WERE THE SACRAMENTS ‘BARE SIGNS’ FOR BULLINGER?

The detrators of both Zwingli and Bullinger claimed that they had a view that the sacraments were ‘bare signs’ or ‘empty signs.’ But such people had not read either Zwingli or Bullinger carefully.

The following quotes from The Decades demonstrate that, for Bullinger, the sacraments where not ‘bare signs.’

As with the other reformers, Bullinger refers to the “sign” and “the thing signified”. He thus writes:

“And because I taught, that sacraments consist of two parts, the sign and the thing signified, it remaineth to shew, that these two parts retain their natures distinguished, not communicating properties … that each part retaineth their natures distinguished, without communicating or mingling of properties, it is to be seen hereby; that many may be partakers of the sign, and yet are barred from the thing signified…” (V.6 Parker ed p 270)

With respect to grace and the sacraments, Bullinger explains:

“We must not say by any means that grace is contained substantially in the sacraments, as water in a vessel, or as a medicine in a box; yea, to understand it so, it is erroneous. But they are said to contain grace, in that they signify grace; and because, unless there be a want on the part of the receiver, grace is always given in them: so that ye may understand that grace is in the soul, and not in the visible signs. For this cause they are called also vessels of grace.” (V.7 Parker ed p 307)

The following is Bullinger’s reply to those who accuse him of viewing the sacraments as ‘bare signs’:

“But if they call them void or empty, and men profane and unholy things, that is to day, which differ nothing from profane signs; if by bare they understand things of no force; we openly profess, that we have sacraments which are holy, and not profane; effectual, and not without force; garnished from above, not naked; and therefore full, not void or empty. For they are holy things and not profane, because they are instituted of God, and for godly men, not for profane persons. They are effectual, and not without force: for in the church with the godly and the faithful they work the same effect and end whereunto they are ordained of God; whereof more hereafgter. They are also worthily said to be beautified and adorned by God, and not bare things, which have the word of God itself, wherewith they are most beautifully adorned. And therefore also they are full, and not empty sacraments, because they have those things which make a perfect sacrament.” (V.7 Parker ed 314)

“Now, who will hereafter say, that they which think thus of the sacraments, and are by this faith partakers of them, have nothing but empty shews, and receive nothing in them; albeit we neither include grace in the signs, neither derive it from them? But if any many have any other opinion of God and his ordinances, that shall no more be falsehood in God, or accuse him of untruth, than if any one should charge a just man with a lie, because he performeth not that which he looked for; when in the meantime this man promised not the things which he looked for;; when in the meantime this man promised not the thing which he looked for; but he, through his corrupt and false opinion, hath dreamed that it was promised unto him. And thus far by occasion I have shewed what agreement and difference there is between the sacraments of the old and new Testament, and that our sacraments do neither confer nor contain grace.” (V.7 Parker ed pp 315,316)

LUTHER AND THE SACRAMENTS

The following extracts of Luther’s response (1545) to the Thirty Two Articles of the Louvain Theologists are worth noting for what Luther reveals of his own understanding of the Lord’s Supper and what he thought of Zwingli and the Swiss.

Clause 15 – In the sacrament of the eucharist, which is deserving of honor and adoration, the body and blood of Christ are truly and substantially present, proferred and received both by the worthy and by the unworthy.

Clause 27 – We earnestly believe that the Zwinglians and all sacramentarians who deny that the body and blood of Christ are taken with the bodily mouth in the venerable eucahrist are heretics and estranged (alienos) from the church of God.

(Lewis W. Spitz, ‘Luther’s Works’ volume 34 (Muhlenberg Press/Philadelphia 1960), pp355,356)

Did Zwingli teach that the sacraments are empty signs?

The ninth article of the Marburg Articles are clear that, for Zwingli, the sacraments are more than empty signs:
Zum nündten, das der heylig touffe sye ein sacrament, das zuo soelichem glouben von gott yngesetzt, und diewyl gottes gebott: Ite, baptisate [Matth. 28, 19], und gottes verheyssung drinnen ist: qui crediderit [Mark. 16, 16], so ists nit allein ein ledig zeichen oder losung under den christen, sonder ein zeichen und werck gottes, darinn unser gloube
gefordert, durch welchen wir zum laeben widergeborenn werdend.

Ninth, that holy baptism is a sacrament which has been instituted by God as an aid to such a faith, and because God’s command, “Go baptize” (Matthew 28:19), and by God’s promise, “He who believes” (Mark 16:16), are connected with it, it is therefore not merely an empty sign or watchword among Chgristians but, rather, a sign and work of God by which our faith grows and through which we are regenerated to (eternal) life.

Peter Stephens on Bullinger and the Sacraments

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

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!