bedeuten zwei Bündnisse.’ Daher ist es folgerichtig, nun zu erklären, woher diese Begriffe stammen und mit welcher Bedeutung sie verwendet werden.

Zunächst ist also sicher, dass die Begriffe ‘Altes und Neues Testament’,’Geist’, und ‘Volk’ nicht aus dem Wesen des Bundes erwachsen sind, sondern aus gewissen beigezegonen und äußerlichen Umständen, die hinzutraten, weil die unterschiedlichen Zeitläufte, entspechend der Unstetigkeit des jüdischen Volkes, das eine Mal dies, das andere Mal jenes empfahlen. Sie sind also nicht aus ewigen und heilsnotwendigen Gründen entstanden, sondern als veränderliche Dinge, die der Zeit, den Personen und den Umständen entsprechend aufgekommen sind. Der Bund selbst kommt aber leicht ohne sie aus.’ (HB Schriften I, p80)

Was Bullinger Erastian?

2011-07-28T05:18:00.000-07:00

The following is an extended extract from Jean-Marc Berthoud’s celebrated lecture of 2004 :

“Let us here remove some unnecessary misunderstandings as to Bullinger´s position on the relation of the Church to the State. As a defender of Chalcedon he refused any confusion between the spiritual and the temporal orders. The Magistrate was not to usurp the proper spiritual function of the Church: the preaching of the Word and the celebration of the sacraments. The Church, on the other hand, was not to pretend to any kind of rule over the Magistrate, as was the case with the Roman theocratic system. But one must add that the absence, for political and theological reasons, in the Zurich arrangement of 1531-1532 of that clear institutional distinction between Church and State, for which Calvin was later to fight so strenuously in Geneva, made the balance between the spiritual and temporal powers in Zurich unduly (and dangerously) dependent on the stature both of the Magistrates and of the Pastors. Once Bullinger was gone, and with him his great spiritual and political authority, the State would increasingly be tempted to dominate the Church. Nothing on the institutional level would then hinder this growing appetite for the usurped authority of the State in the spiritual sphere. This historical fact "“ that of the ulterior Erastian subordination of the Church to the State "“ may in part explain why Bullinger, the historical representative of the faithful Zurich Church, has today become so utterly unknown, even in his native canton. The institutionalisation by Calvin of a clear distinction between Church and State was certainly more biblical (and less dangerous) than Bullinger´s political accommodation and, in the long run, certainly more productive both spiritually and politically.

But it is best here to let Bullinger speak for himself. An important part of his Decades is given to a detailed exposition of the Ten Commandments. The sixth commandment "“ Thou shalt commit no murder "“ is separated into its two aspects: the interdiction of homicide and the description of the function of the Magistrate. In passing, it is interesting to point out that the duties of the Magistrate are usually dealt with under the fifth commandment, that ordering children to honour their parents. On this question of the biblical teaching on homicide and on civil authority, Bullinger devotes no less than four sermons in the first volume of the Parker Society edition of the Decades, some 95 pages in all. The titles of each of these sermons in the Second Decade merit attention.

* Sixth sermon: Of the second precept of the second table, which is in order the sixth of the ten commandments, thou shalt not kill and of the magistrate.
* Seventh sermon: Of the office of the magistrate, whether the care of religion appertain to him or no, and whether he may make laws and ordinances in cases of religion.
* Eighth sermon: Of judgement, and the office of the judge; that Christians are not forbidden to judge; of revengement and punishment; whether it be lawful for a magistrate to kill the guilty; wherefore, when, how, and what a magistrate must punish; whether he may punish offenders in religion or no.
* Ninth sermon: Of war; whether it be lawful for a magistrate to make war. What the Scripture teacheth touching war. Whether a Christian man may bear the office of a magistrate and of the duty of subjects.

He explains his position, and that of the Zurich Church, in no uncertain terms.

For I know that many are of the opinion that the things of religion and their ordering belong to the bishops alone and not to the kings, princes and other magistrates. But the catholic truth teaches that the things of religion especially belong to the magistracy and that the same not only may but also should and ought to order and promote religion.23

After quoting a number of examples from the Old Testament, he adds:

Who is ignorant, that the magistrate´s especial care ought to be to keep the commonweal in safeguard and prosperity? Which undoubtedly he cannot do, unless he provide to have the word of God preached to his people, and cause them to be taught the true worship of God, by that means making himself, as it were, the minister of true religion.24

Now the exaggeration of this teaching was to lead to what later was to be known as Erastianism and it is known, through Bullinger´s unprinted correspondence with Thomas Erastus in the Palatinate, that the Zurich Reformer played an important role in the formulation of this position.25 But in Bullinger´s mind this by no means implied the subordination of the Church to the Magistrate. It was implicit in his view of the comprehensive character of the Christian faith that the totality of the Commonwealth was included in any truly biblical perception of reality. It is also to be noted that it was his recognition of the necessary and beneficent role of the godly magistrate in affairs of religion that so strongly favoured the great influence Bullinger exercised in the establishment of the Reformation in England, this of course in the context of the English Monarch as the Head of the Church.

For Bullinger, there existed a relation of mutual dependence between the faithful Church and the godly Magistrate. Pamela Biel comments on the need for the Magistrate to hear and heed the preaching of God´s Word, when she writes of the 17th Sermon of the Decades26

Bullinger expends the remainder of the sermon on demonstrating that, as the discernment of right religion is a complicated process, the magistrates ought to seek help in the right ordering of the church. The ministers, as the expert interpreters of God´s word and will, assisted the magistrates in keeping the territory on the path of right religion. The magistrate, for his part, retained the exercise of power such that he still stood as an authority over the minister in all things save the interpretation of Scripture.27

What was important for Bullinger "“ and here we again find his constant aim of attaining to a truly comprehensive faith "“ was not the exact definition of the particular rights and duties of Church and State as separate or even opposed institutions, but what Biel rightly calls "˜the reciprocal relationship between the minister and the magistrate´.28 Is it necessary here to add that his comprehensive way of thinking about every aspect of reality "“ a logic of "˜both and´ - does not function in fields where error and sin are involved. There rules supreme the antithesis "“ "˜either or´ "” the necessary choice between truth and error, good and evil. But Bullinger´s general strain of thought, strongly founded as it was on the original perfect coherence of the unfallen creation, viewed reality in terms of reciprocity, of the logic of "˜both and´, of coherence and complementarity. His words speak for themselves:

To the magistrate is commanded [by God] that he hear the servants of the Church. On the other hand, the servant of the church should follow the magistrate in all these things which the law commands. So the magistrate is not made subject by God to the priests or servants of the church as lords but as servants of the Lord God. Thus the servants of the church as much as the magistrates must be submissive to God in himself and his law. For if a single one of the priests does not speak the word of God, and he is priest only in name, no one of the common people should hold him before their eyes [as a model to follow]; I will be silent about a prince or a magistrate.29

Elsewhere he explicitly affirms with the apostles that, faced with an iniquitous political power, the Christian must "˜Obey God rather than men´.

This priority given to the monarch in the work of the Reformation of the Church comes out very clearly in his 1538 dedication of his book Concerning Sacred Scripture to Henry VIII. There he exhorts the king to take in hand the liberation of what later became the Anglican Church from the errors of Rome. For Bullinger, as Biel puts it,

Henry has the ultimate power and responsibility for the fate of the Church in his land. The potential for positive change in England through Henry dictates Bullinger´s position.30

Bullinger was aware that politics, the art of the possible "“ here the advancement of the Reformation in Britain "“ depended on the wise and prudent use of the historically established powers and institutions of the time. In the 16th Century, without the conversion of those in political authority, there was little hope for the free proclamation of the Word, a ministry without which no Reformation whatever was possible. Biel qualifies what we can call the Erastian tendency of Bullinger´s thinking as follows:

Bullinger did not, however, believe that the king ought to be left to his own devices when it came to matters of religion. Most of Concerning Sacred Scripture argued for the priority of the Bible in all matters of religion and specifically for the position of the ministers as interpreters of Scripture. "¦ The bishops help the king to understand what exactly God wants from him.31

For Bullinger the function of the Christian Magistrate was utterly subsumed under God´s own justice: he was under God´s law and to establish himself as his own law "“ as is the case for all forms of modern democracy "“ was to claim for himself the title of Tyrant or, as we would say today, of totalitarian power. For Bullinger,

The prince, indeed, is the living law, if his mind obey the written laws, and square [separate] not from the law of nature. Power and authority, therefore, is subject unto laws; for unless the prince in his heart agree with the law, in his breast do write the law, and in his deeds express the law [ie God´s law], he is not worthy to be called a good man, much less a prince.32

But Bullinger´s comprehensive mind adds the following caveat to his massive affirmation, showing how necessary a jurisprudential application of the law is essential to true equity, to the exercise of justice.

Again, a good prince and magistrate hath power over the law, and is master of the laws, not that they may turn, put out, undo, make and unmake, them as they list [wish], at their pleasure; but that he may put them into practice among the people, apply them to the necessity of the state, and attemper their interpretation to the meaning of their maker.33

And he continues:

Among all men, at all times and of all ages, the meaning and substance of the laws touching honesty, justice and public peace, is kept inviolable. If change is to be made, it is in the circumstances and the law is interpreted as the case requireth, according to justice and a good end. "¦ It is apparently evident that laws are good and not to be broken, and how far forth they do admit the prince´s epieikeion (Aristotle, Ethics, Lib. V, cp 10), that is the prince´s moderation, interpretation, limitation, or dispensation, lest peradventure that old and accustomed proverb be rightly applied unto them, Law with extremity is extreme injury.34

And he gives as example the necessary difference in treatment, by a judge attentive to equity, of accidental homicide and premeditated murder, even though both acts end up in the killing of a person.

As to the content of the laws applied by the Magistrate, Bullinger speaks in no uncertain terms:

The apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ did bind or burden no man with the laws of Moses [here he of course means not all the laws of Moses but, as Aquinas teaches, only those laws of the Torah specific to the vocation of the Old Testament Israelite nation]; they never condemned good laws of the heathen, nor commended to any man naughty [evil] laws of the Gentiles, but left the laws, with the use and free choice of them, for the saints to use as they thought good. But therewithal they ceased not most diligently to beat into men´s heads the fear of God, faith, charity, justice and temperance; because they knew that they in whose hearts those virtues were settled, can either easily make good laws themselves, or pick and choose out of the best of those which other men make. For it maketh no matter whether the magistrate pick out of Moses´ Jewish laws, or out of the allowable laws of the heathen, sufficient laws for him and his countrymen, or else do keep still the old and accustomed laws which have before been used in his country, so that he have an eye to cut off such wicked, unjust and lawless laws, as one found to be thrust in among the better sort. "¦

For civil and politic laws, I add this much, and say, that those seem to be the best laws, which according to the circumstances of every place, person, state, and time, do come nearest to the precepts of the ten commandments and the rule of charity, not having in them any spot and iniquity, licentious liberty, or shameless dishonesty. Let them moreover, be brief and short, not stretched out beyond measure, and wrapped in with many expositions; let them have a full respect to the matter whereto they are directed, and not be frivolous and of no effect.35

To conclude these quotations drawn from Bullinger´s treatment of the Sixth Commandment in the Decades let us add that our Zurich Antistes in no way condoned any kind of confusion between the spiritual and temporal orders, a confusion leading either to the spiritual tyranny of the Church over the Magistrate or, contrariwise (as is much more common today), the accumulation of all power, both spiritual and temporal, in the hands of the Providential Welfare State. In this 17th sermon, which contains much of his teaching on these matters, Bullinger writes:

But our disputation tendeth not to the confounding of the offices and duties of the magistrates and ministers of the church, as that we would have the king to preach, to baptize and to minister the Lord´s Supper; or the priest, on the other side, to sit in the judgement seat, and give judgement against a murderer, or by pronouncing sentence to take on matters of strife. The church of Christ hath, and retaineth, several and distinguished [distinct] offices; and God is a God of order, not of confusion.36

To characterise Bullinger´s complementary vision of the mutually supportive reciprocal relationship between the temporal and spiritual orders, a distinction which excluded both inchoate confusion and absolute separation, I can do no better, in closing this part of my lecture, than to refer to an astonishing text written in 1941 by a Serbian Orthodox theologian, Nicholas Velimirovitch, at the very moment Hitler launched his divisions in a massive onslaught on the Yugoslav Monarchy. This citation drawn from Velimirovitch´s short theological and historical study, Theodouly: The Serbian people as the Servant of God will, I hope, help us better understand Bullinger´s comprehensive understanding of the mutually dependent relationship, within the wider Commonwealth, of a faithful Church and a God-fearing Magistracy.

What then differentiates Theocracy from Theodouly? It is the difference between an imposed master and a voluntary servant. Theocracy can be of two kinds: clerical or lay. We only know clerical theocracy [ie the clerical tyranny of the Papacy] and it is profoundly despised in Europe; however lay theocracy is well known in the Muslim world, where Caliph and Sheikh or Shah holds a divine authority.37

Of course our modern world knows a kind of "˜atheistic theocracy´ with the total sovereignty of a political power become god, a law unto itself and its own end, its own finality, in the modern totalitarian and democratic state. Speaking of the Patron Saint of the Serbian nation, Velimirovitch continues:

St Sava (1174-1235) by his example instituted and consolidated the reality of the public service of God in such a way that the Archbishop of Serbia became the principal servant of Christ in the spiritual sphere and the King of Serbia the first servant of Christ in the civil sphere. Thus, if the archbishop was the servant of Christ, all the clergy were also constituted servants of Christ; and if the King was also the servant of Christ, then all constituted powers, civil and military were equally established as servants of Christ.

The whole spiritual hierarchy was expected to serve Christ and likewise the whole civil and military hierarchy was also expected to be in Christ´s service. Thus it was not only expected of the Church that it be enrolled under the banner of the service of Jesus Christ, but also the State: the State, no less than the Church, and the King no less than the Archbishop. Theodouly, the service of God, was the way and the purpose of both the Church and the State, each in the entirety of their respective functions.38

Such a comprehensive Orthodox view of the relation of harmony and reciprocal dependence between the godly magistrate and the faithful church would no doubt have found considerable sympathy with the Antistes of Zurich. But such a harmony between Church and State is difficult for us to understand today, confronted as we are with an antinomian and impious State (the Beast of biblical symbolism) and a prostituted spiritual power. The latter is not the Church, become largely spiritually and politically insignificant, but the general relativistic and ideological culture "“ "˜culture´ comes from "˜cult´, worship"“ a revolutionary civilisation establishing in all fields false and destructive norms, radically opposed both to God and to his Commandments.”

More on Stephens on Bullinger and the Interpretation of Scripture

2011-07-26T03:32:00.000-07:00

An earlier post referred to Peter Stephens’ article in RRR on the interpretation of the Bible in Bullinger’s early works. The following is another excerpt from this helpful article :

‘Bullinger’s other writings in the years after On Scripture express and develop what he says about the relation of the Old and New Testament, in particular the understanding of the covenant, the interpretation of Scripture by Scripture, and the role of the Holy Spirit as author and interpreter. These issues are, of course, related to each other.

Like the other reformers, Bullinger emphasizes that the Spirit is the author and interpreter of Scripture. The inspiration of Scripture underlies what Bullinger says about the Spirit and the biblical writers as authors, but inspiration is affirmed rather than discussed. With the Holy Spirit as the author of Scripture, there is naturally consistency between one part of Scripture and another, so that, for example, the evangelists agree with Paul on the Eucharist. The consistency of Scripture is both expressed and implied in his Reply to Burchard. He maintains that there is no difference between the teaching of Christ, Paul, and the Apostles, and that listening to Christ is not different from listening to the Spirit or listening to the Apostles. He concludes that the Spirit is consistent and, therefore, that he did not later command what he had forbidden through the apostles.

The Holy Spirit, as the author of Scripture, does not, however, override the distinctiveness of the human authors. In his lectures on Romans, Bullinger can speak of Paul as writing inexactly. For Bullinger, the inspiration of Scripture also does not preclude differences in Scripture. Thus there are differences in words. These, however, are not necessarily a problem, as the sense is fundamental rather than the words.

Likewise, the authorship of the Holy Spirit does not preclude other differences between the biblical books. In his second lecture on Romans at Kappel, Bulligner gives a lyrical account of Paul’s virtues. He draws on the praises of Fathers, such as Chrysostom, Macrobius, and Gregory of Nazianzus, in describing Paul as more eloquent than others and his writings as higher than theirs. Paul’s pre-eminence, however, does not derive from his personal qualities, but from the Spirit. All are taught by the Spirit, but the Spirit’s gifts are varied and the grace of God is given more powerfully to one person than to another. In this context Bullinger speaks of Paul as presenting Christ ‘in a lively way in all his epistles’ but as doing it most richly in Romans ‘the chief work of the whole New Testament and the heart of divine Scripture.’ Similarly in Hebrews he refers to Genesis as ‘the finest book’ in the Bible.

Some differences are not explicitly related to the gifts of the Spirit, but have to do with circumstances. Luke and Paul are said to have written more clearly on the cup, but that is because they wrote after Matthew and Mark and were seeking to prevent misunderstanding of the wine as blood. Similarly, Paul is to be preferred to Matthew, Mark, and Luke, although he wrote the same as they did, because he wrote last and wrote against error. Likewise, John related ‘most clearly the stories, speeches, and power of Jesus because he wrote last and much error had arisen.’ Nevertheless, some differences between certain Pauline epistles by the fact that they were actually written by a secretary and not by Paul himself. Again, however, he insists that there is no difference in sense.’

This except clearly points out how Bullinger viewed the unity of the canon. The covenant was the theme that linked the Old and New Testaments. But since the Holy Spirit is the author of all of Scripture it means that Scripture must be interpreted in an wholistic manner before seeking to interpret its constituent parts.

Zwingli and Symbolism in the Eucharist

2011-07-22T20:26:00.000-07:00

An earlier post has referred to the doctoral dissertation of Paul Sanders. Sanders is presently the chairman of the Accrediting Council of the European Evangelical Accrediting Association and is based in Paris. He kindly sent me a small section of this unpublished dissertation.

Sanders’ work cautions us against the caricature of viewing Zwingli’s view of the Eucharist as “symbolic” only. Here is part of the introduction of Sanders’ dissertation:

‘L'historiographie a souvent enfermé le zwinglianisme dans le carcan du "symbolisme" eucharistique. Cependant, des recherches récentes ont montré qu'il fallait nuancer les idées reçues sur les conceptions eucharistiques "sacramentaires" du zwinglianisme. Notre lecture de cette littérature nous a fait prendre conscience d'une contradiction apparente.

En effet, en 1549, Bullinger et Calvin conclurent un accord sur les sacrements, reflétant des prises de position sensiblement différentes de celles de Zwingli, du moins celles que l'historiographie lui reconnaît. Or, Bullinger, en tant que successeur de Zwingli, se devait de rester "fidèle" au legs théologique qu'il lui avait transmis.

Aussi avons-nous tenté de répondre à trois questions es¬sentielles :

a) Les historiens ont-ils raison de représenter la théologie eucharistique de Zwingli comme une doctrine "symbolique" ?

b) Comment Bullinger a-t-il géré l'héritage doctrinal reçu de Zwingli sur ce point (non seulement sur le plan des convictions, mais aussi sur le plan de la nécessité socio-historique) ?

c) Quel a été le rôle précis de Bullinger dans la mise en place, avec Calvin, d'une théologie "réformée" de la Cène ?’

Sanders also makes this observation about the conclusion of French scholar Emile G. Leonard :

‘Emile G. LEONARD reconnaît l'importance historique et théologique de Heinrich Bullinger, et voit notamment dans l'adoption de la Confession helvétique postérieure de Bullinger par Genève une victoire de la conception zwinglienne de la Cène - un "zwinglianisme revu et corrigé par Bullinger" - sur la position calvinienne.’

Bullinger and Scripture

2011-07-22T05:54:00.000-07:00

It is well documented that Bullinger emphasized ad fontes and seeing Christ as the goal of Scripture. Bullinger further emphasized the unity of the Old and New Testament and that the Old is interpreted by the New.The following is an extract of an article by Peter Opitz, ‘Hebräische-biblische Züge in promissio-Verständnis Heinrich Bullingers’ in Sigrid Lehebusch and Hans-Georg Ulrichs (eds.), Historische Horizonte (Wuppertal 2002), pp105-117:

“In einem Brief an Rudolf Asper von 30. November 1523 (De scripturae negotio) schildert der damals 19jährigen Kappeler Lehrer seinem Erkenntnisweg als consequent verfolgen Weg hin “ad fontes sacrarum litterarum, denn es ist besser “aus den Quellen selbst zu trinken als aus den Bächen”. Theologisch getragen ist dieser Weg durch das “solus Christus audiendus,” das er dort ausführlich erläutert, wobei bereits diese Cyprian entlehnte Fassung des reformatorischen Fundamentalartikels andeutet, dass Christus hier nicht nur soteriologsich relevant ist, sondern auch als göttlich autorisierter “Lehrer” in seinem Selbszeugnis gehört zu werden beansprucht.

Wie aber is das Verhältnis von Schrift und Christus genauer zu verstehen? Bullinger macht nun auf seinem humanistischen Weg ”ad fontes” bei der Bibel selbst nicht halt. As Schriftprinzip fordert hermeneutisch, dass “Schrift mit Schrift” ausgelegt werden muss, wie schon Luther, aber keineswegs nur er betont hatte. Ist aber Christus nach Röm 10,4 – so versteht es Bullinger – das Ziel und der Ausleger (interpraes) der Schrift, dann bedeutet christologische Schriftaulegung darauf zu achten, wie Christus selber in Wort und Tat die Schrift auslegt, und wie die ihn bezeugenden neutestamentichen Schriftsteller mit der Schrift von Christus her und auf Christus hin umgehen. “Christus beweist alles aus den alten Schriften und will allein aus ihnen erkannt werden,” schreibt Bullinger 1523 und weist dazu auf Joh 5,39 hin: “Die Schrift ist es, die von mir zeugt!” “Schrift” kann hier nur heißen: die hebräische Bibel. Diese wiederum konstituiert sich durch einem Traditionszusammenhang, wie schon die immanenten vielfältigen Bezüge der Propheten und “Schriften” auf die Tora, aber auch die Tora selber als Geschichtsbuch deutlich machen. In diesen Traditionszusammenhang ordnen sich Christus und die neutestamentlichen Zeugen selbstverständlich ein,wie Bullinger erkennt. Christus bezieht ihn oft ausdrücklich auf sich, exemplarisch bei der Abendmahlseinsetzung, wo er explizit wie implizit an die Passatradition interpretierend anknüpft. Si ist es für Bullinger eine Konsequenz des reformatorischen und christologisch begründeten Schriftprinzips, wenn er sagt: das Neue Testament ist die Auslegung, der authentische “Kommentar” des Alten: “Novum testamentum aliud non esse quam veteris interpraetionem.” Was umgekehrt bedeutet: Das Alte Testament ist die notwendige Voraussetzung zum Verständnis der neutestamentichen Botschaft, und dies nicht in einem lediglich äußerlichen Sinn oder gar als Negativfolie, sondern in seinem positiven Gehalt: Die Kenntnis der altestamentichen Christusverheißungen ist zum Verständnis der neutestamentlichen Christusverkündigung so notwendig wie die Kenntnis Homers bei der Lektüre des Homerauslegers Eustathios.”

Was Zwingli a “Zwinglian”?

2011-07-21T05:59:00.000-07:00

Earlier posts have pointed out that scholars such as Peter Stephens have demonstrated the importance of considering both “early” Zwingli with the “later” Zwingli when considering his understanding of the Lord’s Supper. Paul Sanders wrote a thesis that is very germane to this: Henri Bullinger et l’invention (1546-1551) avec Jean Calvin d’une théologique réformée de la Cène, la gestion de l’héritage zwinglien lors de la conclusion du et de la rédaction des (1551), thèse de doctorat, Université de Paris IV-Sorbonne, février, 1990.

Results of this thesis are reflected in Sander’s article in Zwingliana - « Heinrich Bullinger et le «zwinglianisme tardif» aux lendemains du ‘Consensus Tigurinus’ » Zwingliana 19/1 (1992). The following is a thought provoking excerpt from this article :

« Zwingli a-t-il modifé sa doctrine de la Cène après le Colloque de Marbourg ? Les écrits fondamentaux à examiner pour y répondre sont l’ (, juillet 1530), la (août 1530 et l’ (Christianae fidei expositio>, juillet 1531). Résumons notre réponse à la question posée.

1. Dans ces écrits, Zwingli a modifié le ton de sa présentation eucharistique. Les écrits d’avant Marbourg avaient un but polémique : détruire la fausse religion et ses vestiges eucharistiques (luthériens). Après Marbourg, Zwingli abandonne toute volonté de réconciliation avec Luther. Son souci de défendre son honneur et sa doctrine a pour résultat une présentation positive de ses vues eucharistiques. Il se donne de manière ingénieuse à l’exercice diplomatique qui consiste à présenter ses idées dans un langage familier à ses destinaires, tout en maintenant le fond de sa pensée sur ce chapitre fondamental de sa doctrine.

2. Zwingli modifie sa terminologie eucharistique. Ne refusant plus ni la notion de sacrement ni la terminologie eucharistique traditionelle, il verse dans ces moules lexicaux classiques des idées nouvelles.

3. Zwingli met l’accent sur le lien entre signum et res signata, après avoir insisté pendant la période symbolique sur une distinction tranchée entre eux : ils sont liés non seulement par les vérités représentées, mais aussi chez le croyant par les sens. Cette communication entre l’espirit humain et les sens dans la célébration des sacrements atténue le dualisme zwinglien de la période symbolique. Zwingli maintient cepednat son refus de toute liaison ontologique entre le signe et la chose signifiée, et rappelle la nécessaire distinction entre eux.

4. La relation entre le sacrement et la grâce est définie pour la première fois dans la période suivant Marbourg. Sur la base doctrinale de la souveraineté du Saint-Esprit, Zwingli refuse catégoriquement tout lien entre grâce et sacrement. L’Esprit doit rester libre et non pas être d’agir lors de la célébration des sacrements.

5. En ce qui concerne la relation entre sacrement et foi, Zwingli innove de nouveau en présentant sa notion de la contemplatio fidei : ce sont les signes qui offrent la réalité spirituelle signifiée à la contemplation croyante. Les signes constituent des stimuli sensoriels qui aident le croyant à saisir de manière indubitable la vérité spirtuelle. Ainsi se formulent chez Zwingli l’originalité de sa doctrine et la nécessité du sacrement.

6. Zwingli introduit, sans le développer de manière détaillée, le thème de la présence du Saint-Esprit. Son affirmation d’une présence spirituelle donne une nouvelle dimension à l’expression de sa pensée. Zwingli n’est plus limité par des présupposé dualistes. Par le moyen de la contemplatio fidei. Christ devient comme présent, une présence encore plus précieuse physique. Si Zwingli qualifie la controverse sur la présence du Christ de querelle de mots, ce qui ne trompe personne parmi les théologiens catholiques ou luthériens, la terminologie eucharistique demeure un véritable problème à résoudre entre protestants.

