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.
Wednesday, January 18, 2012
Wednesday, January 11, 2012
Bullinger and the writing of history
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.”
“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.”
Tuesday, December 20, 2011
Bullinger and sola fide
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)”
“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)”
Wednesday, November 30, 2011
More on Calvin and Genesis 17
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.”
“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.”
Tuesday, November 29, 2011
Calvin and Genesis 17
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).”
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
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).”
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).”
Thursday, November 10, 2011
Bullinger and Marriage
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.”
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.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)