La mort de Zwingli sur le champ de bataille de Kappel interrompit l’évolution de sa doctrine. Apès avoir mis en pace les structures doctrinales et la terminolgie fondamentale d’une théologie réformée de la Cène, ce sera à Bullinger et à Calvin de développer et de nuancer cette doctrine.>

Bullinger and France

2011-07-20T23:09:00.000-07:00

There are several works in French on the significance of Zwingli and Bullinger for the Reformation. Some of these include:

J. Courvoisier, Zwingli, théologien réformé (Neuchâtel: Delachaux et Niestlé, 1965); J.-V. Pollet, Huldrych Zwingli: Biographie et Théologie (Genève: Labor et Fides, 1988); Huldrych Zwingli et le zwinglianisme (Paris: Vrin, 1988); J. Rilliet, Zwingli. Le troisième homme de la Réforme (Paris: Fayard, 1959); A. Bouvier, Henri Bullinger, Réformateur et conseiller œecuménique d'après sa correspondance avec les réformés et les humanistes de langue française, (Zurich-Neuchâtel: Delachaux & Niestlé, 1940).

Bullinger’s influence for Europe, including France, is reflected in the following delivered in a lecture by Paul Sanders at l'Institut biblique de Nogent-sur-Marne:

“C'est en 1536 que les premiers liens se nouent entre Bullinger et les protestants anglais, vraisemblablement à la suite des contacts déjà pris entre l'archevêque Cranmer et Zwingli, en raison de la question posée aux Réformateurs concernant le divorce d'Henri VIII. Au début des années 1550, les rapports avec les Anglais devinrent plus étroits. Edouard VI meurt en 1553, Marie Tudor accède au trône. Sa politique religieuse provoque le départ d'un flot d'Anglais, dont un nombre important sont reçus à Zurich. Ils y trouvent Bullinger, qui est devenu pendant le règne d'Edouard VI, grâce à son attitude accueillante, ses publications et sa correspondance, une sorte d'oracle pour l'Eglise d'Angleterre. L'accueil qui a été réservé à ses Décades en fait foi.

Bullinger et la ville de Zurich jouent aussi un rôle auprès des exilés français. Bullinger compose le traité Von der schweren Verfolgung der christlichen Kirchen en 1573 après le massacre de la Saint-Barthélemy, traduit en latin, en néerlandais, en français et en anglais. Bullinger garde des relations épistolaires et personnelles avec de nombreux diplomates, humanistes et autres hommes importants de France, ce qui fait de Zurich un lieu à l'hospitalité reconnue.

Un nombre important de publications de Bullinger est destiné à réconforter les protestants exilés par la persécution. Toute l'Europe protestante en est touchée. Des exilés protestants de toutes parts (Hongrie, Pologne, Angleterre, France, Danemark, Allemagne) viennent chercher refuge à Zurich.

Cela contribue à forger la réputation de Bullinger: sa notoriété est importante parmi les Réformateurs de son époque. Le nombre très important de visiteurs de nombreux pays que Bullinger reçoit à Zurich explique en partie l'étendue de son influence, la quantité de sa correspondance et le succès de ses publications.”

Stephens on Bullinger and Interpreting Scripture

2011-07-19T09:12:00.000-07:00

Peter Stephens (see earlier post) observes the following with respect to Bullinger and Scripture:

“Bullinger regards three things as essential in reading the Bible: knowledge of languages, the scope of Scripture, and certain methods of interpretation. First, he emphasizes the necessity and usefulness of languages, and what is lost in not having them. In his support, he appeals to theologians, such as Jerome, Ambrose, Augustine, and others, who recognized that fruitful theological work was not possible without the knowledge of languages. He even outlines in a practical way a course in Hebrew and Greek, having shown what is lost in not having the original biblical languages.

The second essential element concerns the scope (scopus) of Scripture, to which all the books of the Bible relate. Bullinger begins by referring to the Lutheran idea of law and gospel. He does not explicitly reject it, but simply says that he neither finds fault with it, nor wishes to praise it. For Bullinger, however, all the books of the Bible involve the eternal testament or covenant, which God has made with the human race (Genesis 17 and 22).

It is significant that in the list of the theological terms which Bullinger gives at the end of the book (ie Studiorum ratio), the covenant comes first, before either God or Scripture. The covenant has two parts. First, God binds himself to us and shows and promises who and what kind of God he wishes to be to us. Second, we are to keep this covenant, serve God faithfully, cleave to him alone, and live in innocence and in accordance with his will. The Bullinger adds significantly something which is not in Genesis: that God punishes those who break the covenant. In effect he reads this back from the rest of the Bible, which shows God’s relation to unbelievers. The treatment is the same in both Old and New Testament.”

Stephens’ conclusion is consistent with Bullinger’s insistence on the unity of the canon. Since the Holy Spirit is the author of Scripture then “covenant” (berith) in the Old Testament can be legitimately understood (hence Stephens’ comment ‘he reads back from the rest of the Bible’) through the lens of the New Testament use of diatheke (both ‘covenant’ and ‘testament’).

Bullinger and Scripture

2011-07-19T08:22:00.000-07:00

At the recent RefoRC Conference that was held in Zurich, one of the presenters made the following observation about Bullinger and his understanding of Scripture:

Bullinger’s hermeneutics appears to be somewhat different from Calvin’s. Calvin clearly viewed the Institutes as a “necessary tool” or hermeneutical guide for reading Scripture. Thus, for Calvin, the understanding of sola scriptura was somewhat nuanced. Bullinger, for his part, sought to stimulate his readers to read the Scriptures for themselves. He would refer to the church fathers or other Reformers when he assessed that they had correctly interpreted Scripture.

The very first sentence in the Preface to Bullinger’s combined commentaries on the Pauline and Catholic epistles indicates the paramount importance that he placed on the Word of God, its perspicuity and its authority:

“First of all, we would like to point out, dear reader, that we have written no laws, but commentaries, which one must verify, and may not be considered as divine oracles. The Bible is the only measuring stick for the truth. Where, then, you notice that I have not been quite correct in my interpretation, lay my commentary aside and follow the Bible.”

What is highlighted by Bullinger in The Decades is that the person who seeks to study the Scriptures must come with a humble heart under the authority of the Scriptures through the help of the Holy Spirit.

The Studium ratio which was completed by Bullinger in 1528 during his time at Kappel and not published until 1594 outlines the hermeneutical approach that was employed by Bullinger. With a healthy respect for humanist exegesis, Bullinger used rhetorical analysis judicially on the biblical texts in their original languages. Indeed, Opitz concludes that “the Reformation principle of sola scriptura demanded a methodologically thought-out ‘philology’, as well as a ‘rhetorical’ analysis of biblical texts.” In this early work of his, Bullinger noted the central position of the covenant as the scopus of the Old and New Testaments.

Bullinger’s method of writing commentaries may be illustrated by his commentary on Romans. It was characteristic of Bullinger not to focus on each and every textual or philological detail. Rather, Bullinger sought to give a concise overview of the major themes of the book (eg Romans) with a view to aid preaching that particular book from the pulpit. In doing so, Bullinger emphasized that to preach the Word of God is the Word of God (Prædicatio verbi Dei est verbum Dei).

Timmerman on Bucer and Bullinger on Understanding Scripture

2011-07-19T08:13:00.000-07:00

Dutch scholar Daniel Timmerman (see earlier post) identifies the following difference between Bucer and Bullinger vis-à-vis Scripture.

“Eine weitere Differenz liegt in der Auswertung des Alten Testaments. Wie erwähnt funktionierten >Glaube und Liebe< bei Bucer als ein hermeneutischer Schlüssel bei der Auslegung der Schrift, wodurch das Alte Testament in einem gewissen Maße hintangesetzt wurde. Bullinger aber, der die Einheit des Bundes gegen die Täufer betont, ist weniger an einem Relief innerhalb des christlichen Kanons interessiert. Für ihn lehren auch >die Bücher Mose gerade in den Gesetzen, ja sogar in dem Zeremonien, teils den Glauben, teils die Unschuld<.”

Bullinger and the Interpretation of the Bible

2011-07-17T04:30:00.000-07:00

The latest issue of Reformation and Renaissance Review has an article on Bullinger and the interpretation of the Bible by Peter Stephens. Stephens has been progressing writing articles on Bullinger.

The article is W. Peter Stephens “The Interpretation of the Bible in Bullinger’s Early Works” Reformation and Renaissance Review, vol 11 (no.3), 2009, pp311-333. The RRR website lists this as the latest edition of RRR but I don’t understand why the year is 2009.

Stephens is correct to point out that Bullinger emphasizes understanding the message of whole individual books of Scripture, the message of the canon as a whole and the message of the individual books in relation to the message of the Bible as a whole.

The following is the abstract of the article:

“This article notes Luther’s, Melanchthon’s, and Augustine’s influence, but also Bullinger’s independence in interpretation. It explores Bullinger’s rejection of the view that Scripture is obscure and needs the Fathers to interpret it. His underlying position is that Scripture interprets Scripture. Other principles include the comparison of passages of Scripture, interpreting a few texts by many, obscure texts by clear ones, the necessity for languages, the use of rhetoric, the covenant and the sum and scope of Scripture, an emphasis on the natural sense, and the contribution of secular disciplines. A concluding section considers briefly Bullinger’s later use of essentially five principles.”

Other subsequent posts will refer to sections of the paper.

Bullinger and Bucer in understanding the message of Scripture

2011-07-14T04:05:00.000-07:00

Dutch scholar Daniel Timmerman (Theologische Universiteit Apeldoorn, photo above)has written an insightful article “Bucers Verständnis von Schrift und Schriftauslegung. Ein Vergleich mit Heinrich Bullinger” in Wolfgang Simon (ed.), Martin Bucer zwischen den Reichstagen von Augsburg (1530) und Regensburg (1532) (Mohr Siebeck 2011), pp83-97. Timmerman points out to the centrality of the theme on the covenant in Bullinger’s writings. This is what Timmerman concludes:

“Was Bucer den Skopus der Schrift nennt, heiß bei Bullinger der Status oder Grundfrage. Schon 1532 ist es dem Zürcher ganz klar, dass nur der Bund Gottes die zentrale Botschaft der Schrift sein kann. Sich bewusst distanzierend von dem Begriffspaar Gesetz und Evangelium, weist Bullinger dezidiert auf das testamentum als die Grundfrage der Heilsgeschichte hin. Der Inhalt des Bundes sind die Verheißung der Gnade Gottes und die Verflichtung der Menschen zu einem unschuldigen Lebenswandel. Sowohl die Bücher des Alten als auch die des Neuen Testaments weisen eindeutig auf diesen Bund Gottes, der aus Glaube und Unschuld, fides et innocentia, besteht. In der Sache sind Bucer und Bullinger sich also durchaus einig. Die Rechtfertigung des Gottlosen aus dem Glauben kommt für beide als Zentrum der Schrift nicht in den Blick, die Rechtfertigungsterminologie wird von ihnen selbst nicht oder nur beiläufig erwähnt. Der Hauptinhalt der Offenbarung lässt sich für beide mit Glaube und Liebe bzw. Unschuld charakterisieren.”

Zwingli and Remembering

2011-07-13T23:08:00.000-07:00

Most people in the English speaking world associate Zwingli with the understanding of the Lord’s Supper primarily in terms of ‘remembering’. However, scholars such as W. Peter Stephens have demonstrated clearly that to appreciate Zwingli's understanding of the Lord’s Supper we have to look at all of Zwingli’s works. In particular, we must also look at the “later Zwingli” (ie around 1530) and not just the “early Zwingli.”

Visitors to Zurich are familiar with the statue of Zwingli just adjacent to the Wasserkirche on the bank of the Limmat. Here Zwingli is holding the Bible in one hand and a sword in the other. The sculptor was apparently a famous one who was commissioned to do several sculptures at the same time. What a pity the relevant authorities did not check the historical facts as the image depicted of Zwingli is not a true one. Unfortunately, it adds fuel to the misconceptions many people have of Zwingli.

The photo above (sorry for its poor quality) is the memorial plaque on the site of the battle field at Kappel-am-Albis where Zwingli died. The writing is very hard to decipher and read because of weathering. The plaque is virtually overgrown by a tree and most locals would probably be struggling to give visitors directions to Zwingli’s Denkmal. It is located only a few hundred metres away from the monastery where Bullinger taught as a young man and where he wrote his early works. Zug and Luzern are only just over the horizon so one can imagine the opposing forces meeting in combat on the field behind the Denkmal.

Remembering is important but it must be based on fact.

Zurich and Iconoclasm

2011-07-05T06:16:00.000-07:00

At the end of the RefoRC conference with the theme “The myth of the Reformation” held in Zurich, Peter Opitz, director of the Institute for Swiss Reformation History, took some of the conference attendees aside to give them background to the Reformation in Zurich.

One of the popular “myths” concerning the Zurich Reformation concerns iconoclasm. Iconoclasm first begun as a ‘lay’ response to the fiery sermons of Leo Jud at the St Peter’s Church. A similar pattern took place at the near by Fraumunster.

In time, the Zurich authorities wisely decided that future removal of images be done in an orderly manner. With respect to the Grossmunster the images were returned to the donors where known or systematically destroyed in an orderly fashion. It was not a ‘bull in a china shop’ approach.

Zurich and the Anabaptists

2011-07-05T06:12:00.000-07:00

At the end of the recent RefoRC conference with the theme “The myth of the Reformation” held in Zurich, Peter Opitz, director of the Institute for Swiss Reformation History, took some of the conference attendees on a tour of places of key historical interest for the Swiss Reformation.

Opitz showed the place on the bank of the Limmat River (near the Hotel Am Storken across the Limmat from the Grossmunster). One of the ‘myths’ about the Swiss was their seemingly ‘uncivilized’ way of execution of the Anabaptists by drowning in the Limmat. What actually happened was that Muntzer and others were first held in the tower what used to be in the Limmat just beyond the Wasserkirche and only released when they gave an oath that they would desist from spreading their teaching about rebaptism. When they were caught and reconvicted of spreading this teaching they would be imprisoned in the tower for a longer period of time. This was repeated several times with increasing periods of time of imprisonment in the tower. Eventually Muntzer and others were warned of the death penalty if they continued to disobey the authorities. According to the account, Muntzer’s own wife and children urged him not to give up stating that he would continue to disseminate his views on baptism and gladly be drowned for his belief. Technically, Muntzer and others were executed by drowning for their repeated disobedience of the authorities despite the authorities showing them much patience.

Was the Reformation a German Event?

2011-06-10T11:59:00.000-07:00

The first RefoRC Conference was held at Zurich 8-11 June 2011. The theme of the conference was “The Myth of the Reformation.”

The closing plenary lecture was given by Emidio Campi (the former director of the Institute for Swiss Reformation History at Zurich). His lecture was entitled “Was the Reformation a German Event?”

In the first point Campi considered if the reformation were a Protestant notion. A perceptive and incisive review as given of recent works on the Reformation. His thoughts were a development of what he has published as “Ecclesia semper reformanda: Metamorphosen einer alterwüriden Formel”, Zwingliana, Vol 30, 2010, pp1-19.

The second point examined whether the Reformation were an event or a process. The third point raised the question concerning the Reformation: German or European?

Olevianus vis-à-vis Bullinger re United with Christ

2011-06-07T07:37:00.000-07:00

A careful comparison between Olevianus and Bullinger with respect to the covenant would be a good exercise to do – especially their use and understanding of the terms, foedus, testamentum and pactum. Time permitting, I would like to have a go at doing this.

Bullinger often refers to union with Christ. This for him is the context of a restored relationship with God. The message of the covenant is God “pouring Himself” into a covenant relationship with the elect. Thus Bullinger emphaizes the two natures in Christ as “in Christ” we are joined in union with God. Bullinger also points out the role of the Holy Spirit in all this.

The following is quoted from Lyle D. Bierma’s book The Covenant Theology of Caspar Olevianus. These quotations illustrate the importance of union with Christ for Olevianus.

“But the mystical union plays a far more significant role when Olevianus speaks of covenant in the broader sense, ie, as actual reconciliation between God and believers. Here union with Christ is the vital link in the covenant between out faith, on the one hand, and God’s promises, on the other. Only through faith are we incorporated into Christ and only through that incorporation are we accepted as chidlren of God and coheirs with Christ. Furthermore, it is only as we are truly engrafted into Christ through faith that we experience the forgiveness of sins and the restoration of the imago dei (true knowledge, righteousness, and holiness) within us. As Mediator of the reconciliation or covenant between God and us, then, Christ is the channel through which god’s favor flows, and we possess that favor only insofar as we possess Christ Himself. It is in union with Him that the terms of the covenant set down in the Creed are put into effect.”

“Christ is the link between the Father and us, and the Holy Spirit is the link between us and Christ. Or as Olevianus himself puts it, ‘God unites Himself to us with an indissoluble bond in Christ our Head through the fetter of the Holy Spirit.’ What we really have in this covenant is communion with the entire Trinity.”

“The very possibility of the work of Christ, however, rested on an even deeper foundation, the person of Christ. Time and again Olevianus stresses that the fundament und grundt of the priesthood of Christ – and thus of the eternal covenant between God and us – is comprehended in the person of Christ, more particularly in the union of natures in that person. The covenant of grace or union between God and us is grounded first and foremost in Immanuel, the highest expression of the divine and human in union. Without this union there is no true Christ, and without this Christ there is no true covenant or reconciliation with God. This hypostatic union, moreover, must be preserved into all eternity if our covenant of reconciliation with God is to remain intact.”

Some brief comments about these quotations from Bierma:

1. Bierma cites from Vester Grundt – “Quotquot enim vere Christo per fidem sumus insiti, praeter illud beneficium remissionis…”

2. It is interesting that Bierma has identified Olevinus’ use of “incorporation into Christ.” I hope to search the writings of Bulligner to see if Bullinger might have also referred to “incorporation into Christ.” Bullinger certainly emphasized the imputation of Christ’s alien righteousness. But if Bierma has correctly understood Olevianus then we might see here something similar to the view of Michael Bird re “incorporated righteousness” that he expounds in his The Saving Righteousness of God.

3. Olevianus emphasizes Christ’s role of Mediator of the covenant.

4. Olevianus’ views on the two natures of Christ appear to be very similar to what Bullinger expounded in De testamento.

Bierma on Bullinger and the Covenant

2011-05-27T05:42:00.000-07:00

Lyle D. Bierma has published quite prolifically. His critique of Baker’s view can be found in his “Federal Theology in the Sixteenth Century: Two Traditions?” Westminster Theological Journal, vol. 45, 1983, pp228-250. He has also written The Covenant Theology of Caspar Olevianus (Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2005).

The following is one of his footnotes:

“It is puzzling why Baker especially sees a fundamental difference between Bullinger’s and Calvin’s doctrine of covenant. Baker is correct in pointing to a tension in Bullinger’s theology between salvation sola gratia and a conditional covenant that takes human responsibility for faith and piety very seriously. But precisely the same tension is present in Calvin and in all of early Reformed theology for that matter. To suggest, as Baker does, that Calvin resolves this tension by making faith a gift rather than a condition does justice neither to Calvin’s many references to the conditional nature of the covenant nor to Bullinger’s own insistence that faith is a gift of God bestowed on those whom He has elected from eternity.

It is also curious that Baker ascribes the differences in Calvin’s and Bullinger’s views of the covenant to their doctrines of double and single predestination, respectively. Faith as a condition of the covenant of grace is only apparent in Calvin, he argues, because for Calvin this condition is always fulfilled for the elect, and the reprobate, by God’s will, can never fulfill it. Baker implies that Bullinger’s single predestination, on the other hand, helps to preserve the conditional nature of the covenant because the reprobate, not God, bear final responsibility for their rejection. It is difficult to see, however, how these two views of reprobation affect the conditionality of the covenant. By locating the ultimate cause of reprobation in human unbelief Bullinger does not mean to suggest the possibility that nonelect persons after the fall are capable of fulfilling the condition of belief. The unregenerate continue to sin willingly, without coercion from the outside, but their wills are not free to the extent that they are able to love God or do any good (Second Helvetic Confession, IV.2, 3; VIII.2). That ability is a gift reserved for the elect, and the ultimate cause of one’s election is found, of course, solely in God (ibid. XVI.2). The possibility of fulfilling the condition of the covenant, therefore, is really no greater in Bullinger’s view of predestination than in Calvin’s.”

Weir on Bullinger and the Covenant

2011-05-26T06:44:00.000-07:00

Though it is some years since it appeared David A. Weir’s The Origins of The Federal Theology in Sixteenth Century Reformation Thought (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1990) is still a must read in order to grasp the development of understanding the covenant in the 16th century.

This is what Weir writes in his Introduction about Bullinger:

“Heinrich Bullinger also gave the idea of the covenant a central position in theology. He took Zwingli’s use of the covenant to defend in fact baptism and expanded it into a much broader concept. He sued it for a unified vision of history: history, for Bullinger, is not marked by radical discontinuity between the Old and New Testaments, but by unity and discontinuity. The crucial starting point for Bullinger is the covenant with Abraham. Bullinger points out interesting parallels between the old and New Testaments:

1. God concludes the covenant with Abraham appearing as El Shaddai, God Almighty; when Jesus Christ is incarnated he appears as God Almighty.
2. The covenant with Abraham is directed toward all nations, not just the Jews. When Christ comes, he comes to offer the gospel to all nations, not just to the Jews.
3. A condition is laid upon Abraham: ‘Walk before me and be blameless.’ Jesus Christ fulfils that condition.
4. Circumcision is made the sacrament of the Old Testament, which has its parallel with baptism in the New Testament.

If Abraham and Christ are the two basic loci of history for Bullinger, why was the law given to Moses? Bullinger takes the Mosaic law as a concession to human weakness. The children of Israel had been led astray by the sinfulness of Egypt, and so the Abrahamic covenant to be strengthened with the guide-lines of conduct.

Bullinger makes no reference to a prelapsarian covenant with Adam. Mark Walter Karlberg, in his recent dissertation, tries to show that Bullinger made some sorft of reference to a prelapsarian covenant with Adam in his treatise De testamento Dei unico et aeterno (1534):

‘As far as we can discover, there is only one instance in which he alludes to the covenant prior to the fall, the ‘most ancient of all covenants with Adam,’ which covenant was reestablished by the finger of God upon tables of stone. The context of this reference emphasizes the temporal, pedagogical function of the Mosaic law specifically in regard to the ceremonial law.’

Karlberg is to the following passage in Bullinger’s De testamento:

Primum ergo ipsa prisci foederis capita restituit, sed copiosius exposuit, inque tabulos lapideas proprio digita inscripsit. In his autem nulla adhuc ceremoniarum mentio. Sat enim praescriptum erat fidelibus. Verum dum isti infidels et perfidi esse pergerent, iniectum est humeris miserorum onus ceremoniarum, quo caruere prisci. Atqui in hunc finem atque hoc consilio iniectum ex caussa impellente constat, ne alienis deis instituerent sacra: propria erga instituit, eaque sibi ad tempus correctionis placere pronunciavit quae sine verospiritu et sine vera fide perfecta adeoque sine Christo negligebat, ut vel ista ratione testamentum confirmaret, praetera et Christi mysterium hisce velut typis inuolueret, essentique sacramenta et verba quaedam visibilia.

However, we fail to see the validity of this assertion. There is no mention in the text of the most ancient of all covenants ‘with Adam’, but simple of the most ancient covenant, which would refer to the covenant of grace. If we read this carefully we see that Bullinger is speaking of the ignorance of the Israelites in Egypt, and how God had to teach them anew of the covenant with Abraham. Lillback translates the passage in this manner:

First, therefore, He re-established the very heads of the ancient covenant, but He explained it more fully, and He wrote in tables of stone with His own finger. Moreover, in these things there is no mention thus far of ceremonies. Indeed, it is enough that the written rule was for the faithful. Truly, while they continued to be unbelieiving and unfaithful, the burden of the ceremonies was imposed by the arms of pity, which the ancients never had. Both to this end and by this counsel, He established the imposition out of an urgent cause, that they not institute the worship of a foreign god. Therefore, He established a special thing, and by this he declared Himself to be pleased for the time of correction, which he was passing over without the true Spirit and without the true completed faith and thus without Christ, so that He might establish the testament with that plan (Ps. 98:8-11). Further, by this He might cover the mystery of Christ even as by figures, and there might be certain sacraments and visible words.

J.Wayne Baker, in his extensive study of Bullinger’s doctrine of the covenant, has not found any reference to a prelapsarian covenant.”

A few comments are in order:

1. Weir is merely following Cottrell, baker and others who argue that Bullinger took over where Zwingli left off writing on the covenant. I am of the opinion that it was Bullinger influenced Zwingli on the covenant rather than vice versa.

2. Weir refers to “The crucial starting-point for Bullinger is the covenant with Abraham”. It is true that De Testamento focuses on Genesis 17 but from The Old Faith and The Decades it is clear that the covenant was first made with Adam. Karlberg is seeking to come to terms iwht this but wrongly refers to such a covenant with Adam as a prelapsarian covenant.

3. Weir fails to see a reference to a covenant with Adam in De Testamento. He has gone to the effort of citing the Latin text and Lillback’s translation which is appended to his dissertation. The endnote in Weir refers to Page 515 of Lillback’s dissertation. But had Weir checked page 514 carefully he would have read at the bottom of that page: “Indeed, this which he made with Abraham is not the first of all covenants. Rather, the first is what he made with Adam…..”

I have identified the text that Lillback used for his translation of De Testamento and there is the insertion of several sentences at this point to the text that is used by Baker. I am still hoping to get this published. So far no manuscript has been accepted for publication. De Testamento (in its expanded form) does clearly refer to a covenant with Adam but it was a postlapsarian covenant.

If readers can access Baker’s translation of De Testamento they will find it clearer, I believe, than Lillback’s. The section that Weir cites is where Bullinger explains why the ceremonies were added – ie because of the idolatry in Egypt. So that worship of God by the Israelites in OT times according to the ceremonies was ‘pleasing to God’ though, in reality, God desired to go back to the future. Ie back to the time of the patriarchs (pre the ceremonies) when God’s word was written by the finger of God on the tablets of their hearts. With the coming of Christ this becomes not only a reality but is at a higher level – hence Christ declares “God is spirit, and His worshippers must worship in spirit and in truth” (John 4:24).

Strehle on Bullinger and the Covenant

2011-05-24T21:32:00.000-07:00

Bullinger has been misunderstood with respect to his understanding of the covenant. One reason for this is an inadequate grasp of his use of the terms foedus, testamentum and pactum. Another reason is the tendency to read into Bullinger’s works the concepts of federal theology which developed in the 17th century. Another reason is giving insufficient attention to reading Bullinger in context and looking at his works over the three major phases of his writings/ministry: phase 1 – the early 1520’s; phase 2 – the mid-1520’s to the mid-1530’s; phase 3 – 1539 onwards (see Peter Opitz in his “Bullinger’s Decades: Instructions in Faith and Conduct” in Architect of Reformation, pp102, 103.

Clearly, Bullinger was misunderstood at the Synod of Dort and his writings were quoted out of context. No less than an able scholar in Stephen Strehle has, in my opinion, misunderstood Bullinger. This can be illustrated from his article “Fides aut Foedus: Wittenberg and Zurich in conflict over the Gospel”, Sixteenth Century Journal, vol. XXIII (no.1), 1992, pp 3-20.

In this article Strehle writes: “and yet, this solus Christus has another dimension in Bullinger, which will become so unlike the Reformers. In the hands of Bullinger Christ will become more the lawgiver, teacher, and example of the humanists than the redeemer of the Reformers. One need only glance at a bibliography of his works to observe this, his leitmotif. There the intransient, moralistic subtitle of his works can bee seen over and over: ‘Dad is min gliebter son, in dem ich versoenet bin. Disem sind gehorsam!’ (Matt. 17:5). And so solus Christus audiens becomes quite naturally the dominant theme of his theology. And it is this moralistic and humanistic Christ that will end up undermining, as it does so often throughout church history, his primary role as redeemer and the priority of the Gospel to the law.”

However, bearing in mind that many of the works of Bullinger were primarily pastorally focused, it is clear that, like the other reformers, Bullinger emphasized justification by faith alone in tandem with the imputation of Christ’s alien righteousness. What Bullinger did emphasize was that this was the teaching of the Church Fathers who were faithful to Scripture as opposed to the teaching of the Medieval Church which had corrupted biblical truth. Bullinger sought to respond to the Medieval Church by often using the terms they were familiar with or terms they preferred. This was clearly so during the period of the Council of Trent. Bullinger did emphasize the right response of mankind to God’s gracious provision in Christ (the promised Messiah and seed of Adam and Eve) in terms of “right living” (integer) which paralleled the Old Testament emphasis on love and obedience. In is in this context that his reference to Matthew 17:5 is made. Space precludes pointing out that, for Bullinger, Matthew 17:5 refers to the new Torah that Christ taught (indeed embodied in Himself) to replace the Torah of the Old Testament (not the Torah of the time of Moses but that already written on the hearts of the fathers before Sinai and the need to respond to the idolatry in Egypt). For Bullinger, both the Torah of the Old Testament and the new Torah of Christ are written on the hearts of the elect.

Strehle makes observations and comments about Bullinger’s understanding of grace, free will, predestination, reprobation and election (which will not be summarized here). Earlier posts in the blog on the work of Cornelis Venema deal adequately with Strehle’s misunderstanding of Bullinger.

The following lengthy extract is representative of how Strehle views Bullinger:

“This synergism comes to a most definite expression in his doctrine of a bilateral covenant between God and man. Zwingli had previously set forth a doctrine of covenant, in order to unify the promises and precepts of God to man, but he never spoke as if this was a bilateral or contingent compact. It is Bullinger who decides to recast the doctrine in this way through his synergistic tendencies and thus coordinate which is promised by God and exacted of man. God and man are now to be understood as confederated into a relationship of mutual responsibility, contingent not only upon the faithfulness of God but also upon that of man. While God might have initiated the relationship, man has his conditiones to fulfill, in order to receive the blessings offered. These conditiones are revealed throughout scripture, including most notably Abraham’s “Walk before me and be whole,’ as well as Moses’ ten commandments. According to Bullinger, upon fulfilling these conditiones, we are now in a position to expect God to fulfill his part, and thus receive his blessings. If we spurn them, we become disinherited.

This doctrine of covenant, we cannot say, is central to the overall theology of Bullinger, but we can say that through his De Testamento sev Foedere Dei unico et æterno of 1534 this concept of covenant did become an important and permanent fixture of Reformed theology. Classical Reformed orthodoxy continued to speak of the covenant as a bilateral arrangement, employing terms such as dipleuron, confoederatio, mutua pactio, mutua obligatio, and conditio. Man was said to make God a debtor to himself through certain federal conditions and thus was able to exact of God his reward.”

Several comments need to be made here:

1. Strehle has given insufficient weighting to God’s accommodation in relating to mankind via the covenant. Archilla’s work emphasizes God’s accommodation.

2. Strehle is following Baker in arguing that Bullinger viewed God’s covenant with man as bilateral. This view is not accurate once a word study is done on Bullinger’s use of the terms foedus, testamentum and pactum. See earlier posts in this blog. For Bullinger the covenant had both duopleuric and monopleuric aspects.

3. Strehle has misunderstood Bullinger’s use of conditiones as well as Bullinger’s understanding of ‘law’ for the elect in the new covenant (in a footnote to this article Strehle asks: ‘However, we in turn must ask why then would Bullinger speak of the law as a conditio for receiving divine blessing?’). I hope to write on conditiones in Bullinger on another occasion. But the extract from Strehle above is clear that one context of the conditiones is the blessings of the covenant – not the actual covenant relationship itself which is clearly all of grace.

Strehle’s writings, in general, are very helpful and insightful. But, I believe, he has badly misunderstood Bullinger on the covenant. If such an able scholar misunderstands Bullinger it is not surprising that many others misunderstand Bullinger. Hence one of the reasons this blog was set up was to put Bullinger’s work up for review and reflection by all readers.

Latest News on the RefoRC Conference

2011-05-24T06:10:00.000-07:00

A previous post has referred to the plenary papers to be presented at the RefoRC Conference to be held at Zurich 8-10 June 2011. The following is a list of the short papers to be presented at this conference.

Isabelle Graesslé (Geneva): The Small Leading Mythologies about Reformation: The Experience of the International Museum of the Reformation

Karin Maag (Grand Rapids): The Advantages of Being under Threat: Geneva and the Myth of the Escalade, December 1602

Jakub Koryl (Krakow): “Renascentia”and “Reformation” – between Myth and Reality: In Search of Their Different Meanings

Patrizio Foresta (Bologna): Short Presentation of the Fifth Volume of the Series “conciliorum oecumenicorum generaliumque decreta,” Edited by the Fondazione per le scienze religiose Giovanni XXIII Bologna

Rebecca Giselbrecht (Zurich): Demythologizing Women in the Zurich Reformation: Comparing Margaretha Hottinger and Anna Reinhart

Sabine Hiebsch (Amsterdam): Das Herz als Zentralbegriff der Glaubenserfahrung bei Martin Luther

Stephan Bernard Marti (Fribourg): Die Grosse Europäische Reformation: Luther (1483-1546) und Las Casa (1484-1566)

Daniël Timmerman (Apeldoorn): Between Rhetoric and Prophecy: The Development of Heinrich Bullinger’s Concept of Church Ministry (up to 1532)

Max Engammare (Geneva): Models of Preaching in Reformed Switzerland: Comparison of Three Models Known or Used in Geneva, Zurich and Basle

Rainer Kobe (Trier): Die Confessio des Thomas von Imbroich, Niederrheinisch/Kölnischer Täufer und Märtyrer

Monique Weis (Brussels): Samuel Pufendorf and the Reformation: A German Contribution to European History?

Anna Vind (Copenhagen): Visibility and Invisibility in Luther’s Theology

Rasmus H.C. Dreyer (Copenhagen): Hans Tausen and His Apologia for Luther

Michael Baumann (Zurich): Das Vermiglibild im Lauf der Geschichte

Philipp Wälchli (Zurich): “Wie die Teufel das Weihwasser…” – Zum Mythos des (nicht vorhandenen?) reformierten Kirchenrechts anhand der Kirchenordnungan von Zürich und Basel

Ueli Zahnd (Freiburg i. Br.): John Moir and the Late Scholastic Background of the Young Calvin’s Doctrine of the Soul

Arnold Huijgen (Apeldoorn): Divine Accommodation in Calvin: Myth and Reality

Aurelia A Garcia Archilla (Puerto Rico): Non multos: Patterns of Conversion or State Sponsorship? Correlation of the Reformation with Early Christianity and Contemporary Evangelical Conversionism

John R. Slotemaker (Boston): “Let us make man in our image”: The Imago Trinitatis in Early Reformed Theology

Friedhelm Haas (Baden-Baden): Verdient die englische Reformation wirklich ihren Namen?

Ian Hazlett (Glasgow): Maintaining Religious conformity in Sixteenth-Century Royal Hungary: A Case Study of Seven Carpathian Mining Towns

Jan-Andrea Bernhard (Castrisch/Zurich): Historigraphie und Realität: Die Anfänge der Reformation in Ungarn

E.A. de Boer (Kampen): John Calvin’s Institutio 1536: Reformed or Catholic?

Ernst Gouda (Apeldoorn): The Sources of Calvin’s Commentary on the Psalms

Michael Choptiany (Krakow): Monis Ramista est Calvinista: On Peter Ramus’ Attitude towards Calvinism. Is it True, that, as Hippolytus Hubmeyer Observed, “Every Ramist is a Calvinist”?

Ninna Jørgensen (Copenhagen): Das Vaterunser von Katharina Schütz-Zell im Rahmen zeitgenössischer Laientheologie

Paul Roberts (Louisville): Pierre Viret and the Politics of Piety

Christine Christ-von Wedel (Basel): Bilderverbot und Bibelillustrationen in reformierten Zürich

Andreas Mühling (Trier): Caspar Olevian als Schüler Bullingers und Calvins

Bjoern Ole Hovda (Oslo): “Worse than the Papists” – The Controversy Over the Lord’s Supper in Danzing (Gdansk) 1561-1567: Presence and Practice – Theology and Confessional Politics

Jon Balserak (Bristol): Calvin’s Aggression towards Rome and the French Wars of Religion: “We, Therefore, Are Able Boldly to Overthrow the Whole of the Papacy” (on Malachi 2:4)

Antje J.Gornig/Insa Christiane Hennen (Wittenberg): Das ernestinische Wittenberg 1486-1547

Martin Schneider (Bretten): Von Wittenberg nach Eropa – Melanchthons Beitrag zu Vermittlung und Konsolidierung reformatorishcer Lehre

Hendrik Klinge (Göttingen): Tractus christo-philosophicus: Jacob Schegks christologischer Entwurf von 1565

Erich Bryner (Zürich): Die Reformation in Schaffhausen und ihre Besonderheiten

Jordan Ballor (Grand Rapids): The Reformation of Law, Politics, and Society, Including “The Reformational Roots of subsidiarity”

David Sytsma (Princeton): Richard Baxter on the Foundations of Natural Law Contra Hobbes and Spinoz

Christian Scheidegger (Zurich): Eine frühe Polemik gegen die Zürcher Täufer

Andreas Pietsch (Münster): The Radical Reformation Revisited – or, How Protestant was the “Family of Love”?

Jon O. Flæten (Oslo): Heinrich Suso’s Letter to a Dying Nun

Sivert Angel (Oslo): Death as a Teacher in the Late Middle Ages and after the Reformation: Souso’s Büchlein der ewige Weisheit and 16th Century Lutheran Funeral Sermons

Wim François (Leuven): Jacob van Liesvelt Beheaded because of His 1542 Bible: Myths and Facts

Els Agten (Leuven): Francisco de Enzinas, a Reformed Spanish Humanist with a Vernacular Dream: A Spanish Translation of the Bible

Todd Rester (Grand Rapids): Divine Law, Natural law, and Human Reason: Adumbrations of Subsidiarity in Franciscus Junius’ De Politiae Mosis Observatione?

Frank de Pol (Kampen): “Reformation” and”Reformers”: A 17th-Century Approach. The Profile and Use of Two Fundamental Concepts in the Works of a Dutch Reformed Pietis

Frank Ewerszumrode (Mainz): Die Abendmahlslehre der Confessio Genevensis und des Consensus Tigurinus im Vergleich

Gordon D. Raeburn (Durham): Ritualized and Spontaneous Grief at Funerals in Reformation Scotland

Kristin Bliksrud Aavitsland (Oslo): Visualizing the Art of Dying in Early Protestant Scandinavia

Eivor A. Oftestad (Oslo): The “Sisters of Rachel”: Early Protestant Funeral Sermons and the Female Art of Dying

Vilet Soen (Leuven): A Spanish Inquisition in the Low Countries (1520-1580)? Myths and Facts

Gert Gielis (Leuven): ‘Ad religionem instaurandam’: Leuven Theologians and the Reformation of the Catholic Church in the Netherlands (1550-1580)

Urs Leu (Zurich): Mythen und Fakten zum Schweizer Buchdruck des 16. Jahrhunderts – Neue Erkenntnisse aufgrund des Digitalisierungsprojekts e-rara

Reinhard Bodemann/Martin Böger (Zurich): Eine topogrphisch neu angelegte Bibliographie der Pfarrerbücher

Martin Wangsgaard Jürgensen (Copenhagen): The Arts and Lutheran Praxis Pietatis I

Sven Rune Havsteen (Copenhagen): The Arts and Lutheran Praxis Pietatis II

Euler and Pfeiffer on Bullinger’s Der christlich Eestand (1540)

2011-05-23T02:08:00.000-07:00

Carrie Euler has written extensively on Bullinger’s Der christliche Eestand. See especially her article “Bullinger’s Der christlich Eestand: Marriage and the Covenant” in Gordon and Campi (eds.) Architect of Reformation. See also her article “Heinrich Bullinger, Marriage and the English Reformation: ‘The Christian state of Matrimonye’ in England, 1540-1553,” Sixteenth Century Journal vol 34 (no.2), 2003, pp365-369.

Euler writes that “Bullinger’s belief that a reformation of marriage and morals was an integral part of the restoration of obedience to the covenant led him to write a more thorough treatise than any other reformer, and one that blended his theology of marriage into the traditional genre of the domestic conduct book. It will be demonstrated that the subtle distinctions between Bullinger’s idea of the covenant and that of other reformers did not significantly alter or affect his opinions on specific marital issues…. What Bullinger’s unique conception of a unified, conditional (duopleuric) covenant did do, however, was cause him to stress, more than any other Continental Protestant, the reformation of religion and society along the lines of the Old Testament. This led him to emphasize not only the unity of the secular and religious spheres and importance of Old Testament law, but also the connection between theory and praxis and the need for the laity to have a better understanding of the place of marriage in society. Thus, while the covenant had only a small impact on specific points of marital theology, it did influence Bullinger’s motivation for discussing these issues and his way of presenting them.”

In a footnote, Euler writes: “My understanding of the covenant in Bullinger’s theology thus falls between those of J.W. Baker and Richard A. Muller is correct in his assertion that Bullinger’s notion of a unified covenant affected his opinion on the roles of the magistrate, the minister, and the Old Testament law in a Christian community. Nevertheless, as Muller points out, and as Bullinger’s theology of marriage will confirm, the differences that resulted were largely structural, rather than doctrinal. In this light, Baker’s designation of the covenant as the ‘basic element’ in Bullinger’s entire theology and his division of the Reformed tradition into the two distinct strands of Zurich and Geneva become questionable.”

The following is an extract from Charles William Pfeiffer “Heinrich Bullinger and Marriage” (Dissertation: St Louis University, 1981):

“There are some striking parallels between Bullinger’s theology of marriage and his theology of the covenant. The opening paragraph of the Eestand (1540) emphasizes the unity of the covenant. Bullinger begins by using his hermeneutical principal (sic) that the New Testament is an interpretation of the Old. When he undertakes to address himself to questions concerning marriage and the family he states that ‘he knows nothing more fitting that in the same fashion (as Christ did in Matthew 19) to base his (teaching) on God’s foremost prophet Moses.’ Christ reached back to the Old Testament and gave answer to his questioners. Here Bullinger showed that his own hermeneutic was taken from the example of Christ himself, and he demonstrated his use of his biblical hermeneutic. In the beginning chapters of the Eestand as Bullinger established the theological basis for the institution of marriage he relied almost exclusively on the Old Testament. He imitated Christ’s example and explained the Old Testament by the New. Thereby Bullinger through his marriage teaching witnesses the unity of the one covenant between God and Man.

In the first chapter of the Eestand Bullinger also stressed the soteriological dimensions of the covenant. Just as circumcision in the Old Testament prefigured baptism, and the Passover prefigured the Eucahrist, Adam’s deep sleep during which the rib was taken from his side prefigured the death of Christ. Just as marriage was born out of the side of Adam so the church was born out of the side of Christ (cf Eph. 5). The founding of marriage in the Old Testament was a sign of the seal of the covenant in the New Testament, and just as we are brought to our salvation from the side of Christ in the New Testament so are we brought to salvation through marriage which originated from the side of Adam. Bullinger writes: ‘the married people of both the Old and New Testaments should understand this institution to be a salvation and its grace of God should be reckoned unto them.’

Just as the Church was born from the side of Christ is our way of salvation in the New Testament, so marriage born from the side of Adam is a way to salvation for all men. Marriage then demonstrates the soteriological unity of the covenant. This institution ordained by God before the Fall is equally valid for all men before and after the Fall. It has soteriological significance for all men of both testaments in tha tit prefigured the seal of the covenant, and it is a path to salvation.

Bullinger stressed the second aspect of the covenant (ie the covenant includes all history) when he showed that marriage according to the scriptures was first ordained ‘in Paradise and the Garden of Eden’ by God himself. The gift of marriage extends from its origins to the present day. Marriage is a part of God’s plan for all ages; ‘marriage should be performed under God’s ordinances, in reverence for God, and in the fear of the Lord.’ Just as there is only one covenant there is only one marriage. Marriage remained the same before and after the Fall, and the same divinely ordained estate in life fro Adam remains the same estate in life for us. That is why Bullinger was careful not to distinguish between marriage before and after the Fall.

The third aspect of Bullinger’s theology of the covenant which is expressed in his teachings on marriage is the bilateral nature of the covenant. Marriage is an institution ordained by God and part of God’s plan for man. Through this divinely instituted state in life one can live in faith and piety and fulfill the conditions of the covenant. Bullinger expressly makes this point in the Decades….

Marriage is a path of salvation extended to man, and the grace of the institution is reckoned to him. Man’s response by living a good married life in faith and piety in his response to God’s extension of grace.

Just as there was for Bullinger one covenant for both the Old and New Testaments, so there were only one marriage in the Old and New Testaments. Just as the covenant offered to man was the way of his salvation, so marriage which was extended to man was a path of salvation. Just as the covenant included all of history, so there was one and the same marriage offered to men before and after the Fall. Finally, just as the covenant demanded a response from man to live in faith and piety, so marriage was a response to fulfill the terms of marriage and the covenant by living a good married life in faith and piety. Indeed it can be said that marriage in Bullinger’s theology is analogous to the one bilateral covenant which God made with man.”

Pfeiffer had read Baker’s work Bullinger and the Covenant before it had come into print. This explains how he views covenant in Bullinger through the lens of Baker and, therefore, the emphasis on the so-called bilateral nature of the covenant.

Gulley on Bullinger on the Covenant

2011-05-22T20:43:00.000-07:00

Those interested in the influence of Bullinger and Zwingli on the English Church are aware of the work of Frank Gulley Jnr. Gulley’s Vanderbilt dissertation of 1961 is entitled “The Influence of Heinrich Bullinger and the Tigurine Tradition upon the English Church in the sixteenth Century.” What is less well known are the helpful insights that Gulley makes about understanding Bullinger’s thought.

Since Gulley’s work may be not so easily accessible I will append some of his comments about Bullinger and the covenant:

“Emanujel Graf von Korff, some fifty years ago, expressed the judgment that Heinrich Bullinger was the first covenant theologian. He recognized that the theme of the covenantal relationship between God and man was to be found in Zwingli’s writings, but correctly concluded that at no time was it the fundamental doctrine (Ausgangspunkt) of his theology. With Bullinger however, he saw this concept as the controlling principle of his theology, and for this reason, he concluded that Bullinger could legitimately be called a covenant theologian. In more recent years, Peter Walser has taken issue with this thesis. He maintains that, since Bulinger was a biblical theologian, his theology naturally reflects the non-systematic character of the Bible itself. This does not deny the importance of the covenant in his theology, however. He admits that the concept of the covenant is the means (Sammelpunkt) by which Bullinger displays his theology.

Therefore there is great question whether the term covenant theologian can appropriately be applied to Bullinger. Certainly it must be admitted that Bullinger was not a covenant theologian in the same sense that the term is customarily applied to men in the Puritan tradition of the seventeenth century covenant theologians did. In this sense we must agree that Bullinger was not a covenant theologian. On the other hand it must be affirmed that the Covenantal relationship figured prominently in Bullinger’s thinking. For our purposes it shall be sufficient to discuss Bullinger’s theology in terms of the Covenantal relationship. Insofar as it is possible to determine any fundamental structure to Hooper’s theology, it is that of the covenantal relationship between God and man……

In the beginning God created man in a state of righteousness. That is Adam was created ‘good, most pure, most holy, most just, and immortal, and adorned … with every excellent gift and faculty, so that there was nothing wanting to him in God, which was available to perfect felicity.’ Thus Adam was created with a free will, which enable him to choose between good and evil. In order that he might exercise his freedom intelligently God him a law commanding him not to eat of the tree of knowledge. Stated in the affirmative, the law required obedience and faith in God. Adam, through his free will, chose to eat of the fruit thus refusing obedience to God and showing lack of faith. Thus he incurred the just damnation of God. At this point Bullinger insisted that we must understand that Adam’s fall was the result of his own free will and not the working out of an eternal decree. He did not wish to give occasion for the charge that God is the author of sin and evil.

God, however, was not willing that Adam should remain in disfavor, and so he devised the means by which the broken relationship could be mended and Adam could be brought once again into divine favor. God’s answer was the covenant. Bullinger chose this medium because it was a procedure already familiar to man. Men, as individuals and as nations, in order to lvie safely and in peace with one another, bind themselves together in pacts, treaties, and covenants. By this procedure all parties concerned are able to know ‘what they be that make the confederacy, upon what conditions, and how far the covenant shall extend. Because of the precise character of this arrangement, God chose it as the means by which he would heal the breech.

Since God was the party wronged, it was he who offered the covenant and fixed the conditions. God, on his behalf, offered to bestow his grace and favor upon man through the gift of his only son, Jesus Christ. It was ‘the living, eternal, and omnipotent God, … the chief maker, preserver, and the god of all things’ who condescended to man, pledging,’I will be thy God, they fullness and sufficiency.’ Bullinger is quick to point out that God’s condescension to man does not indicate any lack or need on God’s part. On the contrary, God is ‘very fullness and sufficiency itself.’ The nature of God’s promise is the gift of his Son as satisfaction for the sin of man and as guarantor of God’s grace and favor. Though Christ’s coming was to be many centuries in the future, his coming at whatever time stands as valid guarantee of God’s favor beginning with the fall and lasting forever. Thus the terms of the covenant are valid eternally.

The other participant in the covenant was Adam – father of the human race through whose seed all men are infected with sin and by whose command to the covenant we are made heirs of the covenantal promises.Man’s responsibility is to ‘walk before God and be upright.’ In more precise terms, man must practice ‘faith and due obedience’ unto God. In later times God found it necessary to renew the covenant with Noah, Abraham, and Moses. With the latter the terms of the covenant were spelled out in greater detail. ‘The conditions of the league (covenant) were at large written in the two tables (the tables of Moses) and many ceremonies added thereunto.’ Thus we see an embellishment of the original requirements laid upon Adam. However, Bullinger insists that ‘in the substantial and chiefest points, ye find nothing altered or changed’ from the original covenant. Thus from the time of Moses onward, it was obedience to God’s will as found in the law which is specifically the commitment of man in the covenantal relationship. But the terms of the covenant are binding from the Fall to the present, obligating all generations in the past, present, and future. Thus there is only one covenant binding men of both the Old Testament and the New Testament. The terms and obligations for both are identical…..

Since obedience to the law is obligatory for Jew and Christian, Bullinger wrote exclusively of its proper interpretation. In the first place, he insists that the faithful, from Adam until the time of Christ, knew that the observance of the bare letter of the law was impossible, indeed it was designed to drive man to despair. But this was and is not its sole purpose. It was also an instrument of revelation. Finding ourselves unable to fulfill the will of God through our own strength, the law ‘leads us directly by faith to Christ.’ This it does by preaching ‘the true doctrine of justification, teaching plainly that we are justified by faith in Christ, and not by the merits of our own works.’ All of this, Bullinger insists, the faithful people of the Old Testament understood, and therefore they ‘did not seek for righteousness and salvation in the works of the law, but in him which is the perfectness and end of the law, even Christ Jesus.’

In a similar way the ‘ancient saints,’ that is, the faithful, the elect of God (not all men) were able to discern through the eyes of faith the ‘prefigurement’ of Christ in the law and in all the ceremonies. They understood, for example, that the numerous ceremonies, which expressed Jewish worship, were not to be understood literally and that the ceremonies in and of themselves were not pleasing to God. Instead, these ceremonies had the function of directing the minds and faith of God’s people ‘upon the Messiah to come who was prefigured in all the ceremonies and ordinances of the law.’ It must be admitted that there were many who failed to understand the ‘true’ meaning of the law and the ceremonies. Certainly there were those who ‘did abuse the law, who thought that they were acceptable to God, and that they served him as they should because they were busy in those ceremonial works.’ Thus these men lived under external shadows and outward figures.

The two most important of the ceremonies instituted by God were circumcision and the feast of the Passover. Bullinger describes these as ‘signs and seals’ designed to confirm the covenant between God and man. Circumcision had the added importance of being ‘a testimony and a seal of free justification in Christ, who cicumciseth us spiritually without hands by the working of the Holy Ghost.’ It is most important to notice that in Abraham’s case, and therefore for all mankind, the outward act of circumcision was a sign that God had justified man through grace ‘before his circumcision.’ Thus the act itself was an outward confirmation of God’s inner activity; man’s justification is not thereby ultimately dependent upon the act itself.

Bullinger understood Passover to be the second sign or seal which God selected for confirming the covenant between God and man. To the faithful participant in the ceremony, it had a past dimension: ‘to keep in memory the benefit which God did for them in the lad of Egypt.’ In this sense the observance of the Passover ‘did, after a sort, make a sermon to their eyes and other senses.’ To that same participant there was a present dimension: A testimony of God’s good will toward all that remained faithful and a means whereby the faithful are gathered together into the fellowship of one body and are reminded to be thankful and righteous. And finally there was a future dimension to the Passover: A witness to ‘what Christ should be, what he should do for the world, by what means the faithful should be partakers with him, and how … (the faithful) should behave before him.’

In the fullness of time the Son of God became incarnate as God’s chosen means of securing the promise to Adam in the covenant and of rendering satisfaction to his offended justice. The validity of the covenant depended upon one with sufficient power and authority to guarantee it. Natural man could not do this. Hence and incarnation was necessary. Christ stands as the promised Messiah and guarantor of the covenant. He has the legitimate claim to these titles because he was able to appease the offended justice of God through his sacrificial death upon a cross. Thereby God’s promise of communion and fellowship with those who believe was made possible. It was then incumbent upon man to accept this fellowship through repentance and faith.

The community of the faithful, since the death of Christ, is known by the term ‘Church.’ But the Church is in no way different from the community before the incarnation. Both terms are designations of the same community. The community of God’s faithful exists from the beginning until the end of the world. Like the synagogue, the Church militant, ie the Church as an institution in society, is composed of those who are truly faithful to Christ – ‘lively members, knit unto Christ, not with bands and other outward marks and signs, but in spirit and faith’ – and those who ‘believe not truly or unfeignedly.’ But it is only those who are truly faithful that are the elect of Christ and thus are justified. While the exact constituency of this group is known to God alone, any man can know that he is a member of it, if he has faith. By faith, which is trust in God’s promises, man receives the imputation of Christ’s righteousness unto him and thus becomes a Son of God. Man receives faith not because of any effort on his own but through the unmerited action of the Holy Spirit. Thus man is no longer bound to obey the law in its absolute demands, but to have have faith in Christ who is the fulfillment of the law.

Following the atonement, the Church was given two new signs or seals of God’s promise fulfilled in the Covenant: baptism and the Lord’s Supper. These symbols function for the post-resurrection Church just as circumcision and the feast of the Passover did for the Church before Christ: to recall to man’s mind God’s gracious act toward him in Christ and to admonish him of his duty of faith and obedience. Thus the goals of the sacraments is that of a witness, a testimonial, sign and seal. Man’s ultimate salvation, is not bound up in them. However, the Christian man will make use of them because they have been commanded by Christ. Apart from these ceremonial activities, the Christian Church is freed from the ceremonial obligations of the Jews.”

This is quite a helpful and accurate analysis of Bullinger on the covenant, though it is based entirely on The Decades. Allow me to make the following observations/comments:

1. Gulley is on the money when he states that Bullinger is, first and foremost, a biblical theologian – ie he is concerned for the means of the canon as a whole. The theme of the covenant is Sammelpunkt. The reference to Walser is: Peter Walser, Die Prädestination bei Heinrich Bullinger (Zurich: Zwingli-Verlag, 1957), pp244.

2. The covenant was the means by which the broken relationship between God and man could be restored. God condescended to use “a procedure already familiar to man’. At this point, with Archilla, we would emphasize God’s accommodation in initiating the covenant.

3. “The terms of the covenant are valid eternally.” However, Gulley does not enlarge on this. Though he does refer to the fact that man’s responsibility is to “walk before God and be upright” and this means to practice “faith and obedience” to God.

4. Although he does not underline it, Gulley clearly sees the covenant as being initiated with Adam and then renewed with Noah, Abraham and Moses. It is one covenant “in the substantial and chiefest points, ye find nothing altered or changed.”

5. Gulley rightly concluded that, for Bullinger, the law was not the means of salvation In Old Testament times. It was desinged to point out man’s inability, it was an instrument of revelation and “leads us directly by faith to Christ.” Not Gulley’s observation that “the faithful people of the Old Testament understood, and therefore they ‘did not seek for righteousness and salvation in the works of the law, but in him which is the perfectness and end of the law, even Christ Jesus.’”

6. With respect to circumcision as sign or seal of the covenant, Gulley point out that Christ ‘circumciseth us spiritually without hands by the working of the Holy Spirit.’ Indeed, with respect to the circumcision of Abraham, it was an ‘outward confirmation of God’s inner activity; man’s justification is not thereby ultimately dependent upon the act itself.’

7. Gulley concludes: “Adam’s fall was the result of his own free will and not the working out of an eternal decree. He did not wish to give occasion for the charge that God is the author of sin and evil”. See the earlier posts on this blog on Venema on Bullinger and predestination.

Bullinger and Calvin on Hebrews

2011-05-18T01:03:00.000-07:00

Since Brian Lee (Johannes Cocceius and the Exegetical Roots of Federal Theology) has done us the service of doing the spade work what is cited below is Lee’s comparison between Bullinger and Calvin vis-à-vis their commentaries on Hebrews and their understanding of Hebrews 8, in particular.

“Clearly, the basic distinction between form and substance, expressed both in the commentary (ie Ad Hebraeos) and the Institutes, is in great agreement with Bullinger, insofar as it identifies a single, unified substance. Like Bullinger, Calvin believes that Hebrews 8 has the abrogation of the ceremonies in view. But Calvin speaks much more freely of two distinct covenants, the one ‘legal’ or ‘of the law,’ and the other ‘evangelical.’ Calvin does not draw a too-sharp distinction between the two periods, insisting that even he Fathers had the ‘writing of the law’ on their hearts. The difference between the two administrations should be viewed in a comparative sense, ‘between the less and the greater.’ For the sake of comparison only, the Apostle considers the dispensations according to what is peculiar or preponderant in each; we are not to presume that there was no gifting of the Spirit before the coming of Christ.

Yet there is more of an emphasis on the different natures of the two covenants here under comparison. The ‘solution to the problem’ of how the Fathers received the Spirit is that ‘There is yet no reason why God should not have extended the grace of the new covenant to the fathers.’ Grace, in an important sense, is not proper to the covenant of the law. As he states more clearly in his discussion in the Institutes, ‘The Law everywhere contains promises of mercy; but as these are adventitious to it (aliunde ascitae, ‘borrowed from elsewhere’), they do not enter into the account of the Law as considered only in its own nature.’ This soteriological contrast between Law and Gospel, though treated in a separate section of the Institutes, cannot entirely be distilled from the topic of the relation between the two testaments, but rather is essential to a proper expression of both continuity and discontinuity. As noted earlier, Hagen overlooks precisely the fact that these two topics are both distinct and related, wrongly inferring from one half of the discussion that Calvin believes in an unqualified ‘agreement of law and gospel.’”

Erratum

2011-05-15T20:06:00.000-07:00

I apologize that in the midst of a busy pastoral ministry I sometimes type posts for this blog while on “autopilot” mode. Because of this, in some recent posts I have inadvertently confused De propheta libri duo of 1525 with the Karlstag sermon of 1532 that was published as De prophetae officio.

I am very grateful for a Dutch scholar, Daniël Timmerman, who is doing his research with Herman Selderhuis, for kindly pointing out my inadvertent error.

Mea culpa. Sorry for the gaffe.

Bullinger and Hebrews

2011-05-12T04:58:00.000-07:00

The previous post referred to Brian J. Lee’s monograph “Johannes Cocceius and the Exegetical Roots of Federal Theology: Reformation Developments in the Interpretation of Hebrews 7-10”. The following is a section from this book on Hebrews and the Old Testament and the Law:

“Two verses in particular provide opportunity for the heretics. The first is Hebrews 7:18, where the earlier commandment is called ‘weak and ineffectual,’ and the other is 8:8, where it is stated that the first covenant was not ‘faultless.’ For Chrysostom, the heretics were sufficiently refuted by pointing out that Apostle does no say that the Law was ‘evil’ or ‘vicious,’ but ‘weak and unprofitable.’ Chrystostom further concludes that the weakness was not in the Law itself, but in our own flesh, which was unable to fulfill his commands, a claim which is strengthened by correlating this weakness with Romans 8:3, ‘in that it (the Law) was weak through the flesh.’ Indeed, the citation of Romans 8 in comments upon Hebrews 7, either explicitly or by paraphrase, is common throughout the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. One advantage of this approach is that it precludes the necessity of drawing precise distinctions with the old administration; to various degrees, not only the priesthood and ceremonial laws in particular, but also the entire old covenant are recognized to be unable to perfect due to the weakness of sinners themselves. While this solution defends the Old Covenant from the charge that it is evil, it continues to suggest some qualitative distinction between Old and New, such as the new Covenant would, in time, be bale to overcome this weakness of sinful flesh.

While Bullinger echoes aspects of Chrysostom’s view that the weakness truly resides in the flesh, he also identifies more narrowly what it is that is abrogated. God’s ‘Law’ is said to eb abrogated only by a synecdoche, that is, the whole is spoken of in order to refer merely to a part. By this synecdoche Bullinger isolates the ceremonial aspect of the Law as that which ahs been abrogated, in keeping with the text’s scope of the priesthood of Christ. The ceremonies are those things which are temporary and typical, pertaining to externalities. It is the shadows pertaining to the priesthood and sacrifices that are thus demonstrated to be done away with,and in this view he is followed by both Calvin and Junius.

But according to Bullinger, the figurative sense of Law operates on another level as well. By metonymy and metalepsis, ‘Law’ also represents what the Law did and manifested: ‘When it is thus said that the Law is abolished, it is the odium of the law, which was in the flesh before the Spirit was being imbibed […]. Thus by the law was sin and damnation made manifest, and so for sin and damnation the word ‘law’ is used.’ To illustrate this mode of speech Bullinger notes that we often say that the cross of Christ has liberated us from the law, when we really mean that it has liberated us from sin. Bullinger does not restrict this odium to the ceremonies, and from his examples it is clear that he has in mind a broader, soteriological category. According to Bullinger there are therefore two somewhat different, though not necessarily contradictory, strategies for narrowing the referent of ‘law’ in this chapter: by referring it synecdochally to the ceremonies of the law, or transferably to the wrath worked by the law…..

Bullinger’s postion allows him to maintain both a strong polemic against the ceremonies while developing the spiritual realities in view.

Bullinger’s synecdochal reading reflects the premise that the will of God ‘regarding what is to be done or predicted’ can in no way be abrogated, and indeed reflects a broadly traditional reading. Thus, when the New Covenant is said to be ‘written on hearts’ in 8:10, Chrysostom points out that the content of this writing, the ordinances themselves, do not differ from the old ordinances: ‘He makes no mention of any difference of ordinances, but points out the mode of its being given.’ Bullinger once again follows Chrysostom in identifying the modo tradendi (‘mode of instruction’) as what differs between the two covenants, and he calls the common ordinances the substantia foederis, or the substance of the covenant. While Bullinger is not exactly innovating on this point, he nonetheless stands at the head of a long line of Reformed commentators that will state essentially the same thing: the substance of the covenant is the same, the mode or form, or circumstances, differ. Calvin clearly takes this line, as do Johann Jacob Grynaeus and Zacharinus Ursinus.

Among the many commentaries surveyed, Bullinger produces perhaps the greatest overall argument for general continuity between the Old and New Testaments. Indeed, he treats Hebrews 8 as a locus which demonstrates how there is only one testament, and his marginal headings are suggestive of the outline of the De testamento seu foedere, the monograph on the same topic which he would compose two years later. The argument of the monograph is here already developed in outline form. In short, testaments or covenants are legal documents that set forth a series of conditions and promised blessings. These conditions and blessings arethe content of both testaments, the substantia, which remains unchanged despite the fact that the covenantal records, and the manner in which the substance is communicated, changes. Thus Bullinger argues for fundamental continuity between Old and new Testament eras on the basis of a continuity of the ‘covenant/testament,’ which he here treats in some detail. ‘Old’ and ‘New’ thus refer to two teachings (traditio) of the same covenantal reality.”

Cocceius and Bullinger

2011-05-03T07:35:00.000-07:00

Vandenhoek and Ruprecht have recently (2009) published Brian J. Lee’s “Johannes Cocceius and the Exegetical Roots of Federal Theology: Reformation Developments in the Interpretation of Hebrews 7-10”. Lee has some interesting analysis of Bullinger’s use of foedus, testamentum and pactum with critical comments on the works of Hagan and Weir. Lee also has some perceptive comments on Bullinger’s commentary on Hebrews.

REFORC Conference in Zurich

2011-04-25T06:04:00.000-07:00

The first RefoRC Conference will be held 8-11 June in Zurich.The Director of RefoRC is Herman Selderhuis. The conference organizing committee will be headed by Peter Opitz who heads the Institute for Swiss Reformation History at the University of Zurich.

Subsequent conferences will be held in Oslo (2012), Berlin (2013) and Bologna (2014).

The plenary papers at this conference are:

Barbara Mahlman-Bauer “Koversionsberichte der Frühen Neuzeit”

Bridget Heal “The Catholic eye and the Protestant ear. The Reformation as a non visual event?”

Piotr Wilcek “The ‘myth’ of the Polish Reformation in modern historiography”

Ignasi Fernández Terricabras “Was the Catholic Reformation a Spanish even?”

Rodney Petersen “The apocalyptic Luther-exegesis and self-identification”

Emidio Campi “The Reformation: A German Event?”

Of the short papers to be presented the ones that interest me most are:

Davy Hoolwerf (Stellendam) “Bullingers Endzeiterwartung in seinem Predigten über das Buch der Offenbarung”

Daniël Timmerman (Apeldoorn) “Between Rhetoric and Prophecy. The Development of Heinrich Bullinger’s Concept of Church Ministry (up to 1532)”

Frank Ewerszumrode OP (Mainz) “Die Abendmahlslehre der Confession Genevensis und des Consensus Tigurinus im Vergleich”

Urs Leu (Zentralbibliothek Zürich) “Buchdruck und Reformation in der Schweiz: Die Verlagsprogramme von Basel, Genf und Zürich im Vergleich. Digitalisierung Schweizer Drucke des 16.h.”

Insights from Bullinger’s The Old Faith

2011-04-19T21:39:00.000-07:00

Written in German to reach to a wider audience, Bullinger's The Old Faith (1537) is one of Bullinger’s most known works alongside his De Testamento (1534).

Two must read articles on this work of Bullinger are E.A Dowey, “The Old Faith: Comments on One of Heinrich Bullinger’s Most Distinctive Treatises” in William van’t Spijker (ed.) Calvin: Erbe und Auftrag: Festschrift für Wilhelm Neuser zu seinem 65. Geburtstag (Kampen – The Netherlands: Kok Pharos Publishing House, 1991), pp270-278 and W.P. Stephens, “Bullinger’s Defence of the Old Faith”, Reformation and Rennaissance Review, vol 6 (no.1), 2004, pp36-55. Stephens article looks at The Old Faith, The Decades and Ecclesias evangelicas.

One unmistakable theme of this work is the emphasis on the unity of the whole canon, the unity of the Old and New Testaments. It is not just a case of the Old Testament being read in a christocentric manner but the conviction that all of Scripture, from beginning (ie since the Fall) to the end is about God’s plan of salvation through Christ, the seed of the woman. It is well known that Bullinger was an histographer. This explains not only the way he wrote but also his attention to dates.

I believe Dowey wrote from his own a priori position as is evidenced by the following comments of his:

“For all the popular charm of The Old Faith and the basic simplicity of its thesis, it is often intricate in details and sometimes confusingly nuanced.”

“The gifted and diligent historian Bullinger used sequence and chronology to show that the Christian faith in substance is not subject to sequence and chronology. He appears to have used history to deny history in this case. This is not the last word to say about faith and history in Bullinger’s thought generally, but it appears to be the problem left with us from at least this one treatise.”

Stephens has a helpful summary of The Old Faith and writes:

“In the final chapter Bullinger says that after the apostles there came false customs, dangerous sects, and persecutions. This leads him to renew his discussion of the city of God and the city of the devil. He has already drawn on Augustine’s view of the two cities, pointing out that there are two kinds of people – one like Abel cleaving to Christ and the other like Cain cleaving to the devil. These two represent true and false believers. Abel reflects the one, becoming the first martyr in the church. Cain reflects the other, boasting about God but no offering him the right service. Can and his descendants are those who murder – which is what the Roman church does. Moreover, the Bible shows that before and after Christ, the faithful face suffering and persecution.

In the final chapter Bullinger gives a brief account of what has gone wrong with the church. He describes how ministers in the past were more concerned with money than with the exercise of their ministry and the good of the church, so they accepted superstition rather than true religion. As a result the church in Bullinger’s day has the abomination of papal power, indulgences, prayers for the living and the dead,merit, the intercession of the saints, the veneration of their bones, idols, ornaments, pomp, paid singing and prayer, and hosts of idle monks. These are not ancient and orthodox. They are novelties and perversions. They have no basis in God’s word, though some try to claim that they are the old faith.”

The following excerpt from Chapter X illustrates how Bullinger emphasized the unity of the Old and New Testaments:

“And though my purpose be now finished, even declared out of the scripture, that the christian faith hath endured since the beginning of the world, yet I will add a short instruction concerning the time of grace and performing of all promises; and I will declare, that God now also through the appearing of his Son would bring into the world and set forth none other religion, none other faith, neither any other salvation, than even the same which was shewed to the old fathers: saving that all things are more evident, more clearly practiced, accomplished , fulfilled, and performed; for the which cause also all figures, sacrifices, and ceremonies do cease: For in Christ is all perfection. Yet shall we not not therefore cast away the Old Testament, as some ignorant, unlearned, and foolish people do, but have it in greater reputation; forasmuch as we know now through Christ, what every thing signifieth, and wherefore every thing was thus and thus ordained, used, and spoken.Now shall every man first have a courage to read the law and the prophets, when he seeth whereupon every thing goeth. And thus at the beginning did the holy apostles preach Christ unto the Jews out of the law and the prophets, as it is oftimes mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles. And our Lord himself, when he went with the two disciples towards Emaus, and preached so unto them, that their hearts burnt within them, he began at Moses and went through all the prophets, and opened unto them the old scriptures, and shewed them that so it behoved Christ to suffer, and to enter into his glory. This is the cause also that the scriptures of the New Testament hang all together and refer themselves to the scriptures of the Old Testament; so that these cannot be right understood without the other, no more than the gloss without the text. The text is the law and the prophets, the exposition are the evangelists and apostles.”

“Obwohl nun mein Vorhaben ausgeführt ist, d.h. aus der Schrift aufgezeigt worden ist, dass der christliche Glaube von Anfang der Welt an gewährt hat, möchte ich nun noch eine kurze Unterweisung über di Gnadenzeit und die Erfüllung aller Verheißungen anfügen und zeigen, dass Gott auch mit der Fleischwerdung seines Sohnes keine andere Gottesverehrung, keinen anderen Glauben und keine andere Rettungs in die Welt setzen oder verkünden lassen wollte, sodnern allein das, was auch schon den Alten verkündet worden ist. Daher und sämtliche Sinnbilder, Opfer und die Zeremonien nich mehr wicksam, denn in Christus ist alle Vollkommenheit. Deswegen soll man jedoch das Alte Testament nich wegwerfen, wie es manche unwissende und ungelahrte Narren tun, sondern in umso höheren Ehren halten, weil mir nun durch Christus erfahren haben, was dies alles bedeutet und warum es so und so eingerichtet, ausgeführt und gesprochen worden ist. Jetzt erst wird jeder Lust bekommen, das Gesetz und die Propheten zu lessen, wenn er sieht, worauf sich alles beziehlt. Daher haben auch die heiligen Apostel den Juden Christus anfangs uas dem Gesetz und die Propheten gepredigt, wie in der Apostelgeschichte oftmals berichtet wird. Und als under Herr mit den beiden Jüngen nach Emmaus ging und ihnen so predigte, dass ihnen die Herzen entbrannten, began et selbst bei Mose, durchlief alle Propheten, erklärte ihnen die alten Schiften und zeigte ihnen, dass Christus leaiden und in seine Herrlichkeit eingehen müsse. Daher verweisen und beziehen sich die Schriften des Neuen Testaments ganz auf die Schriften des Alten Testaments, so dass jene ohne diese nicht richtig verstanden werden können, so wie umgekehrt auch die Auslegung ohne den zugrunde liegenden Text nicht verstanden werden kann. Den Text bilden das Gesetz und die Schriften der Propheten, die Auslegung die Schriften der Evangelisten und Apostel.” (Schriften I, pp243,244)

Bullinger’s Political Acumen

2011-04-12T06:24:00.000-07:00

When Bullinger responded to the vitriolic attacks of Luther with the Zurich Confession he sent copies of the confession together with an accompanying letter to: the Council of Bern, the clergy of Bern, the clergy of Neuchatel, Bucer, Pfalzgraf Ottheinrich, Duke Ulrich of Wurttemburg, the town council of Frankfurt am Main. This letter displays Bullinger’s political acumen. The following is the text of the letter:

“It pains us greatly that Doctor Luther has written so forcefully against us, who are innocent, and has published this text. We regret in particular the damage which is done to simple Christians who are infuriated by this strife and in particular that we who preach one Lord Jesus Christ from one Gospel are drawn into a lengthy quarrel with one another over his holy sacrament and symbols. We greatly regret that the attempts by your Princely Grace and other pious Christian princes, estates, and cities, who have sought in both a friendly and peaceful manner to influence Doctor Luther, have been without success, so that after some years he has chosen to renew the battle. We Zurichers would rather have had peace and would have remained silent as we have done up until now, although we have perhaps been silent for longer than has been good for us. But the silence and patience we have demonstrated has only had the effect that in his last confession Luther has damned us as heretics and has insulted the faith and honour of our faithful ancestors, who were honourable Christian men, and our churches. Now that Luther’s writings have been printed, honour, duty, and our office demand that we reply. We have not done this for the Zurich church alone and without reference to our magistrates and the councilors, but rather we have acted with their knowledge and blessing, for all the faithful here are outraged by Luther’s appalling dishonouring of the living and the dead…. As our teaching is drawn closely from the first apostolic holy church, Dr Luther ought not to separate himself from us and provoke and unfounded split in the church.

As your princely grace is also mentioned in our reply – we wrote there of the Marburg Colloquy – we send you most humbly our answer and our confession with the earnest request that your grace kindly receive this text of your servants, and that further that you read it when time allows. We beseech you further that for the sake of God and his holy word you ensure that our confession and response and indeed all our other writings are not prohibited in your lands and that we who are innocent are not condemned, unheard, as heretics. Your honourable lords and superiors permit that in your towns, lands, villages, and countryside all of Luther’s books, as well as those of our other opponents, are sold and can be bought. We advise others to read these books. It is only right that both sides should be heard and that no one is suppressed without first having been read. We trust God and his clear eternal truth, that all the faithful will recognize that neither our churches nor we are damned people such as Dr Luther wishes to convince the whole world. God be merciful to him.”

Bolliger on Bullinger and the Role of the Prophet in the Church

2011-04-07T19:46:00.000-07:00

Daniel Bolliger has a very perceptive article “Bullinger on Church Authority: The Transformation of the Prophetic Role in Christian Ministry” (Architect of Reformation pp159-177). Not only does he give a detailed account of Bullinger’s Karlstag sermon delivered on 28 January 1532 but he also compares this with his analysis of Bullinger’s De prophetae officio (30 June 1525).

Bolliger points out the covenant context to Bullinger’s view of the prophet in the church:

“This dialectic of teaching and defending did not necessarily draw out the more attractive aspects of this new pastoral side to the prophetic office. Bullinger, therefore, connected the pastoral and teaching aspects through another essential development indicated in De prophetae officio: covenant theology. Bullinger clearly applied covenant theology bot in his teaching on scriptural interpretation and in his treatment of the pastoral office of the prophet.

Already in 1523, referring to Romans 10:4, Bullinger cautiously employed the traditional term testamentum (covenant), in his writing. At the beginning of his interpretation of the letter to the Hebrews in 1526 he openly declared that the New Testament is the fulfillment of the covenant with Israel. He then proceeded further in this direction by responding to a question which, although only implicitly posed in the 1532 oration, was present in all the new disciples of the humanist philosophia christiana of the 1520’s: if the New Testament is the important part of the Bible, what is the purpose of the rest of scripture? Bullinger’s answer lay in the covenant of God and humanity, culminating in God’s testament in Christ, which is the overall status of scripture as a whole. Therefore, and correspondingly, the status of every precept, story, periscope or letter, in short, of every passage of the Bible refers, if adequately interpreted, to this great basic status (the covenant). The prophet is responsible for linking the traditional medieval understanding of the divine covenant or testament with the new principle of scriptural sufficiency. This unity, according to Bullinger, is only possible through the adoption of a new methodological approach, which is the true task of the prophet.”

Dowey on Bullinger’s Wahrhafftes Bekenntnis (1545)

2011-04-03T18:22:00.000-07:00

Previous posts have referred to some of the background leading to the penning of the Wahrhafftes Bekenntis in response to Luther’s vitriolic attacks on Zurich. The following is E.A.Dowey’s perceptive comment on this work from his “Heinrich Bullinger as Theologian: Thematic, Comprehensive, and Schematic” in Architect of Reformation:

“This document is a reply from the Zurich ministers collectively (written entirely, however, by Bullinger) to Luther’s vitriolic attack on the Zurich church as heretical, chiefly aimed at the Zurich teaching about the sacraments. The reply also deals with the sacraments, but the opening unit of Part II is a complete Confession of Faith meant to demonstrate that Zurich follows the ‘true, old, indubitable’ faith and is not ‘Zwinglian, nor Oecolampadiun, much less Lutheran, ‘but merely Christian, depending wholly on scripture, ‘in which we find no straw,’ and the ‘true, plain apostolic teaching.’

The Confession begins with scripture in Bullinger’s manner as to authority, interpretation, and rejection of human traditions: inspired (yngeben) by the Holy Spirit and ‘has of and in itself authority, respect, trust, strength, truth, esteem, and perfection enough,’ and needs no authentication by men or church. From scripture arises the apostolic teaching of the creed. For our present purposes, two remarks seem apposite: the claim of antiquity and orthodoxy here is biblical and patristic, not Adamic, as in Der alte Glaube with its exaggerated treatment of Genesis 3:15; and the covenant teaching of De Testamento is totally absent! Faith is briefly mentioned. After this one subject – scripture – the remainder of the confession of faith is an exposition of the traditionally designated twelve articles of the Apostles Creed. Although Bullinger includes analysis of the Creed in the Decades, the Summa, and the Catechesis pro Adultioribus, and showered upon it unmeasured praise, the treatment is notable because it is the only instance in which he followed the twelve-article scheme for a general presentation of the entire Christian faith. A detailed analysis shows fascinating idiosyncratic treatment of these points, including a full Nice-Chalcedonian orthodoxy, a doctrine of original sin, and attack on Purgatory and monasticism, defence of the perpetual virginity of Mary, arecital of some deeds from Christ’s ministry, and an ethic of faithful good works – the last of these remarkably placed under the Last Judgement. Notable also is the comparative lengths of certain sections. Some doctrines, such as the triune God, are only half an octave page in length, and others, such as the Ascension to the Right Hand of the Father and the Return to Judgment, receive three pages each. The swelling of the latter two represents the elaboration of his polemic point against Luther’s doctrine of ubiquity. The ingenious freedom by which Bullinger does almost whatever he wants within and in addition to the Creed structure makes it all the more remarkable that the author of the Loci of 1524 (from the Ratio of 1527) and the famous De Testamento (1534, and repeatedly published with his commentary on the Epistles), in both of which the covenant is the chief theme of scripture, here makes no mention of the covenant at all….”

Inter alia we note the following: Bullinger emphasizes what Scripture teaches not necessarily the line held by Zwingli or Oecolampadius or whoever. This is the true Reformation principle of sola scriptura. He also emphasis the unity of the canon. It is all inspired by God and every part is relevant – he knocks Luther with his comment “in which we find no straw.” The reference to Nicene-Chalcedonian orthodoxy is probably also responding to views that argued that Zwingli had Nestorian tendencies because of his perceived understanding of the eucharist.

Dowey’s comments about the covenant in Bullinger is his response to the view of J Wayne Baker in his Heinrich Bullinger and the Covenant: The Other Reformed Tradition.

Fesko on Baptism

2011-04-02T01:35:00.000-07:00

J.V. Fesko of Westminster, California, has just written Word Water and Spirit: A Reformed Perspective on Baptism (Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2010). It is a work worth reading for its scholarship and stimulating conclusions.

Fesko has an extended section on Zwingli’s understanding on baptism pp57-65. Fesko has fair balance between consideration of Zwingli’s earlier works as well as his later works. In particular, he does refer to Fidei Ratio (Reckoning of the Faith, 1530). But a check of the index reveals no reference to the works of Peter Stephens though the bibliography lists Stephens’ The Theology of Huldrych Zwingli. Nor is there any reference to the works of Gottfried Locher. There is also no reference to Cottrell’s meticulous work on covenant and baptism in Zwingli.

However, his references to Bullinger are somewhat sketchy and don’t do Bullinger justice.

For example, in a section about Barth he writes:

“Barth also points out that the Second Helvetic confession (1566), written by Zwingli’s successor, Heinrich Bullinger (1504-1575), was a marked departure from the first-generation Swiss Reformer’s understanding of baptism and the sacraments in general:

‘When we read what the Confess. Helv. Post. (published thirty-five years after his death) has to say both about the sacraments in general and baptism in particular, we should never suspect, if we did not already know, that its author, Heinrich Bullinger was Zwingli’s immediate successor. This work is wholly influenced by the dominant Reformed tradition of Calvin, so much so that in the doctrine of the Lord’s Supper there is even a strange attempt at assimilation to the Roman Catholic doctrine of a change in the elements.’”

This quotation of Barth is from CD, IV.4, p128. Fesko makes no comment on Barth’s evaluation of Bullinger vis-à-vis Zwingli and continues to comment on Barth’s understanding on baptism (this discussion occurs in the section ‘Baptism in Modern Theology’).

Two of the earlier posts of this blog summarize an important article of Peter Stephens who demonstrates the similarities and differences between Zwingli and Bullinger. Particularly, Peters suggestion that Zwingli would have been able to sign the Consesnsus Tigurinus. Barth’s reference to Bullinger vis-à-vis Calvin comes as no surprise as my own view is that Calvin’s understanding of the covenant was greatly influenced by that of Bullinger’s which was one factor in his agreeing to the Consensus Tigurinus.

The second reference to Bullinger by Fesko in his book is in the section “Baptism and Its Recipients.” The text on page 359 says: “On the other hand, neither is the ground presumptive regeneration, whether in the case of adults or infants, as some in the Reformed tradition have argued.” There is footnote 62 here where Fesko mentions Bullinger – “The idea of basing baptism for both adults and especially infants on the presumption of a person’s regeneration has a distinguished pedigree, but nevertheless is incorrect. Those who have advocated it include Heinrich Bullinger (in the First Helvetic Confession, 1536), Peter Martyr Vermigli, Amandus Polanus, Theodore Beza, Charles Hodge, B.B. Warfield, Abraham Kuyper, and Lewis Schenck…”

The text of the book continues: “The administration of the covenant is grounded not on an individual profession of faith but on the covenant. Stated another way, the promise of redemption, or the covenant, is grounded in the redemption accomplished, the person and work of Christ as it is progressively unfolded in covenant history, not on the application of redemption. To ground the application of the sign of the covenant on a profession of faith shifts the soteric center of gravity away from God to man – it is to say, ‘I am saved because God has saved me’ (eg Gal. 4:9). Such a statement is not to minimize the faith of the one who is saved. Rather, it is to acknowledge that the covenant Lord has first condescended to His people – the sign of the covenant belongs to Him first and foremost. Baptism is the sign of His covenant promise. When received by faith, baptism is secondarily a sign of the response of the covenant servant.”

I’ll leave it up to the readers to make up their own minds on this.

Fesko’s third and final reference to Bullinger in the book is found on page 392. Here Fesko writes (in a section entitled ‘Baptism and Ecclesiology’): “Heinrich Bullinger, by contract, the chief author of the Second Helvetic Confession, explains: ‘The author of all sacraments is not any man but God alone. Men cannot institute sacraments. For they pertain to the worship of God, and it is not for man to appoint and prescribe a worship of God, but to accept and preserve the one he has received from God.’”

This third reference to Bullinger’s insistence upon God being the author of the sacraments has been referred to in previous posts of this blog.

I have only had time to skim read the book which appears to be a stimulating book. My only comment is that he does not really do justice to Bullinger.

More on the Consensus Tigurinus

2011-03-29T20:13:00.000-07:00

The following observation of Bruce Gordon is worthy of careful consideration. Gordon was previously at St Andrews, Scotland, and is now at Yale. This comment of his is typical of his perceptive scholarship:

“Both men (ie Calvin and Bullinger) understood the need for unity, but they also understood how deep the divisions within the Protestant world ran, and it is a measure of their desire for mutual support that they could put their names to a document on the Lord’s Supper, the Consensus Tigurinus of 1549. Too much has been made of this agreement, which was, for the most part, a practical arrangement which suited both men. It was a partnership which worked well: Bullinger supported Calvin both openly and tacitly, agreeing not to disagree in public, and together they formed a common front against Lutheran opponents, such as Joichim Westphal, who wrote against the Swiss in the mid-1550’s” (Architect of Reformation, p20).

In an earlier post I suggested that it was Calvin who was more keen to have such a jointly signed agreement.

Peter Stephens on Bullinger and the Sacraments

2011-03-27T21:53:00.000-07:00

In Peter Stephens’ article on Zwingli and Bullinger on the sacraments (see previous post) I am pleased to note that Stephens has acknowledged the independence of Bullinger’s thought vis-à-vis that of Zwingli. He writes:

“Although Bullinger’s theology was similar to Zwingli’s, he became a reformer independently of Zwingli. (Indeed the influences on him included the works of Luther and Melanchthon.) He also came to his understanding of the sacraments independently of Zwingli. Even though he and Zwingli had a broadly symbolic view of the sacraments, their thinking on them was shaped in part by different people and different texts.”

Stephens points out that in the period of the First Helvetic Confession:

“Often in the 1530’s Bullinger states that he has difficulty with words such as instrument and exhibit. To him the word instrument seems to make the sacraments effective regardless of the faith of the recipient and the word exhibit seems to ascribe power to the minister or the sacrament rather than to God. It is significant that in the First Helvetic Confession it is not the sacraments which exhibit but God, while the word instrument is not used.”

With respect to the First Helvetic Confession Stephens points out that three of the twenty seven articles explicitly refer to the sacraments and concludes:

“What is most striking about them is their essentially positive language about the sacraments and their affirmation of what God does in them. God is the subject of the sacraments. They are signs of divine grace. The articles speak differently from Zwingli of what the Lord does in the sacraments. Thus In the Lord’s Supper These article are in keeping with the article on Ministers. It states that ministers are co-workers through whom But it adds, and this is later applied to the sacraments, and not to something created; and he ”

Stephens goes on to point out: “It is important to note that the confession speaks about what God does and not what the sacraments do.”

Stephens’ conclusion concerning the First Helvetic Confession is: “The Confession, however, unlike much in Zwingli is an affirmation of what the sacraments are rather than a repudiation of what they are not, and it states in various ways what God offers and imparts in them. Luther’s positive, though critical, response to the Latin text is, therefore, not surprising.”

Stephens makes the following analysis of the response of Bullinger and the Zurich ministers to Luther’s Brief Confession:

“It has a Zwinglian character with the centrality of remembrance and a strong emphasis on faith. Yet there are divergences from Zwingli. Thus, although remembering appears to be our remembering, yet the summary states that the church of the Lord holds his suffering and our redemption in fresh remembrance. Again, although it is their faith in Christ which feeds believers and makes them participants in God’s grace and forgiveness and communion with Christ, yet in communion an unbeliever may become a believer and then share in Christ.”

With respect to the events leading up to the Consensus Tigurinus Stephens notes:

“The central issues can be focused in the use of certain words: exhibit, instrument, through, and at the same time. Bullinger disputed the statement that Calvin did not bind grace to the sacraments by reference to Calvin’s assertions that what is figured in the sacraments is exhibited to the elect and that those receiving baptism at the same time receive forgiveness of sins. To Bullinger Calvin does not differ from the papists who teach that the sacraments confer grace on all those who receive them. Bullinger objected to the use of through as seeming to attribute something to inanimate signs and proposed 'God acts and works in the hearts of the faithful while (dum) the sacraments are received> instead of Bullinger also challenged Calvin’s statement that 'the sacraments are instruments of the grace of God.' It seemed to attribute something to the sacraments, unless instrument means sign. It is God who confers grace and the gift of salvation. It is he who exhibits these things (not, as Calvin says, the sacraments), and he does so through the Holy Spirit and faith, faith being the gift of God through which we receive his gifts. Bulligner can accept Calvin’s statement that the sign is not empty, it that means not useless, but not if it means that the sign contains what it represents.”

Stephens further noted that Calvin replied as follows:

“Calvin drew on the New Testament in rejecting the opposition in Bullinger between God and the role of instruments, and also Bullinger’s apparent view that if God as then instruments cease. The Holy Spirit uses the sacrament as an instrument, but is the author of what is given. The effectiveness of the sacraments is related to God’s truthfulness, for God would appear to deceive in his promises, if believers did not receive what is offered in the sacraments. Calvin explained that simul was used in the sense of similiter (similalrly). He distinguished his position from that of the papists, as unlike them he held that not all but only the elect receive what the sacraments offer. The whole effect depends on election and the sign is useless unless God works in us through the Spirit. Calvin does not regard the sacraments as containing what they figure literally, but in the sense that the Lord performs inwardly by the power of his Spirit what is testified by the outward sign. Calvin notes Bullinger’s reference to the Eucharistic signs as commemorating the once-for-all sacrifice of Christ for us, but also his neglect of the daily offering of Christ for us, that we may be one with him. The body sacrificed for us is daily food for us. There is a repeated stress on communion with Christ.”

Stephens notes that article 12 of Consensus Tigurinus “speaks of the sacraments as instruments which God uses and by which he acts efficaciously. (The word is organum not, as in the Bern articles, instrumentum.) But lest this be misunderstood, the article at once states that the sacraments, like ministers, are nothing unless God makes them effective. God acts efficaciously through them, but certain qualifications are made about the sacraments, the minister, and the recipient.”

He further states that “The Zurich Agreement is neither Bullingerian nor Calvinian. Both would have expressed their views differently, but both could affirm what it affirmed, even if offering their own interpretations. It could be described as a Calvinian view expressed within the constraints imposed by Bullinger’s theology or Bullinger’s view stretched to embrace Calvin’s.”

Stephens continues to make the following perceptive observation:

“One may question whether Zwingli taught as Calvin taught, but it is still possible to argue that Zwingli could have signed the Zurich Agreement. At first sight this may cause surprise, as some positive affirmations about the sacraments go beyond what Zwingli wrote. However, key elements of his theology are present and the qualifications added to non-Zwinglian statements could well have satisfied him as they did Bullinger. Most importantly the Agreement denied that the sacraments confer grace, rejected the bodily presence and the bodily eating of Christ, and opposed trust in created things. It affirmed the centrality and necessity of faith, the sovereignty of the Spirit, the distinction between the sign and what it signifies, the eucharist as a testimony and a memorial, the presence of Christ’s body in heaven, the figurative interpretation of the words of institution, and the relevance of John 6:63.”

Stephens has a detailed comparison between The Second Helvetic Confession and Zwingli. The reader is encourage to read the article for himself/herself. The point that Stephens makes is that that is much in common between Zwingli and Bullinger though the nuanced differences in Bullinger are evident in The Second Helvetic Confession. Thus, Stephens concludes: The various differences between the Confession and Zwingli’s presentation of the sacraments are clear evidence that the Confession is not Zwinglian. It is, however, possible that Zwingli could have affirmed it, as it safeguarded the major concerns which he expressed. Despite their differences, Zwingli’s later works and the Confession have a family likeness.”

In his conclusion, Stephens writes:

“One of the clearest differences in sacramental theology between Zwingli and Bullinger is that in Bullinger it is God who is the subject of the sacraments.”

“There are other differences, most notable the role of election and that of the Holy Spirit. Election is used by Zwingli in defence of infant baptism, but not in his exposition of the sacraments nor in particular of their effectiveness. It is however, used in all these confessions.”

One of the most surprising differences between Bullinger and Zwingli is in the use of the word instrument (instrumentum). Bullinger criticizes the use of the word and avoids it, even in the Zurich Agreement, where he accepts the word organum. For him the word instrument implies that the sacraments have something of their own, apart from God. Zwingli, however, has no difficulty with the word instrument because of his insistence that God is the cause of all things.”

Stephens finally points out that Bullinger had a more positive view than Zwingli of the positive relation of the outward and inward in the sacraments: “his positive presentation of what the sacraments are and of what “God does in them, and the need, both theological and political, to seek unity with the other Swiss churches as well as with Luther.”

Stephens article is a mine of information and reflection. He is to be applauded for such an important contribution to an understanding of Swiss theology.

Bullinger and Zwingli on the Sacraments

2011-03-23T19:29:00.000-07:00

Peter Stephens, formerly of Aberdeen and now writing from his base at Penzance, has written extensively in recent years on Bullinger. His writings on Zwingli have been highly acclaimed. He has done us a great service in a meticulous study comparing Bullinger and Zwingli on the sacraments in his article “The Sacraments in the Confessions of 1536, 1549, and 1566 – Bullinger’s Understanding in the Light of Zwingli’s” in Zwingliana vol XXXIII (2006), pp51-76.

The works of Bullinger that Stephens studies are: The First Helvetic Confession (1536), The Consensus Tigurinus ( which Stephens refers to as the Zurich Agreement – 1549) and The Second Helvetic Confession (1566). Interestingly, there appears to be no reference to the Decades.

We are truly in debt to Stephens for such a detailed study which should, once and for all, clear up misconceptions about Zwingli’s understanding of the sacraments. At the same time, Stephens gives us more more background to what was in Bullinger’s mind in his extensive correspondence with Calvin vis-à-vis the sacraments. The following is a summary of some salient points of this article.

The article begins with comments from Stephens which, to me at least, indicate that he has shifted somewhat in his understanding and appreciation of Bullinger. In Stephens’ earlier writings Bullinger is clearly Zwingli’s Nachfolger.

Stephens commences his article thus: “The names of Zwingli and Bullinger are joined in such a way that it is natural to think if Bullinger not only as the successor of Zwingli but also as a continuation of Zwingli. There is indeed continuity in their ministry and their theology, but Bullinger is also distinctive both as a reformer and as a theologian. This is true for his view of the sacraments. As we look at Bullinger’s understanding of the sacraments in the confessions of 1536, 1549, and 1566, it is instructive to see similarities and differences between him and Zwingli, as well as the developments in his thought.”

I would like to propose that from the very beginning, while Zwingli was alive and Bullinger still a very young man, that Bullinger had some differences vis-à-vis Zwingli re the sacraments but that, in order to foster a positive view of Zwingli’s contribution in the early years of Bullinger’s time as Antistes in Zurich, he patiently waited until an appropriate time to put in writng his distinctive views.

Stephens has written elsewhere about the development of Zwingli’s understanding of the sacraments and of the Lord’s Supper, in particular. This has been referred to in previous posts of this blog. This is alluded to in the following extract from the article:

“The writings of Zwingli most obviously comparable with these confessions are the Sixty-Seven Articles (1523) and the Marburg Articles (1529). However, these do not reflect Zwingli’s theology in his final years and it is this to which Bullinger naturally refers. Three of his works from 1530-31, to which Bullinger does refer, are: Account of the Faith presented to the Emperor at the Diet of Augsburg in 1530, Letter to the Princes of Germany again for the Diet in August 1530, in reply to Eck’s attack on Account of the Faith, and Exposition of the Faith for the King of France in 1531, published by Bullinger in 1536.”

With respect to my comment above that Bullinger was keen to ‘defend’ and promote Zwingli to keep Zurich united and growing it is noted that Bullinger made a specific effort to publish Zwingli’s Exposition of the Faith.

Stephens’ summary of developments in Zwingli's thought is as follows:

“There were changes and developments as well as considerable continuity in Zwingli’s understanding of the sacraments. From the beginning his theology was compatible with a symbolic interpretation of the sacraments, whether or not he had a symbolic view then or moved to that view from the end of 1524. The subjective emphasis, which is a continuing element in his theology, is also evident in his preference for memorial to testament. (however the stress on faith in all his works is not simply subjective, as faith is the work of the Spirit.) Moreover, the emphasis on the community rather than just the individual is present from an early stage, as is the conviction that the sacraments are a public witness to a person’s membership of the church. At one point, he spoke of the sacraments as our pledge or covenant with us. Originally he had related sacrament (meaning and oath) to God’s instituting something as surely as with an oath, but at the end of 1524 to our uniting with each other in one body as with an oath. (Z II 120.23-30, III 348.17-22) Although Zwingli challenged the radicals on the sacraments, especially baptism, it is primarily in controversy with Lutheran and Roman views that he developed his sacramental theology. That is also the context for understanding his final works.”

In a footnote at this point Stephens points the reader to his The Theology of Huldrych Zwingli (1986) and his “The Soteriological Motive in the Eucharistic Controversy” in Willem van’t Spijker (ed.), Erbe und Auftrag (Kampen, 1991), pp203-213.

These following comments of Stephens’ re Zwingli are worth noting:

“Thus the article on the sacraments in Account of the Faith begins, ‘I believe, indeed I know, that all the sacraments are so far from conferring grace that they do not even convey or dispense it.’”

“Zwingli insists on the sovereignty of the Spirit, who blows where he wills. This means that he cannot be bound to the sacraments. Rather people need the Spirit in order to receive the sacrament.”

“There is first the traditional definition of a sacrament as a sign of a sacred thing, but Zwingli refers to grace which has been given and not to grace which is being given.”

“His discussion of the eucharist begins positively with the affirmation that the true body of Christ is present by the contemplation of faith.”

“Zwingli insists on the presence of Christ in the supper, asserting that it is not the Lord’s Supper, if Christ is not present. This is confirmed by Christ’s word ‘Where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I in the midst of them’, to which Zwingli adds, ‘How much more is he present where the whole church is gathered?’”

“The sacrament does not confer grace, but it is a sign of or testimony to grace already given.”

“The presence of Christ in the eucharist is affirmed,as is the presence of the true body and blood. However, Zwingli denies both bodily presence, as Chist’s body is heaven, and bodily eating, as the flesh is of no avail.”

On another occasion I hope, deo volente, to summarize what Stephens says about Bullinger on the sacraments vis-à-vis Zwingli.

Someone once commented of me with respect to this blog “Du wärst problemlos in der Lage, so etwas zu schreiben”. Actually, I have a busy pastoral ministry with several challenges to face together with my colleague and this blog helps to keep me balanced!

Bullinger on Calvin on the Lord’s Supper

2011-03-20T20:41:00.000-07:00

Bullinger writes about the Lord Supper in sermon 5.ix of the Decades and concludes this sermon in the following way:

“Neither will I here stick to recite word for word the comfort of Master John Calvin, a godly and learned man, who with great commendation teacheth in the church at this day, my fellow minister and most well-beloved and dear brother, which he hath set down for the afflicted in this case. ‘Let us call to remembrance.’ Saith he, ‘that this holy banquet is a medicine for the sick, a comfort for the sinful, a largess to the poor; which to the whole, righteous, and rich, if there could any such be found, would bring small vantage. For seeing that in this banquet Christ is given unto us to be eaten, we understand that without him we faint, fail, and are forsaken. Moreover, seeing he is given unto us to be eaten, we understand that without him we faint, fail, and are forsaken. Moreover, seeing he is given to us to be our life, we understand that without him we are but dead. Wherefore this is the greatest and only worthiness which we can give unto God, if we lay before him our own vileness and unworthiness, that through his mercy he may make us worthy of himself; if we despair in ourselves, that we may be comforted in him; if we humble ourselves, that we may be lifted up by him; if we accuse ourselves, that we may be justified by him. Moreover, if we attain unto that unity which he commendeth unto us in the supper; and, like as he maketh us all to dwell in him, so that we may wish likewise that there were one soul, one heart, and one tongue in us all; if we well weigh and meditate these things, then shall these thoughts never trouble us: We that are naked and destitute of all goodness, we that are stained with spots of sin, we that are half-dead, how should we worthily eat the Lord’s body?Let us rather think, that we being poor do come to a plentiful giver, we that are sick come to a physician, we that are sinful come to a Saviour; that the worthiness, which is commanded by God, consisteth in faith chiefly, which reposeth all in God and nothing in ourselves: secondly, in charity; and such charity, as it is sufficient if we offer it unto God unperfect, that he may increase it to the better, seeing we cannot perform it absolute as it ought to be.’ Thus far he.

Thus much have I said hitherto of the most holy supper of our Lord Jesus Christ, the most excellent and wholesome sacrament of Christians; for which even from the very beginning, and while the apostles were yet living, Satan, the most deadly enemy to our salvation, lying in wait, hath gone about to overthrow by many corruptions and defilings; from which being now for a time faithfully cleansed, yet doth he not so leave it, but intermingles and throws an heap of contentions into it, being made unto the church the token of a covenant never to be broken. Whereupon the thing itself and our salvation requireth, that we be circumspect, and give no place to the tempter; but agreeing altogether in Christ, and being joined into one body by faithful celebrating of the supper, we may love one another, and give everlasting thanks to our Redeemer and Lord Christ; to whom be praise and glory now and for ever. Amen. Amen.” (Parker edition pp476-478)

“Ich möchte hier gerne das Trostwort des gottesfürchtigen und gelehrten Johannes Calvin, meines lieben und verehrten Kollegen und Bruders, wörtlich vorlesen, der auch jetzt noch mit großen Lob in der Kirche lehrt. Denen, die hierüber bekümmert sind, spendet er diesen Trost: >Erinnen wir uns daran, dass dieses heilige Mahl eine Arznei für die Krankn, ein Trost für die Sünder und ein Geschenk für die Armen ist, das den Gesunden, Gerechten und Reichen, wenn es sie denn gäbe, nichts bringen würde. Denn indem sich uns Christus darin zur Speise gibt, erkennen wir, das wir ohne ihn verderben, verlassen warden und untergehen. Und da er uns zum Leben gegeben wird, erkennen wir zudem, das wir ohne ihn, in uns selbst, völlig tot wären. Daher ist die einzige und beste Würdigkeit, die wir Gott entgegenbringen können, wenn wir unsere Fehlerhaftigkeit und, um es so sagen, unsere Unwürdigkeit vor ihnbringen, damit er uns mit seiner Barmherzigkeit würdig macht, wenn wir uns erniedrigen, damit wir von ihm aufgerichtet werden, wenn wir uns anklagen, damit wir von ihm gerechgesprochen werden, und schließlich, wenn wir die Einigkeit anstreben, die er uns in seinem Abendmahl anempfiehlt. Und wie er uns in ihm selbst alle eins macht, so wünschen wir uns allen ein Herz, eine Seele und eine Zunge. Wenn wir das bedacht und erwogen haben, werden uns solche Anmutungan nicht mehr verwirren: Wir, die wir arm und bloß sind, ohne alle Güter, die wir unrein sind durch den Schmutz der Sünden und halbot, wie können wir den Leib des Herrn auf würdige Weise essen? Vielmehr werden wir denken, dass wir Armen zu einem gütigen Spender, wir Kranken zu einem Artz, wir Sünder zum Erlöser kommen und dass die Würdigkeit, die von Gott gefordet wird, von allem in Glauben besteht, der nichts auf uns, sondern alles auf Gott setzt, und in der Liebe, und zwar in der Liebe, die genügt, auch wenn man sie Gott unvollkommen spendet, damit er sie verbesset und vemehrt, wenn sie sich nicht als stark genug erweist.< So weit Calvin.

So viel zum heiligen Abendmahl unseres Herrn Jesu Christi, zu dem vorzüglichsten und heilsamsten Sakrament der Christen, dem gleich schon am Anfang und noch zu Lebzeiten der Apostel der Teufel, der erbittertste Feind unseres Heils, anchstellte und das er mit vielen Verunreinigungen zugrunde zu richten versuchte. Und obwohl es davon schon eine Weile tüchtig gesäubert worden ist, hört er nicht auf, dieses Sakrament, das der Kirche zu einem Zeichen des unauflöslichen Bundes geworden ist, wie einen Zankapfel herumzuwerfen und zu brauchen. Daher erfordert es die Sache selbst und erfordet es unser Heil, dass wir wachsam sind und dem Versucher keinem Raum lassen, sondern alle einträchtig in Christus sind, durch das gläubige Feiern des Abendmahls zu einem Leib verbunden werden, einander lieben und Christus, unserem Herrn und Erlöser, unaufhörlich Dank sagen. Ihm sei Lob und Ehre jetzt und in Ewigkeit. Amen.” (Heinrich Bullinger Schriften, TVZ 2006, p223-225)

The citation from Calvin’s Institutes is from 4.17.42.

This is an interesting example of where Bullinger cites Calvin without making too much comment on what Calvin has to say in the whole of 4.17. Bullinger’s sermon is clearly aimed at the ‘layperson’ as many ‘practical’ comments are given in it.

Richard Muller on Calvin’s Early Eucharistic Thought

2011-03-13T03:41:00.000-07:00

Richard Muller has recently written an article on the early eucharistic thought in Calvin’s early period: “From Zurich or from Wittenberg? An Examination of Calvin’s Early Eucharistic Thought”, Calvin Theological Journal, vol. 45 (n0.2), 2010, pp243-255.

Muller specifically studied the first edition of Calvin’s Institutio (1536), the French and Latin catechism and confession of 1537-1538 and the early Confessio fidei de Eucharistia (1537). He pays attention to Calvin’s use of key terms such as substantia, exhibere, adesse, corpus.

Muller argues for the influence of Melanchthon on the early Calvin. The following is part of his conclusions:

“Four conclusions can be drawn from these usages. Arguably, first, Calvin evidences two connotations of substantia. One is a looser construction not drawing on the technical philosophical meaning associated with individual things, which is to say, not primary substance in the Aristolean sense, and the other is a strict use of the technical sense of the term. According to the looser usage, Christ’s body becomes one substance with believers in a spiritual sense – in the sense of the presence and influence of Christ that are held forth in sacramental signs. Indeed, there is a positive association between the use of exhibere and this understanding of substantia. Second, in his denial of the substantial presence of Christ’s body, Calvin appears to use the standard philosophical sense of substantia as the primary substance or individual. This reading is confirmed by his pairing of substantial with real, the realis having here, certainly, the technical connotation of ‘thingish’ or substantial implied by its etymological root, res. Here, moreover, Calvin explicitly distances the notion of Christ exhibited from the language of substance: that which is exhibited is not the corporeal presence of Christ. Third, if Calvin’s denial of a substantial presence in the strict sense can be identified as a Zwinglian accent, his use of exhibere indicates a distancing from Zwingli already in 1536. The Christological understanding of a presence is coupled with the use of exhibere and with Calvin’s language of true, effective presence (eg vere, efficaciter, praesens, adest) in a manner that resonates more with Melanchthon and points rather clearly to a Lutheran referent of Calvin’s argumentation. Fourth, Calvin’s recognition that Christ’s ascension undermined a local, corporeal presence, coupled with is insistence that the sesio Christi ad dexteram Patris, rendered Christ present in a powerful sense that could be understood eucharistically and points more probably toward concord with the Lutherans based on largely Melanchthonian language.”

Muller ends his article with the following conclusion:

“Some conclusions are in order,Calvin’s earliest thought ought not to be described either as ambiguous or as Zwinglian. Nor is it taken from Luther. Rather, it is distinctly Melanchthonian. Of great interest here is that the 1536 Institutio, despite its denial of a substantial presence of Christ’s natural body, does not develop anything like his later doctrine of Christ’s eucharistic presence as a sursum corda, namely as a work of the Holy Spirit raising the heart of the believer and joining together in heavenly places things otherwise disparate. Instead, Calvin argues, that, given Christ’s ascension to heaven, he cannot be corporeally present on earth; but, inasmuch as he now sits at the right hand of God, his kingdom and power extend everywhere, and he can hold forth his body and blood to believers. Calvin’s focus is on a presence understood christologically, not pneumatologically. Not only does Calvin’s use of exhibere, verum and adsum lean toward a Melanchthonian doctrine, so also does the way that he understands a local ascension to a non local divine right hand. Significantly also, Calvin’s denial of a real presence of the substance of Christ is not yet a denial of any Lutheran teaching. The Lutheran confessional documents to which he was party had not used the term, and the other language Calvin uses to explain Christ’s presence is not only Melanchthonian but evidences a close relationship to the apology of the Augsburg Confession and the Wittenberg Concord. The positive elements of this early teaching, moreover, carry over into the catechisms of 1537 and 1538 and, to a certain extent, the Confessio fidei de Eucharistia (1537) in which the denial of substantial presence has dropped out. Inasmuch, moreover, as Bucer and Capito had signed the Wittenberg Concord, Calvin’s Melanchthonian language also pointed him toward agreement with Strasbourg.”

Muller has provided us with a stimulating study of the early Calvin vis-à-vis his understanding of the Eucharist. However, it is appropriate to ask a few questions.

1. Although at this early stage Calvin had not yet moved to Strasbourg he had, nonetheless, presumably, read some of Bucer’s works as so we might ask – to what extent was Calvin’s thought influenced by that of Bucer?

2. Since the use of Latin terms in this period of the 16th century would have been somewhat fluid – what lexicological studies have been done that might throw some light on the debate?

3. To what extent was Calvin writing in reaction to the Roman understanding of the Mass rather than on an a priori basis explaining the sacraments from Scripture?

4. Muller may have done a study on Calvin’s early understanding of the Eucharist but the bottom line is – what light does this shed on what Scripture teaches? Ie how faithful is Calvin to Scripture?

Calvin and the Presence of Christ in the Lord’s Supper

2011-03-10T04:47:00.000-08:00

This is how Selderhuis summarizes Calvin’s effort at seeking to grapple with the presence of the presence of Christ in the Lord’s Supper in the midst of the differences between Luther and Zurich:

“Calvin tried to resolve things by combining the elements that both Luther and Zwingli insisted on. He thus arrived at a belief in the real presence of Christ through the Spirit, a solution through which some kind of unity was established both with the Wittenbergers and with the Swiss. Unfortunately, a three-party consensus was never achieved. Calvin was honest enough to admit that he did not fully understand Christ’s presence. ‘If someone were to question me as to its mode, I would without shame admit that the mystery is too great to be grasped by my understanding or to be expressed in words. To be honest, I experience it more than I understand it’” (John Calvin: A Pilgrim’s Life p94 – Calvin’s quote is from the Institutes 4.17.32)

Bullinger and Calvin and the Consensus Tigurinus

2011-03-10T04:44:00.000-08:00

The previous post referred to some of the background leading up to the signing of the Consensus Tigurinus.

The historical events aside two questions need to be asked.

Firstly, why was Calvin so keen for such an agreement? Clearly he was somewhat irritated at the perceived tardiness of Bullinger leading up to the Consensus Tigurinus. What is more, he made several trips to Zurich. Why was Calvin willing to compromise so much, especially with respect to terminology (ie no reference to the sacraments as instruments of grace) despite his background as a legal expert and his attention to words and terms in other contexts? Could it be that he was keen on getting wider recognition amongst the Swiss?

Gäbler concluded as follows: “The question of Zwingli’s impact on John Calvin (1509-1564) has not been really answered: the Geneva reformer’s judgments on Zwingli are not consistent.Especially in his early period (before 1540-1541), Calvin criticized Calvin’s doctrine of the Eucharist and objected to the preference forZwingli over Luther on the part of Luther’s Swiss followers. The fault Calvin found with Zwingli’s doctrine of the Eucharist was that he had conceived the Lord’s Supper as a metaphorical event.

In 1549, however, Calvin and Bullinger succeeded in overcoming the differences between the Zurich and the Geneva conceptions of the Lord’s Supper. The so-called Zuirch Consensus (Consensus Tigurinus) declared that the Eucharist is not merely a metaphor for the spiritual meal. However, they retained their objection to Luther, insisting that the Spirit of God does not bind itself to the elements. Thus Calvin moved away from his original position, and Bullinger also abandoned Zwingli’s conviction – without a word – by conceding to the sacraments the function of an eternal sealing of an inner, invisible work. Zwingli would have repudiated such a link between inner and outer. The Zurich Consensus brought a rapprochement between the Geneva and Zurich churches and allowed Calvin to find his place within the Swiss Reformed Church. But it also created a wider gulf between Calvinism and Lutheranism” (Huldrych Zwingli: His Life and Work p159).

Secondly, why was Bullinger open to signing a joint document with Calvin if the Zurchers were still suspicious of Bucer’s influence in the background?

Calvin and Bullinger and the Lord’s Supper

2011-03-07T04:38:00.000-08:00

Two recently acclaimed books on Calvin are Herman J. Selderhuis’ John Calvin: A Pilgrim’s Life (IVP, 2009) and Bruce Gordon’s Calvin (Yale University Press, 2009). Selderhuis’ book has the very warm commendations of Frank A.James III, Lyle Bierma and Donald K.McKim. Both Gordon’s meticulous style and his thorough research are widely known.

The following is an extract from Selderhuis’ book on Calvin and Bullinger and the Lord’s Supper:

“…. Here too he was more flexible than the usual image of Calvin would lead us to think. Calvin engaged in an intensive correspondence with Bullinger in which he sought formulas that could satisfy the Swiss and yet also justify the Lutheran standpoint. Thus Calvin arrived at a formula that spoke of Christ as present and not present at the Lord’s Supper. He was not present physically, but he was fully present spiritually. Calvin made use of what he read in the Scriptures especially about the Holy Spirit and ensured that he could both relativize as well as uphold the importance of the external aspects of the Christian faith, such as baptism, preaching and the church. Calvin also understood, however, that the real presence of Christ was of enormous significance and he therefore sought a way to combine the Lutheran and the Swiss views, not merely as a tactical measure, but rather out of his conviction that they were both partly right, and that what was right in each of them could be combined into a complementary whole.” (pp154,155)

Calvin’s efforts with respect to finding unity on the Lord’s Supper needs to understood in the context of Calvin’s attitude to Luther as reflected by Selderhuis:

“At times, however, Calvin also expressed discontentment with Luther’s attitude. He was a great spiritual leader, but also a great problem, and Calvin was one of many who attempted to reckon with both aspects of Luther. To Bullinger, Calvin wrote that his Wittenberg colleague was ‘immoderately ardent and violent in character.’ Luther should have better controlled his temper and been more aware of his shortcomings. To Melanchthon, Calvin wrote that Luther lacked self-control and allowed himself to be worked up into a rage far too quickly. Behaving like this, Luther was a danger to the church, and it appeared that no-one would dare counter this behavior. Respect remained however, and – according to Calvin himself – even if Luther were to call him a devil, Calvin would still show him honor and tell him that he was a most special servant of God. In 1554 the Swiss reformers accused Calvin of being too lenient with Luther. He defended the German’s fierceness by saying that this was simply part of Luther’s character and that malicious men were consciously provoking him. In Calvin’s estimation, Luther remained a superb servant of Christ to whom all ere indebted. His wrongs ought only to be reproached in such a way that room remained for appreciation of his giftedness. Calvin’s defense of Luther’s turbulent character should come as no surprise; he was like that himself.” (p106)

Gordon points out that in Calvin’s 1545 commentary on 1 Corinthians that Calvin displayed “an excellent example of the manner in which he could tacitly support one side without openly saying so. He was emphatic that the Zwinglian teaching on the Lord’s Supper was wrong, but his approach to Luther’s doctrine of the Lord’s Supper was more nuanced, and his language carefully couched. The doctrine of ubiquity, for which he had no time, was not attributed to Luther or his supporters by name, but rather attacked or his supporters as a false teaching of the medieval scholastics. It was a brilliant tactical manoeuvre. At the same time, his insistence on the reality of Christ’s presence was never referenced to any of Luther’s writings, though a clear similarity is detectable.”

Gordon comments that after Luther published his Short Confession on the Lord’s Supper in September 1544: “Farel believed that Calvin could play a role in calming the Zurchers after this latest assault from Wittenberg, but Calvin himself was skeptical. ‘Already I fear the sort of answer they may return. They will not fail to dwell on the marvelous patience with which they have endeavored to assuage him (Luther). For even Bullinger himself, when he was complaining to me in a letter some months ago about Luther’s unkindness, highly commended his own forbearance and that of his friends.’ Calvin was aware nonetheless, that the aging and increasingly cantankerous Luther was a major part of the problem. ‘For at present the danger arises not so much from them as from Luther.’

Calvin did intervene, however, and wrote to Bullinger in November urging restraint in response to Luther’s Short Confession. ‘I hear that Luther has at length broken forth in fierce invective, not so much against you as against the whole of us.’ Although he referred to the Zwinglians as ‘innocent people’, what followed was an extensive admonition to Bullinger to regard Luther’s greatness as a reformer of the Church.

‘I earnestly desire you to bear in mind in the first place how eminent a man Luther is, and the excellent endowments with which he is gifted, with what strength of mind and resolute constancy, with such great skill, and with what efficiency and power of doctrinal statement he has devoted to his whole energy to overthrow the reign of Antichrist, and, at the same time, to spread far and wide the doctrine of salvation. Often I have declared that even if he were to call me a devil, I should still nonetheless, hold him as an illustrious servant of God. But while he is endowed with rare and excellent virtues, he labors at the same time under serious faults. Would that he worked to curb this restless, uneasy temperament which is so apt to boil over in every direction.’

In acknowledging Luther’s harsh and crude manner, Calvin offered cold comfort to Bullinger on the Lord’s Supper. He refused to condemn Luther’s teaching, confining himself to the issue of peace within the Church. Citing Paul, he admonished Bullinger to look to the greater unity of the Church. Calvin’s evident sympathy with the Lutherans must have made uneasy reading in Zurich.” (pp167-169)

Both Selderhuis and Gordon have written from the perspective of the majority of scholars, who positive to Calvin, view Bullinger through the eyes of Calvin. For balance we should seek to view Calvin through the eyes of Bullinger. The quotations above reveal Calvin’s respect and honour for Luther. To what extent did this influence Calvin’s understanding of the Lord’s Supper and terminology he chose to use? In an earlier post we have seen how Bullinger had enormous respect and honour for Zwingli. To what extent did this influence Bullinger’s understanding of the Lord’s Supper? We know that Bullinger was particular about the Latin terms he used. In the correspondence with Calvin leading up to the Consensus Tigurinus this would have been particularly critical as the letters straddled Trent. I am of the opinion that Bullinger chose to use terminology used by the Church Fathers and, therefore, could not be rejected by the Roman Church.

The conclusions of both Selderhuis and Gordon reveal the role of interpretation of historical events. Was Calvin the one taking the initiative to hammer out a agreement with Bullinger re the Lord’s Supper? It may appear to be the case judging by some of Calvins’ comments in his letters concerning the tardiness in Bullinger’s replies in addition to the number of journeys that Calvin made to Zurich (1545, 1547, 1548 and 1549 – twice with Farel) whereas Bullinger never once went to Geneva. Or was it Bullinger who took the initiative to work out a joint statement on the Lord’s Supper with Calvin because he realized that there was no way forward with the German Lutherans, even though he and the Zurchers were deeply suspicious of the influence of Bucer?

We know that some of Bullinger’s friends, such as Kampius warned Bullinger of Calvin’s perceived fickleness. Kampius wrote form the church at Emden on 31 August 1545 with comments on Calvin’s catechism on the Lord’s Supper. Leonard Fry wrote from Biel complaining that Calvin asserted that Christ’s body was in heaven but that believers encountered Christ’s real flesh and blood in the sacrament. These warnings notwithstanding, Bullinger sent Calvin a copy of his Absoluta de Christi Domini et catholicae eius ecclesiae sacramentis tractio.

It is also known that from time to time Calvin was unwise what he put down in writing. He wrote to Viret: “Here you have Bullinger’s letter in which you will observe an astonishing obstinacy. I said to you once that the Zurich people always sing the same tune” (W. Kolfhaus “Der Verkehr Calvins mit Bullinger,” in Calvinstudien: Festschrift zum 400. Geburtstage Johann Calvins, ed. Josef Bohatec (Leipzig, 1909) p56). The reference to ‘obstinacy’ was Calvin’s reference emphasis on using the corrects words and terms. Some of the correspondence from Bullinger to Calvin are to do with terms that Calvin used which was an attempt to remove any ambiguous terms that might indicate a trace of Lutheranism.

In his letter to Calvin dated 15 March 1549 Bullinger wrote: “With your last answer, you have brought me a great step towards you, I know understand your latest letters better than I formerly did. Do not marvel that I wrote to you so bluntly. Today, we have highly educated men who change their opinions more than is good for them. I do not say that you belong to these, but I wanted to hear from you where you stood in plain words. By the way, I have not a bad opinion of you so please excuse my bluntness. I strive to formulate my opinions only in so much as they are true and you do not say that they are false. You say yourself that your disagreement with us is not a disagreement of heart and disposition. I cannot understand why you differ from us at all. When you have read my answer, you will, I trust, find no more disagreements…. I am satisfied that you love us sincerely. May we cease from provoking each other and love each other heartily to the edifying of our churches” (Kolfhaus, p65).

Bullinger explained that he and Calvin could find unity: “In the communion service, the Lord works internally through the power of the Spirit that which he externally seals through the symbol. He gives himself to us to nourish him in our hearts and renews and strengthens our fellowship with him” (Kolfhaus, p65).

The Consensus Tigurinus only had Calvin’s name printed on it. This could be interpreted as a sign of Bullinger’s humility who referred to the work as A Mutual Agreement Concerning the Sacraments between the Servants of the Church of Zurich and John Calvin, Servant of the Church at Geneva.

In earlier work, Gordon made the following comment about the Consensus Tigurinus: “Too much has been made of this agreement, which was, for the most part, a practical arrangement which suited both men. It was a partnership which worked well: Bullinger supported Calvin both openly and tacitly, agreeing not to disagree in public, and together they formed a common front against Lutheran opponents, such as Joachim Westphal, who wrote against the Swiss in the mid 1550’s” (Architect of Reformation p20).

A work that needs to be studied with respect to all this is Emidio Campi and Ruedi Reich (eds.), Consensus Tigurinus: Heinrich Bullinger und Johannes Calvin über das Abendmahl (Zurich: TVZ, 2009).

Lillback on De Testamento

2011-03-04T12:39:00.000-08:00

Peter Lillback’s The Binding of God: Calvin’s Role in the Development of Covenant Theology (Baker: Grand Rapids, 2001) has an extended section of Bullinger’s De Testamento which was Bullinger’s work on the covenant (1534). Lillback’s book represents a careful study of the primary sources. The book is based on his doctoral dissertation of the same title which has attached his translation of De Testamento. In The Binding of God LIllback makes several helpful observations and his book is helpful mine of information. However, I would humbly disagree with some of his conclusions.

The following extract (p113) is the concluding summary of Lillback’s assessment of De Testamento:

“Bullinger does not discuss the pre-fall relationship of God and Adam. There is no word of a covenant of creation or a covenant of works. Or does Bullinger consider the issue of covenant and election as Zwingli had done in his final work against the Anabaptists. There is no idea of a pre-temporal covenant of redemption. There is however, a full consideration of the one covenant of grace throughout the successive ages of redemptive history. Bullinger’s indebtedness to Zwingli can be seen by comparing Zwingli’s chart of Genesis 17 with Bullinger’s outline of his discussion of the covenant.

Zwingli’s Chart

1. God all-sufficient is our God.
2. We should walk uprightly before Him.
3. He is also the God of our see.
4. God has sent the Savior to us.
5. Covenant signs: baptism of young children and adults.
6. We teach the children when they are old enough.

Bullinger’s Outline

1. The Parties of the covenant.
2. The conditions of the covenant for God and Man.
3. Who are the seed of Abraham?
4. Unity and centrality of the covenant.
5. Circumcision, sacrament of the covenant.
6. The written documents of the covenant.

Bullinger’s exposition of the covenant is an amplification of the outline of Genesis 17 Zwingli presented in his reply to Hubmaier’s Book on Baptism.”

A few comments are in order here. Firstly, like many other scholars Lillback is in danger of reading into Bullinger the terminology and categories of later covenant theology rather than seeking to understand Bullinger on his own terms in his particular historical context. Closer comparison with The Old Faith (1537) and Bullinger’s extended references to the covenant in sermons 3.vi and 3.viii of The Decades will indicate that Bullinger’s focus on the covenant is on the postlapsarian heilsgeschichtlich plan of salvation which climax is the coming of the promised Messiah or promised seed of Adam and Eve resulting in justification by faith as an expression of God’s grace. Secondly, the comparison between “Zwingli’s Chart” and “Bullinger’s Outline” vis-à-vis Genesis 17 is somewhat contrived and is used by Lillback to reinforce the incorrect conclusion (in my view) that Bullinger followed Zwingli’s lead on the covenant and subsequently developed what Zwingli had already expounded.

These comments notwithstanding the following extract from The Binding of God (p112) is a summary that is spot on in providing a succinct and accurate understanding of De Testamento:

“Genesis 17 is an eternal covenant that is always the same in substance. The New Testament teaches that there is only one people of God made up by those of Old and New Testament who were in His church. The differences between the Old and new Testaments are explained by the ways God dealt with His people under different circumstances. The Old is ‘old’ because it was the preparation for Christ’s coming, and the New Testament in ‘new’ because Christ has now come. Yet the unity throughout the Testaments is unmistakeable in God’s provision and requirement of man’s faith and love. Even in the Old Testament there was the spiritual Israel and the Israel of the flesh, even as now there is a true Israel and a false Israel of the flesh. This distinction does not refer to the Old and New Covenants as though the Old is only the covenant of the flesh, and the New is the only covenant of the Spirit. Since the New Testament has come there are many things in which the Christians are more excellently blessed by God. These include the absence of all of the ceremonies, the full truth instead of shadows, the full blessing of the Holy Spirit, and the universal gospel witness. Matthew 5 is in no way contrary to the continuity of the covenant. Christ does not attack Moses, but the errors of the common people. Similarly, Paul in 2 Corinthians 3 is dealing with the false prophets’ views of Scripture. The contrast of letter and Spirit is not to be referred to the whole law, but only to those things which have been done away with by Christ. Nor is this the Ebionite error, since this view does no insist on carnal ceremonies with faith in Christ for salvation. The Deuteronomy 5 passage that states that this covenant was not made by God ‘with our fathers’ is to be explained as Augustine does. It is a synecdoche in which the fathers refers only to those who perished in the wilderness. In summation, John Oecolampadius’ phrase says it best. ‘That eternal covenant is one with God, which He arranges differently in various times.’ Finally,, to those who see the Old Testament Jews’ triumphs and victories in war as incongruent with the sufferings of the Christan, several things can be said. First, the Old Testament is filled with hardship, as is seen in Abraham himself who never received the promised land. If one thinks of the lives of Jacob, Moses, and David, he will see that they suffered greatly. The old time had its tyrants such as the Pharoahs, Ahab and Joaz, even as the early church had to face the Roman persecutions. Further, many Christians have lived obediently to the Lord throughout their lives and did not ever suffer persecution. Suffering is more than physical persecution.”

Oecolampadius and the Covenant

2011-02-20T20:04:00.000-08:00

In his influential article of sixty years ago, Trinterud concluded the following about Oecolampadius:

“….. As early as 1525 the Basel reformer Oecolampadius, in a commentary on Isaiah, had put forth the view that the eternal covenant of God with man was the law of love. This law was written on man’s heart at creation, and was only expounded by the written law of the Bible. To be blessed of God man must keep this covenant by obeying this law. Here the entire law-contract structure is seen. The relationship between the ruler and the subject is contractual, based primarily upon a natural law which, in turn, is applied by positive law which declares its meaning in specific instances” – Leonard J. Trinterud, “The Origins of Puritanism”, Church History, vol. XX (1951), p41.

Trinterud clearly sees Oecolampadius as viewing the covenant in terms of a bilateral pact or contract. The same view was espoused by Kenneth Hagan in “From Testament to Covenant in the Early sixteenth Century”, The Sixteenth Century Journal vol 3 (no 1), 1972, p23. Baker, however, argues that Oecolampadius views the covenant as a unilateral testament of grace while Bullinger has a contractual understanding of covenant. Be that as it may, I would argue that Bullinger did not view the covenant as a bilateral pact or contract.

It is worth noting, however, that Oecolampadius was the only reformer cited by name by Bullinger in his De testamento. Bullinger cites a section from Oecolampdius’s commentary on Jeremiah: “Before God, that eternal covenant which is arranged differently according to the diversity of the times is one. And also in relation to the inner realities, it always has been one and will remain one, not only as it is in eternal predestination… Notice, however, the great diversity of the covenants. The Lord made a pact with Abraham with words and demanded nothing except obedience from him. But under Moses many strange and dreadful things were added, things known not only to the one leader but things evident to all the people. Then it was fortified with so many circumstantial legalities, all of which return to those ten words of the tablet of the covenant.”

In a footnote, Baker indicates that Bullinger selectively cited this work of Oecolampadius to suit his own purposes: “As indicated in the text, Bullinger deleted several lines from Oecolampadius. Oecolampadius was not as supportive as Bullinger would have the reader believe. Although the passage quoted by Bullinger seems to support his view of only one covenant, the material proceeding and following, as well as the portion deleted, supports a two covenant scheme, old and new, carnal and spiritual, corresponding with law and gospel” (Fountainhead of Federalism, p 128, n23).

Despite the fact that Oecolampadius and Zwingli were very close it does not appear that Zwingli’s understanding was due to influence from Oecolampadius. There appear to be some similarities between Oecolampadius and Bullinger vis-à-vis the covenant but clearly there were differences.

For a careful study of Oecolampadius see the dissertation of Diane Marie Poythress “Johannes Oecolamadius’ Exposition of Isaiah Chapters 36-37” (dissertation, Westminster Theological Seminary 1992).

Jim West on Bullinger

2011-02-15T16:56:00.000-08:00

Readers of this blog have from time to time been encouraged to look at Jim West’s blog zwingliusredivivus. Jim is an expert on Zwingli, in particular, and his posts are always thought provoking. His blog can be found at: http://zwingliusredivivus.wordpress.com.

In a recent post (dated 28 January 2011) Jim writes the following:

“Shortly after Bullinger assumed the pastor-ship of the Grossmunster in Zurich following Zwingli’s tragic slaughter by the vicious miscreants at Kappel-am-Albis he preached a sermon titled ‘Das Amt des Propheten und wie es würdig ausgeübt werden kann.’ His theme was Mt 17:5- Dies ist mein geliebter Sohn, an dem ich Wohlgefallen habe. Auf ihn sollt ihr hören!

It was quite a wide ranging (and long!) sermon. Indeed, it would be more than fair to say that Bullinger right then earned a reputation as a rather long winded, but always gripping and fascinating, sermonizer. In it, he described the meaning of the term ‘prophet’ (which he applied to preachers), their task as exegetes, which books were to be considered ‘biblical’, and the disposition of the interpreter and the hearer. The latter he summarized really quite nicely when he said:

‘Natürlich sollen sie gelesen werden, aber mit Urteilsvermögen: als Mitschüler, nicht als Richter sind sie zu lesen.’

Well and rightly said. Bullinger’s excellent sermon didn’t make it into the ‘Decades’ in English (because it was much earlier than that collection) so consequently it isn’t available outside of German (that I know of). And that’s a shame. It’s fantastic and so nicely sets the agenda for Bullinger’s entire ministry that it is a pivotal theological document. It was preached on the 28th of January, 1532.”

Was the Covenant Central in Bullinger’s Writings?

2011-02-15T03:22:00.000-08:00

This is an area that I am reading up on and would appreciate any input, thoughts or suggestions.

The key works in English to read on this are:

J. Wayne Baker, Heinrich Bullinger and the Covenant: The Other Reformed Tradition (Athens, Ohio: Ohio University Press, 1980)

Baker, J. Wayne, “Heinrich Bullinger, the Covenant, and the Reformed Tradition in Retrospect”, Sixteenth Century Journal, vol 29 (no2, 1998), pp359-376

Dowey, Edward A., “Heinrich Bullinger as Theologian: Thematic, Comprehensive, and Schematic” in Bruce Gordon and Emidio Campi (eds.), Architect of Reformation: An Introduction to Heinrich Bullinger 1504-1575 (Texts and Studies in Reformation and Post-Reformation Thought), (Baker, 2004), pp35-65

Baker’s position is that Bullinger’s (ie that of Zurich) was the original Reformed understanding of the covenant (bilateral) vis-à-vis single predestination while Calvin’s (ie that of Geneva) understanding of the covenant (unilateral testament) vis-à-vis double predestination was a later, alternative reformed position.

In some earlier posts some comments and critique has been given of Baker’s position. In particular, mention was made of the work of Cornelis P. Venema author of Heinrich Bullinger and the Doctrine of Predestination: Author of the ‘Other Reformed Tradition’?

Doweys’ full and comprehensive article on the works of Bullinger seriously questions the centrality of the theme of the covenant in Bullinger. Baker responded to Dowey (and others) with his article of 1998 in Sixteenth Century Journal. Peter Opitz’s Heinrich Bullinger als Theologe: eine Studie zu den also critically evaluates Baker’s postion.

Papers presented at the Bullinger conference held in Zurich in August 2004 were published in two volumes: Campi, Emidio and Opitz, Peter (eds), Heinrich Bullinger: Life, Thought, Influence, (Zürich: Theologischer Verlag Zürich, 2007). Of the fifty articles in these two volumes three of them are concerned with the covenant. That in itself is some sort of indication of the importance of the covenant in Bullinger’s works:

Willem van ‘t Spijker “Bullinger als Bundestheologe” pp573-593

Aurelio A. Garcia “Bullinger’s De Testamento: The Amply Biblical Basis of Reformed Origian” pp 671-692

Lukas Vischer “…. Einem Bund mit euch und allen lebenden Wesen” pp961-976

This post will seek to summarize the main points of Vischer’s article.

Vischer has a section on Bullinger’s use of the terms testamentum and foedus. This is an area which needs to be further explored. He also correctly pointed out that Bullinger emphasized: 1 the unity of the Old Testament and the New Testament; 2. promise and fulfillment between the two Testaments; 3. the continuity between the people God of the Old Testament with the people of God of the New Testament or the church of the Old Testament with the church of the New Testament; 4. Understanding the nature of God’s covenant with mankind is the first step in understanding how mankind should live together. Vischer also points out that the covenant was with ‘every living creature’ or with the whole creation This means that the theme of creation-redemption was pivotal in the thought of Bullinger.

Bullinger’s Respect for Zwingli

2011-02-10T01:13:00.000-08:00

Bullinger did not always see eye to eye with Zwingli. For example, Bullinger would not have agreed with the actions vis-à-vis church and state that Zwingli championed that led the the disaster at Kappel in 1531. The new arrangements in the church at Zurich that were introduced when Bullinger became Antistes is testimony to this. But what is abundantly clear was Bullinger’s respect for Zwingli.

An earlier post referred to how Bullinger compared the role of Zwingli to that of an Old Testament prophet. Bullinger also referred to Zwingli as a Josiah-type figure as is apparent from the following quote from a work of Bullinger in 1527:

“… Thereupon God has now not only produced through him a great power among so hard and impious a people, as we Eidgenossen have been until now, a power with which he through his preaching has for the most part converted them to the truth; but also God has through him set forth for us in a clear way, as no one has done for a thousand years, the chief point of his religion, as the whole essence and fundamental knowledge of God, namely, the understanding of his one eternal covenant, on account of which mankind should turn from all creatures and should follow after God alone, through whom are destroyed all false gods and those who follow them. Thus we have also learned from him how Christ is the one eternal mediator and intercessor; also how the one faith in the Lord Jesus Christ from the Holy Spirit is the only thing which sanctifies, assures, and quiets our consciences – and not confession, not external signs, not absolution. Moreover, in connection with it are the keys to what original sin is, and to what the whole business of baptism amounts to. Now if this point truly is the chief on in the Christian religion, and as God has now made it as plain as day to us through him, then it is nothing new ore marvelous that through the same one there is brought to us again the old faith, the right doctrine, and the true use of the Eucharist. Now the papacy had perverted the old practice, did not keep the true faith, and established the Mass. And it is as if Zwingli were our Josiah sent from God, through whom the Mass was destroyed and the Remembrance restored, through whom also the idols have been exterminated, the ‘Deuteronomy’ found, and the covenant which we have with God brought forward again.”

This work of Bullinger was written on 14 May 1527 and entitled “Von warer und falscher leer, altem und nüwem glouben undbruch der Eucharistien oder Mesz, wie sy anfencklich gehalten und mitt was mittel sy in missbuch kummen sye.”

An earlier post also referred to the events that led Bullinger to pen the Warhaftes Bekenntnis (1545) in response to the vitriolic attacks of an aging Luther. The full title in English of this work is: A truthful Confession of the Servants of the Church at Zürich as to what they hold from the Word of God and in common with the holy universal Christian church believe and teach especially concerning the Lord’s Supper, in answer to the Slander, Condemnations and Jests of Dr Martin Luther as translated by John T. McNeill, Unitive Protestantism: The Ecumenical Spirit in its Persistent Expression, (Richmond: John Knox Press, 1964 p193). Clearly, one of the driving forces that spurred Bullinger to compose this work was his respect for Zwingli.

Amy Nelson Burnett has written a very comprehensive account of the dynamics behind the scenes in the various attempts at securing closer ties between Zurich, Strasburg and the Lutherans in a period more or less contemporaneous with Trent – “Heinrich Bullinger and the Problem of Eucharistic Concord” in Emidio Campi and Peter Opitz (eds.) Heinrich Bullinger: Life-Thought-Influence, pp233-250. The following observations are taken from this perceptive article.

Calvin became both impatient and perhaps somewhat frustrated at Bullinger’s apparent abhorrence in seeking closer ties with the Lutherans. Calvin wrote to Farel in the fall of 1557: “it is shameful to write just how deeply Bullinger abhors the idea of a colloquy.”

Burnett concludes: “The repeated condemnation of Zwingli and his followers, and finally the explicit exclusion of the Zwinglians from the terms of the Peace of Augsburg, turned Bullinger against any attempt to court the Lutherans after 1555. He complained about the Lutherans’ attitude toward Zwingli in letters to Jean Calvin and Jan a Lasco in the spring of 1556, and his resentment only deepened after he learned of developments at the colloquy of Worms in the fall of 1557. As he noted bitterly in a letter to Simon Sulzer and the Basel church, ‘Along with Zwingli, the most ferocious Saxons condemned Osiander, Schwenckfeld, the Anabaptists, and I don’t know whom else. All of these others were spared; only Zwingli was deemed worthy to be damned before all the legates of the Empire.’ How, Bullinger asked, could the Swiss ever hope to counter such prejudice?”

Obviously there were some theological issues that Bullinger required to be sorted out with Calvin, Bucer and the Lutherans (eg the terms exhibere and substantia). But there is no doubt that one underlying reason for his reticence at seeking closer ties with the Lutherans was his unswerving respect for and loyalty to Zwingli.

Bullinger and the strategic role of prophets

2011-02-04T03:53:00.000-08:00

Bullinger rightly understood that the primary role of the prophet in Old Testament times was to be a covenant mediator in calling the people of God back into a right covenant relationship with God.

In De Testamento (1534) Bullinger declared that the covenant is “the source of our religion and the first chapter of it” (haec nimirum religionis nostrae origio & illiud caput primarium est). Furthermore, in his De propetae officio (printed 1539 but based on works written in 1528 and 1529) he wrote: “For testament, which is also the title for all of Scripture, surely stands for the content of all Scripture. Neither is this to be wondered at as something recent and devoid of meaning. For by the word testament we understand the covenant and the agreement by which God agreed with the entire human race, to be himself our God, our sufficiency, source of good and horn of plenty. And this he would abundantly prove by the gift of the fertile earth and the incarnation of his son. Man, however, ought to pursue integrity, that he may stand before this God with a perfect and upright mind, that he may walk in his ways and commit himself totally to him, as to the highest and most loving Father.”

Bullinger saw parallels between the idolatry and covenant unfaithfulness of Israel in Old Testament times with the idolatry and unfaithfulness of the church of the Middle Ages. Thus, Bullinger saw Zwingli in as a prophet in continuity with Moses, Isaiah, Paul and Athanasius.

Of Zwingli, Bullinger wrote: “For it was this one who restored the principle of the testament and the eternal covenant and renewed what was worn out. It is this one who restored to its former splendor the omnipotence and goodness of the unity of God which invocation and veneration of other gods had obscured” (De propetae officio, sig. Ei r-v). Bullinger also regarded Luther as a prophet. Just as Elijah had combated the prophets of Baal, so Zwingli performed the work of Elijah in Zurich in the 1520’s.

These ideas are also reflected in Bullinger one hundred sermons on the Apocalypse where he writes the the work of the prophets and apostles continues in the work of (D. Luther and D. Zwingli and other faithful witnesses of God” (huic agemus gratias, quod diu multi praedicatores boni & hodie D. Luthurus & D. Zwinglius, & alii testes Dei fideles, in tam conscelerato seculo, & in tanta Antichristi potentia, tot annis, inuitis etiam inferorum portis, ministerio suo defungi potuerunt).

This post is based on Rodney L. Petersen's article "Bullinger's Prophets of the 'Restitutio'" which is found in Mark S. Burrows and Paul Rorem (eds.) Biblical Hermeneutics in Historical Perspective (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), pp245-260. At the Refo 500 Conference to be held in Zurich 8-10 June 2011. Petersen will present a paper entitled: "The apocalyptic Luther - exegesis and self-identification".

Bullinger and Death

2011-02-02T05:30:00.000-08:00

I have not been able to post on this blog for a while because of a death in the family. Bullinger, for his part was confronted by death regularly. He lived through several attacks of the plague. He saw the effects of a mini ice age (see a previous post). He witnessed those close to him (including his wife and some of his children) die before him.

One important article on Bullinger is that by Pamela Biel - “Heinrich Bullinger’s Death and Testament: A Well-planned Departure”, Sixteenth Century Journal, Vol XXII (no.1, 1991), pp3-14. The following is the abstract of this article:

“Heinrich Bullinger was as comprehensive and orderly in his death as he was during his life. His Testament, which represents only one of his several adieux, was left the members of the city-government, and it allowed no options as to the choice of his successor just as it left his successor no options as to those issues which would have pride of place on his agenda. Thus Bullinger in death usurped two principles he had championed in life: the right of the Council to place ministers and the right of the Zurich ministry to choose its own priorities. Those battles which Bullinger left his successor to fight - the purity of Biblical religion in Zurich, freedom of the press, the protection and right use of church property, to name three - were similar to those he had himself inherited from Zwingli, a fact which prompts one to ask the question of how complete the Reformation at Zurich was even in August of 1575.”

Bullinger on Justification and Sanctification

2011-01-25T20:21:00.000-08:00

Earlier posts have referred to the conclusion of Mark Burrows who argues that Bullinger virtually identifies justification with sanctification. The following are some sections from the Decades Ivi – readers of this blog can make their own conclusions:

“And first I will shew you, that this term of justification is taken in this present treatise for the absolution and remission of sins, for sanctification, and adoption into the number of the sons of God…. Justification of life therefore is an absolution from sins, a delivery from death, a quickening or translating from death to life. For in the fourth to the Romans the same apostle expoundeth justification by sanctification, and sanctification by the remission of sins. For in treating of faith, whereby we are justified, or which God imputeth to us for righteousness without works, he saith: ‘Even as David also doth expound the blessedness of that man, to whom the Lord imputeth righteousness without works, saying: Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.’ What could be more plainly spoken than this? For he doth evidently expound justification by sanctification, and sanctification by remission of sins. Furthermore, what else is sanctification but the adoption whereby we are received into the grace and number of the sons of God?.... By all this it is made manifest, that the question of justification containeth nothing else but the manner and reason of sanctification; that is to say, whereby how men have their sins forgiven, and are received into the grace and number of the sons of God, and, being justified, are made heirs of the kingdom of God. (Parker ed pp105-107)

The Latin is:

Principio demonstrabo iustificationis vocabulum in praesenti causa usurpari pro absolutione sive remissione peccatorum, pro beatificatione et adoptione in numerum filiorum dei….. Est ergo iustificatio vitae absolutio a peccatis, liberatio a morte, vivicatio seu translatio a morte in vitam. Nam in 4.cap. idem apostolus ad Rom. iustificationem exponit per beatificationem et hanc per remissionem peccatorum. Disputans enim de fide, qua iustificamur vel quam nobis imputat deus pro iustitia absque operibus: >Quemadmodum et David explicat<, inquit, >beatificationem hominis, cui deu imputat iustitiam absque operibus: Beati, quorum remissae sunt iniquitates et quorum obtecta sunt peccata< [Röm 4,6f] etc. Quid clarius adferri his poterat? Manisfeste enim iustificationem exponit per beatificationem et hanc per remissionem peccatorum. Praeterea quid est beatificatio aliud quam adoptio ea, qua recipimur in gratiam et numerum filiorum dei?..... Ex quibus omnibus planum fit quęstionem de iustificatione aliud non continere quam modum et rationem beatificandi, nempe per quid aut quomodo remittantur homnibus peccata, recipiantur autem in gratiam et in numerum filiorum dei fiantque iusti et haeredes regni dei. (Peter Opitz, Sermonum Decades, pp69,70)

The modern German is:

Zuerst will ich aufzeigen, dass der Wort >Gerechtsprechung< im vorliegenden Fall für den Erlass oder die Vergebung der Sünden verwendet wird, für die Vierleihung der Seligkeit und die Aufnahme in die Schar der Kinder Gottes….Wiederum wird die Gerechtsprechung zum Leben der Verurteilung zum Tode gegenübergestellt, die wegen der Sünde über uns verhängt worden ist. Also ist die Gerechtsprechung zum Leben die Vergebung der Sünden, die Befreiung vom Tod, das Lebenigmachen oder Überführen vom Tod ins Leben. Denn im Römerbrief, Kapitel 4, erklärt der Apostel die Gerechtprechung durch di Seligmachung und diese durch die Vergebung der Sünden. Denn über den Glauben, durch den wir gerechtgesprochen werden und den uns Gott ohne Werke zur Gerechtigkeit anrechnet, sagt er [Röm 4,6f]: >Wie denn auch David die Seligpreisung des Menschen ausspricht, dem Gott die Gerechtigkeit ohne Werke zurechnet: > Selig sind die, deren Übertretungen vergeben und deren Sünden bedeckt sind.<< Wie könnte man es noch deutlicher aussprechen? Denn ausdrücklich erläutert er die Gerechtsprechung durch die Seligpreisung und diese wiederum durch die Vergebung der Sünden. Was ist die Seligpreisung außerdem anderes als die Annahme, durch die wir in die Gnade und in die Schar der Kinder Gottes aufgenommen werden? …. Als alleden wird deutlich, dass die Frage nach der Gerechtsprechung nichts anderes zum Inhalt hat als die Art und Weise, wie man selig wird, nämlich wodurch und die wie den Menschen ihre Sünden vergeben werden, wie sie zu Gnaden und in die Schar der Kinder Gottes aufgenommen werden und wie sie gerecht und zu Erben des Reiches Gottes werden. (Heinrich Bullinger Schriften, TVZ 2006, p128-130)

A note needs to made about the terminology used by Bullinger. With respect to beatificatio the Parker edition of the Decades has this in the footnote on page 106: “This is the term which Bullinger employs in this Treatise of Justification, and which the translator, rather unhappily, has rendered sanctification. The idea intended by Bullinger is expressed in Rom. iv.7, which he quotes – cf Calvin, Instit. Lib. III, cap II. 4. & 22.”

Burrows has the following comment re the translation of beatificatio in one of his footnotes: “Throughout this English rendition, the translators opted to express this as ‘sanctification’, which initially at least appears an unfelicitous reading. Thus, the editors of the Parker Society text point this supposed ‘error’ out at every juncture of the way. Yet our wider reading of Bullinger’s oevre – and, specifically, the consideration of how he spoke of sanctification in his mature writings – suggests that his intention of speaking of ‘beatificatio’ was that of describing our growth not in grace but in obedience – the very process which Bullinger, like Calvin, otherwise describes as ‘sanctificatio’. The point is that Bullinger always resists the traditional Catholic reading of sanctification as a ‘progress’ in righteousness; justification and sanctification rely on the one righteousness of Christ, and derive exclusively from Christ’s ‘fromgheit’. This makes it all the more difficult to minimize Bullinger’s use of ‘beatificatio’, since he uses it in a manner similar to his pronouncements elsewhere on sanctification. And, we must here recall that this word was understood in medieval theology to describe the final union of the believer with God. It is, in this historically familiar sense, an ‘eschatological’ term. Hence, Bullinger’s intentions, particularly if he is here addressing – and altering – common expectations of his hearers/readers, seems to have been to flatten out this eschatological interpretation of ‘beatificatio’ and to bring it into line with the believer’s present life in Christ. To recall a characteristic theme of his, as articulated in the Second Helvetic Confession: ‘Christus intra nos vivens’. This is, thus, a powerful reworking of an established tradition, by which he perceives the Christian not as a ‘viator’ wandering in this nether world of shadows and hoping for a full vision of God hereafter, rather, this pilgrim is already beatified, already ‘in’ God through Christ’s righteousness. The English translators seem to be vindicated on this crucial point, since their reading captures the full force of Bullinger’s critical revision of this medieval tradition.”

Burrows' analysis, therefore, is that Bullinger uses beatificatio in both a ‘realized eschatlogical’ as well as a ‘future eschatological’ sense. The ‘realized eschatological’ sense is rooted in gratia. The ‘future eschatlogical’ sense is linked to vivificatio and Bullinger’s oft reminder to live integer before the Lord.

See Peter Opitz’s Habilitationschrift – Heinrich Bullinger als Theologe: eine Studie zu den especially the following sections:

IV 2.2.5 Iustificatio als sanctificatio aufgrund der communio mit Christus

IV 4 Sanctificatio als vivificatio, poenitentia und restitutio der imago Dei

Bullinger and Infused Grace

2011-01-23T20:47:00.000-08:00

Another characteristic feature of Bullinger’s writings in the middle of the 16th Century is his reference to gratia infusa. The timing is striking because the Tridentine decree on justification (1547) describes justification in terms of infusion. We might have expected that Bullinger would avoid this terminology. However, although Bullinger did not attend the Conference of Regensberg (Ratisbon 27 April 1541) it may well be that his writings such as the Decades also had a secondary purpose to reach out to those still embracing Rome. Although the catchcry of the reformers was ad fontes this did not mean that Bullinger cited the Church Fathers as much as possible, whenever he endorsed their understanding and application of Scripture. This was part of his strategy to emphasize that the Protestant church was the true spiritual descendants of the Church Fathers and that the popes over the centuries had diverted the church from the truth and how truth should be expressed.

Thus, Bullinger follows Augustine in his application of Romans 5:5 which Bullinger sees in terms of God pouring himself into man through the Holy Spirit. It is this text that Augustine used when referring to infused faith. Lombard (Sentences IQ.xvii) also follows to some extent Augustine’s understanding of infused grace from this passage. The passage also became the locus classicus of the Tridentine formulation of justification (Ch VII). Bullinger justifies using fides infusa because he would argue that faith comes sola gratia and indicates human dependence upon God.

The following is a section from the Decades Iv where Bullinger refers to fides infusa.

“Moreover, the disputation touching faith poured into us, and faith that we ourselves get; touching formal faith, and faith without fashion; I leave to be beaten out of them which of themselves do bring these new disputations into the church. True faith is obtained by no strength or merit of man, but is poured into him of God, as I declared in my last sermon: and though man obtain it by hearkening unto the word of God, yet nevertheless it is wholly imputed to the grace of God; for unless this grace do work inwardly in the heart of the hearer, the preacher that laboureth outwardly doth bring no profit at all.” (Parker Ed. P100)

The Latin is:

Porro diputationem de fide infusa et acquisita, de fide informi et formata illis excutiendam relinquo, qui ex seipsis novas illas disputationes invehunt in ecclesiam. Vera fides nullis acquiritur viribus et meritis humanis, sed infunditur a deo, sicut exposui superiori concione. Et cum auscultatione verbi divini ab homine acquiritur, nihilo minus totum gratiae dei imputatur, quae nisi operetur in animo auditoris interne, nihil proficit externus cultor aut prędicator. (Peter Opitz, Sermonum Decades, p66)

The modern German is:

Ich lasse nun aber der Disput über den eingegossenen und den erworbenen sowie über den ungeformten und den geformten Glauben liber jene führen, die von sich aus neue Streitigkeiten in die Kirche tragen. Der wahre Glaube wird durch keine menschlichen Kräfte oder Verdienste erworben, sondern wird von Gott eingegossen, wie ich in der lezten Predigt erklärt habe. Und obwohl di Menschen den Glauben dadurch erwerben, dass sie das Wort Gottes hören, ist dennoch alles allein der Gnade gottes zuzurechnen. Denn wenn sie im Innern des Hörers nicht am Werk ist, vermag auch der nichts, der äußerlich pflanzt und predigt (vgl. 1 Kor 3,6f). (Heinrich Bullinger Schriften, TVZ 2006, pp122,123)

Bullinger on Justification and Sanctification

2011-01-20T06:05:00.000-08:00

Is Fesko (see the reference to his article on Bullinger and union with Christ in an earlier post) correctly reflecting Bullinger in concluding: “Though Bullinger prioritizes justification over sanctification, he does not render them asunder. Both justification and sanctification are aspects of union with Christ. He also shows that they are united but distinct: ‘But grace or faith and works, justification also and sanctification, are so joined together, that they cannot be severed one from another…. I verily neither dare nor do in any ease gainsay, that faith and works do cleave together.’ So for Bullinger, justification and sanctification are inseparably joined together, but neither are they confused.” (the quotation is from the Decades 3ix).

The previous post noted that Fesko makes no reference to Burrows’celebrated article “‘Christus intra nos Vivens’ The Peculiar Genius of Bullinger’s Doctrine of Sancification” in Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte, vol.98(no.1), pp48-69. The following is part of footnote 2 from this article.

“The theme of the union of justification and sanctification, and the parallel established by the Church’s Christological language, emerges as a central argument in Calvin’s 1559 edition of the Institutes of the Christian Religion: ‘As Christ cannot be torn into parts, so these two which we perceive in him together and conjointly are inseparable – namely, righteousness [or, justification which results from God’s ‘free acceptance’] and sanctification’. III.xi.6…..W. Niesel rightly concludes, in respect of Calvin’s argument, that ‘the two things – justification and sanctification – are one in [Christ], but only in Him’. W.Niesel, The Theology of Calvin p138. Alfred Goehler reaches the same conclusion regarding Calvin: ‘Die Einheitlichkeit des göttlichen Gnadenwirkens kommt darin zum Ausdruck, daß Rechtfertigung unf Heiligung immer gleichzetig vom Menschen ergriffen warden können… Da Gott beide Gnadengaben gleichzeitig schenken will, ist es unmöglich, die Heiligung zeitlich oder genetisch der Rechfertigung nachfolgen zu lassen… Gott [heiligt und rechfertigt] in völliger Parallelität’. Alfred Goehler, Calvins Lehre von der Heiligung. Dargestellt auf Grund der Institutio, exegetischer und homiletischer Schriften (1934) pp87-88. Clearly, the parallel development of this theme in Bullinger and Calvin is more than accidental, for we have here come upon a distinct identity of argument and even terminological distinctions. In this case, moreover, Bullinger’s contribution antedates that of Calvin, a fact which supports our contention that Bullinger is a constructive and original theologian in his own right”.

Burrows comes to the following analysis:

“In the Decades, the early emphases we have noted from Bullinger’s commentaries become even more pronounced. In this collection of sermons, Bullinger introduces what must be seen as a characteristic theme in this theology: namely, his fusion of the justification and sanctification doctrines. As he argues in a sermon from the First Decade, Paul ‘doth expound justification by sanctification, and sanctification by remission of sins… The question of justification containeth nothing else but the manner and reason of sanctification’. And as he goes on to argue in a manner strikingly reminiscent of Melanchthon’s insistence that the justified person can and must do good works, we hear Bullinger affirming the necessity with which faith brings forth good works:

‘…whereas we say that the faithful are justified by faith alone, or else by faith without works, we do not say, as many think we do, that faith is post alone, or utterly destitute of good works: for wheresoever faith is, there also it sheweth itself by good works, because the righteous cannot but work righteousness’.”

This quotation from the Decades can be found in the Parker ed p118. The Latin is:

Praeterea cum dicimus sola fide aut fide absque operibus iustificari credentes, non hoc dicimus, quod multi intelligunt, fidem esse solam aut destitutam bonis operibus. Nam ubicunque fides est, ibi se se exerit per bona opera. Iustus enim non potest non operari iustitiam. (Peter Opitz, Sermonum Decades, p76)

The modern German is:

Wenn ich sage, dass die Gläubigen allein durch den Glauben oder durch den Glauben ohne Werke gerechtgesprochen werden, so meine ich damit nicht, wie viele annehmen, dass der Glaube getrennt und entblößt von guten Werken sei. Denn wo immer Glaube ist, da äußert er sich auch durch gute Werke. Denn ein Gerechter kann nicht anders als gerecht handeln. (Heinrich Bullinger Schriften, TVZ 2006, p142)

Bullinger and the Imputation of Faith

2011-01-19T04:00:00.000-08:00

In the Second Helvetic Confession Bullinger writes the following about justification:

“We do not share in the benefit of justification partly because of the grace of God or Christ, and partly because of ourselves, our love, our works, or merit, but we attribute it wholly to the grace of God in Christ through faith. For our love and our works could not please God if performed by unrighteousness men. Therefore, it is necessary for us to be righteous before we may love and do good works. We are made truly righteous, as we have said, by faith in Christ purely by the grace of God, who does not impute to us our sins, but the righteousness of Christ, or rather, he imputes faith in Christ to us for righteousness.”

The Latin is:

Itaque iustificationis beneficium non partimur, partim gratiae Dei, vel Christo, partim nobis, aut dilectioni operibusve, vel merito nostro, sed insolidum gratiæ Dei in Christo per fidem tribuimus. Sed et non possent Deo placere dilectio et opera nostra, si fierent ab iniustis; proinde oportet nos prius iustos esse, quam diligamus aut faciamus opera iusta. Iusti vere efficimur, quemadmodum diximus, per fidem in Christum, mera gratia Dei, qui peccata nobis non imputat, sed justitiam Christi, adeoque fidem in Christum ad justitiam nobis imputat

We note that although Bullinger refers to the imputation of Christ’s righteousness he does qualify it by pointing out that what is imputed is faith in Christ. Bullinger refers more directly to the imputation of righteousness is a previous clause:

“For Christ took upon himself and bore the sins of the world, and satisfied divine justice. Therefore, solely on account of Christ's sufferings and resurrection God is propitious with respect to our sins and does not impute them to us, but imputes Christ's righteousness to us as our own (II Cor. 5;19 ff.; Rom. 4;25), so that now we are not only cleansed and purged from sins or are holy, but also, granted the righteousness of Christ, and so absolved from sin, death and condemnation, are at last righteous and heirs of eternal life. Properly speaking, therefore, God alone justifies us, and justifies only on account of Christ, not imputing sins to us but imputing his righteousness to us.”

The Latin is:

Etenim Christus peccata mundi in se recepit et sustulit, divinæque iustitiæ satisfecit. Deus ergo propter solum Christum passum et resuscitatum, propitius est peccatis nostris, nec illa nobis imputat, imputat autem justitiam Christi pro nostra: ita, ut iam simus non solum mundati a peccatis et purgati, vel sancti, sed etiam donati iustitia Christi, adeoque absoluti a peccatis, morte vel condemnatione, iusti denique ac hæredes vitæ æternæ. Proprie ergo loquendo, Deus solus nos justificat, et duntaxat propter Christum iustificat, non imputans nobis peccata, sed imputans ejus nobis justitiam (2 Cor. v. 21; Rom. iv. 24, 25).

Bullinger on Union with Christ and Justification

2011-01-18T05:01:00.000-08:00

J.V. Fesko has written an article “Heinrich Bullinger on Union with Christ and Justification” in The Confessional Presbyterian, vol. 6 (2010), pp3-10. Fesko has written widely on justification, specifically on the imputation of the alien righteousness of Christ. He has written, for example, “A Critical Examination of N.T. Wright’s Doctrine of Justification” in The Confessional Presbyterian, vol 1 (2005), pp102-115.

In this article, Fesko seeks to respond to many authors who see union in Christ in the writing of Calvin as the context for understanding justification and sanctification. In citing the work of William Evans, Imputation and Impartation (Carlisle/Eugene: Paternoster/Wipf & Stock, 2008), Fesko summarizes: “Evans explains that Calvin gave causal priority to union with Christ, in that justification and sanctification were communicated through union; union with Christ is the instrumental basis of both justification and sanctification. Justification should not have logical priority over sanctification, but rather union with Christ should have logical priority over both justification and sanctification.”

Fesko endeavours to demonstrate that Bullinger (primarily from the Decades and the Compendium) affirms the ordo salutis of later Reformed theology (‘Calvinism’) in giving priority to justification over sanctification. He acknowledges that one might easily conclude that Bullinger’s doctrine of union with Christ is undifferentiated – ie that he does not make distinctions between justification and sanctification. He concludes: “Though Bullinger prioritizes justification over sanctification, he does not render them asunder. Both justification and sanctification are aspects of union with Christ. He also shows that they are united but distinct: ‘But grace or faith and works, justification also and sanctification, are so joined together, that they cannot be severed one from another…. I verily neither dare nor do in any ease gainsay, that faith and works do cleave together.’ So for Bullinger, justification and sanctification are inseparably joined together, but neither are they confused.” (the quotation is from the Decades 3ix)

Fesko concludes his article in the following fashion: “This essay has demonstrated that Evans’ construction of the relationship between Calvin and the subsequent Reformed tradition requires greater nuance and exploration of the work of other Reformed theologians such as Bullinger. Bullinger clearly affirms the doctrine of union with Christ, which features prominently in his doctrine of election, since those elected are in Christ. But he also does so in conjunction with his basic ordo salutis, which accords justification priority over sanctification. Bullinger prioritizes justification by giving it chief place – that which secures our salvation and is the lens through which the believer is always viewed – but he does not emphasize it to the exclusion of sanctification. Rather, ‘Good works belong to grace, but after a certain manner, order, and fashion.’” (another quotation from the Decades 3ix)

I am not in a position to critically evaluate Fesko’s understanding of Bullinger. Fesko has certainly prompted us to further study Bullinger’s works. However, I would like to make the following observations.

Fesko has based his conclusions on his understanding of the Decades, the Compendium and the Second Helvetic Confession. He does not refer to Bullinger’s commentaries with respect to key New Testament texts.

Fesko does not refer to Burrows' work that has been referred to in previous posts of this blog - Mark S. Burrows, “ ‘Christus intra nos Vivens’ The Peculiar Genius of Bullinger’s Doctrine of Sanctification”, Zeitschschrift für Kirchengeschichte, vol. 98 (no.1), 1987, pp48-69. This widely cited work of Burrows argues that that a characteristic feature of Bullinger’s thought is “the manner in which he speaks of sanctification in essential identity with justification, as two aspects of Christ’s one saving act.” As far as I can see those who cite Burrows work do not criticize or doubt his conclusions with respect to his understanding of Bullinger.

Perhaps someone out there in blogosphere has read widely in Bullinger and can shed some light on whether Burrows’ understanding of Bullinger is closer to the mark than Fesko’s? I hope to find the time to check all the quotations that Fesko makes to Bullinger and then, in due course, put up some posts for all to consider. Let us let Bullinger speak for himself. As many misunderstand Zwingli with respect to the Lord’s Supper so I humbly think that Fesko has misunderstood Bullinger. Furthermore, referring to the final comment in Fesko’s article, I wonder if Calvin’s view re union with Christ vis-à-vis justification and sanctification is so close to that of Bullinger that Calvin must have been influenced by Bullinger’s work.

My gut feeling is that Bullinger's view supports the approach of Mike Bird who refers to incorporated righteousness in The Saving Righteousness of God (Wipf & Stock, 2007).

Bullinger’s Summary of the Gospel

2011-01-17T02:40:00.000-08:00

Sermon 4i of Bullinger’s Decades focuses on the gospel. The subscription is “Of the gospel of the grace of God, who hath given his son unto the world, and in him all things necessary to salvation (verae salutis omnia), that we, believing in him, might obtain eternal life."

The following is Bullinger’s summary of the gospel. It should dispel any thought that Bullinger might have a synergistic view:

“This is the sum and breviary of the whole gospel, that we are justified, that is to say, absolved from sins, from the definite sentence of death and damnation, and sanctified and adopted into the number of the sons of God, by faith, that is, by an assured confidence in the name of Christ, which is given by the Father to be our only Saviour. And here are works by name excluded, to the end there should be given to us no occasion to entangle faith with works, or to attribute to works the glory and title due to faith alone, or rather to Christ, upon whom our faith is grounded and upheld.” (Parker edition p43)

The Latin is:

Haec summa est brevissima totius evangelii iustificari nos,id est absolvi a peccatis, a lata mortis vel condemnationis sententia, sanctificari autem et adoptari in numerum filiorum dei fide, id est fiduicia in nomen Christi, qui datus est nobis salvator a patre unicus. Et hic nominatim excluduntur opera, ne ulla nobis suppeditetur occasio implicandi fidem operibus aut operibus eam tribuendi gloriam, quae uni fidei vel potius Christo domino, cui fides innitur, debetur. (Peter Opitz, Sermonum Decades, p516)

The modern German is:

Dies ist die kürzeste Zusammenfassung des gesamten Evangeliums: dass wir gerechtgesprochen, d.h. von den Sünden, von dem Todes- und Verdammungsurteil, das an uns ergangen ist, losgesprochen werden und dass wir geheiligt und in die Zahl der Kinder Gottes aufgenommen werden durch den Glauben, d.h. durch das Vertrauen auf den Namen Christi, de runs vom Vater als der einzige Erlöser gegeben worden ist. Und dabei werden die Werke ausdrücklich ausgeschlossen, damit uns keine Gelegenheit geboten wird, den Glauben mit den Werken zu vermengen oder den Werken die Ehre zuzuerkennen, die einzig dem Glauben – oder vielmehr Christus dem Herrn, auf dem der Glaube beruht – zusteht. (Heinrich Bullinger Schriften, vol IV TVZ 2006, p307)

We note that in this short summary of the gospel Bullinger refers to: justification, forgivness of sins, freedom from condemnation, sanctification, adoption, by faith, the definite number of the saved, assurance of salvation, Christ the only Saviour, exclusion of works for salvation, Christ as Lord.

Faith-based Justification and Works-based Justification Juxtaposed in Bullinger?

2011-01-14T04:35:00.000-08:00

The following quotation from Bullinger’s Compendium might give the impression that Bullinger juxtaposes a faith-based justification with a works-based justification. It certainly may appear that way. The quotation is taken from that section of the Compendium that Bullinger entitles “That God has bound man to him, unto salvation and perpetual worship.” In this quotation Bullinger links the covenant with God with justification:

“For religion seemeth not so much to have her name of reading as of binding. And we are bound unto God, and joined in league through his free mercy (as has been said) by faith. Therefore the covenant of God and true religion are all one. And they are religious, which being (con)federates joined in league with God, do cleave unto his word and honor and serve him despising all other things.”
(Heinrich Bullinger, Common Places of the Christian Religion, translated by J. Stockwood (London: 1572), p43)

R.C. Walton on Bullinger

2011-01-11T21:38:00.000-08:00

The following is taken from Robert C. Walton’s article on Bullinger in The New International Dictionary of the Christian Church edited by J.D. Douglas in 1974. I have had this dictionary since the mid 1970's but only just read Walton's article. Walton has published much in the area of the Swiss Reformation (he also wrote the article on Zwingli in the same dictionary) and it is interesting to see what he chooses to highlight in the constraints of a dictionary article.

“Although he accommodated his own moderate Augustinian doctrine in predestination to the more rigorous one advance by Calvin, Bullinger remained a lifelong opponent of Calvin’s theory of the two polities within the Christian commonwealth and the Genevan ecclesiastical discipline. He was Thomas Erastus’ closest ally in the partially successful struggle to prevent the introduction of a Presbyterian polity into the Rhineland Palatinate, and he supported the English bishops against Thomas Cartwright’s Presbyterianism because he viewed it as new form of papal tyranny. Denying that the punishment of Christians should include exclusion from the Lord’s Supper, he delegated all coercive power to the secular magistrate whom he assumed was Christian. It was left to the clergy to fulfill their prophetic function by preaching the Word and administering the sacraments to a Christian people whom Bullinger, a covenant theologian, believed were in a covenant relationship with God.”

Bullinger and Circumcision – a Sign of Justification by Faith or Justification by Law?

2011-01-10T16:57:00.000-08:00

In sermon 3vi of The Decades Bullinger deals with the ceremonial laws of the Old Testament. It is this sermon that has the most extended comment on the covenant – but the context is justification by faith alone.

Many people continue to misread Bullinger and, therefore, wrongly read synergism into his writings. In speaking about circumcision as a sign of the covenant bond between God and His people, Bullinger emphasizes the grace of God in working out spiritual circumcision in the hearts of His chosen people. Bullinger underlines the fact that Abraham received God’s righteousness through faith before he was circumcised (citing Romans 4:11) and then continues as follows:

“Lo here, Abraham’s circumcision was a sign that God by his grace had justified Abraham; which justification he received by faith before his circumcision: which is an argument, that they which believe, though they be not circumcised, are nevertheless justified with faithful Abraham; and again, that the Jews, which are circumcised, are justified of God by faith. And for that cause was circumcision given in the very body of man, that he might bear in his body the league of God, and be thereby admonished that he is justified by grace through faith.” (Parker Edition p175)

The Latin is:

En circuncisio Abrahe erat signaculum, quod dues gratia sua iustificarat Abraham, quam iustificationem fide receperat et receperat quidem, antequam circuncideretur in argumentum, quod qui praeputiati credunt, iustificantur cum fideli Abraham et rursus, qui circunciduntur Iudaei, sciant se per fidem iustificari a deo. Ideoque dabatur cicumcisio in ipsum hominis corpus, ut in corpore gereret foedus dei admonereturque gratia per fidem se iustificari. . (Peter Opitz, Sermonum Decades, p349)

The modern German is:

Die Bescheidung Abraham war das Siegel dafür, dass Gott Abraham durch seine Gnade gerechtgesprochen hatte. Diese Rechtfertigung hatte er durch den Glauben emfangen, und zwar vor der Beschneidung, zum Zeichen dafür, dass auch die, die in unbeschnittenem Zustand glauben, zusammen mit dem gläubingen Abraham gerechtgesprochen werden und damit auch die Juden, die beschnitten wurden, wüssten, dass sie von Gott durch den Glauben gerechtgesprochen werden. Deshalb wurde di Beschneidung am Leib des Menschen vorgenommen, damit er am eigenen Leib den Bund mit Gott trage und daran erinnert werde, dass er aus Gnade durch den Glauben gerechtfertigt wird. (Heinrich Bullinger Schriften, TVZ 2006, vol 4, p11)

Bullinger’s understanding of the parallel between circumcision and baptism becomes clearer from this passage. Both are signs of God’s grace as well as justification by faith alone.

Zwingli and the Perspicuity of Scripture

2011-01-09T16:26:00.000-08:00

The following is summarized from Arnold Snyder, “Word and power in Reformation Zurich”, Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte, vol. 81 (1990), pp263-285:

“It was during this early stage of struggle against the traditional church (in which the question of ecclesiastical authority was paramount) that Zwingli expressed most fully his views concerning the overriding authority of Scripture and the right of all believers to read and interpret Scripture. In August 1522, following the public breaking of the Lenten fast, a confrontation with the bishop’s representatives, and an admonition from the bishop of Constance, Zwingli published the Archeteles in which he devoted an important section to the question of Bible reading and interpretation by the laity. ‘I want to leave you here for reflection from time to time the shameless statement of a certain smatterer who ventured to proclaim in a public assembly that it was unlawful for laymen to know or to read the gospel, but only for those to whom that function had been entrusted; namely, for our little priests and masters…. Country bumpkins! Do you not see that the spirit of God is everywhere like unto itself and ever the same? The more unskilled a man is in human devices and at the same time devoted to the divine, the more clearly that spirit informs him, as is shown by the apostles and by the foolish things of this world which God has chosen …. It is not the function of one or two to expound passages of Scripture, but of all who believe in Christ (Non unius esse videtis aut alterius de scripturae locis pronunciare, sed omnium qui christo credunt).’ At this early date Zwingli appeared sanguine indeed about the possibility of simple, lay people expounding Scripture, a position he would later come to regret.

Zwingli developed his ideas further in Of the Clarity and Certainty of the Word of God, published less than a month after the Archeteles. Zwingli argued that the Word of God is all-powerful, perspicuous and sufficient of itself to lead the truth. All human beings have an innate spiritual capacity that can recognize the truth of God’s Word, when the Spirit of God is allowed to lead. The Word of God brings its own certainty, with no need of human intervention. What is needed, quite simple, is a humble spirit, God’s grace, and a willingness to be led to truth by God’s Word. Human wisdom, philosophy and man-made ceremonies only divert believers from the truth; in fact, the simple are more disposed to receive God’s truth than are the ‘wise’ (Matt. 11:25).”

This extended quote from Snyder reminds us of Zwingli’s role in stressing the perspicuity of Scripture. Zwingli, of course, was later to struggle against the Anabaptists and their interpretation of Scripture.

Zwingli, Bullinger and the Influence of Erasmus

2011-01-09T03:33:00.000-08:00

To what extent was Zwingli influenced by Erasmus? Certainly in his early years, Zwingli was influenced by Erasmus’ humanist reform agenda and the focus on the philosophia Christi. Gillies in his article (‘Zwingli and the Origin of the Reformed Covenant 1524-1527”, Scottish Journal of Theology, vol 54 (2001), pp21-50) argued that in his earlier period, Zwingli was so influenced by Erasmus’ view of the Old Testament that he had an ‘often belligerent attitude toward the Old Testament’.

Erasmus is quoted as saying: “I wish the Church did not rely so much on the Old Testament”. Furthermore, Gillies cites Hagan’s celebrated article (‘From testament to covenant in the early sixteenth century’ Sixteenth Century Journal, vol 3 (no.1), 1972, pp1-24) as noting that “Erasmus was willing ‘…to give up the Old Testament…’ in order to safeguard the primacy of the Gospel as the touchstone of the philosopia Christi.” The reconstruction that Gillies gives is that Zwingli, therefore, only began to consider the unity of the Old and New Testaments in his interactions with the Anabaptists.

Can this reconstruction be justified?

The influence of Erasmus on Bullinger has been the study of Christ-von Wedel (‘Zum Einfluss von Erasmus von Rotterdam auf Heinrich Bullinger,’ in Emidio Campi and Peter Opitz (eds.) Heinrich Bullinger: Life-Thought-Influence, pp407-424). Although he was profoundly influenced by Erasmus’s method, Bullinger clearly made up his own mind on exegetical cruces and did not follow Erasmus implicitly.

In particular, Bullinger wrote about the unity of the Old and New testaments very early on in his writings. In his De Scripturae negotio of 30 November 5123 Bullinger wrote: “In brief, I find that the New Testament is nothing but the interpretation of the Old. Except that I saw that the Old promises, the New teaches what has been exhibited; the Old is more concealed, the New is more revealed openly; the Old has to do with veils and figures, the New with clear evidences and the very things themselves” (Heinrich Bullinger Werke Dritte Abteilung: Theologische Schriften – Band 2: Unveröffentichlichte Werke aus der Kappeler Zeit (Zurich: Theologischer Verlag Zurich, 1991), p25).

Bullinger’s Influence on the English Church

2011-01-07T03:06:00.000-08:00

Previous posts have referred to Bullinger’s advice re the Vestarian Controversy in the reign of Elizabeth. The following is cited from Walter Phillips’ article “Henry Bullinger and the Elizabethan Vestarian Controversy: An Analysis of Influence” in Journal of Religious History, vol 11(3) 1981, pp363-384:

“Henry Bullinger (1504-1575), though one of the lesser Reformers, was the most prolific letter-writer of them all – a counselor to the Reformed churches throughout Europe. His influence on the Elizabethan Church is not really a question to be argued. Bullinger’s importance for English Reformation history is manifestly clear from Bishop Burnet’s History of the Reformation of the Church of England (1679-1714) and John Strype’s Annals of the Reformation (1709-31). Moreover, the Parker Society ensured that Bullinger should not be forgotten in the nineteenth century by publishing, largely for polemical purposes, the correspondence between English churchmen and the Swiss Reformers. As well as the works and correspondence of various bishops and divines, it also re-published Bullinger’s Decades, fifty sermons on the Christian faith and life, corresponding in scope and context to Calvin’s Institutes; Archbishop Whitgift prescribed the Decades in 1586 for reading by the clergy in the province of Canterbury. At the beginning of this century F.W. Maitland observed in the Cambridge Modern History that:

‘A better example of a purely spiritual power could hardly be found than the influence that was exercised in England by Zwingli’s successor Heinrich Bullinger. Bishops and Puritans argued their causes before him as if he were the judge.’”

Bullinger on Marriage

2011-01-04T03:20:00.000-08:00

Bullinger’s treatise on marriage Der Christlich Eestand was translated into English and was widely consulted in England. See Carrie Euler’s helpful article “ Bullinger’s Der Christlich Eestand: Marriage and the Covenant” in Gordon and Campi (eds.) Architect of Reformation.

The following is taken from Selderhuis’ Marriage and Divorce in the Thought of Martin Bucer (1999):

“Bullinger continually stresses that the character of marriage did not alter after the fall. This is also the fundamental motif of his theology of marriage. Marriage, as divine institution, did not suffer because of the fall, but this is true of human beings and hence of married human beings. Marriage itself remained a gift of God, given for the benefit of humankind, and a means by which people can attain to eternal life because it keeps them from much sin. Married persons are enabled by it to fulfill essential demands of God. Accordingly, marriage is not an emergency measure, necessitated by sin, to restrain sin as much as possible.

Bullinger frequently cites the saying of Hebrews 13:4, which requires that ‘marriage be held in honor among all.’ The very Creator of marriage and the place where marriage was first instituted make clear how highly marriage is to be esteemed. Furthermore, asked Bullinger, is not the fact that the greatest believers in Scripture were married a powerful witness to the value of marriage?

Marriage is an image of the relation between Christ and the believer. The covenantal character of marriage, accordingly, means that sins committed against marriage are simultaneously sins committed against Christ, for one who sins against marriage ‘violates the grace of Christ and desecrates the holy covenant made between him and Christ.’ Bullinger stresses that fornication is an act of breaking that covenant: ‘Fornication makes us into covenant breakers and dishonors the grace of God and members of Christ.’”

More on Ella on Bullinger

2010-12-30T05:42:00.000-08:00

The following quote from Ella’s book (pp168-170) indicates quite a different view of Calvin to most scholars:

“Though many scholars have emphasized Calvin's dependence on Melanchthon, Zwingli and Bucer, few have compared Calvin’s Institutes with Bullinger’s works. Walter Hollweg in his Heinrich Bullingers Hausbuch written in 1956 devotes an entire chapter to Bullinger’s enormous influence on Calvin’s Institutes, in particular the 1550 version. He states that Calvin is not guilty of plagiarism but leaves the impression that Calvin avoids the charge merely by rewording Bullinger in the numerous passages taken from him. Hollweg points out that Calvin not included Bullinger’s themes and Scriptural proofs but even the examples Bullinger gives to illustrate them. Gillian Lewis, writing in 1986 has obviously little to say about Bullinger’s influence as Calvin is his subject. However, soon after writing of Calvin’s death, Lewis turns her (sic) gaze on Bullinger and, not surprisingly, but rather critically says that Bullinger sat like a spider in the centre of the web of the Reformation. When we turn to evidence given in the recent works of Fritz Büsser, especially his Die Prophezei of 1994 in which he compares Calvin closely with Bullinger, we find there is just cause to question the idea that is so dominant in today’s Reformed churches that Calvin, under God, was the rock on which the Reformed faith was built.

As one studies the growth of Calvin’s Institutes from the six chapters of the first 1536 edition to the eighty chapters of the last 1559 edition one is amazed at the industry of the author. However, it is a compendium of Wittenburg, Strasburg and Zurich theology with very little new thought in it. Indeed, the doctrines which are outlines in it were fixed Reformed doctrines long before the major editions of the Institutes were written. Thus any influence this work has had on the theological development of other countries such as Holland, England, Scotland and the New World, is because of the thorough-going Reforms of Saxony, Pomerania, Hessen, the Palatine and the Swiss and Upper German states which had already produced enough spiritual giants to transform Protestant world theology. Though Calvin’s name alone is on the title page, its contents proudly proclaim the names of Zwingli, Melanchthon, Bucer, Capito and Bullinger besides Calvin’s own. This goes also for Calvin’s church order which is built solidly on the Strasburg orders. The one big difference between the French-speaking Reformation and the Swiss-German Reformation is that the former viewed the ordinances of baptism and the Lord’s Supper as methods of establishing church discipline whereas the latter saw them as modes of preaching the gospel to all who would receive it. Unlike Calvin, Zwingli and Bullinger never sought to discipline their people by threats of exclusion from the privileges of sitting under the gospel.”

The section of Hollweg’s book is chapter 3 of the second part: “Der Einfluss des Buches auf die Insitutio Calvins und den Heidelberger Katechismus” (pp235-238). Hollweg cites a letter dated 18 August 1545 from Leonhard Soerinus from Znaim and Bullinger’s subsequent reply concerning Soerinus’s query about Bullinger’s opinion of the Institutes.

More on Zwingli and the Lord’s Supper

2010-12-30T03:13:00.000-08:00

An earlier post considered the stimulating article of Peter Opitz that considered Zwingli’s liturgy for the Lord’s Supper, Aktion und Brauch des Nachtmals, that Zwingli prepared in 1525. This work represents a the climax of a growing understanding of the Lord’s Supper since the moment Zwingli considered Scripture freed from the traditions of the Roman church.

We know, for example (as referred to in an earlier post) that the 18th of his Sixty Seven Theses (developed for the First Zurich Disputation of 1523) declares:

“That Christ, having sacrificed himself once, is to eternity a certain and valid sacrifice for the sins of the faithful, wherefrom it follows that the mass is not a sacrifice, but is a remembrance of the sacrifice and assurance of the salvation which Christ has given us.”

Clearly, by 1523 Zwingli opposed the Roman view of the mass being a resacrifice of Christ. It also appears that in this same year that he began to reject transubstantiation. This may be deduced from a letter written 15 June 1523 to his former tutor at Basel, Thomas Wittenbach, who was then living at Biel. Zwingli wrote: “Just as you can dip someone a thousand times in the water of baptism but if he has no faith it is in vain, so too, I think, the bread and the wine remain unchanged to the unbeliever.”

The following is the footnote from G.R. Potter, Zwingli (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976) pp150,151:

“‘Ego haud aliter hic panem et vinum esse puto, quam aqua est in baptismo, in qua frustra millies etiam ablues eum, qui non credit.’ This long and important letter was not intended to be a full discussion of the subject but an indication of the way Zwingli’s thoughts were moving. He does however indicate clearly that it is the faith of the recipient that is effective and alone matters. It is unprofitable to enquire how it works for the believer: ‘quicquid hic agitur, divina virtute fieri, modum autem nobis penitus ignotum, quo deus illabatur animę, neque curiosos esse in hac re oportere, quam soli fideles sentiant.’ It is apparent that it was the problem of the veneration paid to objects, to images and statues, which was the urgent issue at the moment. This forced a consideration of the veneration of the reserved sacrament, and hurriedly and without any full argument Zwingli comes out against this practice. For him the believer received the body and blood of Christ at the time of reception, but there was not opus operatum irrespective of any faith, and the bread, after consecration and apart from the commemorative act of the Last Supper, remained plain bread and could not be adored without idolatry.”

Ella on Bullinger

2010-12-28T21:21:00.000-08:00

George Ella has written Henry Bullinger: Shepherd of the Churches (Durham: Go Publications, 2007). As far as I can ascertain, there appear to be very few reviews of this work or even mention of it in the literature. I have referred to the work in some previous posts. Ella takes the view that Calvin was greatly influenced by both Bucer and Bullinger. This area of research deserves greater attention. Ella raises many interesting perspectives but is somewhat light on documentation backing up his conclusions.

The following is an excerpt from Ella’s book (pp167,168):

“In February 1536, whilst Bullinger was working on the Helvetic Confession, he met Calvin for the first time. At this theological workshop, Bullinger announced that the First Helvetic Confession should be a continuation of the Swiss Reformation as expressed in Zwingli’s In Expositionem Fidei ad Regem Christianum Expositio of 1531 which was re-published parallel with the Confession. This work was a systematic presentation of the Christian faith which Zwingli had given to Francis I. Bullinger’s aim was to show that Luther’s wild criticism that Zwingli was a heretic and an Anabaptist had no grounds whatsoever. It was merely because Luther was ignorant of Zwingli’s written works and confessed that he could not understand his spoken words and was basically very prejudiced. In his forward to the Expositio, Bullinger said that he was reprinting it as ‘an answer to all slanderers of the evangelical faith and evangelical preaching and to give them an apologeticum quondam absolutum. So as to bring the work up to date on Reformation issues, Bullinger added a treatise on the Protestant Lord’s Supper and the Roman Mass and a liturgy to be used at the communion service. Without needing to speculate as to whether Calvin’s work as Ford Lewis Battles says of Calvin’s Seneca Commentary, ‘a learned parroting of various classical views’, it does appear that Calvin wanted to do for French readers what had already been done for readers of the various German dialects between 1520 and 1536. Calvin’s action is most untypical of the Reformers, however, in that his Institutes gives few sources and Calvin does not acknowledge his obvious enormous reliance on the works of other, first generation, Reformers. It was as if, in seeking to support and teach the second generation of Protestants in France, Calvin wished to be seen as going entirely his own way.

It is interesting to note how scholars, in writing on one subject as a notable event, tend to close their eyes to others which occurred at the same time, and which would make their eyes to others which occurred at the same time, and which would make their subject less remarkable. M. Howard Reinstra, Director of the H.H. Meeter Center for Calvin Studies in his Preface to Ford Lewis Battles’ edition of the 1536 Institutes says, ‘1536 was not a particularly memorable year’, and he goes on to day of Basle, ‘In that year, in that city, an aging scholar dies, and a younger scholar published the first edition of his ‘little book’, as he affectionately called it.’ This reference to the death of Erasmus and the debut of Calvin as a systematic theologian leaves out the historical fact that the First Helvetic Confession was drawn up on Basle early in 1536, thus paving the way for the Reformed Church which Calvin was to join thirteen years later at the singing of the Consensus Tigurinus. It also fails to see the historical and theological importance of the drawing up of the Helvetic Confession in which the leading Swiss-German Reformers distanced themselves from the popish teaching which they saw in Luther’s attitude to the sacraments. Furthermore, it fails to appreciate the lasting importance of Bullinger’s extended publication of Zwingli’s Expositio, a work which is still highly favoured amongst Reformed scholars and still in print and which outlined long before 1536 elements of Reformed teaching on the Lord’s Supper which Calvin was not to acknowledge until 1549.”

More Again on Bullinger and the English Church

2010-12-22T01:52:00.000-08:00

Bullinger’s sermons from The Decades on the sacraments were published in English by the Parker Society as Sermons on the Sacraments by Henry Bullinger. The following is taken from the preface:

“Henry Bullinger was regarded as one of the most learned men of his time; and was distinguished also, for his piety, christian wisdom, and moderation. All the Fathers of the English Reformation held him in great esteem; and to many of them he afforded a hospitable refuge from the Marian persecution. He afterwards did good service to the Church of England by the letters which he addressed to different individuals in this country, during the disputes which grew up in Queen Elizabeth’s reign, respecting Ecclesiastical affairs. For although Bullinger himself, in common with many of the continental Protestants, preferred the disuse of the sacerdotal Habits, and had acquiesced in the Presbyterian Discipline, yet he constantly exhorted those of the Puritan faction in England to abstain from dividing Christ’s Church merely for the sake of their scruples respecting a particular kind of dress: and he, moreover, counseled the English Bishops that ‘it ought especially to be provided that there should not be any high authority given’ to those of the ‘Presbytery’. By this decided expression of his opinion, Bullinger greatly served the cause of Order; insomuch that in a joint Letter written to him by Bishops Grindal and Horn, those eminent persons attribute chiefly to his instrumentality the favourable change which, they inform him, had taken place in the feelings of the people toward the Church. Bullinger, in fact, was one of those who offered to make Edward VI the temporal Defender of the reformed continental Churches, and had expressed a willingness to have Bishops after the model of the Anglican Church. He, therefore, regarded those restless persons who were for abolishing Episcopacy in England, as no better than selfish innovators who, like the ‘seditious Tribunes of Rome,’ were, ‘by virtue of the Agrarian Law,’ for so bestowing ‘the public goods that they might enrich themselves.’

We need not, therefore, be surprised to find that among the writings of the continental Reformers, those of Bullinger were held in marked estimation by the Anglican Divines. An example of this occurs in the circumstance, that the University of Oxford selected Bullinger’s Catechism as one of those books which the Tutors were required to use, for the purpose of imparting sound religious principles to their Pupils…… The reason given in the Preface (ie of the English translation of The Decades) for selecting the Sermons of Bullinger for translation, in preference to the ‘worthie works’ of other ‘famous Divines’ of that time, is, that some of the ‘sort’ of Ministers for whom the labour was undertaken complained ‘that Calvin’s manner of writing in his Institutions is over deep and profound for them… Therefore questionless no writer yet in the hands of men can fit them better than Master Bullinger in these his Decades, who in them amendeth much Calvin’s obscurity with singular perspicuity; and Musculus’ scholastical subtility with great plainness and even popular facilitie.’”